Talk:Gravidity and parity
{{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. | Medicine Stub‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
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)
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)
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)