Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

WikiProject Medicine
Navigation
Project page	talk
Manual of Style	talk
Departments
→ Assessment	talk
→ FA review	talk
→ Featured topics proj.	talk
Task forces	talk
→ Emergency and EMS	talk
→ Reproductive medicine	talk
Open tasks
→ Collaboration of the Week	talk
→ Nominations for deletion
→ Pages needing attention
→ Needing expert attention
→ Requested articles
→ Cleanup listing (top imp.)
Stub sorting	talk
Categories
→ Project
→ Articles by quality
→ Articles by importance
Participants	talk
Portal	talk
· changes

Contents 1 Parturition/Childbirth 2 Condom to FA? 3 Article tagging / waiting on unassessed article backlog 3.1 Changing task force tags 4 Section order and naming in contraception articles 5 Project scope 6 Help and advice needed 7 Reproductive medicine main article

Parturition/Childbirth

Sorry if I sound very ignorant asking this, but the exact topic of parturition/childbirth is included under pregnancy or fertility, or is it being seen as beyond the scope of current task force? Or is it that I can take the liberty of adding this topic to the already existing list?

• Birth control
• Human reproduction
• Pregnancy
• Fertility
• Sexual health

Kindly clarify. I didn't expand the above list as I wasn't sure if doing so would require consensus. —KetanPanchal^taLK 07:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this task force will include all aspects of reproduction, including gynecology, fertility, contraception, conception, embryology, obstetrics, parturition, and any topics between I may have missed. The initial focus on birth control is because that is the primary interest of Lyrl, the person who proposed this task force. You could consider birth control as the current collaboration effort of the task force, but that shouldn't preclude other topics from being added and worked on. --Scott Alter 08:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Condom to FA?

Lyrl (or anyone else), Can you give us a quick idea of what you think it might take to get Condom up to FA status? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never been involved in the FA process for any article, so I'm a little unsure about the whole thing. That said, it had a peer review a while back, and I formatted what I got out of the peer review into a to-do list. Two of the reviewer's concerns (one of the ancient history claims was dubious, and there was no coverage of how the pill and AIDS impacted condom use) were addressed by my recent expansion of the history section; the remaining items are still listed at Talk:Condom/to do. I also think the article would read better if the (now very long) history section were spun out into its own article, leaving just a summary-style within condom. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've never dealt with FA status before, either, but presumably there are some guidelines around somewhere. We'll find them and see if we can make any sense of them.

I see what you mean about the history section tending to dominate the article right now. A sub-article might be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link to the FA criteria. Presumably the history spin off and the /to do list needs dealing with first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Article tagging / waiting on unassessed article backlog

WhatamIdoing had commented that there were ~1800 unassessed articles she was working on with Outriggr's script. Because task forces break that script, we should not set up a system to tag articles belonging to our task force until that backlog has been cleared (at which point doing assessments by hand will not be so burdensome).

I poked around a little to see if I could track the progress of this backlog. The only thing I was able to find is Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality statistics, which only lists a handful of unassessed articles. I don't think that was what WhatamIdoing was referring to. Could someone point me in the right direction? Lyrl^Talk _C 12:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure either which articles WhatamIdoing was referring to either. Maybe the Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles? In any case, if Outriggr's script does break, it would only be on articles that were already given task force parameters. So, if the task force parameters were only added to assessed articles, it shouldn't effect WhatamIdoing's effort to assess unassessed articles. If this is the case, it would be easily remedied by assessing articles when adding task force tags. Additionally, all of the scripts the perform article tagging are going to need to be modified soon due to the addition of {{C-Class}}. Maybe the task force bug will be fixed in the next release of the script.

And if you haven't noticed yet, the technical side is all ready for tagging. By adding "| Reproductive=yes | ReproductiveImp=xxx" to {{WPMED}}, articles would be added to Category:Reproductive medicine task force articles, the proper sub-categories of Category:Reproductive medicine articles by quality & Category:Reproductive medicine articles by importance, and added to the assessment table at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Reproductive medicine articles by quality statistics. "ReproductiveImp" is the importance of the article to the task force - so an article can have one importance for the Medicine project and another importance for the task force. If this is left out, the importance will default to the project's importance parameter ("Importance"). Once WhatamIdoing gives the okay, I'll add this information to {{WPMED}}, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment. --Scott Alter 17:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Unknown-importance medicine articles is indeed what I'm targeting. You'll notice that it's been shrinking recently.

