Template talk:Condoms

Condom template

I've made Template:Condom. I would appreciate any feedback on formatting, article inclusion, and whether it would be useful on the pages of included articles, specifically the condom article and the brand name articles. Lyrl^Talk _C 16:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template looks good to me, I would say go ahead and include it on the pages listed in the template. Zodon (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about keeping the manufacturers section. If Condoms are a major product of the given company, then should be fine. But so many companies now are consolidated to the point where they make too many products to list. Don't think should have the section if the template won't be included on the pages about the companies (navigation templates should be included on the pages that they list). If the companies make too so many things that their connection to the condom business is tangential at best, might just remove the section, assuming that the brands provide links back to what companies make them. Zodon (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added Female Condom for completeness (seemed simpler to do that than to make the template more specific "Male condoms"). Zodon (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the manufacturers. How would you treat LifeStyles, which is a major condom brand but currently redirects to Ansell? Lyrl^Talk _C 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the Ansell page lists Condoms (under several brands) as one of the main products the company makes. My inclination would be to have the LifeStyles brand listed on this template, and put this template on the Ansell company page. (Later, if the page is split to provide information about just Ansell's Condom brands, or that brand in particular, the Condom template would go to the split off page.)

As it happened, when making my comment I had looked at the other two pages Church and Dwight and SSL International, but not at Ansell. In particular the list of Church and Dwight products looked like it might get unmanageable if they were handled in similar way. Of course, if it turns out Ansell has a similar diversity of products, then this approach falls apart. Zodon (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dual protection

It sort of seems like Dual protection might belong on this template. Haven't quite figured where to put it though. Zodon (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under "related topics" would be my suggestion. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Zodon (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birth control

It seems like Birth control would make a lot of sense on the template (since it is one of two main uses of condoms). I added it, with a new section.

The problem is, navigation templates should be linked on the pages that they link to. However the birth control article already has a lot of templates on it, and don't want to overload it. Would this template be useful on the birth control page? Should we just have link to birth control here without having template on the page?

Should male contraceptive be used instead of birth control (in which case concern about template overload would not apply)? Should male contraceptive be included in addition? (Since condom is most commonly used male contraceptive. Zodon (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the changes: they make the template more useful.

Birth control and safe sex both have four navigation templates aside from this one. I think if five navigation templates are OK on safe sex, they should be OK on birth control. If five is too many, though, perhaps we could look at including condom as a "related navbox" in {{birth control methods}}? (Like how there is a "related navboxes" line in {{reproductive health}}.) That way this template could easily be navigated to through the birth control page, but wouldn't appear there in its entirety. Lyrl^Talk _C 21:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I added condom as another navbox on Birth control, but the other approach worth considering if it gets too crowded. Zodon (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sagami

Why do you allways delete info about Sagami condoms?Xndrya (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]