Template talk:Abortion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. For more information, visit the project page.
Template This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User talk pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.

Contents

[edit] Addition of Links

Two non-substantive additions have been made. Demographics and Social Security. Neutralaccounting 01:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feticide

Why is feticide listed as a "Chemical Abortion"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.117.145.72 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 31 October 2006.

It isn't, anymore. I just fixed that by moving it to category "Other". Joie de Vivre 14:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
It was originally listed as a form of medical ("chemical") abortion because, in the "Surgical abortion" sub-section of Abortion, the term is used to describe "an injection to stop the fetal heart" in four sources. However, until the article feticide is updated to reflect these sources, feticide probably shouldn't be listed as a medical abortion.
Also, good template reformatting, Joie de Vivre. -Severa (!!!) 23:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Why, thank you, Severa! I am new to template editing, so your support is especially appreciated. Joie de Vivre 19:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion by Country

People looking for information about abortion in a particular country would find it very handy to have a link to the page Abortion by country somewhere in this template. The link is in the "See also" section of the article. but needless to say that section is tucked between the references and the main body of the article, and is difficult to find. This template does have a link to "Abortion by country" but it is oddly listed under the "Law" heading, and if someone does click on it then they will be confused that countries are not listed.

If a person is looking for the Canada article on abortion, for example, it is not listed. If they click on “Abortion in the Americas”, then the Canada country article still is not listed. This is bound to be very frustrating.

Therefore, I suggest to replace the link at “Abortion by country” with the list of articles about abortion by country. Thus, Wikepedia users will be able to speedily find the article about abortion in Canada or any other country. If they desire further information about abortion by country, then they can click on the link at the bottom of the list of countries, titled “abortion by country.”

Additionally, the heading “law” is inappropriate regardless of where “abortion by country” links. The stuff under “abortion by country” is not limited to “Law.” Therefore, I suggest changing the “law” heading to “Nations and Laws.” Ferrylodge

Well, it looks like Severa beat me to it, and changed the link. It's much better now. I have also modified the heading.Ferrylodge 00:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Law and Society" Heading

The heading "Nations and Laws" was recently changed to "Law and Society." My main problem with this is that the link "abortion by country" is not about law at all. Moreover, we already have another heading that includes “Social Issues”, and so it’s unclear what the difference is between “Society” and “Social Issues.”

I would suggest changing the heading “Law and Society” to “Countries and Laws” while perhaps deleting the link to “abortion by country.” —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrylodge (talk • contribs) 03:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

"Society" refers to people collectively whereas a "social issue" refers to a specific topic which people might debate. "Society" is a simpler, broader alternative to "nations" or "countries," as articles in the "Abortion by country" series don't only discuss things on the national level, but also on the societal/cultural level, as in sections on the abortion debate, public opinion, or religion (for example, the "Judaism on abortion" sub-section of Abortion in Israel). -Severa (!!!) 12:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birth Control

