Talk:Pregnancy (mammals)

message: ===abstinence===
"women who decide to adopt abstinence as their preferred method of birth control have been known to become pregnant." -- how? Am I missing something here? -- Tarquin 23:18 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)
: In the same way that those who adopt condoms as their method of birth control sometimes screw up (as it were), those who adopt abstinence also occasionally go awry.  Thus, while the IDEAL failure rate (that is, the rate if practiced perfectly) of abstinence is 0%, the ACTUAL failure rate is not. Someone else 23:31 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)
:: Ah, I see. I was wondering if it referred to virgin births, or (in the words of Victoria Wood) swimming breaststroke in the same lane as a boy doing butterfly... ;-) How does one "fail" at abstinence? Surely if a couple have sex when meaning to abstain, they've not "failed", they've ceased to abstain. -- Tarquin
::: One fails at abstinence by... well, you clearly know <G>.  The pregnant couple may have failed in their determination to abstain, or have ceased to abstain, as you will, but either way their committment to abstention has failed to protect them from pregnancy.   Someone else 23:42 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)
:::: That's just a truism which provides no useful information. News flash! Failing to utilize a protective method does not provide protection! --Brion
:: I'll give it a mild rewrite tomorrow. It's perfectly true that abstaining couples slip and yield to temptation (hmmm... temptation...), but the logic of the current wording strikes me as odd. -- Tarquin
* Would something like this work? "Abstinence is largely a fail-safe method of protection. However, some who habitually rely on it as their primary protection may cease to abstain and thereby incur the risk of pregnancy."  -- April
: That sounds good to me. Or "Abstinence, if perfectly adhered to, would be a fail-safe method of protection. However, some who habitually rely on it as their primary protection may cease to abstain and thereby incur the risk of pregnancy." Someone else 00:10 Sep 11, 2002 (UTC)
----
Just for your information, I have moved all the talk about contraception to another article. I wanted to write more about pregnancy and foetal development in detail. I have a few questions that I wonder if the experts could correct me on if I am wrong.
* Im slightly confused on ectopic pregnancies, I know they occur of the baby is positioned abnormally. Does this include the further growth of the feotus in the fallopian tube?
Jedi Dan 15:08 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)
: Great! but I've put back the bit about mammals - we  could make a page human pregnancy for the specific stuff -- Tarquin 20:35 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)
----
too much of this article sounds like embryology rather than pregnancy. arghh.... Alex.tan 17:06, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: After Googling for "audoderm" and finding only 7 links of which 5 were copies of this wiki page, I decided to change it to "endoderm" until I hit my embryology textbooks again (if I can still find them). Btw, it's interesting to note how many times this article has been copied, often without credit due. Alex.tan 08:25, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Edited oral contraceptive section to be congruent with definitions in abortion and pregnancy. Alex.tan 08:23, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: contraception

message: "women who decide to adopt abstinence as their preferred method of birth control have been known to become pregnant." -- how? Am I missing something here? -- Tarquin 23:18 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)
: In the same way that those who adopt condoms as their method of birth control sometimes screw up (as it were), those who adopt abstinence also occasionally go awry.  Thus, while the IDEAL failure rate (that is, the rate if practiced perfectly) of abstinence is 0%, the ACTUAL failure rate is not. Someone else 23:31 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)
:: Ah, I see. I was wondering if it referred to virgin births, or (in the words of Victoria Wood) swimming breaststroke in the same lane as a boy doing butterfly... ;-) How does one "fail" at abstinence? Surely if a couple have sex when meaning to abstain, they've not "failed", they've ceased to abstain. -- Tarquin
::: One fails at abstinence by... well, you clearly know <G>.  The pregnant couple may have failed in their determination to abstain, or have ceased to abstain, as you will, but either way their committment to abstention has failed to protect them from pregnancy.   Someone else 23:42 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)
:::: That's just a truism which provides no useful information. News flash! Failing to utilize a protective method does not provide protection! --Brion
:: I'll give it a mild rewrite tomorrow. It's perfectly true that abstaining couples slip and yield to temptation (hmmm... temptation...), but the logic of the current wording strikes me as odd. -- Tarquin
* Would something like this work? "Abstinence is largely a fail-safe method of protection. However, some who habitually rely on it as their primary protection may cease to abstain and thereby incur the risk of pregnancy."  -- April
: That sounds good to me. Or "Abstinence, if perfectly adhered to, would be a fail-safe method of protection. However, some who habitually rely on it as their primary protection may cease to abstain and thereby incur the risk of pregnancy." Someone else 00:10 Sep 11, 2002 (UTC)
----
Just for your information, I have moved all the talk about contraception to another article. I wanted to write more about pregnancy and foetal development in detail. I have a few questions that I wonder if the experts could correct me on if I am wrong.
* Im slightly confused on ectopic pregnancies, I know they occur of the baby is positioned abnormally. Does this include the further growth of the feotus in the fallopian tube?
Jedi Dan 15:08 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)
: Great! but I've put back the bit about mammals - we  could make a page human pregnancy for the specific stuff -- Tarquin 20:35 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)
----
too much of this article sounds like embryology rather than pregnancy. arghh.... Alex.tan 17:06, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: After Googling for "audoderm" and finding only 7 links of which 5 were copies of this wiki page, I decided to change it to "endoderm" until I hit my embryology textbooks again (if I can still find them). Btw, it's interesting to note how many times this article has been copied, often without credit due. Alex.tan 08:25, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Edited oral contraceptive section to be congruent with definitions in abortion and pregnancy. Alex.tan 08:23, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: abstinence

