Talk:Cervical cap

message: Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article.  I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles 

message: I added Stopes's design suggestion from about 100 years ago.  I think they have merit today and following them should result in something better than the FemCap --perhaps like the so called "test cap".  I see a lot of complaints about the FemCap on the Inet.  Major defects of the FemCap are that it's hard to remove due to suction and one can't get their finger under it to release suction since it adheres to the vagina.  It it were a rim type it would be easier to remove.  Also, I think it's a too short and not-flexible-enough dome and this can easily become dislodged.
The idea behind the "test cap" was that a penis thrusting the cervix hard enough to forcefully move the dome doesn't put the sides of the dome in tension so that the rim is not dislodged.  The thin dome surface in compression can be
Illustrated by holding up a sheet of paper vertically by its top above a table.  Lower the sheet of paper towards the table with your hand almost a foot above the table.  Make sure the paper isn't exactly vertical and try to push down on the table with the paper.  You can't do it since the paper just bends.  The shows that you can't transmit much force via a thin surface in compression.  Thus, the domes of cervical caps should be thinner and longer that the FemCap (and also the Prentiff cap)David S. Lawyer 00:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Design of cervical caps

message: Are you sure the cap in this diagram is big enough?  I've done a quick scout around and most of the pictures I've found show the cap as quite a bit larger, though they do vary.
Elettaria 01:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram of cap inside vagina 

message: Note discussion at Talk:Birth control#"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" re replacing occurrences of "failure rate" with "pregnancy rate".  I would also like to see the same change on this page.  Please make any comments there.  --Coppertwig 04:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" 

message: This article had an external link to the only cervical-barrier forum I am aware of, a Yahoo! group. It was removed in this edit.
This group has a physician adviser, so it's a little more formal than most message boards. Because cervical barriers are one of the least popular contraceptive options, there is very little interactive content about them on the internet - as I said before, this is the only site I am aware of. I believe it meets criteria 3 and 4 of What should be linked in WP:EL as it provides both physician-sourced information (accurate) that cannot be used in the article because it is not published (not verifiable), and also has personal reviews from a variety of women of the different cervical barriers available.
It does violate criteria #6 (requires registration) and #10 (discussion forum) of Links normally to be avoided in WP:EL.  However, considering the lack of other available links, I believe this link add sufficient value to the article that it can be an exception to the normally to be avoided rule.  What do others think? Lyrl    Talk     C   13:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm agreeing with your analysis. While these kind of links are meant to normally be avoided, as the word normally implies there are exceptions. And as you have shown this should be one of them. Mathmo Talk 06:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link to DiaphragmsAndCaps group 

message: The weight parameter was added to the infobox mainly for the hormonal contraception articles, where there is a widely held (though controversial among medical professionals) belief that they cause weight gain.  There is no such widely held belief for barrier methods such as cervical cap, and the weight parameter in the infobox has actually caused confusion among Wikipedia readers - see Talk:Condom#Weight, for example.  Also see a recent discussion at Template talk:BirthControl infobox#Weight change entry.  I do not believe the weight parameter on this page is useful, and that it may actually cause confusion, so I removed it.  I'm curious what the thoughts of the reverting editor are on this. LyrlTalk     C   02:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... some potentially good points there. I had removed it because in this particular case it is obvious enough that a cervical cap doesn't have an impact upon weight. Mathmo Talk 02:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As you said, it is obvious enough that a cervical cap doesn't have an impact upon weight.  I don't think an explicit statement to that effect is useful in this article.  Sorry about the broken link to the condom talk page, but I do think that readers may be confused thinking that weight gain is a purported side effect of using a cervical cap that we feel the need to list "no weight gain" at the top of the page in an infobox, or that someone has been having a joke by adding that parameter to contraception pages.  This is a small possibility, and were there a benefit to having that information, I think such a small risk could be discounted.  But without any benefit to that parameter, I think even a small negative effect is reason to leave it out of the infobox. LyrlTalk     C   21:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect of using cervical cap on weight of user 

message: Unless a product is explicitly referred to as a "cervical cap" by reliable sources, it should not be included in this article. We should not be using our own opinions, but instead simply reporting what appropriate sources have stated. Vassyana (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: An editor from a dynamic IP address has been doing a lot of work on this article recently.  Many of the changes I disagree with.  I am choosing to not pursue these disagreements at this time because I want to resolve the issue of merging with the Lea's Shield article first.  I just wanted to put this disclaimer here so that the anonymous editor is not surprised when I later start to alter or revert (and discuss individually, if needed) certain of their changes. LyrlTalk     C   14:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't want to edit-war with you, Lyrl.  Would you please consider approaching this by discussing it here, rather than reverting?  Would you please give a short list of what you found objectionable?  Perhaps if we discuss it first we can come up with something agreeable.  Then we could implement the solution and have no further problems.  98.217.44.153 (talk) 15:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll bring things up here one at a time. I believe it is best to resolve the issues we are currently working on before introducing new discussion threads. LyrlTalk     C   23:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the latter, I agree.  I hope you will bring up your concerns prior to making changes, rather than reverting and explaining as you go.  98.217.44.153 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes early April 2008 