Should there be a link to Birth Control somewhere in the template, since abortion is considered a form of birth control? MamaGeek (talk/contrib) 12:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Added "part of the birth control series" to the top of the template after the fashion of a number of other navigational templates I have seen on Wikipedia. This article series should probably be considered a subset of the birth control series. -Severa (!!!) 12:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
In my (limited) experience, abortion is only considered a form of "birth control" if it is elective, rather than therapeutic or spontaneous. I agree "birth control" should be linked somewhere in the template, but the template currently suggests that all abortions are used as a form of birth control, doesn't it?Ferrylodge 05:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. IMHO, it should go under "forms of abortion", "other". I'll do that unless there is an objection.Ferrylodge 05:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"Birth control" encompasses everything from barrier methods, IUDs, spermicides, hormonal contraceptives, sterilization, natural family planning, to abstinence. It doesn't make sense to categorize "birth control" as a form of abortion. Abortion is/can/may be a form of birth control, but birth control cannot be a form of abortion. -Severa (!!!) 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point, if we put "birth control" under "forms of abortion", "other", then it might imply that birth control is a specific technique of abortion. I suggest we instead put "birth control" under "social issues". "Sex-selective abortion" (for example) is already under "social issues", and sex-selective abortion can be performed in a wide variety of ways. Like sex-selective abortion, abortion for birth control involves the intentions of the person engaging in it. You do agree, don't you, that therapeutic and spontaneous abortions are not normally considered "birth control", right?Ferrylodge 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Induced abortion is objectively considered to be a form of birth control: it is listed as a method in the article Birth control and the article Abortion is included in Category:Birth control. "Birth control" is defined as being methods which are used to limit pregnancy and/or birth. Subjective considerations do not factor into this definition. -Severa (!!!) 16:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I still don’t think that a sufficient justification has been presented for asserting that abortion is generally a type of birth control. Only elective abortion is used as birth control.
Even if other Wikipedia articles supported the assertion that abortion is generally a type of birth control, cross-referencing other Wikipedia articles is not adequate sourcing, IMHO. Subjective considerations do not factor into this. Wikipedia’s birth control article does list “induced abortion” as one type of birth control, but there is no implication at the birth control article that induced abortion, for purposes of birth control, includes either spontaneous abortions or therapeutic abortions.
Normally, birth control is primarily defined as contraceptive in nature.[1] [2] When people say that abortion is being used as birth control, they’re normally saying that it is being used in place of adequate contraception.
According to the National Abortion Federation, it is a myth that “Women are using abortion as a method of birth control”. [3]
According to the pro-choice Guttmacher Report on Public Policy: “Rather than using abortion as a method of birth control, then, as opponents of family planning proclaim, virtually all sexually active women are trying to prevent an unintended pregnancy.”[4]
Over 80% of the public oppose using abortion as a method of birth control. [5]
There is still not a consensus for adding “birth control” to the template. I have no objection if it is added like this. However, inserting it at the top, as an assertion that abortion is generally a form of birth control, is not accurate, IMHO.Ferrylodge 18:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Since no one objected to the sources I cited, I went ahead and reinserted birth control, but not at the top of the page where it implied that all abortions are for birth control. I described above why it's not appropriate to put this link at the top of template. No one objected to that reasoning.
But, of course, Severa has reverted, with this edit summary: "You said I'd had support for my change, and yet you have no support for yours. Why is for you to go ahead but not me? Absence of response is not an invitation to go ahead." I find this edit summary difficult to understand. Severa, when did I say that you "had support" for your change? More generally, do you have any disagreement with what I said in my previous comment, or are you reverting for some other reason that you have not as yet described?Ferrylodge 06:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) Edit summaries are character limited and can't be changed so it's easy to make typos. It should have read "You said I'd had no support for my change" and "Why is it okay for you to go ahead but not me?" Basically, I'm in agreement with Andrew c: you can't revert other people's edits, demanding that they be "discussed" first, but let your own edits pass without discussion or approval. Fair is fair. Wikipedia does not operate on a double standards. -Severa (!!!) 07:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Severa, when did I ever refuse to discuss something that you wanted to discuss? When did I ever object to an edit while refusing to even address the arguments in favor of the edit? The answer is very simple: never. You are violating the most basic principles of Wikipedia by reverting edits while refusing to address the arguments in favor of those edits.
What edits have I ever made to this template that passed "without discussion or approval"? And even if I did make such edits, how could I possibly control whether some of them "pass without discussion or approval"? Why not try to explain why you disagree with the arguments presented above? It really doesn't impress me that you consistently agree with Andrew C. about everything. That is not an argument, and it is not an explanation.Ferrylodge 08:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. And why is it always "edit warring" when I revert you, but it's never "edit warring" when you revert me?Ferrylodge 09:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
In a earliar post, you stated, "There is still not a consensus for adding “birth control” to [the top of] the template." However, there is still no consensus for adding a link to the article Birth control anywhere else in the template, but you went ahead and made such a change. You are not above being subject to your own standards, so, if there is no consensus to support your suggestion, then it is not acceptable to just go ahead forward with the change anyway. Forcing your change a second time was uncooperative, it flew in the face of your request for discussion, so, yes, you were edit-warring. You'll also note that I reverted to a version of the template without any mention of birth control. If I'd reverted to the "Part of the birth control series" version, then, yes, I'd have been edit-warring, because I would have been trying to ensure that my version came out on top, but by reverting you I was simply sending us back to the drawing board and ensuring that your edits are subject to the same standard of consensus (WP:CON) as mine. After all, fair is fair.
