Talk:Natural birth control

Merge proposal

How is this different from Natural family planning and fertility awareness? See discussion at Talk:natural family planning.--Andrew c 22:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles

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) 12:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted

This essay cites NO sources for "Natural birth control".
Unsourced sentences that blather on about "natural birth control" should be flagged as requiring sources.
This article cites NO sources except for lemons, wild yams, herbs, neem seed oil.
Information about lemons, some herbs and neem seed oil could be moved to the Spermicide article.
Quackery about wild yams should be deleted along with the "Sister Zeus" commercial advertising links.
Other birth control methods the authors of this essay consider "natural" are already discussed in other birth control articles.
This unsourced nonsensical article should be deleted.

69.208.175.159 23:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Natural birth control category

I noticed this article was recently added to Category:Fertility tracking. To me, this seems a little backwards. If we're going to categorize the "natural" articles together, wouldn't it make more sense to have a Category:Natural birth control and put into the category the major fertility tracking articles, the barrier contraception articles, coitus interruptus, Lactational Amenorrhea Method, non-penetrative sex, any herbal contraceptive article that is created in the future, etc.?

Alternatively, if the desire is to include this article in related categories, it seems it should go not only in the "fertility tracking" category, but also in Category:Behavioral methods of birth control (for withdrawal and LAM), Category:Barrier contraception, Category:Chemical contraception (for herbal contraceptives), and Category:Sexual acts (for non-procreative sexual activities). Categorizing the article "fertility tracking" - but no other methods category - seems to perpetuate the perception that "natural birth control" is only synonymous with the Catholic idea of "natural family planning". Lyrl ^Talk _C 12:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Do you think such a category is a good idea? I personally like it but I don't know that others will. Also, yes, it should be added to the others. Joie de Vivre ^T 12:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the FT category shouldn't be in NBC. It's parent category, Category:Behavioral methods of birth control should be instead. That said, I think this is getting to the point of overclassification. We have NBC which will include 2-3 articles. Then we will have a step up to BMoBC which will have 2 articles, then one more step up we get to FT which has a dozen or so articles. It's just another layer of hierarchy to wade through, just for the sake of including a really small number of articles. I also don't see these categories as foreseeably expandable. I would prefer to have either NBC or BMoBC, but not both. (all that said, I could live with both, so I'm not saying one of the cats must be deleted). I also wish we could have discussed this a little first, because creating articles is easier than deleting them (unless you tag it as {{db-self}})-Andrew c 19:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further reflection, I agree with Andrew - the "Natural" category is redundant with the "Behavioral" category. I'm uncertain which is more useful, though. Lyrl ^Talk _C 15:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the current situation seems to be a hybrid of the "put this article in all related categories" vs. the "group related articles together in a single category" options. For example, "Fertility tracking" has been made a sub-cat of "Natural birth control" - but "Barrier contraception" has not. I think either option would work, but I don't think they hybridize well. Lyrl ^Talk _C 15:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think would be the best course of action? Please consider that on Wikipedia, categories do not form a tree. I think the category does have merit and that it is a useful distinction. Joie de Vivre ^T 01:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest deleting the behavioral methods category because it doesn't include anything that the NBC category doesn't already have. While the distinction may be interesting, and should clearly be discussed in the appropriate articles, I think it gets into too much detail for the sake of categorization.-Andrew c 13:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courses of action I think would be good:

Add Category:Sexual acts and Category:Barrier contraception as sub-cats to Category:Natural birth control. Remove this article from those categories. Delete the behavioral methods category. OR
Add this article to Category:Behavioral methods of birth control and Category:Barrier contraception and Category:Chemical contraception. Delete the natural birth control category.

I believe navigation will be easier if all the related articles or categories are in one place - either at the end of this article, or listed in a NBC category. Having some related topics at the end of this article, and other related topics in the NBC category kind of defeats the purpose of categorization. I currently agree with Andrew that the distinction between behavioral and natural methods is not useful for navigation. I would be curious to see an explanation of why JdV finds separate categories useful. Lyrl ^Talk _C 01:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ladycomp and Babycomp fertility monitors

New post: I had added the following webpage for the Ladycomp and Babycomp:

'www.healthybirthcontrol.com'

for the reason that the webpage is dedicated to the full scientific research data on these monitors.

Research on these monitors show that the Ladycomp has THE SAME EFFECTIVENESS as the birth control pill, the reliability of which is unmatched in any other form of natural contraception.Priyakarani (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]