Template talk:Infobox birth control

message: Below is a copy of the discussion that took place in the development of this template at Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed: David Ruben  Talk  02:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Mamageek.  Please see my reply on Talk:Condom.  Is there an infobox for methods of protection against STD's?  Because I think there should be some discussion taking into account the dual use of the device.  Best wishes, Kasreyn 15:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is already a line in the infobox relating to STD protection.  I additionally added the term "Birth Control" before "Type" in order to make the infobox more general in nature. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 16:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks Mamageek for jumping in to get this started. I've converted it to a wikitable which will be easier to edit and added the additional fields I first proposed on Talk:Birth control. I've taken the basic style from Template:Drugbox, upon which I recently worked. The image will be optional (can't think there will be one suitable for coitus interruptus !), and with optional parameters of width (else defaults 250) and caption. My intention is to add a test for the 'period_LighterHeavier' value so that it either appears in one or other of the Advantage/Disadvantage sections (or not at all if undefined - eg for the natural methods). I will add conditional tests to final version, so that some entire sections are hidden if not defined (eg the Medical Notes section). I've put in dummy values for IUDs to illustrate how some of fields might be completed. David Ruben  Talk  17:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the new layout.  I made a minor change in wording for consistency.  Three of these fields apply only to certain types of BC (clinic review, periods, weight gain).  I also see a problem with putting Advantages and Disadvantages in an Infobox at all.  Some methods have long lists of either or both (see Fertility Awareness, Depo Provera, for instance).  How, then, would you decide which benefits/effects make the Infobox, and which are only in the article? MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 18:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence those (clinic review, periods, weight gain) fields will be optional and the rows not displayed at all if not defined. As to Depo-provera - main risk emblasened across article is FDA warning re osteoporosis - but no such warning in UK (last time I remembered to look), issues of infection/bruising/bleeding at injection site wont warrant mentioning on template- I would  accept "FDA warn re bone thinning", but main factors for hormonal methods risks & benefits will be DVT incr,breast cancer incr, endometrial cancer decr, strokes if history migraines, and a medical note that risks of combined pills for smokers is increased such that after age 35, smokers should be on progesterone only pill instead (35 is the cut off for smoker&COCP being more risky than "natural" outcome of smoker&pregnant). David Ruben  Talk  22:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Think about how this will be used, effects on periods heaviness will be too complex to try and rigidly define. The only one that increases is IUDs and merely stating "heavier" is unfair as this should really be "may be heavier", similarly for COCP periods are generally lighter but also regular  (one it its indications), whereas for POP they are lighter, infrequent and irregular, and for Depo-provera lighter and very infrequent (majority women by 2nd injection stop having altogether). So I shall split these into separate optional paramenters - if not defined then row not shown (so FA wont use or show either).David Ruben  Talk  23:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the advantages/disadvantages section doesn't really belong.  Too much of it applies only vary narrowly... to hormonal methods and IUDs, but not to the rest at all.  And STD-protection yes/no doesn't belong universally in "advantages."  I preferred MamaGeek's much shorter version.  moink 02:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the "Live" version, many of the parameters if not defined will not be shown at all, specifically because they do not apply to many of the natural methods. However, as a means of sumarising information, the fields are there so that data can be presented in a consistant manner. Fair point about STD - I'll make it jump between sections then. David Ruben  Talk  00:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Great work everyone. I like "Infobox Birth control", but maybe something shorter like 'BC box" could also work.--Andrew c 03:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the succintness of "BC box", but "Infobox Birth control" is the most descriptive and the name I would prefer. Lyrl 13:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From development disccusion at [[Wikipedia:List of infoboxes/Proposed]]

message: Template transcribed from proposal to beta-test live version with conditional coding inserted (see final point e possible display bug). 
* Description of the conditional Parsers functions may be found at Wikimedia:ParserFunctions
* The STD variable is tested repeated, for both 'Yes' and 'yes' in the advantages section. In the disadvantages section it is tested for 'No' and 'no', but additionally for the parameter being undefined in which case a '?' is shown.
* Optional parameters not shown if undefined, but view on template page suggests this is currently causing an additional row to be included for the section headers. Will need try out on some articles, but if confirmed, I'd appreciate anyone with coding experience try to help fix this... David Ruben  Talk  02:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi MammaGook - just back from my holiday. One can change formating, but to be honest, I'm not quite sure of the problem that you are seeing on NFP - what browser are you using - on my Internet Explorer, all data is displayed left-aligned and without any additional spacing that would make it justified (i.e. as per a newspaper when all but last line of a paragraph made to reach right-margin). Is this page still displayed in your browser as justified as of today 29th June ? - if so I can easily adjust the coding... David Ruben  Talk  14:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still seeing it in the Benefits section.  I'm using Internet Explorer 6.0 MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 17:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really strange, as quite clearly left-aligned by default when I also view with Internet Explorer 6 under Windows ME. I wonder if this is how your "my preferences" are set up? Under Skin are you using the "MonoBook (default)", and under Misc is "Justify paragraphs" unticked ? If it is not due to any of these points please let me know and I can easily add the markup code to force left-alignment :-) David Ruben  Talk  08:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coding issues

