Template talk:Birth control methods

message: * The currently available IntraUterine System (IUS), Mirena®, is a levonorgestrel-releasing IUS. Levonorgestrel is a progestin (a synthetic progestogen); it is not progesterone.
* Progestasert®, which is no longer available, was a progesterone-releasing IUS. Progesterone is a progestogen; progesterone is the only progestogen that is not a progestin.
* Mirena is a progestin-releasing IUS. Progesasert was not a progestin-releasing IUS.
* Progestasert was a progesterone-releasing IUS. Mirena is not a progesterone-releasing IUS.
* Mirena and Progestasert are both progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems.
69.208.172.157 14:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progestogen not progesterone 

message: I would like to explain my revert of the most recent edit (from this to this).  The expansion of the size of the template did not make it any more readable, it mainly made it take up more space.  Also, I do not agree with the content edits. Two-Day Method is a redlink, for one, and the Billings Ovulation Method and the Creighton Model are both essentially brand names for the cervical mucus observation method of fertility awareness.  The fertility awareness article describes and links to both the BOM and CM, as well as to the basal body temperature article; because "fertility awareness" is an umbrella term which encompasses all of them.  Any instance in which we list a brand names for a method is if that method is only available under one brand name, and are thus is only called by that brand name.  We don't have that same issue with the various methods of fertility awareness, so the specific types need not be listed.  Joie de Vivre 15:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started working on this because I noticed that the 2 rows in the final section make the first line appear in the previous section. This was absolutely horible. I can agree with the removal of the brand names. I simply thought that since different methods of the other sections were listed, that this section should be expanded as well; and brand names are listed for the progestogen only section. Anyway, if you still want those parts removed, that is fine by me. Just thought it would help a bit. However, the expanding of the size makes it a lot better to look at and understand. Please, at least restore that change; or let me restore it. Even if it is a bit bigger, that makes no difference to the pages it is used on, other than making them look more relaxed, like it is it's own little section of information. I find it better. Your thoughts on this? SadanYagci 16:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I also see some confusion between the anti-estrogen and hormonal sections that would be cleared up by my version. SadanYagci 16:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Since you haven't said anything yet, I'm leaving the new information out, but changing the formating again. Please contact me if you don't like it. SadanYagci 09:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template expansion, additions

message: So, inspired by Fred Bradstadt's work on the template (great job, Fred!), I made two small changes to the template: I added a "Chemical" section to include the Contraceptive sponge and Spermicide.  I did this because although the sponge does rely partially on physically blocking sperm, it mainly relies on the spermicide.  Another reason to include it in the chemical section is that while the other barrier methods can be used without spermicide, the contraceptive sponge contains spermicide which cannot be removed.  Thus, it is always a chemical method. 
The second change is that I added a "See also" section.  I am hoping that this won't become a WP:BEANS situation with people adding tangentially related things, but I thought it was a good thing to create a place for Natural birth control, a distinction which is relevant to many women who cannot use hormonal methods of birth control.  I also moved Abstinence from "Behavioral" to "See also", because I tend to think that "not having sex" is a different category altogether when it comes to birth control. "Birth control" almost always has to do with figuring out ways to have sex, while avoiding pregnancy; it generally does not involve avoiding sex altogether.  As all the methods besides abstinence involve sexual activity, I feel this one must be distinguished.  Joie de Vivre 14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. -- Natural family planning is included prominently in the Natural birth control article, so I don't think it needs to be added to the template.  Joie de Vivre 14:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent template overhaul

message: I don't think this edit was very helpful:
*Contraceptive patch is the main article, (Ortho Evra redirects there)
*NuvaRing is the only contraceptive vaginal ring so the latter link is not useful
*The only approved "tubal occlusion" technique is Essure
*Why link to Depo Provera twice?
I understand the desire to move away from brand names and use more generalized terminology, however, in these cases many of the methods are themselves best known as the brand names.  In the event that other brands come up we can use more neutral terminology, in the meantime, this just adds bloat. —Joie de Vivre 15:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent item name changes

message: I'm not sure this line should be in the template.  I had concerns about including natural birth control in the template (see Template talk:BirthControl/Archive1#"Natural").  And now anti-rape female condom has been added, which has a relationship to birth control more along the lines of a hysterectomy - meaning, preventing pregnancy is a side effect of its primary purpose.  See the end of the section Template talk:BirthControl/Archive1#Formatting for a previous discussion of including hysterectomy and castration (at that time it was decided not to).
I would like to delete the "See also" line and its contents.  What do others think? LyrlTalk     C   20:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" line 

