Talk:Gravidity and parity/Archive 1

Nulliparity
The big question about that section is why is it even here. First, it is so far human only (whereas this article is about biology in general). Second it seems likely that it may duplicate other articles (e.g. childlessness). If it is to become a section, then it really needs balance. Silly to talk about small risks like breast cancer without talking about large risks, like maternal mortality. Zodon (talk) 07:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

humans only what???
...humans only... [insert next clause of sentence at this point].

As far as I know, it is quite possible for other animals to be nulliparous as well. None of my (neutered) female dogs never were pregnant, so it is quite possible for non-humans to also have never had a baby or other outcome of pregnancy to report.

childless ≠ nulliparous
Childlessness is quite distinct from nulliparous. Childlessness means you don't have a child. Men can be childless. It is nonsensical to talk about "nulliparous men". There are a lot of reasons for being childless: e.g. you gave the baby you just had (i.e. you are very much not nulliparous) away for adoption. So it is here because it fits in the context of a discussion of pregnancy outcomes. On the other hand, I don't know of any laws which prohibit birth because you are nulliparous. So a woman could have multiple children and still be nulliparous. Heck, even a guy can have children.

The only relationship is that nulliparity is one of the causes of childlessness, and many, if not most, nulliparous women don't have children.

Nulliparity - Why change to breast CA risk
Unclear why this edit removed material sourced to Robbins Basic Pathology. text, and replaced with similar material based on a meta analysis. Would have thought that Robbins was a better source, but not my area of expertise. Zodon (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What does Robbins Pathologic Basis of Disease cite as the evidence? You don't seriously expect a simple reference to a "basic" preclinical text (typically aimed at non-medical students/non-physicians) to serve when there's citation of the primary reference available, do you? Who do you really think deserves credit for discoveries in medicine--the people who make and have to defend the discovery or some 2nd tier summary? You would probably object to citing the Reader's Digest as an authority...right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.1.89 (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge
Due to the brief (ie, a simple textbook defination of these terms) nature of these articles, all of these should be combined into one Wikipedia article:

Parity Gravidity TPAL Gravida/para Gravida/para/abortus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.224.74 (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Parity (biology), Glossary of terms associated with gravidity (formerly Gravidity), TPAL (medicine), Gravida/para/abortus should be merged into one article.
 * 1) I suggest merging into Parity (biology) since it seems to have the longest history of the lot.
 * 2) Suggest the resulting article should be moved to Obstetric history, or something similar, which covers the range of terms involved without favoring any one more than another. It would also make the article title easier for the non-medical audience to identify the subject at a glance, while staying within the MEDMOS guidelines on article naming.  (As an article subject 'Glossary of terms associated with gravidity' has two problems, it doesn't obviously cover parity (though that could be added), and I am not sure that a glossary is really an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia article.) Zodon (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree the aforementioned topics could be consolidated into Obstetric history. I would add that it is convenient for non-OB/GYN folks to find a brief reference on this nomenclature that is digested quickly.  If that could be maintained within the superstructure of a larger article via links, I completely agree.  --Dr. B (talk) 18:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 4 I say leave it like it is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.48.179 (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the merge; will merge Glossary of terms associated with gravidity, TPAL (medicine) and Gravida/para/abortus here.Skydeepblue (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge is completed; article should probably be renamed "Obstetric history"
I merged Glossary of terms associated with gravidity, TPAL (medicine) and Gravida/para/abortus here, as suggested above. This article should probably be renamed Obstetric history as it was proposed above. The article is still a total mess, and needs a lot of work.Skydeepblue (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 11 May 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: move to Gravidity and parity. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Parity (biology) → Gravidity and parity – This article is about both gravidity and parity, and it makes sense to rename it so this is clear. A rename would clearly define the scope of this article and its contents. It is also appropriate as these two terms are closely related, and, as is clear above and in the content of the article (more than half about gravidity), this content has already been merged here. There is precedent for 'and' in titles for related concepts, including Sensitivity and specificity. LT910001 (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose the move as proposed, as "gravidy" is not a word in common use (not in major dictionaries, no hits in this context on, say, Questia) and thus fails WP:RECOGNIZABLE. I'd have no similar objection to a move to a title such as Gravidity and parity. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yet another example of my poor spelling, for which I apologise. I've corrected the proposal. Ping to and . --LT910001 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that spelling does seem to be in use, just not in common use; so no apology needed, I think. No objection to the move as now proposed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Gravidity is a medical term, better article scope. walk victor falktalk 01:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * I'm not knowledgeable about the subject, but there's currently no instance of "gravidy" in any article on the English Wikipedia, so I'm inclined to think "gravidity" (which is used) is the appropriate form. --BDD (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fix
I've tried to copyedit, wikify and rearrange in a more logical order this article. I welcome the contributions and improvements of other editors. --LT910001 (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)