Actually, I don't care either way whether Birth control is linked in the template, I just don't believe it is appropriate for it to be linked in the "Social issues" section. The connection between between abortion and birth control, as a social issue, is tangential at best. You might as well link to Social Security as being an issue in the abortion debate, because one editor above suggested that abortion has had a negative impact on Social Security, or to link to Patriarchy, because it has been said that opposition to abortion often stems from a patriarchal mindset.
I once objected to the inclusion of the article Abortion in Category:Birth control, because I understood "birth control" to be strictly a synonym of "contraception", and, thus, the suggestion that abortion was a form of birth control (that is, contraception) was inaccurate and played into the hands of the individuals that argued "abortion should not be used as birth control" (see Talk:Abortion, Archive 21). I took the fact that both Goodandevil and Alienus, editors on completely opposite sides of the abortion fence, disagreed to be an indication that I had been incorrect. Abortion is objectively considered to be a form of birth control, if "birth control" is defined as efforts to limit both pregnancy and birth, as it is at Birth control. It doesn't make sense for one article to adhere to one definition, and another to a different one; Wikipedia should strive towards consistency. When people suggest that abortion should not be used as birth control, what they really are saying is that is that they think it shouldn't be about convenience, or used as a quick fix. -Severa (!!!) 10:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate that you decided to explain your reversion. While I disagree with you, I now have some idea as to your reasoning.Ferrylodge 16:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict]Ok, reviewing the edit history. Feb 22nd, Severa added "Part of the birth control series" line. That stood for basically a week. Then on the 27th, Ferryodge came to talk and made a case to move the BC link. 9 hours later, Severa responded making a case for not moving the link and 2 and a half hours later Ferrylodge responded with a new proposal to move. Everyone seems to be getting along and acting civily. Good work everyone so far. Roughly 20 hours after Ferrylodge's last post, and with no replies in support or opposition to the last change, Ferrylodge edits the article to impliment the proposal. An hour later it is reverted to Severa. Half an hour, Ferrylodge reverts (in a sloppy manner that erases some neutral edits, but no big deal there) back before BC was even in the template (this was a good move because neither side had support for their edits). Severa replies on talk. Still everything looking fine. An hour and a half after Severa's last reply on talk, Ferrylodge replies. 12 hours go by with no reply, so Ferrylodge insterts the BC link back into the article, which gets reverted 5 minutes later. 18 minutes, and Ferrylodge reverts back, an hour later, Severa reverts where the article has since stood. The talk page discussion falls apart. Both parties get off topic and start attacking each others editing behavior.
It seems like Ferrylodge is operating under 'silent consensus'. If no one responds to him, it must be assumed that he has support for his changes. However, on two occassions, he only waited 12 hours from mentioning something on talk to making the change. People sleep, people live in different time zones, people work, and people are not always in front of a computer. If you are in a content dispute you should be more patient, give editors more time to respond, and simply DON'T edit the article in a controversial way while the dispute is ongoing. This means, wait for everyone to agree on the change. Everyone must work together. If two people can't agree on something, get a RfC or 3rdO, or go to a high profile, topical article and ask for editors to throw in their 2 cents. You two were working well together in the beginning. Ferrylodge just jumped the gun (which in itself isn't a big deal). I guess both parties got defensive and impatient and were revert happy. I suggest neither party edit the article in regards to the BC link until we all agree on something here on talk. If it takes 2 weeks, so be it. Our reader will have to live without the link for the time being.
All that said, I agree with both sides, but I'm leaning towards Ferrylodge. The issue on whether abortion is a form of birth control has been debated in the social realm. On top of that, spontaneous abortion isn't really BC, and non-elective abortion may also be seen as not BC. On the other hand, a link to the BC article in the "debate & social issues" section isn't helpful because the article doesn't discuss this debate or social issue. It has a fairly bland quick summary. So the article "Birth Control" isn't part of the "abortion series". And also, in common language, "abortion" refers to the induced procedure, not miscarriges. So as you can see I am torn and can't help settle this. So I will for the time being support a version that does not include the BC link at all.-Andrew c 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I don't have a preference either way regarding inclusion or exclusion, I only think that a link doesn't belong under "Social issues," and that this probably isn't a matter worth devoting a stubstantial amount of discussion. MamaGeek's suggestion was a good one and I thought I'd have a go at trying to implement it somehow. I hoped that making abortion-related articles a subset of the birth control article series would create an association that might draw more of the people who edit articles related to birth control to help build the articles related to abortion. There's certainly a precedent for these kinds of connections: see Template:TortLaw, "Tort Law: Part of the common law series," or Template:Sexual orientation, "Sexual orientation: Part of sexology." Other associations for abortion could be Gynecology, Obstetrics, Pregnancy, Medicine, Ethics, or even Sexology (a quote from the article, "Sexology also touches on public issues such as the debates over abortion..."). -Severa (!!!) 18:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Generally speaking, this is not a big deal. Also generally speaking, I think it is bad practice to revert an edit before the reverter is ready to explain the reason for reverting. If a reverter reverts before being able to defend the reversion, it (1) gives the impression that the reverter is not interested in anything that has been said in defense of the edit, and (2) does not give the reverter an opportunity to consider the matter thoroughly. IMHO. Perhaps there is a Wikipedia policy on this somewhere, but it seems like common sense.Ferrylodge 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Rarely performed"

I removed the "Surgical - rarely performed" sub-heading as space is limited now that there are columns under the "Forms of abortion" heading. From a review of other navigation templates, such as the ones featured in the articles Homosexuality and Jesus, it is apparent to me that navboxes are limited to linking together similarily-themed articles — more detailed infomation on the linked subjects can be found in the articles. We could list the surgical abortion methods in descending order from most common to least common as an alternative. -Severa (!!!) 18:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes by Severa

You did a great job on the formatting, I found the two-column approach interesting. However, in implementing it, I think some important info was lost and some dubious info was added. I reverted some of the changes; here's what I see:

  • I think it's important to point out that Suction-aspiration abortion and D&E make up the vast majority of abortion procedures in the world. Without pointing that out, it's not clear that the other forms are very rare. When you created two columns, that info was removed. Now, when compared to the number of abortions performed in the first trimester, abortions in the second and third trimesters are performed very infrequently. I realize that suction-aspiration abortion and dilation and evacuation are listed first as of now, but in the future, someone might decide to alphabetize the types of abortion, and the distinction would be lost. If not this way, let's find a way to preserve the distinction.
  • There is no mention of Abortifacients in the Medical abortion article, so the former should not be listed under the latter.

If I missed any other changes, please let me know. I also added misoprostol to the Medical abortion section, and created a "circumstances" section for "feticide" and "selective reduction" as these aren't really "forms" of abortion. Looking forward to your feedback! Joie de Vivre 18:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at the other templates listed in my post above, like the ones on Homosexuality and Jesus, and see how they do not attempt to convey detailed information about the subjects that are linked. Navigation boxes are for linking together articles; detailed information belongs in an article. While it's one thing to arrange the types of abortion into surgical, medical, and other, that is done to give the template structure and order. Trying to have so much information conveyed by the template is overwhelming. It's the same story as at Image:AbortionLawsMap.png, where a couple of times U.S. or Australian states have been added, but were removed because trying to convey that level of information in a map is too overwhelming visually. When I was originally toying with the two-column system, I tried having rarity of an abortion method noted with an asterisk, as in, "D&X*", and at the bottom of the second column there was "*Rare" — so that's what I've readded to the template. I also added a text warning to the code asking that people not rearrange the surgical abortion methods alphabetically.
The inclusion of Abortifacient is based upon Template:BirthControl, where it is linked as "Herbal/Drug," so I have relinked to it in the template under that title. The definition provided in the opening of Medical abortion is as such: "A medical abortion is a type of non-surgical abortion in which a drug is used to induce the abortion." Thus, it makes sense to link to herbal/drug-induced abortions under "Medical," rather than "Surgical."
I removed the link to Feticide as the article now deals primarily with the criminal act of injury caused to a fetus as a result of an attack against a pregnant woman, and not a method of abortion, as it once did. As for the "Other" heading, I know it is an awkward catch-all, but, basically, it was intended as a place into which to sort forms of abortion that were not specific methods but rather broad categories which could include more than one method (i.e. selective reduction, late-term abortion, self-induced abortion).
Also, your reversion removed the important distinction between induced abortions and spontaneous abortions, which was added as a result of discussion above. Hope my reversion and changes manage to address some of the concerns you've raised. -Severa (!!!) 01:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Just glancing over the feticide article, it seems to have as much material about abortion as it ever did, which suggests that feticide should be restored to the template. Alternatively, the template could be removed from the feticide page, but I think the better solution would be to restore feticide to the template.Ferrylodge 06:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
According to the Feticide article, "feticide," as a term, can apply to basically any action which results in the death of a fetus, from physically assaulting a pregnant woman to an induced abortion. At least Selective reduction and Self-induced abortion are, in some way, limited in definition, the former refering to an abortion intended to reduce the number of fetuses in a multiple pregnancy, the latter to an abortion induced by oneself. Feticide, on ther other hand, refers to no particular method of abortion, and, moreover, does not even specifically refer to just induced abortions. I think it's too broad a term to be useful in a template about abortion. -Severa (!!!) 03:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Severa, I am not aware that you have made any of these arguments previously. I would appreciate if you would please explain yourself when you revert, rather than many hours later. If you do not have time to explain, then why not postpone the reversion? Especially considering that the feticide link has been in the abortion template for many months.
As to your new arguments, you say that the term "feticide" can apply to basically any action which results in the death of a fetus, and does not even specifically refer to just induced abortions. You say it's too broad a term to be useful in a template about abortion.
The link to feticide has been in the abortion template for more than five months. I disagree with its removal. Feticide typically refers to an induced abortion after the embryonic stage. None of the other links in the abortion template make this particular temporal distinction. You do not have consensus.Ferrylodge 07:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I've invited MamaGeek to participate in this discussion. Another source of input in this debate will certainly help all us to work together to find a solution, because, at this point, everyone is just working against each other. -Severa (!!!) 15:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
And in the mean time, you're going to just ignore the fact that you don't have consensus to remove "feticide" from the template, where it resided for many months?Ferrylodge 19:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Feticide is not a form of induced abortion, so it doesn't belong there on the template. The term itself has many meaning: a legal term to refer to an abortion or caused death of a fetus without the mothers permission, or a medical term synonymous with abortion (or the process sometimes used in a late-term abortion to kill a fetus before the procedure). The article itself is only slightly larger than a stub and doesn't give much information on the topic related to abortion (focusing mainly on the legal aspect). So the one paragraph related to abortion I personally do not believe is notable enough to include a link on the template. Think of all the articles on wikipedia that have one paragraph on abortion. Why does feticide deserve a link anymore than those? I support removing the link, but would not oppose it being restored to the 'law and society' section if a majority arises to restore the link.-Andrew c 01:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The vast majority of dictionaries explicitly define "feticide" in terms of a "fetus". Very few mention anything about an embryo. That goes for medical dictionaries as well as other dictionaries. So, feticide, is mainly about a very specific type of induced abortion.
I do not view this issue as hugely important, though I continue to believe that "feticide" should not be removed from the template. What I do view as hugely important is the way reversions were made here without explanation. It creates bad vibes all around, just as in the past.Ferrylodge 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Server strain

Can we try to avoid ping-ponging between versions of this template? Every time you make an edit to this template, it has to update the template across every single page it is featured on, which amounts to a lot of server strain, especially if you're making several edits consecutively. I'd hate for this template to end up protected like Template:LGBT, but, maybe that's what the situation calls for, because everyone is essentially working against each other and there's really no sense of cooperation at the moment (also, protection might be a good preventative measure, as I'd imagine this is a high-risk template). I've tried to accommodate as many concerns as I reasonably can, but, in terms of the two-column arrangement, I'm putting my foot down, because it's a lot neater and more streamlined than the previous version. -Severa (!!!) 22:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the two-column format is fine. However, I would appreciate if "feticide" would be reinserted into the template where it had been for quite a while. I reinserted it today, but that has been reverted (without explanation). The feticide article has as much info about abortion now as it ever did, plus more has been added today.Ferrylodge 23:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rearranging

No reason to have something like "paternal rights" in one section and "fetal rights" in another.

The section on "Law and Society" can be moved to the top. It is probably of more interest than technical details about the various different forms of abortion.Ferrylodge 16:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with these decisions and have reverted them. What abortion is is more central than how people feel about it. Joie de Vivre 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Joie, you haven't given any explanation why "paternal rights" should be in a different section from "reproductive rights", or why "fetal rights" should be deleted from the template. Is it because you don't personally believe in fetal rights?
You have made a lot of changes in the template today. I'd like to put "abortion by country" near the top. "Abortion by country" is not just about law. For example, the table of contents for abortion in the united states includes lengthy sections on statistics and public opinion. Moreover, abortion by country will be of interest to many people, and that is another reason to make the link more prominent in the template. Putting the abortion by country link near the top is a small thing, and it should not be controversial.
Also, please see the comment here that the list of articles by country should be made into a template for easy searching. I don’t think another template is necessary, because the searching would be easier if the link to abortion by country is placed near the top of the existing template.Ferrylodge 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Server strain and explaining reverts

Just out of curiosity, I wonder if Severa would be kind enough to explain where the notion about Wikipedia "server strain" comes from. Is there some Wikipedia policy or guideline that warns about causing server strain? Does editing the abortion template really threaten to incapacitate the Wikipedia servers?

And since Sereva has again reverted my edits without the slightest explanation, would she please explain why "fetal rights" and "paternal rights" and "reproductive rights" should not be grouped together in the same section? I know that explaining yourself is a drag, but really it would be appropriate for you to explain your reversions instead of behaving as you do. Over and over again I have asked Severa to explain her reverts, but to no avail.

The only other change to the template that I requested was putting "Abortion by Country" at the top. Another editor agrees with me that the list of articles by country should be made more accessible. Placing the link near the top of the template would accomplish that. Ferrylodge 04:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please try to keep WP:COOL and WP:CIVIL in mind. I already explained my rational for reverting in my edit summary. I have repeatedly requested that editors refrain from making back-and-forth changes to this template and engage in discussion instead. Ping-pong editing is not cooperative, as all editors involved are essentially working against each other, and thus it isn't productive. It wasn't my intent to comment, only to attempt to mediate the dispute between yourself and Joie de Vivre, by redirecting you both to Talk. Please keep proposals to the "drawing board" here on Talk by discussing changes and reaching a consensus before making changes. I've already explained server strain above — but, basically, this template is copied to a large number of pages across Wikipedia, and each time you make a change to the template, that change must be carried out across all of those of pages, causing server strain, especially if the template is changed a number of times consecutively.
The user on Talk:List of articles about abortion by country was in fact proposing the creation of a separate "Abortion by country" template, like the European one featured in Abortion in Finland, so you cannot infer support for your suggestion from that post.
The grouping of articles under the "Law" heading is based off of Template:AbortionLaw. There are several kinds of legislation, including conscience clauses, parental involvement, spousal notification, "buffer zones," etc. As adding Fetal rights to the "Law" heading harmonizes this template's organization with that of Template:AbortionLaw, this change is acceptable, but I do not see a basis for adding Reproductive rights to the "Law" heading, as the article discusses mainly a philosophic concept, and not laws. "Social issues" is basically a catch-all for everything that wouldn't fit in the template otherwise.
Anyway, there is no consensus for the other suggestions. Please build consensus in support of these proposals before making those changes to the template again. Thank you. -Severa (!!!) 08:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and to answer your question, WP:HRT is the policy which pertains to minimizing edits to high-use templates in order to cut down on server load (see the new thread "HRT" below). -Severa (!!!) 17:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Severa, the edit summary for your revert was as follows: "Layout looks awful and isn't logical. Self-induced isn't a circumstance. Take it to Talk and keep it there until you reach agreement. Editwars on templates are counterproductive + cause server strain."
Where did your edit summary give any reason for splitting fetal rights, reproductive rights, and paternal rights into separate sections, as dictated by your revert? Where did your edit summary give any reason for moving "abortion by country" downward in the template, as dictated by your revert? Why are you forcing me to beg for an explanation every time you revert? Over and over again I have had to ask you to explain your reverts.
Moreover, the explanation that you have finally given is extremely unpersuasive. The abortion law template currently has a link to Paternal rights and abortion. Yet, you revert my edit that places “paternal rights” in the abortion law section (where "reproductive rights" is already located).
Are you simply going to revert every edit I make to this template without explanation (forcing me to beg for an explanation), and then respond with an explanation that actually argues for my edit instead of against it?Ferrylodge 22:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swiss army knife?

I think this template's main failing is that it is trying to serve too many functions at once. Perhaps it would be best to break it into more specific, individual templates, such as Template:AbortionMethods, Template:AbortionLaw, and Template:AbortionDebate. This template could then link to the main articles in the abortion series — Abortion, Abortion debate, Abortion law, and History of abortion — while the specialized templates could link to all of the relevant sub-articles. This would immediately resolve the recurrent issue of which articles are linked to from this template and in what order or arrangement they are listed. -Severa (!!!) 08:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the idea of categorization, I don't think it's a good idea to fragment the template. This template is a fantastic navigational tool for people who wish to learn about basically any aspect of abortion. I don't want it to be split. Joie de Vivre 15:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

1) "Methods of abortion" is per Category:Methods of abortion. This category lists medically available abortion methods. It does not make sense to put "self-induced abortion" i.e. "shoving a coat hanger through the hole in the cervix" in this category, nor does it make sense to put "abortifacients" i.e. "toxic substances" in this category, any more than it would make sense to put "falling down the stairs" in this category. Created a "Related" section at bottom since "Circumstances" seems to irk and "Social issues" doesn't fit Miscarriage.

