Template talk:Birth control methods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Progestogen not progesterone[edit]

  • Progestasert®, which is no longer available, was a progesterone-releasing IUS. Progesterone is a progestogen; progesterone is the only progestogen that is not a progestin.
  • Mirena is a progestin-releasing IUS. Progesasert was not a progestin-releasing IUS.
  • Progestasert was a progesterone-releasing IUS. Mirena is not a progesterone-releasing IUS.
  • Mirena and Progestasert are both progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems. 14:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Template expansion, additions[edit]

I would like to explain my revert of the most recent edit (from this to this). The expansion of the size of the template did not make it any more readable, it mainly made it take up more space. Also, I do not agree with the content edits. Two-Day Method is a redlink, for one, and the Billings Ovulation Method and the Creighton Model are both essentially brand names for the cervical mucus observation method of fertility awareness. The fertility awareness article describes and links to both the BOM and CM, as well as to the basal body temperature article; because "fertility awareness" is an umbrella term which encompasses all of them. Any instance in which we list a brand names for a method is if that method is only available under one brand name, and are thus is only called by that brand name. We don't have that same issue with the various methods of fertility awareness, so the specific types need not be listed. Joie de Vivre 15:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I started working on this because I noticed that the 2 rows in the final section make the first line appear in the previous section. This was absolutely horible. I can agree with the removal of the brand names. I simply thought that since different methods of the other sections were listed, that this section should be expanded as well; and brand names are listed for the progestogen only section. Anyway, if you still want those parts removed, that is fine by me. Just thought it would help a bit. However, the expanding of the size makes it a lot better to look at and understand. Please, at least restore that change; or let me restore it. Even if it is a bit bigger, that makes no difference to the pages it is used on, other than making them look more relaxed, like it is it's own little section of information. I find it better. Your thoughts on this? SadanYagci 16:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I also see some confusion between the anti-estrogen and hormonal sections that would be cleared up by my version. SadanYagci 16:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Since you haven't said anything yet, I'm leaving the new information out, but changing the formating again. Please contact me if you don't like it. SadanYagci 09:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Description of IUD and IUS[edit]

I understand that in the UK, IUDs are copper/silver devices, and IUSs are hormonal devices. However, I feel from the US perspective that it's important to list that there exist both a copper and a hormonal option. In the US, there is no such thing as an "IUS", the term isn't used. Both the Paragard and the Mirena are referred to as the IUD. So, if we list that there is only one type of IUD (copper), a US citizen might be misled into thinking that's the only intrauterine option available.

Because Mirena is listed both under the IUD and the IUS articles, a more complete description in this template is to state that there is such a thing as a progestogen IUD. Both descriptions are complete in this version. Joie de Vivre 20:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As this is a worldwide wiki, the question therefore is what definitions are used in other English-speaking countries - ie Canada, S.Africa, N.Z, Australia etc...
Whilst "IUD (copper or progesterone)" is perhaps therefore correct in the US, "IUD (copper or progestogen), IUS (progestogen)" is wrong as that suggests 3 different types of devices (IUD-copper, IUD-progestogen and the separate entity of IUS-progestogen). Lets await to see if editors from other countries can explain their understanding, but better would have been something along lines of "IUD copper or progestogen, latter also known as IUS" which gives no undue preference for US or UK terminology. David Ruben Talk 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The description on the left pretty clearly states "Intra-uterine". I believe that is sufficient to prevent a person from thinking only one device can be described as intrauterine: two Wikilinks follow the "Intra-uterine" description. I also agree with David about the confusion caused by listing the same device twice - it can easily be mistaken for three devices, not two. Lyrl Talk C 02:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I think we should err on the side of it seeming like there are three options than we should err on the side of it seeming that there is only one option. As I said, there is no such thing as an IUS in the States. To say that there is only such thing as a copper IUD is simply incorrect here. I think duplication and cross-reference is a better solution than forcing compliance with a phrase that has no usage here -- particularly because IUDs are so little-known here, I think it's more important to be comprehensive rather than exclusive. Joie de Vivre 19:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent template overhaul[edit]

So, inspired by Fred Bradstadt's work on the template (great job, Fred!), I made two small changes to the template: I added a "Chemical" section to include the Contraceptive sponge and Spermicide. I did this because although the sponge does rely partially on physically blocking sperm, it mainly relies on the spermicide. Another reason to include it in the chemical section is that while the other barrier methods can be used without spermicide, the contraceptive sponge contains spermicide which cannot be removed. Thus, it is always a chemical method.

