Category talk:Human reproduction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Category This page has been rated as Category-Class on the quality assessment scale
NA This category has been rated as NA-importance on the importance assessment scale

[edit] Are all articles in this category appropriate?

I came here because of a recent edit adding Combined oral contraceptive pill to this category. This does not make sense to me - preventing reproduction is addressed in the Category:Birth control, this category should (in my mind) be limited to achieving reproduction. Looking over articles currently included, other stand out to me as not quite fitting. I propose removing from this category:

Not directly relevant to reproduction, except in articles, where it has probably already been identified as interference. The fact does not bear categorization.BrewJay (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Estrogen patch - used for treatment of symptoms associated with menopause.

Agreed. Not relevant to reproduction. Again, I don't see any point in distinguishing the goals of achieving and preventing reproduction with a category. Methods of both may disgust some readers. That can't be helped. It's a messy job. Still, there are many ways of putting funny loops in computerized trees.BrewJay (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Growth hormone treatment - used primarily in children, not (as far as I can tell) associated with reproduction at all.

That should be under category:endocrinology.BrewJay (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think menopause should be a category -- too specific. It relates to reproduction in the negative sense. If you think that it should only be under gynecology, then so be it. BrewJay (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Hysterectomy - not done for purposes of reproducing. Not done for birth control, either, see related discussion at end of section

It relates to reproductive organs, so it should be in gynecology, but I agree that the decision to do it doesn't pertain to contraception or reproduction.BrewJay (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:BirthControl/Archive1#Formatting.

Huh? Why not put them both in gynecology and reproduction/human.BrewJay (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Pregnancy should not be a category. If it must be, then pregnancy is a subcategory of reproduction. There's male and female reproduction articles according to some people, but I say it takes two to tango among humans.BrewJay (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yay. BrewJay (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Let it be.BrewJay (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Grays anatomy is a heavy book, and it only begins to tell you what organs do and how. In jeneral, if you can find a subcategory under anatomy where an article fits, then it doesn't need to be in the jeneral category of anatomy. IOW, "female reproductive system" should be in anatomy/human. BrewJay (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If there were only a few articles I thought inappropriate, I'd just discuss it on the article pages. But because there are so many, I'm proposing a centralized discussion here. I've put notices on the talk page of the articles in question pointing interested editors here. Lyrl Talk C 14:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There's a jeneral touchpoint at WP:CFD (categories for discussion) where you can reach people interested in categorization issues. I immensely like that you are raising cat issues on the talk pages of the categories, where you are likely to find people familiar with medicine. Hav you tried the catscan tool? I used to hav it among my favourites. BrewJay (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(The following copied from my talk page, referring to the COCP article):

Hi. I feel that those items pertain to human reproduction in the sense that things that impede or prevent human reproduction are as much about human reproduction as are things that promote it.QuizzicalBee 15:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
How about including Category:Birth control as a daughter category of this one, instead of including the COCP article directly? Lyrl Talk C 18:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the category is to list everything that pertains to human reproduction. All of these things do pertain to it, either in preventing it or facilitating it. We seem to have a disagreement as to the definition of the category. While some of these items already fit into other categories, like pregnancy or gynecology, there is no other category that includes all of these different issues, yet it is a matter of concern to anyone trying to get pregnant or having any problems with the reproductive system, and therefore it seems like a useful category.QuizzicalBee 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking more into how things were categorized before, and now realizing this is a brand-new category, I believe it is a definite improvement and thank QuizzicalBee for taking the time to do this sort of administrative work.
However, we do seem to have some disagreement. I thought the purpose of a category was to enable users to easily navigate between related topics. The approach QuizzicalBee has started, if taken to its (to me) logical conclusion, would list individually every single article currently in Category:Birth control, Category:Female reproductive system, Category:Male reproductive system, Category:Menstruation, Category:Pregnancy, and more. No rationale has so far been provided as to why these article should be listed individually (which will make a huge, difficult to navigate category) rather than making daughter categories (which still includes all the information, but can then be easily navigated).
Although how estrogen patches or growth hormone is even tangentially related to reproduction is something I'm not grasping.

Lyrl Talk C 21:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

To repeat myself, yay, they fit under category:endocrinology.BrewJay (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It makes sense to put the categories there instead of the items in the categories, plus any strays. I'll change it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QuizzicalBee (talk • contribs) 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] No. Absolutely not.

Contraception and reproduction are in the same category. They may be antonyms, but that's what makes them related. I see no reason to make a lot of niggling and overly specific categories, either. It makes a mess for anyone studying medicine to find two articles at the bottom of a tree. BrewJay (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)