2) A main reason that "History" is at the top is that it is a top-level category with no subcategories, so putting it in its own grey bar would look odd. Also, it is a globally encompassing topic. "Abortion by country" should not be placed in the same area. It belongs in "Law", because countries are legal entities and the differences between how abortion is handled in different countries is a matter of law.

3) Agree with Severa re: placement of Fetal rights, Paternal rights. Joie de Vivre 16:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HRT

So I finally found the policy which pertains to this template: WP:HRT. The page clearly states that edits to high-use templates should be minimized in order to prevent server load:

"Template transclusion has a range of costs and benefits. One cost is that whenever a template is edited, that not only updates the template, but every page that transcludes the template. This means that the squid and parser cached versions of that page are invalidated, and each of the pages must be regenerated by the parser when they are next viewed. This involves significantly more resources than displaying the page from the cache. For example, if template A is transcluded in 100 articles, then editing A effectively changes all 100 articles (plus the template). A high-use template should be edited only if there is a clear need.
This presents a significant problem when templates are the subject of vandalism or reckless editing. Vandalism of high-risk templates can result in significant increases in the load on the servers."

Can we please stop the back-and-forth edits, Joie de Vivre and Ferrylodge, now that it is clear why such edits aren't helpful or productive? -Severa (!!!) 17:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Server load concerns

From Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance:
"When making some improvement to Wikipedia's content, such as editing a page, reorganising a category, or modifying a template, the impact on Wikipedia's servers is the last thing you should be worrying about. When the time comes that some common practice is having a negative impact on the servers' ability to provide access, the developers will step in. They worry about the servers' performance so we don't have to."
"Adopt common sense, of course. If it's plain something could cause drastic problems, hold fire and check. But don't go running around screaming "teh servers, teh servers!!!" as an excuse to not do stuff, that's stupid."
-- Joie de Vivre 18:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Joie, that's excellent info you found about server strain. Thanks for getting it.
However, I would appreciate if you would please respond to my questions above. Thanks.Ferrylodge 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Isn't it true that the table of contents for abortion in the united states includes lengthy sections on statistics and public opinion? That has nothing to do with "law". You have not addressed this question, and I would appreciate if you would, please. Also, people will often want to find info about abortion in the area where they live. Why not make that easier for them, instead of burying "abortion by country" deep in the template, after a mind-dumbing description of the various techniques of abortion?Ferrylodge 22:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for protection?

This template is still fully protected. Ferrylodge, could you briefly explain your concerns here? Let's discuss it in this new section so we can have a non-fragmented discussion. Ferrylodge, please be brief in your description, so we can resolve the issues and unprotect the page. Joie de Vivre 23:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Joie, I think that the link to "Abortion by Country" should be at or near the top. People want to get abortion info for the country where they live, and that would be easier with the "Abortion by country" link at the top. The info available via this "Abortion by country" link goes way beyond legal info, and also includes info about public opinion, and abortion statistics for each country.
I also think the links dealing with "rights" (i.e. reproductive rights, paternal rights, and fetal rights) should be grouped together, preferably under the "law" heading.
I'm glad that feticide is back in the template, and think it should remain in the template where it has been for a long time.
Additionally, since you want to get this template unblocked, you presumably have changes that you would like to make, and I'm curious what those are.Ferrylodge 23:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
In case you are wondering, I am waiting for Severa to get back... they had a lot to say on the topic. Joie de Vivre 16:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I am still wondering.Ferrylodge 23:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection reduced

... to semi-protection, per request on WP:RPP and seeing that it's been over a month. - Alison ☺ 19:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion by country again

I'd like to move "abortion by country" up to the top section, immediately below "history of abortion." This is because "abortion by country" is now in the section on abortion law, whereas the articles in "abortion by country" cover much more than merely abortion law (e.g. they cover statistics, public opinion, and various other aspects of abortion in each country).Ferrylodge 18:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)