The second change is that I added a "See also" section. I am hoping that this won't become a WP:BEANS situation with people adding tangentially related things, but I thought it was a good thing to create a place for Natural birth control, a distinction which is relevant to many women who cannot use hormonal methods of birth control. I also moved Abstinence from "Behavioral" to "See also", because I tend to think that "not having sex" is a different category altogether when it comes to birth control. "Birth control" almost always has to do with figuring out ways to have sex, while avoiding pregnancy; it generally does not involve avoiding sex altogether. As all the methods besides abstinence involve sexual activity, I feel this one must be distinguished. Joie de Vivre 14:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. -- Natural family planning is included prominently in the Natural birth control article, so I don't think it needs to be added to the template. Joie de Vivre 14:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent item name changes[edit]

I don't think this edit was very helpful:

I understand the desire to move away from brand names and use more generalized terminology, however, in these cases many of the methods are themselves best known as the brand names. In the event that other brands come up we can use more neutral terminology, in the meantime, this just adds bloat. —Joie de Vivre 15:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"See also" line[edit]

I'm not sure this line should be in the template. I had concerns about including natural birth control in the template (see Template talk:BirthControl/Archive1#"Natural"). And now anti-rape female condom has been added, which has a relationship to birth control more along the lines of a hysterectomy - meaning, preventing pregnancy is a side effect of its primary purpose. See the end of the section Template talk:BirthControl/Archive1#Formatting for a previous discussion of including hysterectomy and castration (at that time it was decided not to).

I would like to delete the "See also" line and its contents. What do others think? LyrlTalk C 20:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Lea's Shield[edit]