message: The US FDA Birth Control Guide  groups "Prentiff Cap" and "FemCap" together under the heading "Cervical Cap with Spermicide" and Lea's Shield separately.  That document settles the question re what is legally available in the US.  It says nothing about the legal availability of these same or similar devices in other countries.  Use the FDA advanced search page to find summaries of  pre-market studies on all of these devices.  The summaries can be very educational reading.   --Una Smith (talk) 04:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken.  First of all, it's Prentif, not "Prentiff" as that document states.  Secondly, the Prentif is not legally available in the United States. Cervical Cap, Ltd, the sole distributor of the Prentif in the US was dissolved in 1995, the product is no longer available here.  Don't take my word for it: go ahead and contact any gynecologist or Planned Parenthood in the US and ask about the availability of the Prentif.  The question is as to whether the company still produces Prentif, Dumas or Vimule in another country.  98.217.44.253 (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally directed remarks are inappropriate.  Furthermore, I made no mistake.  If the FDA says they are legally available in the US, then they are legally available.  Whether obtainable is another matter;  that depends on available stocks reaching patients who want them.  --Una Smith (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Available" and "obtainable" are equivalent in meaning.  If they are not obtainable then they are not available.  Furthermore, that document is from the 1997 issue of the FDA Consumer magazine; it was clearly not rigorously edited (the misspelling of the Prentif), it is out of date, and it is not a legal document.  Its publication over a decade ago bears no weight on whether the Prentif is currently available, and should not be taken as such.  98.217.44.253 (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a clarification: if a resident of the United States obtained a Prentif cervical cap, that person would not be violating any laws.  Prentif is an approved medical device, whether they are available for sale here or not.  The same person purchasing an Oves cap would be violating federal law by importing an unapproved medical device into the country.  This whole section is not really relevant to our discussion, however.  I appreciate Una's research, but per our conversation above and this related comment legality and availability are not necessary for Wikipedia to have information on something. LyrlTalk     C   21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: US FDA

message: Information about certain brands of cervical cap (Prentif, Dumas, Vimule) has been removed with a claim that there is not evidence of current availability (diff, accompanying statement on talk page).  Is evidence of current availability required to include information on devices in a Wikipedia article?
A compromise position of including this information in the "History" section has been offered.  No sources stating that these devices are historical has been found.  Lacking such sources, is it appropriate for a Wikipedia article to label such devices as historical? LyrlTalk     C   02:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether refraining from mentioning these devices in the "current" section would "label them as historical" is irrelevant.  The simple fact is that Wikipedia articles require verifiability.  Currently we have no verifiable proof of the continued existence of the manufacturer of the Prentif, Vimule or Dumas, nor do we have any legal documents related to the devices.  I have no objection to stating what we can prove: that these devices were introduced at a certain time, that they were available during a certain time, or any other information.  We do not have proof that they are currently available, therefore we must not assume that they are.  This is Wikipedia, not BlindAssumptionpedia. 66.30.20.71 (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Outside opinion- I'd go with the IP on this issue. Without a source, it shouldn't be included. I would say to look for a source, and put them in when you find one. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify: all information I would like to include in this article is sourced.  To my understanding, Whistling42 (previously an IP) has not disputed any of these sources.  Rather, they are arguing that this sourced information should either not be in the article at all, or should only be allowed in the history section, because they are dissatisfied with evidence these devices are currently available.   I am not arguing for inclusion of any statement that these devices are currently available.  However, please note that no evidence of the discontinuation of these devices has been presented. LyrlTalk     C   22:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Removal or placement of information about Prentif, Dumas, Vimule 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cervical cap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517045452/http://www.plannedparenthood.org:80/resources/research-papers/bc-history-6547.htm to http://www.plannedparenthood.org/resources/research-papers/bc-history-6547.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cervical cap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf6/K063227.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100816011942/http://ethicalfamilyplanning.com:80/resources/femcap/femcap_to_predict_fertility_window.php to http://ethicalfamilyplanning.com/resources/femcap/femcap_to_predict_fertility_window.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815052755/http://buyfemcap.com:80/about.php to http://buyfemcap.com/about.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080912045050/http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/P010043b.pdf to http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/P010043b.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Cervical cap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509134032/http://www.cervicalbarriers.org/information/cervicalcaps.cfm to http://www.cervicalbarriers.org/information/cervicalcaps.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416120745/http://www.fwhc.org/birth-control/capinfo.htm to http://www.fwhc.org/birth-control/capinfo.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://ethicalfamilyplanning.com/resources/femcap/femcap_to_predict_fertility_window.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://buyfemcap.com/about.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071019002015/http://fwhc.org/birth-control/capinfo2.htm to http://www.fwhc.org/birth-control/capinfo2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511223914/http://femcap.com/faq.htm to http://www.femcap.com/faq.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061004052132/http://cervicalbarriers.org/ to http://www.cervicalbarriers.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cervical cap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416052340/http://www.oves.com/english/index.htm to http://www.oves.com/english/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified