Medicine: Reproductive Template‑class
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force.

Since this is a large area, please consider whether there is a more specific template where an item is more appropriate before adding it to this one. In order to keep the size of this template manageable it has to give just general coverage, with more specific details left to individual articles or more narrowly focused templates. To that end, please propose/discuss items here on talk page before adding them to the template. Zodon (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should Male infertility and Female infertility be added as sub-items under infertility? Thoughs? Zodon (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an aspect of reproductive health, I agree to Infertility being included under the Disorders group. I don't think it will be necessary to distinguish between gender, as the Infertility article itself provides links to those distinctions. Fijnlijn (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit raised question about the curly braces on the see also links. The curly braces indicate links to templates (rather than to articles). The see also link in the documentation section should certainly have the curly braces (per usual Wikipedia usage).

What about the links in the template itself? Should they be removed from the template (and just put in the documentation)? Is there some more readily understood way to indicate that the items are templates rather than articles? Thoughts? Thanks. Zodon (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen this before on Wikipedia so I thought it looked strange. But that might just be me :) I can see the benefit to an editor of indicating a template vs. an article, but I'm not sure why we need to distinguish templates from articles for an ordinary reader... Is there a Wikipedia manual of style or something like that? Thanks Dhollm (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fairly extensive manual of style WP:MOS.

The curly brace style is common in documentation for templates. (even a template to generate it). Templates that link to other templates is not common as far as I know. (Full disclosure - I started this template, and I put the template links on there).

Since these are templates that cover other areas within the broad area of Reproductive health, I thought the templates might be useful for readers. But this is not the norm, and if folks feel it isn't helpful we can remove them. (I put it in in the spirit of WP:BEBOLD and there are no rules). This is first time somebody questioned it - if folks would rather not have them we can certainly remove them. Or experiment with other ways to indicate templates. Zodon (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed your reply to this back in April, sorry! I think the topics that the template links indicate certainly are valuable and should be linked to. But I wonder if the technical nature of linking to the templates themselves would be a bit odd for most users (ie it says "template" at the top of the page when you view one). Instead of linking to the templates directly, why not link to a main article about the same topic instead? David Hollman (Talk) 09:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not proper to link to templates from article space. Either transclude them as additional templates from within the articles or merge them into 1 large template, but don't have them link to each other from the templates. This is bound to confuse any reader who follows the links and doesn't know what navbox templates are. Kaldari (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put the templates in the template documentation - so at least editors can see what are related templates (to avoid duplication). Thanks for the link to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid I hadn't seen that bit. Zodon (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of editors have added celibacy to the template. (It was removed once by another editor, and I just removed again and initiated this discussion.)

I don't think it is appropriate on the template because:

1. Not clear how celibacy (as compared to sexual abstinence) is relevant. Clearly such a lifestyle would have implications for one's health, but not clear how likely it is that people reading the celibacy article would want other articles on this template. The health implications of celibacy would in many cases be more subtle and harder to define as reproductive health than the implications of other sexual behaviors. (e.g. emotional disorders, lower cardiovascular health, etc. - could have wide variety of causes, harder to pinpoint how much related to celibacy in an individual case. Whereas STIs or pregnancy, e.g., are much easier to connect.)
2. Involuntary celibacy might be apropos - in the disorders section I would think. I am not familiar enough with the article or the area to have formed a particular opinion on that.
3. Not clear that sexual abstinence should be on the template because it is already covered in articles that are on the template (safe sex), and included in other templates about the area (the more specific ((Birth control methods)), and the more general ((sex)) templates). Would people looking at sexual abstinence be particularly likely to want the articles on this template.

