| This is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zodon. |
This is a wikipedia user page. There is nothing here of general interest, it is just a scratch pad of my notes, accumulating references, space for my testing, drafts, etc. for working on other pages.
{{reflist|colwidth=30em}} Multiple column references based on browser settings (more compatible than specifying number of columns.
{{refbegin|colwidth=30em}} ... {{refend}} For references just listed (rather than footnoted). Can also use colbegin/end.
{{main | main article on this topic }}
{{anchor | target name for section link}}
{{redirect| redirected page | message |page on similar topic}}
{{as of|year|...}} Likely to become dated quickly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/ URL for finding changes to pages linked to by a wiki page
{{WikiProject Computing}}
Useful templates:
Perhaps merged-to should include link to current talk? Think this code might do it: for its talk page, see [[{{NAMESPACE}}:{{{1}}}|here]]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reproductive medicine task force
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Pageview bot - API for stats.
Special:ExpandTemplates - Expands templates so you can see what they will do without having to generate test cases.
{{too many categories}} - needs a hidden category for its pages.
{{Human group differences}} - Awful mishmash of topics (making NPOV statements about things like race, which is not a human group difference) deletion is probably best course, or move to more specific particular field.
Suggest pronto Suggest that User:MiszaBot I add some error checking for moved pages. For instance when somebody moved Vaccine controversy, but forgot to move the archives. The bot could note at least simple cases when the archive link would not work, and put a warning on the page.
Bot ideas:
Looking at articles on History of sexuality - looks like may be enough articles to warrant a separate template just on history of sexuality (or by region). (Prostitution, sexuality, etc.) Might help make those articles easier to navigate, and reduce size of template sex.
The Energy Detective article was deleted - merge content from it (User:Zodon/The Energy Detective) into Home energy monitor. If merge anything in, let user:courcelles know, so they can make the records right (for copyright) [2].
Intelligence - collection of articles on demographics of intelligence, need clearer organization/linking. Also, look at template that links human group differences.
Pharmaceutical fraud - merge drug fraud. Heath care fraud - move to health insurance fraud (dupe quackery).
| Zodon |
|---|
ICD10 for Contraceptive managment is: Z30
Need a navigation template (or something) for all the material on computer recycling/electroncis recycling/etc. (Mass o articles, hard to know what exists). Some article moves might make sense.
Also - should mention hacking/repurposing in computer recycling/reuse.
In general the hacking/hackspace articles lack links to history and to professionals doing the same thing. Need links to university/professional research labs (like PARK, Media Lab, Menlo park, wright brothers, etc.) Also to similar in different areas (amateur science, amature engineering, workshops, learned societies, etc. Right now computers, robotics, etc. are fashionable - 100 years ago internal combustion engine, electricity and flight were popular hobbyiest areas - with the chemical revolution, chemistry - the industrial, steam/machines/engines/pumps. There is considerable history, probably running back to "renaisance" men, guilds, Leonardo, archimedes, etc.).
Amateur scientist/Amateur science could use an article, Similar/subgroup (subsume?) Citizen science
Merges proposed beginning September (04)
Consider - Standy Power - anything worth resurrecting?
[3]
Respond Talk:Reproductive_health#Name_change_to_Sexual_and_Reproductive_Health
[4]
Steiner & Cates reference in safe sex - add
which cites:
{{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help){{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link){{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
http://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/Clinical-Fact-Sheets/Menstrual-Suppression
Reference that covered ethnographic studies - menstruate a lot more than before BC
Merge - mess of stubs about information security policy/etc.
etc.
Talk:List of filming locations in Metro Vancouver - third opinion (seems both summaries are in).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests
Orphanage http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKP_Botany&diff=271081355&oldid=271080476
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proembryo&curid=10060927&action=history
BC & abortion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Birth_control&diff=269278582&oldid=269003430 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABirth_control&diff=269130573&oldid=268930864
Sections - problems, don't fit under overall section, either split into definition, prevalence (include other methods), method Or remove subsections (don't think should expand coverage much - weight).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PRI&diff=269268495&oldid=268134421
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cervical_cap&diff=269023185&oldid=268597694
Book - needs cover efficiency http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/How_To_Assemble_A_Desktop_PC/Silencing#Other
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Classes_of_computers&diff=269378406&oldid=264016019
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solid-state_drive&diff=268522583&oldid=268414725
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reproductive_health&diff=268503174&oldid=261814166
IVF history - from article found/ref in beginning of Pg controversy
Cocop & depression
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill&diff=267288786&oldid=267152642
Overpop http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Overpopulation&diff=267267418&oldid=267097604
Infertility needs some cleanup, including redundancy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infertility&diff=264567491&oldid=261016349
Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABali_ultimate&diff=260507272&oldid=260507135
Pap test - proportion of types of reports might be helpful (need source) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pap_test&diff=260373426&oldid=258747262#Results
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Childfree&diff=257316361&oldid=257241193
Check abstinence &c additions - ?source, ?better someplace else?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_education&diff=256677876&oldid=256380440 Sex education - back and forth
Check refs - not sure about quality (more precise wording) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anal_Pap_smear&diff=256656846&oldid=256378664
Check out ref - update contents appropriately http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Energy_Detective&curid=7421016&diff=256730225&oldid=256729687
Privacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Privacy&diff=255763703&oldid=254157476
Breeding in the wild - looks peculiar, see how develops (suspect duplicate with something).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_and_Social_Class&diff=254610349&oldid=254366382
Respond
drsvard
subject order in BC articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Reproductive_medicine_task_force#Section_order_and_naming_in_contraception_articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dynamic_voltage_scaling&diff=prev&oldid=226076393
Repro rights - dealt with parts, but the early removals still questionable http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reproductive_rights&diff=prev&oldid=227997164
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One-child_policy&diff=prev&oldid=232831517
Reproductive physiology - goes to Repro endocrinology and infertility (seems pretty strange, not sure where it should go).
Sep sexual practices from LGBT in sex ed. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sex_education&diff=prev&oldid=222152160
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_control&diff=prev&oldid=227231240
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_control&curid=72156&diff=245614040&oldid=245337009 List of population policy orgs, not specifically pop control
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_control&diff=231194707&oldid=230358703
Proposed merger Men's health into Andrology.
Should merge The Energy Detective, Cent-a-meter and take the chunk out of Misc electric loads & energy conservation to make an item on end user display electric meters.
Electricity meter - combine Time of use with variable rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gardasil&diff=235661513&oldid=235083609
Bunch of edits here - some of them messed up facts/language/etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_papillomavirus&diff=238706475&oldid=238689444
Merge of sustainable urban ... - could tidy up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USB_flash_drive&diff=234866743&oldid=234513834
Need work (or merging away): Enterprise flash drive Secure USB drive
?? questionable http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Calendar-based_methods&curid=26485&diff=240635060&oldid=240031897
Template:Public health - prevent - would Physical exercise be good addition (or maybe activity, if can find). Something on stress managment also?
Maybe hygiene template - with more particulars
This edit made the phrasing wrong: I fixed it temporarily, but find some sources so can put the general explanation back. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States&diff=236920274&oldid=236881885
Check that it didn't change contraceptive use, fix arrangement (again). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States&curid=9064442&diff=237334291&oldid=237317456 (More closely link contraceptive use to STD/pregnancy prevention).
also look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolescent_sexuality_in_the_United_States&diff=254787773&oldid=254279841
Research in population and demographics.
Population research institute - Page for PRI, move current page (needs new name - ... (virginia)? Add disambig page.
http://www.vaestoliitto.fi/in_english/population_research/ http://nubs.nju.cn/en/aboutus.php/j14
The Population Research Institute (PRI) encourages, organizes, and supports innovative research and training in the population sciences.