The script has already been modified to include the C-class. We may need to adjust our guidelines for it, and of course everything that is now classed as "Start" needs to be reviewed. (But that's all for later...)

I'm glad all the code is in place. It'll likely take at least a week for me to finish this. (Y'all feel free to help out...) But the other side is this: We're here to write an encyclopedia. Don't let a relatively unimportant administrative task distract you from writing and improving the actual articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So is it indeed alright to tag items with the reproductive=yes tag as long as they already have an importance? Zodon (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that should be just fine. I'd appreciate it if you also double-checked the main project's ratings as you went. Something that was assessed even a few weeks ago could be shockingly out of date by now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, having thought about it longer, I have no idea whether it will be a problem. But try it, and I'll squawk if it becomes a problem. We can always temporarily revert the code if necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I just found a tool for determining the page views of an article: http://stats.grok.se/en/

It's new to me, at least, for others it may be old hat. But, I thought it might be useful when we get around to prioritizing articles. Of the birth control articles, condom is by far the most viewed at around 5000 hits per day. I think the next highest is the COCP article at a little over 1000 (I'm surprised it's that far behind condom!), followed by coitus interruptus and intrauterine device at a little under 1000 per day (it surprised me that withdrawal ranked so high up there). Lyrl^Talk _C 00:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Changing task force tags

In case anyone else is interested, we are talking about changing the task force tags in {{WPMED}} to being all lowercase, with dashes to separate words e.g., "| reproductive=yes | reproductive-imp=xxx". Please direct any comments about the change to the talk page for the WPMED template. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This change has been made. Zodon (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Section order and naming in contraception articles

Many of the birth control articles have a "history" section, and the consensus seems to be to put this at the top. This also follows WP:MEDMOS#Drugs. There are a few articles that have "terminology" section at the top, where there is concern readers may need that information to understand the rest of the article (calendar-based methods, fertility awareness, cervical cap)

The condom article then has a "varieties" section, and the cervical cap and IUD articles have a "types" section in the same position. However, similar sections in other articles ("types" in diaphragm and IUS, and "formulations" in COCP) are further down the page. I'm leaning toward preferring the higher position, right after history; this would follow WP:MEDMOS#Drugs for "available forms". I'm unsure of how to standardize the section name, though: should they all be the same (varieties?), or should hormonal methods stay with "formulations"?. Others' thoughts?

Many articles have "effectiveness" and "mechanism of action" sections next to each other (e.g. COCP, POP, diaphragm), or a combined "effectiveness and mechanism of action" section (IUD). An exception is emergency contraception, which has "effectiveness" near the top and "mechanism" near the bottom of the article. I believe effectiveness is one of the more important characteristics of user-dependent birth control methods, and would also like to see this section near the top of the article, right after "varieties". The "mechanisms" can go quite a bit further down (WP:MEDMOS#Drugs has it listed eighth), and for user-independent methods (where typical effectiveness is over 99%) the effectiveness section could probably go next to mechanisms. I'd like to hear other opinions on this, though.

Some articles have "fitting" or "use" sections (COCP, IUS, condom); if both (diaphragm and cervical cap), they are found next to each other. This would probably be equivalent to "procedure" in tubal ligation. Correct use relates closely to effectiveness for user-dependent methods; I would like to see it just after effectiveness in those articles. Explaining what is involved with a method may also help readers understand potential complications or side effects, so it would be nice to have this section before the complications/side effect section.

Some articles have sections "advantages", "disadvantages", "benefits and drawbacks", "potential concerns". Relatedly, some articles have sections "complications", "cautions and warnings", "side effects and complications", "contraindications", "cautions and contraindications", "side effects", "health issues", and "safety"; COCP and IUD have serious effects listed under one name, and less serious effects listed under another name. I'm not sure how to standardize the names. For order, WP:MEDMOS#Drugs has "contraindications"/"adverse events" right after "available forms". I would like to have this a little lower, after the "use"/"fitting"/"procedure" section as I explained in the previous paragraph. And then maybe the advantages/disadvantages sections after that?