Lea's Shield doesn't seem to belong in the template as a unique method, as it is a cervical cap and, as such, redirects to the cervical cap article. Seems like a no-brainer. Thoughts? (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Lea's Shield had its own article until a recent merge. Thanks for pointing out that the merge left this template as a loose end. I'll go ahead and fix the template. LyrlTalk C 12:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with that better to remove names of individual brands/types of cap. Including a lot of detail/variants makes the template larger and harder to use. If we include them for cervical caps, then why not for the other methods? Similarly, I am not sure how useful it is to have subtypes of calendar based method listed.
Other items that have common names listed generally help (i.e. what is a "medical abortion"), and in case of Ormeloxifene it is the only thing on the line, so adding a second name doesn't make much more clutter. Zodon (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The IP was commenting on this version of the table, which had Lea's Shield linked. I don't think they expressed an opinion one way or the other about having the name listed.
To me, the common names helped here: most readers are unlikely to know what calendar-based methods are, but will recognize 'rhythm method'. And Lea's Shield has been marketed as a distinct device, so many readers will not know to click on 'cervical cap' for information about that device. The other names (SDM, FemCap, etc.) I don't think have the same potential for confusion, but if I was listing one, I felt not listing the others could imply the articles were about only the listed method. Does that make more sense? LyrlTalk C 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
If Lea's shield is the only cap that seems likely to be unclear, how about "Cervical cap (and Lea's)" or (includes Lea's)? Keeps it shorter and may be less of an invitation to get lists of other brands. Though that Lea's shield would be a cervical cap seems pretty obvious, and a quick search would turn it up anyway.
On the calendar based methods - if going to list methods they should be spelled out enough that somebody not well acquainted with the area would know what it meant. If somebody knew what SDM stood for, they probably know enough to know that it is a calendar based method, and if they don't know what it means, then SDM probably won't help. If most readers are unlikely to know what calendar-based methods are, then maybe it would be better to put it back to listing it as rhythm method? Or, "calendar-based methods (rhythm, etc.)"? Zodon (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I like the (includes Lea's) suggestion. Would it be helpful to abbreviate to (incl. Lea's)?
For the calendar-based methods, I think it's useful to indicate that methods other than rhythm are included in that article. (rhythm, etc.) looks good to me. LyrlTalk C 21:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Lyrl, why did you remove Male contraceptive and Natural birth control articles from this template? These contain information about little-known forms of birth control. Since the template is a navigational tool, why would articles about forms of birth control be excluded? Both contain information that is not included in any other articles in the template. (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Male methods in this category, condom, and coitus interruptus, are already included in this template. The methods listed in the "natural birth control" article are also all linked elsewhere in the template, with the sole exception of herbal methods that have only been studied in animals. As I explained at Template talk:BirthControl/Archive1#"Natural", my impression of this template is that it is aimed at people looking for available methods on which significant research has been done. I'm unsure what the target audience is for including experimental methods of contraception.
Additionally, when a see-also line was previously included in the template, it attracted the "anti-rape female condom". With no clear scope of what goes in the "see also" section, I believe it would again invite the addition of tangentially related articles not useful for navigation. This would be a minor point if the articles in the see-also line were useful, but aside from experimental methods, the methods in these articles are already linked elsewhere in the template. I do not believe this template was intended to navigate the entire Category:Methods of birth control; users interested in experimental methods can easily find them linked in birth control or through navigation of the categories. LyrlTalk C 00:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Lyrl, not to list every experimental method, just commonly used & notable methods. David Ruben Talk 17:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
"Target audience"? I don't understand why you'd think of this in terms of marketing. The reason for including "experimental methods" in the Birth Control template is simply that they are methods of birth control. Whether people add off-topic articles (like the anti-rape condom) to the template is a separate issue, it can be dealt with separately.
If we're going to include only "commonly used and notable methods", we should rename the template to "Common and notable methods of birth control", to avoid misleading readers into thinking that the template contains links to all Wikipedia articles on methods of birth control. If we have made a decision to restrict the scope of the template to certain kinds of methods, the title should reflect that decision. (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
This template does not have links to Estrostep or Elexa, both of which are Wikipedia articles on methods of birth control. I don't believe the template needs to be renamed to indicate this; the layout of the template makes it obvious such articles are not included. For the same reason, I do not believe it needs to be renamed to indicate the lack of links to experimental methods. LyrlTalk C —Preceding comment was added at 00:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Appearance, etc changes of 10 July 08[edit]

The appearance overhaul given to the template in this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Birth_control_methods&oldid=224800422 makes the template harder to use and look busier. I think it would be better to go back to the old appearance, what do other editors think.

  • The nowrap and the fixed width for the mid-level group titles mean that it doesn't adjust as well to large fonts/smaller devices.
  • Forced wrap headings means doesn't adjust as well to small fonts/large displays.
  • Making the explanatory text part of the links makes less visual variety (harder to see where link begins/ends, and less clear what the actual article titles are.
  • In Internet Explorer it looks messy (the mid-level group title boxes each have different width when using larger fonts in IE 6.)

Some of these issues can be fixed, but I would favor just going back to the older, more compatible style. What do other editors think?

A side issue:

  • Why was Ormeloxifene put in the hormonal group? The article says it is not hormonal. One of them needs to be fixed, but I am not that familiar with it, so I don't know which one is right. Zodon (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Ormeloxifene is not a hormone or hormone imitator. But it acts on the hormone receptors. So I can see an argument both ways. Just because it's such an uncommon method, I'd prefer to leave it in the hormonal group (as one of many methods) rather than have it stand out on its own.
I've removed the nowrap template and changed the link text back to close to the article titles (agree with those suggestions, obviously). I don't know what forced wrap headings are, so can't comment on that one.
I think the coded subheadings are easier to read than the italics used in the previous version. I've changed it so all the groups have subgroups to see if this more uniform appearance helps with the "busy" complaint.
I've also rearranged the barrier methods so that the sponge is included in the "barrier" group. I'd like to preserve this change if we go back to the italics instead of coded subheaders, if others approve. LyrlTalk C 03:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
What I meant about the headings is that things like "Avoiding vaginal intercourse" has a break forced in it, so even if you view it at small text sizes or on a large screen, that header will take 2 lines (even though the text after it only takes one).
Adding more headers just makes the business worse - the more extra stuff you have to sort through to get to the actual articles, the busier it is. (Simpler = Fewer levels of header, less extra text, fewer graphical embellishments.)
I think going to all groups having subheadings makes things even worse (more excess words, more organization getting in the way of content).
The navigation template is supposed to help find related topics, it is getting more complicated when add in recommended combinations/etc.
As far as the spermicide section, one problem with the template before was that spermicide as a method was easily overlooked. For all the others the actual methods were in the white part, and any links in the headers were to navigational or ancillary material. Now it looks even more like spermicide is not a method of its own, but only an ad-on. For navigational clarity we should get spermicide listed over in the white part. (e.g. see below, but I haven't worked out how to do it in this double heading style.)
Also splitting the condoms out from the other barrier methods may make it too much like the spermicides are not recommended with condoms. At least in theory spermicides improve the effectiveness of the condom considerably. I think this layout makes too much of a distinction. Though spermicide may not be as de-reguire with condoms as it is with cap/diaphragm, there are still plenty of places that recommend it.
If ormeloxifene isn't a hormonal contraceptive, (or if it is debatable), then it is confusing to list it as hormonal. Could change the overall group to chemical (which would take in spermicide as well, although I agree that spermicide makes sense grouped with the barrier methods, since it is frequently used with such methods).
I did a revision of the old style to try to address some of the issues mentioned and bring it up similar to the current new style. See this revision.[1]
I grouped barrier and spermicides in one category (since they are frequently used together), used wrap control so that sterilization can all go on one line, but will split appropriately for smaller screens. Bolded the subheadings in the text (to try to address the ease of readability vs. the italic). Separated EPC from abortion (see below). For the moment I reverted it, but would prefer to move back towards fewer levels of headers & shorter headings.
Another issue which I had meant to wait to bring up, but gets even stickier to deal with if going to double-headings is the combination of abortion and emergency contraception. I don't think they should be in the same top level grouping. They do not share mechanism. They are not similar in level of invasiveness (EPC should go between hormonal and IUD, since those are the methods used). There is potential for confusion especially between medical abortion and hormonal EPC. Since abortion is a controversial topic, and EPC is still fairly new and may be subject to misunderstandings, it behooves us to try to keep things as clear as possible. Not that we can't do the split with multiple level headings, but as with ormeloxifene it may make it more difficult when there isn't a lot else to say in categorizing the method. Zodon (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
That all makes sense; seeing it and reading your comments I do like your version better. Thanks for working out the coding changes and explaining. LyrlTalk C 13:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Hopefully the present version meets the spirit of the above as well as a wish for the template to be easier on the eye. Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Better than former, but still has some problems.
Could you explain what you are trying to achieve - what makes this seem "easier on the eyes"? (e.g. Smaller fonts seem harder on the eyes, for older eyes.) It is a bit difficult to know how to adapt things without having specifics of what desiderata people are using.
This still has the problem of not working well with smaller screens or larger fonts. (Specifically the long second level headings under Barrier methods mean one has to scroll horizontally to get to the important part of the template). Moving those subheadings to be above rather than beside the subsequent text might help. Or would making the subheadings blue background and inline work?
The matter of more closely linking Tubal ligation and Essure (by means of a /) seems a bit questionable, are they really that similar? (Norplant/Jadelle are both covered in the same article, one is a newer formulation/packaging of the same product.)
There are also the problems of ordering, what advantage is there to putting comparison of methods at the end of the template?
What order did you put the sections in? (i.e. why moved Hormonal and post-intercourse)? Zodon (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hormonal appears to have been moved so that the sections with sub-headers would both be near the top. I'm not particularly attached to the current ordering scheme, but I think it makes more sense to order based on characteristics of the methods than on number of subtypes. Without a response from Sardanaphalus, I've reverted to the last version by Zodon. LyrlTalk C 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry not to've kept a closer eye on this page. The idea behind the smaller font was to ensure the linked text took precedence. I think I tried placing the comparison group at the end along the lines of "facts/data first, comparison between them second". If nothing else, then, as the template presently stands, I'd suggest removing the colons from the groupnames (the difference in background renders them unnecessary) and restore the use of subgroups for subheadings (i.e. "Avoiding/Including vaginal intercourse", etc, again without colons). Yes, merely cosmetic. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If a person is looking for a specific type of method (hormonal, barrier, etc.) that should be an easy and quick find. If a reader is looking at all methods, the formatting makes it easy to skim through them. However, the comparisons article is probably not something readers are looking for. As such, I believe this box is a better navigation tool with the comparisons article at the top, letting readers know it exists, instead of on the bottom where it is likely to be overlooked.
Using the subgroups with the current ordering makes the groups with subgroups really stand out, which I think will have the effect of making the other groups more difficult to skim. Putting the groups with subgroups at the top of the box fixes that problem, but breaks the ordering. The subgroups also make the template physically larger, without adding additional navigability.
The colons I have no opinion on. I hope this helps explain why Zodon and I have made recent changes to the template. LyrlTalk C 22:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Order of methods[edit]