If you think one (or more) of these articles should be on this template - please explain which one, and why, and why think this template would enhance the related article. Zodon (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I initially felt celibacy should be added (though I agree with your suggestion that abstinence is more appropriate) was to ensure a NPOV. There are certainly many people who would feel abstinence is an important part of this topic area. Even given studies which question its effectiveness, it is nonetheless still a supported technique/movement and therefore seems relevant. Perhaps breaking out some of the important sub-topics of birth control in a parenthesized form (as is done for parenting) could increase visibility to those areas including abstinence? Thanks for your thoughts... David Hollman (Talk) 09:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of parenting, there was no template linking the parenting options, and there aren't so many of them that to list all the major options becomes unmanageable. (Asside: I see that now there is ((parenting)), which needs some attention.)

Don't really follow the neutrality idea. Abstinence is more related to sex than to family and reproduction. (Sure, they are related, but don't need one for the other.) Don't see what is less neutral about leaving abstinence for the sex template.

To include the major Birth control methods on this template would greatly expand the template without clearly increasing its utility. (i.e., would presumably mean adding IUD, hormonal contraception, barrier contraception, tubal ligation) and some subset of behavioral (e.g. Masterbation, Non-penetrative sex, Sexual abstinence). And, of course this template would need to be added to those pages. Would having yet another template on those pages help? Would it make this template easier to use? Are readers of Parenting (e.g.) really likely to need a direct link to sexual abstinence?

This would also open up a whole can of worms in exactly what methods to include (i.e., why include this and not that). (I based list above on the widely used methods or classes of methods for which there are articles.)

Many of the articles on this template are also accessible from the Sex template (which is on the sexual abstinence page). For the articles that are covered here which aren't on the sex page (e.g. parenting) I am not sure how apropos abstinence is. Zodon (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several well formed articles in reproductive health that didn't fit on the template, thought maybe adding a history section to this template would give coverage without casting too broad a net. Thoughts? Zodon (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the policy section because Two child policy didn't seem to fit. (Not limited to just one country). Anything that is just about a particular country should probably go in the country section. I am not sure if this section will work - but if it gets too big or unfocused may be better to shelve off into another template. Zodon (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birth credit might also be a candidate for that section (although it appears to be a purely theoretical construct). Zodon (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One-child policy would also be a sensible addition. — Control.valve (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recently an editor has questioned the inclusion of this section. Saying it is all over the place. I am not sure what that means. This section includes articles on Contraception, Family Planning, Birth Control, etc. in various countries/nations/states.

While the names of some of the articles may be a little obscure, if you look at the articles themselves they all deal with the above topics in the particular state. (For instance One child policy covers China's recent family planning policy. Reproductive Health Bill covers that of the Philippines.

I don't see much point in splitting off the by country coverage into its own template when there are so few of them. Zodon (talk) 04:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removal of the last 3 sections. It is a mish/mash, and doesn't need to be on every reproductive health page. A template should not index all possible articles; instead it should link the the key articles in the domain. As for history, it might be better to have a single 'history of reproductive health' or something like that, even as a index/redirect page, that contains the other ones. But the links to individual policies of countries etc does not belong. You could have a single list or category of reproductive rights by country, but the individual country links should be removed. I would remove all 3 final sections.--KarlB (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is a mish/mash about the by country section? It is specifically family planning/contraception in various countries. Note that links to categories can not be put on navigation templates (cross-namespace link).

This template was created as an overview/linkage of family planning articles. So articles about family planning in different areas are definitely on topic. Zodon (talk) 06:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add intersex to the section on 'rights', and disorders of sex development to 'disorders'. Given the existing contents of each section, they seem appropriate. Trankuility (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Both of those would seem perfectly reasonable and appropriate here. Added per WP:BOLD - Alison ^❤ 06:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add these two pages to the template. Compulsory sterilization to the section on Rights, and Preimplantation genetic diagnosis to the section on Planning. Any objections? Trankuility (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I shifted the existing mention of Assisted reproductive technology instead of adding Preimplantation genetic diagnosis, as the purposes of ART now go beyond fertility issues through to perceived health risk management issues. Trankuility (talk) 04:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]