Some articles have a "prevalence", "popularity", or "worldwide use" section. I would like to standardize this name to "prevalence". Placement - after the sections discussed above? And, lastly, "mechanisms" (as discussed above), followed by "society and culture" (not sure of the exact name), and then (if applicable) "research"?

That's a lot to discuss all at once, but I'm not sure the topic lends itself to discussion of smaller bits (though am open to suggestions). Lyrl^Talk _C 00:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Varieties vs. Formulations vs. Types vs. Available forms

These aren't exactly identical terms, so I think we want to use appropriate judgement in each article. However, I think that "Types" is probably a generally applicable term and could be used in all articles about devices and most articles about medications, and at least some articles about behavioral birth control methods. Unlike pharmaceutical formulation, it also has the advantage of being perfectly intelligible to the general reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a suggestion (with each section optional): Terminology; History; Classification; Physiology; Complications and contraindications; Additional images; References; External links. --Arcadian (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Project scope

A general concern raised at the doctor's mess is also relevant to this task force.

How "medical" should articles be to be included in this task force? Menstrual cycle is important to reproduction, but its more of a physiology article than a medical article. Menstrual disorder would be a medical topic, though (as such disorders are often treated by health providers). Would "menstrual cycle" be excluded from this task force but "menstrual disorder" included? Similarly, pregnancy test and obstetric ultrasonography are medical procedures, but early pregnancy factor is an article about a protein. Would "early pregnancy factor" be excluded from this task force? Or, do members want to include both strictly medical as well as related background articles in this task force? Lyrl^Talk _C 21:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we could define ourselves more narrowly than WPMED as a whole, but probably shouldn't be more expansive. Right now, WPMED is accepting physiology articles largely because there's no better project in existence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The initial proposal made it sound like it would cover reproduction related material out of other projects, like Sexology and sexuality and pharmacology. Many of the birth control methods might be more properly categorized as pharmacology. Likewise, material about sexual practices relating to reproductive health, abortion, etc. is possibly more strictly sociology. There is also the matter of how to handle legal aspects related to reproductive medicine (reproductive rights, laws governing practice of reproductive medicine, etc.).

I don't think the taskforce should be too strict about only medicine articles, but don't feel strongly about it. If folks want it more strictly medical, I won't object. But if so, maybe we can come up with a little more guidance to aid categorization.

A few examples that it might help to get some feedback on (i.e. should they be reproductive taskforce, or not).

Early pregnancy factor was categorized because it was listed on beginning of pregnancy controversy as a possible test for fertilization.

United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries was categorized because it allowed doctors in the U.S. freedom to offer contraceptives, and may be a significant step in the history of contraception in the U.S..

Also, what do folks think about things like Family planning, One child policy, or Guttmacher Institute - should they be in the task force or not?

All of the articles you link here are already tagged by the main WPMED project. WPMED tends to define medicine fairly broadly, including, among other things, all medications, all medical conditions, and laws and government policies that affect medical practice. My point could perhaps be stated more clearly like this: Whatever is tagged as belonging to this taskforce will automatically and unavoidably be tagged by WPMED, so we should not include things that would clearly be rejected by WPMED as a whole. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Zodon recently tagged all of those articles with the WPMED tag ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). They were not already tagged, which was why I had started this discussion.

I think another relevant example article is human chorionic gonadotropin. It's a protein used in pregnancy tests, like "early pregnancy factor". Should the hCG article be tagged as part of WPMED? Or does the pregnancy test article sufficiently cover the relevant medical information on hCG, but not EPF? Lyrl^Talk _C 02:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry my post wasn't clearer, the reason I could say why some of those were tagged as reproductive taskforce was because I tagged them. That is also part of why I asked about those articles in particular. (Obviously I think they made sense as WPMED & reproductive, but since scope question was raised they seemed like other things that there might be question on, so wanted to see what others thought.) Zodon (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Early pregnancy factor is something that I would tag as WPMED because we're the closest related WikiProject. If a WikiProject Human Physiology existed, then I might choose that in preference -- but no such thing exists, and the 1.0 team would ultimately like every article to "belong" somewhere. If the RepMed task force wants to stay more "focused" than that, then it doesn't have to accept physiology articles. It can be WPMED without being RepMed. It is always useful to remember that project banners are not a replacement for categorization. If RepMed does not choose to be responsible for EPF, then it need not be included in RepMed's scope. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