Pennsylvania State University Center for Population Research
Cat
Research institutes in the United States
Demography
Population
etc. pro-life
This is a test of making one template that can be used as a navbox or as a sidebar. Example based on {{discrimination}} template and {{discrimination sidebar}}:
user:zodon/sandbox - content template, takes argument boxtype to define formatting (based on {{discrimination}}).
Since {{sidebar}} uses different arguments than {{navbox}}, I created a family of templates based on sidebar, but modified so most arguments named the same as navbox.
Other changes made to these versions, vs. sidebar.
Should the templates to do this be sidbar, etc., or should they be variants of navbox (i.e. "navbox sidebar", "navbox sidebar subgroups", "navbox sidebar with collapsible groups")?
Example: Sidebar version.
 | This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Hard knocks supported by Omega and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q2 term. |
Oral contraceptives may influence coagulation, increasing the risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, stroke and myocardial infarction (heart attack). The Stroke Journal said that OCs confer "risk of first ischemic stroke."[1] The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism also concluded in 2005 that "a rigorous meta-analysis of the literature suggests that current use of low-dose OCs significantly increases the risk of both cardiac and vascular arterial events."[2]
Combined oral contraceptives are generally accepted to be contraindicated in women with pre-existing cardiovascular disease, in women who have a familial tendency to form blood clots (such as familial factor V Leiden), women with severe obesity and/or hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol level), and in smokers over age 35.
Recent scientific research has shown that there is evidence that these pills are carcinogenic,[3] at the same time they decrease the risk of ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer,[4] and colorectal cancer.[5] They confer a risk of first schemic stroke,[1] and significantly increase the risk of cardio-vascular disease.[2] These pills also lead to increased deep vein thrombosis.
The risk of thromboembolism varies with different preparations; With second-generation pills (with an estrogen content less than 50μg), the risk of thromboembolism is small with an incidence of approximately 15 per 100,000 users per year, compared with 5 per 100,000 users per year among non-pregnant individuals not taking the pill, and 60 per 100,000 pregnancies.[6] In individuals using preparations containing third-generation progestogens (desogestrelorgestodene), the incidence of thromboembolism is approximately 25 per 100,000 users per year.[6] Also, the risk is greatest in subgroups with additional factors, such as smoking (which increases risk substantially) and long-continued use of the pill, especially in women over 35 years of age.[6]
Monograph 91 of The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) stated in 2005 that "there is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogecity of combined estrogen-progestogen contraceptives."[3][7] Research into the relationship between breast cancer risk and hormonal contraception is complex and seemingly contradictory.[8] The large 1996 collaborative reanalysis of individual data on over 150,000 women in 54 studies of breast cancer found that: "The results provide strong evidence for two main conclusions. First, while women are taking combined oral contraceptives and in the 10 years after stopping there is a small increase in the relative risk of having breast cancer diagnosed. Second, there is no significant excess risk of having breast cancer diagnosed 10 or more years after stopping use. The cancers diagnosed in women who had used combined oral contraceptives were less advanced clinically than those diagnosed in women who had never used these contraceptives."[9] This data has been interpreted to suggest that oral contraceptives have little or no biological effect on breast cancer development, but that women who seek gynecologic care to obtain contraceptives have more early breast cancers detected through screening.[10][11] While taking the pill, there are approximately 0.5 excess cancers per 10,000 women aged 16–19, and approximately 5 excess cancers per 10000 women aged 25–29.[6]
Crooks and Baur said that the health risks of oral contraceptives are lower than those from pregnancy and birth,[12] and "the health benefits of any method of contraception are far greater than any risks from the method".[13] Some organizations have argued that comparing a contraceptive method to no method (pregnancy) is not relevant—instead, the comparison of safety should be among available methods of contraception.[14]
Can add with collapsible groups to make sidebar collapsed (but needs some tweaking).
Problems:
Footer version:
| This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Hard knocks supported by Omega and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q2 term. |
Oral contraceptives may influence coagulation, increasing the risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism, stroke and myocardial infarction (heart attack). The Stroke Journal said that OCs confer "risk of first ischemic stroke."[1] The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism also concluded in 2005 that "a rigorous meta-analysis of the literature suggests that current use of low-dose OCs significantly increases the risk of both cardiac and vascular arterial events."[2]
Combined oral contraceptives are generally accepted to be contraindicated in women with pre-existing cardiovascular disease, in women who have a familial tendency to form blood clots (such as familial factor V Leiden), women with severe obesity and/or hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol level), and in smokers over age 35.
Recent scientific research has shown that there is evidence that these pills are carcinogenic,[3] at the same time they decrease the risk of ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer,[4] and colorectal cancer.[5] They confer a risk of first schemic stroke,[1] and significantly increase the risk of cardio-vascular disease.[2] These pills also lead to increased deep vein thrombosis.
The risk of thromboembolism varies with different preparations; With second-generation pills (with an estrogen content less than 50μg), the risk of thromboembolism is small with an incidence of approximately 15 per 100,000 users per year, compared with 5 per 100,000 users per year among non-pregnant individuals not taking the pill, and 60 per 100,000 pregnancies.[6] In individuals using preparations containing third-generation progestogens (desogestrelorgestodene), the incidence of thromboembolism is approximately 25 per 100,000 users per year.[6] Also, the risk is greatest in subgroups with additional factors, such as smoking (which increases risk substantially) and long-continued use of the pill, especially in women over 35 years of age.[6]
Monograph 91 of The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) stated in 2005 that "there is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogecity of combined estrogen-progestogen contraceptives."[3][7] Research into the relationship between breast cancer risk and hormonal contraception is complex and seemingly contradictory.[15] The large 1996 collaborative reanalysis of individual data on over 150,000 women in 54 studies of breast cancer found that: "The results provide strong evidence for two main conclusions. First, while women are taking combined oral contraceptives and in the 10 years after stopping there is a small increase in the relative risk of having breast cancer diagnosed. Second, there is no significant excess risk of having breast cancer diagnosed 10 or more years after stopping use. The cancers diagnosed in women who had used combined oral contraceptives were less advanced clinically than those diagnosed in women who had never used these contraceptives."[9] This data has been interpreted to suggest that oral contraceptives have little or no biological effect on breast cancer development, but that women who seek gynecologic care to obtain contraceptives have more early breast cancers detected through screening.[10][16] While taking the pill, there are approximately 0.5 excess cancers per 10,000 women aged 16–19, and approximately 5 excess cancers per 10000 women aged 25–29.[6]
Crooks and Baur said that the health risks of oral contraceptives are lower than those from pregnancy and birth,[17] and "the health benefits of any method of contraception are far greater than any risks from the method".[18] Some organizations have argued that comparing a contraceptive method to no method (pregnancy) is not relevant—instead, the comparison of safety should be among available methods of contraception.[19]
Other testing:
| Testing |
|---|
| t |
| blah blah blah |
|
|
Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah Blah blah blah
|
Testing the reformatable navbox - boxstyle - navbox or navbox sidebar. Formatting parameters - figure out what they should be to allow setting breaks, setting styles in sub-boxes (e.g. change sub-group/list styles, depending on the boxstyle using).
Maybe for HPV article on prevalence. But only seen article abstract. Not sure how good those numbers are.
Worldwide an estimated 290 million women show evidence of HPV DNA from one or more high risk types; approximately a third of those have been infected with HPV types 16 and/or 18.[20]
|
| |
|---|---|
| Related diseases |
Cancers (Cervical, Anal), Factor in other cancers (Vulvar, Penile, Orophyrengeal), |
| Vaccine | |
| Screening | Pap test - Cytopathology results Bethesda System |
| Biopsy histology | |
| Treatment | Cervical conization, Loop electrical excision procedure (LEEP) |
| History | |
HPV Vaccine - merge in material from Gardasil article (when don't want to do a lot of thinkin).