The sections are currently (July 2008) [2] ordered by degree of invasiveness/complexity/reversibility: see David's comment here and edit summary control methods&diff=125685335&oldid=125672311 here, and a discussion on (mostly) ordering at Template talk:BirthControl/Archive1#Behavioral vs. Physical. LyrlTalk C 18:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There are also a few observations about order of Comparison of methods and Emergency contraception in #Appearance, etc changes of 10 July 08.

Thought this explanation of the order of the sections in the template might be useful to have here, so I copied it and added a small update. Zodon (talk) 10:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of this template[edit]

I have wondered how many readers actually find this template useful, or if slapping navigation boxes on every article is just a fad among editors. I've been looking at a few articles in User:Henrik's traffic statistic tool to try to get a feel for how this template is used.

On 4 July, the link to "rhythm method" was changed to link to "calendar-based methods". In June, "rhythm method" got 600-900 hits per day while "calendar-based methods" got 70-130 hits per day. After July 4th, "calendar-based methods" got 150-250 hits per day, while "rhythm method" got 400-700 hits per day. It appears that 100-200 readers per day are using this template to navigate.

Also on 4 July, the link to "Lea's Shield" was removed, and a note added that that method was covered in the "cervical cap" article. Hits to "cervical cap" did not change. But hits to "Lea's Shield", which had been running 100-170 per day in June, dropped to 10-90 per day after 4 July. Again, this points to at least 100 readers per day navigating with this template.

I thought other editors might be interested in this data on how readers use this template. LyrlTalk C 22:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Dicussion of discontinued methods[edit]

A discussion of how or whether to include discontinued methods at Comparison of birth control methods is here. Please feel free to join in. Whatever404 (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding extended cycle?[edit]

What about adding Extended cycle combined hormonal contraceptive to the template (putting it under Combined hormonal methods, shorten the name to extended cycle. Granted it is really just a different way of using existing methods (pill, ring, etc.), but there are some products packaged specifically for extended cycle use. However emergency contraception is similarly just another application of existing hormonal methods (if don't have a special purpose pill, can use a set number of regular pills).

In view of the increasing recognition of the advantages of extended cycle usage, might be worth including it here. Thoughts? Zodon (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding LARC to comparison line[edit]

Long acting reversible contraceptive options being pushed in UK (well, the giving of advice about them is). Should a link to this be added, the most obvious place would seem to be in the "Comparison" row ? David Ruben Talk 18:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. LyrlTalk C 20:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comma versus middot[edit]

Is there a reason why commas are used in this template instead of using {{·}}? I like the look of the middot better, but didn't want to just change things when this template has used commas for so long. LyrlTalk C 23:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ordering items within Behavioral - avoiding sex[edit]

Lyrl changed the ordering of the items in the Behavioral - Avoiding vaginal intercourse section[3] to more closely correspond to the general ordering principle of the template, which has been "by degree of invasiveness/complexity/reversibility" In this context, invasive appears to be used in the medical sense (Invasive (medical)) (For discussion/explanation of the ordering, see [4] and Template_talk:BirthControl/Archive1#Behavioral_vs._Physical ) This seemed to me a reasonable change, consistent with the current ordering of the sections.