message: Is there any way to left-align the actual info, instead of having it justified, as it is now?  The justification leads to some strange splitting of text in practice (see the NFP page). MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 17:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi MammaGook - just back from my holiday. One can change formating, but to be honest, I'm not quite sure of the problem that you are seeing on NFP - what browser are you using - on my Internet Explorer, all data is displayed left-aligned and without any additional spacing that would make it justified (i.e. as per a newspaper when all but last line of a paragraph made to reach right-margin). Is this page still displayed in your browser as justified as of today 29th June ? - if so I can easily adjust the coding... David Ruben  Talk  14:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still seeing it in the Benefits section.  I'm using Internet Explorer 6.0 MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 17:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really strange, as quite clearly left-aligned by default when I also view with Internet Explorer 6 under Windows ME. I wonder if this is how your "my preferences" are set up? Under Skin are you using the "MonoBook (default)", and under Misc is "Justify paragraphs" unticked ? If it is not due to any of these points please let me know and I can easily add the markup code to force left-alignment :-) David Ruben  Talk  08:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  text alignment 

message: * The failure rate in this template should by default state it is for the "first year" not "per year".
* It is inaccurate and misleading to report the Percentage of women experiencing an unintended pregnancy during the first year of typical use and the first year of perfect use of contraception as "per year" because both typical use and perfect use contraceptive failure rates decline with continuing use. 
* For example, a large WHO randomized, multicenter trial reported a cumulative 12-year pregnancy rate of 2.2 per 100 women for the TCu380A IUD (an average rate of 0.18 pregnancies per 100 women per year over 12 years) that was equivalent to a cumulative 10-year pregnancy rate of 1.8 per 100 women for  female sterilization (an average rate of 0.18 pregnancies per 100 women per year over 10 years). 
:I suggest changing the template from:
:: | Failure rates (per year)
:to:
:: | Failure rates (first year)
:and the template instructions from:
:: | failure_measure      = year       
:to:
:: | failure_measure      = first year 
FP101 21:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "first year" versus "per year" 

message: Since Advantages & disadvantages sections were merged (see Template talk:Infobox Birth control#Advantages/Disadvantages above), the Period parameters therefore duplicate one another - see IUS where on one line states "Periods: Menstrual irregularity or amennorhea", only to be followed on the next by "Periods: Lighter or none at all (amenorrhea)". Currently there are 3 parameters, periods, periods_disadvantage and periods_advantage. Presumeably just one single parameter, periods, is required and the various articles then tidied up to use just the single parameter. 
If consensus agrees on this, but no one but myself around who can edit the template, please note there is no deadline and it would need to wait 2 weeks for my return from holiday :-) David Ruben  Talk  02:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: periods_disadvantage and periods_advantage were intentionally left in the template code in order to maintain backward compatibility with older uses of the template. They were, however, removed from the documentation and anyone who copies the template form from the documentation won't be using them. Neitherday 06:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, so now the articles should be gone through to use the template as now intended (i.e. having single "period" parameter") and then the extraneous template coding can be removed (eg IUS clearly needs its duplicate entries merging). (whilst I still think the previous splitting of advantages/disadvantages was more functional/informative, there clearly had been no rush of other editors to suggest a consensus for this). I'll catch up on how this thread progresses on my return from holiday.David Ruben  Talk  11:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Period parameter duplication

message: "The '%' sign is added for you" for two parameters: perfect_failure% and typical_failure%. But, if there is a <ref> supplied, the '%' sign should precede the bracketed reference number, not follow it. See Contraceptive sponge for '%' signs that erroneously follow the bracketed reference number. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Anomalocaris, fixed it. Frietjes (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Frietjes, looks good, thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The '%' sign is added for you — in the wrong place 

message: Here IUD_with_progestogen and how do we fix it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is risks in blue?

message: We should add this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Doc James is that different from  ? Frietjes (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Frietjes thanks. Missed it. It is the same. All is good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Brand name