Prevalence - STD article should cover other STIs in prevalence (HIV, HPV, etc.)
Worldwide prevalence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16168781
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17597569?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed "On the basis of these estimates, around 291 million women worldwide are carriers of HPV DNA, of whom 32% are infected with HPV16 or HPV18, or both."
HPV testing of questionable value for primary screening for cervical cancer.
Koss, Leopold (2006). Koss' Diagnostic Cytology and its Histopathologic Bases (5th ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. p. 297. ISBN 0781719283, 9780781719285. OCLC 57731380. observers [...] vary widely in assessment of the utility of the [HPV] test as a method of cancer detection. The most important argument against this application of HPV testing is the very large number of false positive tests in sexually active young women (Clavel et al, 1999; Bishop et al. 2000; Davey and Armenri, 2000; Koss, 2000; Cuzick, 2000).
{{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Canada is cost effectiveness. (Should go under future impact, as should the part of safety and effectiveness about commentary by researcher.)
Look at HPV vaccine sections also (consider how to combine this stuff).
Should be an infobox for ICTV virus codes - link to ICTVdB or data. (or as fields in taxobox)
Viruses - category needs subcats for classes/etc. Category:Viruses also maybe categorization links
No arguments - display link to the database.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTVdb/ICTVdB/ Another URL
Examples of how ICTVdB entries used - so can see what would make useful template.
{{ICTVdB}} {{ICTVdB|code=00.046| family=Orthomyxoviridae}} {{ICTVdB|code=00.046.0.03.002| name=Dhori virus.}} {{ICTVdB|code=00.046.0.03.002| name=Dhori virus. | format=cite}} {{ICTVdB|code=00.046.0.03.002| name=Dhori virus. |inline}}
00.046.0.03.002. Dhori virus.
ICTVdBcite|00.034.0.01.001|Raspberry bushy dwarf virus
Official citation: (links added)
ICTVdB Management (2006). _00.046.0.03.002. Dhori virus._ In: ICTVdB - The Universal Virus Database, version 4. Büchen-Osmond, C. (Ed), Columbia University, New York, USA
For families, cite as: (May not need to treat them differently - seem to see some places listed as below, but others listed same as above)
Index of Viruses - Orthomyxoviridae (2006). In: ICTVdB - The Universal Virus Database, version 4. Büchen-Osmond, C (Ed), Columbia University, New York, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTVdb/Ictv/fs_index.htm
External link
ICTVdBlink|
Way to generate something on the lines of: ICTVdB - The Universal Virus Database: Raspberry bushy dwarf virus http://phene.cpmc.columbia.edu/ICTVdB/00.034.0.01.001.htm
ICTVdB - The Universal Virus Database: Tobacco streak virus
ICTVdB - The Universal Virus Database: virus name URL
To do - if leave second parameter empty, just display the code with link.
ICTVdBcode|00.034.0.01.001
Should it have a field in cite web?
Create NCBI Taxonomy EL template. NCBI Taxonomy ID: 12059. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=12059
{{Taxonomy ID|12080}}
NCBI TAXID
(Covers more than just viruses.)
Vaccine controversy - Financial - include financial interest of critics. (Malpractice industry.) Vaccines not highly profitable (influenza vaccine hard to manufacture - few makers, articles on subject from few years ago.) (Compare to viagra, supplements.)
Askarisk for asthma - insufficient antigens theory. More vaccines now, but less antigenic material than in earlier vaccines.
Separate religion and alternative medicine from arguments against - they are not arguments against per se.
Give more ballanced view (not all religions oppose), not all alternative medicine opposes. (Highly compatible with some alternative med theories.)
Vaccine interference - short article, (1 paragraph) seems like could be rolled into major article like vaccination.
Vaccine critic - Basically a list of people, should probably merge into list of vaccine topics.
(Utility, phone, groceries, etc.)
