Talk:In vitro fertilisation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cajjen12. Peer reviewers: Eunacorn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kmiller22, JVIDUYA, Tranhtruong, Kevindichosen1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 September 2019 and 31 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kgallant.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pklawrence, Kahebert.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rivaslaura.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Kinship discussions
Through IVF techniques, some old ideas of certain constellations of being "impossible", need to be considered nowadays. In Charis Thompson's book "Making Parents", she points out "Naturalizing Stratgies", that mothers use to justify kinship relations. In the 5th chapter, she points out, that for example mothers who need to use the services of a surrogate mother base their definition of kinship mostly on the given genetic relationship. On the other hand, other mothers who need to use egg-cells from another woman, still consider the baby being "theirs", basing the kinship on the fact of that they carried and gave birth to the child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonsaipotathoe (talk • contribs) 15:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Student Edit- CSUEB
Hello Wiki community! I am a student at California State University East Bay, in a post-bacc program bioethics class. I have a few contributions to add to the invitro fertilisation page. Please give your feedback and own edits. I have Modified the ethical decisions in IVF with information and links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cajjen12 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, Cajjen12. Thanks for the work, but along with some possibly good amendments you have changed all the headings to max caps. According to WP:Style they should be sentence case. I have undone your edit, as the easiest way of restoring the correct style. If you wish to make the substantive changes again, please don't change the case of the headings. And it might be best to do the edits in stages, not all at once, so that others can see what you've done. Best wishes -  SNALWIBMA  ( talk - contribs ) 16:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Foundations II: P2 - 5B - Topics and Goals
Possible topics to discuss:
 * age - maternal age and decreasing change of conception
 * update success, average cost, insurance coverage, age caps, other guidelines in USA
 * find citation for Israel data - added to Israel section
 * drugs that are used in vitro fertilization
 * drug side effects, DDI, monitoring, - or add links to drugs
 * fertilisation vs fertilization? - added this but it got removed

JVIDUYA (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

UCSF Peer Review of Team 5b by Team 5a
Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? Goals were to address: Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify… Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify… Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify… Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify…
 * The team added some helpful statistics regarding success of IVF in older populations.
 * age - maternal age and decreasing change of conception - Team 5b added information regarding outcomes of IVF at or over a certain age (more difficult and higher chance of adverse events).
 * update success, average cost, insurance coverage, age caps, other guidelines in USA
 * find citation for Israel data - added to Israel section
 * drugs that are used in vitro fertilization
 * drug side effects, DDI, monitoring, - or add links to drugs - Did not address drug drug interactions or drug side effects as their original goal stated
 * fertilisation vs fertilization? -
 * Team 5b added: Updated the availability of IVF in different countries: age restriction, funding, statistics for USA with citation.
 * Group 5B edited the article with a neutral point of view. The language they used did not contain any positive/negative or biased tones. Christinewmin (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Team 5b added 4 new references to this article. All references seem to be appropriate and support the added content. Mlomanto (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I searched their edits in Google and did not find any plagiarism. Great! Kshim054 (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

New section on Laboratory requirements
Someone has just added a section headed "Laboratory Requirements", consisting of a list of requirements for environmental control etc. It is completely unreferenced, and it is all very general stuff that could apply to almost any biomedical research or clinical facility. It does not apply particularly to IVF. I think it should be deleted. I was going to go ahead and delete it (WP:BOLD), but I thought perhaps I should mention it here first. Anyone agree with me?  SNALWIBMA  ( talk - contribs ) 07:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and deleted it.  SNALWIBMA  ( talk - contribs ) 06:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"Women" or "people"?
The article is sprinkled with the word "people" instead of "women". Is this really necessary? I don't wish to offend anyone, but it seems unnecessary, and in some places misleading. There is even an instance of "In comparison with people, men showed less deterioration in mental health ..." - which is frankly stupid. Thoughts?  SNALWIBMA  ( talk - contribs ) 16:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2022
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

In vitro fertilisation → IVF – Per WP:ACROTITLE, the abbreviation is the WP:COMMONNAME in this case. The abbreviation is not widely known to mean something else. PhotographyEdits (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose - MOS:ACROTITLE goes too far beyond its mandate, as that is a Manual of Style page, not a naming guideline. Most of whats there should instead be moved to Article titles. While "IVF" is common to this topic, its not exclusive (IVF (disambiguation)), and in principle we should set a very high bar for any TLA to become primary. For reader clarity, search engine blurbs, etc., the expanded term should be the article title. -- Netoholic @ 15:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be mainly basing your argument on the fact that in your view Wikipedia policy itself is incorrectly structured. MOS:ACROTITLE was used sucessfully before in as an argument in moving International Standard Book Number to ISBN, as seen here: Talk:ISBN. I have taken a look at the subects listed on the disambiguation page, but they seem to be rather obscure compared to in vitro fertilisation. Based on what policy is the argument based that there is a very high bar for a TLA to become primary? PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose no indication that the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation (per WP:ACROTITLE)—blindlynx 16:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Blindlynx Googling the literal  gives me 566k results, while   gives me 17 million results. (I included pregnancy to exclude any other meanings, so the difference could be a bit different, but you get the point). PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Every single hit for '"IVF" "pregnancy"' has 'In vitro fertilisation (IVF)' in its preview. Also raw hit counts aren't reliable WP:HITS—blindlynx 16:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Blindlynx WP:HITS is about notability and does not argue against determining the primary name. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact it's unreliable for determining numbers —blindlynx 17:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Blindlynx Then what tool do you suggest? PhotographyEdits (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Google scholar tends to be my go to, but google trends also works but it tends to be a bit more dated. In order to satisfy WP:ACROTITLE in this case you would have to show that 'IFV' without the full phrase—blindlynx 19:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * also, please stop pinging me, i'll keep an eye on this page—blindlynx 19:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. IVF as a primary redirect is fine, but there's no reason to rename the article. 162 etc. (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – A topic has to meet a pretty high bar to warrant being titled by its acronym. Cases like HIV/AIDS, where most people familiar with the topic wouldn't know what the acronym stands for, are one thing. But I don't think that applies here. Graham (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Britannica.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment test-tube baby ? -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 08:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: LGBTQ Reproductive Health
— Assignment last updated by AuroraRynda (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

"People with uteri" and "gestational bodies"
These two terms have just been inserted wholesale into the article in place of "women", on the grounds of inclusivity. I contend that they are not inclusive terms, just gobbledegook. They are obscure. They do not clarify the meaning but conceal it. I have reinstated "woman" and "women". Before my edit is reversed, could we please discuss?  SNALWIBMA  ( <b style="color: #2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color: #2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 16:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. By and large, those participating in IVF are women, as opposed to transmen. I'm in support of the coverage in the article about the use of IVF by trans and GNC individuals, but the language used in the lead needs to make the core principles of IVF clear and use clear terms. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)