Talk:British Pregnancy Advisory Service

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Abortion

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warwickshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Warwickshire, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Warwickshire. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.WarwickshireWikipedia:WikiProject WarwickshireTemplate:WikiProject WarwickshireWikiProject Warwickshire
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Abortion in the United Kingdom#Later laws|24 weeks]] The anchor (#Later laws) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Merge tag

The Ann Furedi article is thin and has been in a repeated deletion discussion (controversy?). Perhaps it should be merged with this article?--Anchoress 04:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree. Not sure the Furedi article is controversial, just wafer-thin and not well written. It's also questionable that the woman is worthy of a separate WP article. Deep 13 07:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Nicely written article! Deep 13 17:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Deep.--Anchoress 22:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good merge.--Peta 07:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand

Why should the categories be formatted like [[Category:Foo|*]] instead of [[Category:Foo]]? It causes this article not to alphabetize in it's categories; what's gained by that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why it should be done like that; I'm not experienced creating articles, I just did it the way I've seen it done in other articles. Sorry it wasn't the way you wanted. I didn't revert cuz I don't agree with you, I reverted because you messed up the formatting, it delisted one of the categories and put the category text up with the body text. I didn't know what you were trying to do (maybe partly because of your completely non-descriptive edit summary), so I just reverted. Please don't assume that a) everyone knows as much as you, and b) we haven't done what you think we should do for some diabolical reason.--Anchoress 07:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was my carelessness, messing up the formatting. I really didn't think you were up to anything diabolical, I just think the phrase "what have you got against the alphabet?" is funny to use in an edit summary. Sorry if I gave the wrong idea; I could have been clearer. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't funny at all. But apology accepted, and thanks for clarifying. Actually IIRC I went to another abortion-related article and just copied the categories, deleting the couple that didn't apply.--Anchoress 07:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, that * is useful, like if you're putting the article Abortion into Category:Abortion, it's good to use the star so it floats to the top of the list. When entering people in categories, the best way to do it is like: [[Category:Pro-choice activists|Furedi, Ann]] - then she alphabetizes under F. Sorry if I'm boring you, but once you know... you know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's cool. I like learning new stuff. Can't promise to remember (I hardly ever create articles), but I *will* remember where the instructions are, so I'll come back here and remind myself.--Anchoress 08:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ALEXEIS (talk • contribs) [reply]

June 2011 amendments

I am not at all sure why Roslyn23 made the amendments on 13 June 2011. Is this some kind of censorship? The BPAS may be a different organisation today from what it was in the past, but that is no reason to attempt to air-brush out history. If people wish to read about this, or any other, organisation's present activities, they can go to the organisation's current website.

Would Roslyn23 care to reveal him/herself? BPAS is connected with Rosslyn Road and I am wondering whether there is any connection.

An explanation for the deletions would be appreciated. In the meantime, I have restored some of the text which was deleted. ALEXEIS

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on British Pregnancy Advisory Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Pregnancy Advisory Service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]