Whatever404 has reverted the change, the edit summary comments appear to be suggesting that the methods should be ordered by how much they interfere with sex life [5]. This is a very different ranking from the one that has been used. (Putting the most interfering method last is almost exactly opposite of the current ordering, for instance, IUD and sterilization are among the least interfering methods.)

Using contrary orderings for the main sections and the subsections does not make sense to me. How do these orderings make sense together, or if think time for a new order, please make it clearer what overall order is being suggested. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I thought I had already replied (guess I forgot to save). Basically, I don't consider this ordering contrary. Reasoning: the invasiveness of surgery increases with the amount of invasion into a body cavity or incision. With increased invasiveness, generally, comes increased pain, discomfort, scarring, risk of infection, and other unpleasant or inconvenient things. Whereas with penile-vaginal intercourse, uninhibited penetration of a body cavity is, itself, the goal, and, under ideal circumstances, it produces the opposite effect of penetration associated with surgery: this type of "invasiveness" is pleasurable. The two types of "penetration" involved are not comparable: one is desired, one is avoided. Therefore it does not make sense to order the behavioral methods according to how "invasive" they are in a medical sense. It makes sense to order them in terms of which is most like penile-vaginal intercourse, to which is least. Whatever404 (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
1) If ordering the behavioral subsection by level of interference with sex (with most interference last), why have the methods that include vaginal intercourse ordered after those that don't? Seems like should be the reverse. Methods including vaginal intercourse should come first, within which LAM (which allows unrestricted sex) would come first, then withdrawal, then fertility awareness/calendar based methods (which require part time abstinence or use of alternative methods).
2) In general the more invasive (in the medical sense) the method is, the less interference with sex (more like uninhibited penile-vaginal intercourse). (e.g., Behavioral methods generally interfere more than barrier methods, which interfere more than IUD, abortion or sterilization). So if one is going to use the two different scales to rank things it would make sense to either reorder the "by medical invasiveness" items so that it goes from most medically invasive to least (i.e. least interference with sex to most; reversing the current order of major sections), or within the behavioral section to go from most interference with sex to least. (So that it would better match the level of interference with sex exhibited in the major sections.) Zodon (talk) 18:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I prefer the medical-sense ordering because it is relatively objective. Ordering by desired pleasure characteristics is highly subjective and will vary widely from person to person: I doubt that even a simple majority would list anal sex as their second-most-favorite sexual act after vaginal intercourse. LyrlTalk C 01:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

History section[edit]

I've added a History section to the template so that articles on birth control history are more accessible. Please let me know if this is inappropriate. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Template with the history section.
  1. So far this template has focused on currently available methods. (See elsewhere on the talk page for various other articles that are not included.)
  2. This template doesn't even include all the articles on currently available contraceptives (e.g. the various brands of condom).
  3. This template is pretty big already.
For these reasons I don't think the history section should be on this template.
However, there are a number of articles on contraceptives and contraception which are not covered in this template, or in {{Condom}}. Perhaps another navigation template is in order?

Edit request from, 9 March 2011[edit]

Please make this edit to this template. This will expand the bottom navigation to fill the width of the bottom of the navbox, and remove the spurious background coloring which is showing through near the edges. Thank you. (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Complete. Frietjes (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Scope of entries[edit]

I added Hysterectomy and Castration to the Sterilization group, but the addition was reverted on the grounds that they are "Not meant as contraceptive". I don't dispute the fact that birth-control is a side-effect of hysterectomy and castration, but following the same logic should we remove masturbation, since it is not "meant as a contraceptive" either? (I was going to suggest replacing it with mutual masturbation, but that redirects to the already-listed non-penetrative sex.) Mitch Ames (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)