Created template:privacy
Environmental impact assessment
environmental audits
Needs navigation template:
Policy
Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool
Groups
Camara (charity)
Organizations:
EUM -2000 Whole House Energy Monitor – www.energymonitor.com Blue Line Innovations – www.bluelineinnovations.com Consumer Powerline – www.consumerpowerline.com/homejoule Aztech Power Systems - www.aztechmeter.com
Clip on energy monitor,
Install by electrician,
Plug in energy monitor
Homebrew Read electricity meter (optical, etc.)
Whole bunch of articles on energy monitoring, etc. Big tangle that should be organized (maybe some articles combined).
Building automation Home automation
Electricity meter
Home energy monitor Wattmeter Smart meter Kill A Watt Cent-a-meter
Google PowerMeter
Energy management - disambig page, see linked to
IT energy management
Power management
PC power management
Efficient energy use
IT - bunch of pages that relate (DCIE, PUE, etc.)
Low energy building
* Low-energy house
During 20th century, average lifespan in US increased by more than 30 years; 25 years of which attributed to advances in public health. (10 great achievements)
Ten Great Public Health Achievements -- United States, 1900-1999
"which has resulted in the eradication of smallpox; elimination of poliomyelitis in the Americas; and control of measles, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and other infectious diseases in the United States and other parts of the world."
(infection control doesn't really cover it, hand washing, water treatment, vector control, ...)
resulted from reducing risk-factors, such as smoking cessation and blood pressure control, as well as improved access to early detection and better treatment.
"Identifying essential micronutrients and establishing food-fortification programs have almost eliminated major nutritional deficiency diseases such as rickets, goiter, and pellagra in the United States"
"Healthier mothers and babies have resulted from better hygiene and nutrition, availability of antibiotics, greater access to health care, and technologic advances in maternal and neonatal medicine. Since 1900, infant mortality has decreased 90%, and maternal mortality has decreased 99%."
"Access to family planning and contraceptive services has altered social and economic roles of women. Family planning has provided health benefits such as smaller family size and longer interval between the birth of children; increased opportunities for preconceptional counseling and screening; fewer infant, child, and maternal deaths; and the use of barrier contraceptives to prevent pregnancy and transmission of human immunodeficiency virus and other STDs."
and anti-smoking campaigns - prevent initiation, promote cessation, reduce environmental exposure.
"Ten Great Public Health Achievements -- United States, 1900-1999". 48 (12). April 2, 1999: 241-243. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
CDC (1999). "Ten great public health achievements—United States, 1900–1999". MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 48 (12): 241–3. PMID 10220250. Reprinted in: "Ten Great Public Health Achievements—United States, 1900-1999". JAMA. 281 (16): 1481. 1999. doi:10.1001/jama.281.16.1481. PMID 10227303.
-- "The choices for topics for this list were based on the opportunity for prevention and the impact on death, illness, and disability in the United States and are not ranked by order of importance."
"vaccination, which has resulted in the eradication of smallpox; elimination of poliomyelitis in the Americas; and control of measles, rubella, tetanus, diphtheria, Haemophilus influenzae type b, and other infectious diseases in the United States and other parts of the world."
some priority some importance
By quality:
FL-Class List-Class
Template:Cat importance Template:Lonelypages by importance
|width = width of the graph (optional)
|barwidth= width of the bararea (optional, defaults to 100px)
|float = (left|right|none) (optional, defaults to none)
|left2 = second left column header (optional)
|right1 = first right column header (optional)
|right2 = second right column header (optional)
|left1 = first left column header (optional)
|caption = caption under the chart (optional)}
| ||||||||||||||||||||
WPMED
{{Lonelypages|project=WPMED}}
Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Cleanup
Style usage is unclear in ambox
Why are these style templates rather than content? Template:Whereisit Template:Time-context Template talk:Context Template:Generalize Template:Gen-section
Why is orphan a style template? (e.g. rather than notice)
Wikipedia:Article_message_boxes
Orphan search - stubs?
Wikipedia:WikiProject Integration
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
speroff was invoked but never defined (see the help page).{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
{{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