message: The sections are currently (July 2008)  ordered by degree of invasiveness/complexity/reversibility: see David's comment here and edit summary control methods&diff=125685335&oldid=125672311 here, and a discussion on (mostly) ordering at Template talk:BirthControl/Archive1#Behavioral vs. Physical. 
LyrlTalk     C   18:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of methods 

message: I have wondered how many readers actually find this template useful, or if slapping navigation boxes on every article is just a fad among editors.  I've been looking at a few articles in User:Henrik's traffic statistic tool to try to get a feel for how this template is used.
On 4 July, the link to "rhythm method" was changed to link to "calendar-based methods".  In June, "rhythm method" got 600-900 hits per day while "calendar-based methods" got 70-130 hits per day.  After July 4th, "calendar-based methods" got 150-250 hits per day, while "rhythm method" got 400-700 hits per day.  It appears that 100-200 readers per day are using this template to navigate.
Also on 4 July, the link to "Lea's Shield" was removed, and a note added that that method was covered in the "cervical cap" article.  Hits to "cervical cap" did not change.  But hits to "Lea's Shield", which had been running 100-170 per day in June, dropped to 10-90 per day after 4 July.  Again, this points to at least 100 readers per day navigating with this template.
I thought other editors might be interested in this data on how readers use this template. LyrlTalk     C   22:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of this template 

message: A discussion of how or whether to include discontinued methods at Comparison of birth control methods is here.  Please feel free to join in.  Whatever404 (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dicussion of discontinued methods 

message: What about adding Extended cycle combined hormonal contraceptive to the template (putting it under Combined hormonal methods, shorten the name to extended cycle.  Granted it is really just a different way of using existing methods (pill, ring, etc.), but there are some products packaged specifically for extended cycle use.
However emergency contraception is similarly just another application of existing hormonal methods (if don't have a special purpose pill, can use a set number of regular pills).  
In view of the increasing recognition of the advantages of extended cycle usage, might be worth including it here. Thoughts? Zodon (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding extended cycle? 

message: Long acting reversible contraceptive options being pushed in UK (well, the giving of advice about them is). Should a link to this be added, the most obvious place would seem to be in the "Comparison" row ? David Ruben  Talk  18:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me. LyrlTalk     C   20:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding LARC to comparison line

message: Is there a reason why commas are used in this template instead of using ?  I like the look of the middot better, but didn't want to just change things when this template has used commas for so long. LyrlTalk     C   23:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comma versus middot 

message: Please make this edit to this template.  This will expand the bottom navigation to fill the width of the bottom of the navbox, and remove the spurious background coloring which is showing through near the edges.  Thank you.
134.253.26.10 (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Complete. Frietjes (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 134.253.26.10, 9 March 2011 

message: I added Hysterectomy and Castration to the Sterilization group, but the addition was reverted on the grounds that they are "Not meant as contraceptive". I don't dispute the fact that birth-control is a side-effect of hysterectomy and castration, but following the same logic should we remove masturbation, since it is not "meant as a contraceptive" either? (I was going to suggest replacing it with mutual masturbation, but that redirects to the already-listed non-penetrative sex.) Mitch Ames (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of entries 

message: Hello, I've made a test of a re-organization of this template and would appreciate comments from anyone watching this template. I have transcluded the sandbox version below. Thank you. bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-format and organize 

message: Hello friends, I would like to suggest the following adjustments to this template:
1: We convert the "Comparisons" row which is currently at the top to be titled "overviews" and then include links to several of the articles that cover different categories of contraception, such as hormonal contraception, male contraception, etc.  I think these types of articles would be frequently wanted for people coming from different sexual and reproductive health pages.
2: The current row near the bottom labelled "Experimental" needs to be overhauled, since there are currently quite a few male and female methods of contraception in preclinical and clinical development, and the only project listed is RISUG, which is certainly not the most prominent method in development currently.  I am open to feedback on whether to expand this section to include more methods in development or remove it altogether.
3: I would suggest line breaks in the category titles so that they take up less horizontal space.  Right now the width of the titles exceeds the width of the links to pages!
4: I suggest removing the ATC codes in the title bar, as I feel they are confusing and not very helpful to the average user.
I will hold off on making these changes until next week to allow time for comment, then I will go ahead and make these edits!
Willmskinner (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just implemented the changes I suggested above (plus many more - when I started rearranging things I found many more opportunities for improvement.)  In total, this amounted to a major reorganization of the template, so please take a look and offer any feedback here.  I believe that these edits are fair, science-based, and greatly improve the usefulness and layout of the template.  That said, comments are welcome! Willmskinner (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Reformat