message: I second the suggestion by Tarek and Tarquin for a specific article on human pregnancy, where most of the information can go. The article really ought to discuss aspects of pregnancy common to all mammals (or any other animal for which pregnancy applies), and have just one section at the end summarizing the specifics of pregnancy in our own species. (with a Main article: Human pregnancy header, no doubt). Phoenix-forgotten 22:41, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
Totally agreed.  See human pregnancy.  violet/riga (t) 23:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, let's keep human pregnancy here and mammalian pregnancy elsewhere. Wikipedia is written for humans, who at the term "pregnancy" will expect information about human pregnancy. JFW | T@lk 01:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear. Wikipedia is necessarily anthropocentric. We are, after all, humans. Any references to pregnancies other than human can be from this page, not the other way around. I would imagine most people searching for "pregnancy" would want to read about humans. Alex.tan 05:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was bad to have the Americocentric bias, but humanocentric bias?  Pfft! ;)  I'm leaning towards this being the human pregnancy article, but because that is itself an offshoot of the main pregnancy article I can see both sides.  It's easy enough to do whichever way we decide, so perhaps it's best to leave it as it is for a few days until we have some more views expressed here.  That would also mean not changing the redirects.  violet/riga (t) 08:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: What if we had "pregnancy" redirect to "human pregnancy" (just a thought), and had the generic, non-species-specific information on pregnancy at gestation? I'm actually undecided as to which page organization makes sense to me, though. Phoenix-forgotten 18:37, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
It now stands with pregnancy going to human pregnancy and gestation going to mammalian pregnancy.  One or both of these might be better switched, but at least for now they're linked between each other.  violet/riga (t) 22:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  separate 'Human pregnancy' article? 

message: The question we now face is which article should have the priority.  The two options are:
#The current layout of pregnancy and human pregnancy
#Having human pregnancy at pregnancy and this article at mammalian pregnancy
Ideas? violet/riga (t) 23:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, let's keep human pregnancy here and mammalian pregnancy elsewhere. Wikipedia is written for humans, who at the term "pregnancy" will expect information about human pregnancy. JFW | T@lk 01:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear. Wikipedia is necessarily anthropocentric. We are, after all, humans. Any references to pregnancies other than human can be from this page, not the other way around. I would imagine most people searching for "pregnancy" would want to read about humans. Alex.tan 05:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was bad to have the Americocentric bias, but humanocentric bias?  Pfft! ;)  I'm leaning towards this being the human pregnancy article, but because that is itself an offshoot of the main pregnancy article I can see both sides.  It's easy enough to do whichever way we decide, so perhaps it's best to leave it as it is for a few days until we have some more views expressed here.  That would also mean not changing the redirects.  violet/riga (t) 08:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: What if we had "pregnancy" redirect to "human pregnancy" (just a thought), and had the generic, non-species-specific information on pregnancy at gestation? I'm actually undecided as to which page organization makes sense to me, though. Phoenix-forgotten 18:37, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
It now stands with pregnancy going to human pregnancy and gestation going to mammalian pregnancy.  One or both of these might be better switched, but at least for now they're linked between each other.  violet/riga (t) 22:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Priority of articles

message: It seems that the article as it is written does not cover monotremes such as platypusses (or platipi?), and perhaps not marsupials either. This should be stated in the introduction (or better: the article should be extended to cover those animals as well). Could someone with more knowledge in the field than me do something about it? David Olivier 13:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Platypi would be the plural (looked it up on dictionary.com :-)) and because they're monotremes, surely they don't have pregnancy periods as such...seeing as they lay eggs...in other words they don't need to be included except in passing, stating the fact that although monotremes are mammallian they aren't covered here because they lay eggs rather than give birth to live young SmUX 12:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marsupials and platypi? 

message: The one reason I came here today, among other things, was to find gestation periods for different classes of mammals.  I *knew* that the elephant's gestation (looked it up for exact info...22 months) was the longest of all mammals but didn't know exactly what it was.  Perhaps someone could (if others agree) add in a table of mammals and their gestation periods (in months or weeks...I think weeks might be better, with months in brackets afterwards).  Most of the info seems to be available on wikipedia but needs to be collated from the sources, it shouldn't take more than half an hour to get the data for most mammals if the person knows what they're doing in wiki (I don't, much ;-)) SmUX 12:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chicken and Duck are still in the table, but these are also in the class Aves, not Mammalia. This topic is on the fringe of a ban for me, and I don't want to risk taking stuff out, it's a fairly uncontroversial edit though.62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gestation periods 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests - No timestamp given 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Pregnancy 26 weeks.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Neither of these articles are long enough to justify being wp:forked. The tables in these articles seem to have the same scope, so I think it's better to merge then in order to have one comprehensive and well-referenced one instead of multiple ones that are not that good. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As above, I've completed the merge, and changed one of the pages to a list article as per the discussion. Klbrain (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Gestation period]] 

message: The chart of days needs to be fixed so that the columns can be "click-able" to change from alphabetical  order to min and max days. I don't know the HTML, I'll look into it.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Gestation_period is click-able. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chart of days