EPF should be in Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology just like hCG is (I'll go add it now); I don't think its inclusion in WPMED is required for it to belong somewhere. I would lean toward not including these types of articles, but don't feel strongly about it. WhatamIdoing doesn't seem to feel strongly either way, and Zodon seems to find value in including them. So to me, it looks like the consensus it towards including these kinds of articles. Thanks for providing input. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Help and advice needed

Hi. I need some advice. I deleted Parents Via Egg Donation Organization, which was basically restating the boxed text from here. However, the author, User:Marnad1963 has contacted me and wishes the article reinstated if possible. Being helpful, I'm looking at ways forward that don't scare such contributors off, without obviously breaching our policies. It was pointed out to me that we have articles such as:

• American Fertility Association
• American Red Cross
• American Society of Reproductive Medicine
• European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology
• National Gamete Donation Trust

Some of which may be of equal worth as the organization which was the subject of the article I deleted. I have asked for any sources so that an article could be written on Parents Via Egg Donation Organization, and am waiting for the user to reply, but would be interested in hearing more expert knowledge on whether there is any bias in the articles listed or whether they may also be speedy deletion candidates?

Thanks for your time. Hiding T 17:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The other organizations all seem to be notable, and I'm not sure the Parents Via Egg Donation Organization is. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Has PVEDO provided a list of independent, third-party reliable sources for you, such as a couple of newspaper articles or the like? If such sources exist, they'll have them. If such sources don't exist, then they do not meet the minimum criteria for having a Wikipedia article about their organization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

They are in the process of trying to find some. Hiding T 00:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

When and if they do, then we can revisit this issue. Until then, the article appears to have been properly deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything more as yet, so I'll put this one to rest. Hiding T 10:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• ADDENDUM. I have been asked if this source is reliable enough: http://www.eprhealthcarenews.com/2008/08/12/information-about-all-facets-of-the-egg-donation-process/ Appreciate the time and effort here. Hiding T 18:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No. It's not independent (it's a press release, not an article a journalist unrelated to the organization decided to write), and there's just one of it (so fails the "multiple" requirement). It's hard for new organizations to get into Wikipedia. As their organization acquires a few more years under its belt, it will almost certainly start accumulating the kind of press attention that editors here want to see before accepting an article on the organization. But for now, it does not appear that Wikipedia is the place for them. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough. They've indicated they have had contact from The Oregonian in Portland and the Chicago Tribune, so I've told them to let me know what happens with them. They'd be reliable enough for a stub at the least, wouldn't they? Hiding T 14:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Stubbiness or not is only determined by whether people are interested in working on the article. Notability determines only whether an article is allowed to be created, and has no effect on length. Being the subject of two articles in major newspapers would probably meet the notability criteria (I can't say for sure as I'm not active in that part of Wikipedia); being mentioned in the articles but not a subject of them would be a more difficult case to argue. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reproductive medicine main article

What should the heading Reproductive medicine link to? I just noticed that it is a redirect to Reproductive endocrinology and infertility. While that article is certainly part of reproductive medicine, it does not seem to give a good overview of the field. At the moment I can't think of an article that seems exactly right to be/evolve into an overview of reproductive medicine. Reproductive health might be a reasonable candidate. The Obstetrics and gynaecology article makes some claims to subsuming some of the other areas of reproductive medicine, but that seems peculiar, since reproductive medicine deals with both sexes, whereas strictly OB/Gyn is just for women (I would have classed OB/Gyn as a subset of Reproductive medicine, rather than the other way around.). While Reproductive medicine is not heavily visited, it is used in Template:medicine. Since I don't have a good answer, I thought the task force seemed like a reasonable place to get some input. Thoughts? Suggestions of where it should be directed? Thanks. Zodon (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Reproductive health" seems like the best candidate for now. As that article grows, hopefully a "reproductive medicine" article can be spun out from it at some future point. Lyrl^Talk _C 02:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have changed "Reproductive medicine" to point to Reproductive health. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 08:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I started the Reproductive medicine article; "reproductive medicine" is the medical field, "reproductive health" is the goal, and "reproductive endocrinology and infertility" the specialty training for physicians. Ekem (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 22 August 2008, at 02:03.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Reproductive_medicine_task_force

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.