Jump to content

Template:Excerpt/testcases3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Test cases 1 Test cases 2 Test cases 3

Sections

[edit]
{{Excerpt|Science|Branches}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from Science § Branches.[edit]

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and formal science.[1] Each of these branches comprises various specialised yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[2] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences,[3] as their knowledge is based on empirical observations and is capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[4]

This section is an excerpt from Science § Branches.[edit]

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and formal science.[1] Each of these branches comprises various specialised yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[2] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences,[3] as their knowledge is based on empirical observations and is capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[4]

{{Excerpt| Science | Branches }}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from Science § Branches.[edit]

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and formal science.[1] Each of these branches comprises various specialised yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[2] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences,[3] as their knowledge is based on empirical observations and is capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[4]

This section is an excerpt from Science § Branches.[edit]

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and formal science.[1] Each of these branches comprises various specialised yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[2] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences,[3] as their knowledge is based on empirical observations and is capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[4]

{{Excerpt|NIOSH air filtration rating|30 CFR 11}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from NIOSH air filtration rating § 30 CFR 11.[edit]
Example Part 11 HEPA Label, TC-21C particulate, with approval for Dusts, Fumes, Mists, radionuclides, and asbestos
3M 6200 with magenta 'Dust-Fume-Mist Radionuclides Asbestos' (30 CFR HEPA) markings on the filters

Prior to the approval of 42 CFR 84, MSHA and NIOSH approved respirators under 30 CFR 11. Non-powered respirator filters were classified based on their design against a contaminant, including substances like Dusts, Fumes, Mists, radionuclides, and asbestos. Dust/Mist was usually tested with silica, and Fume was usually tested with lead fume. The most popular respirator filters were often referred to as DM (Dust/Mist) or DFM (Dust/Fume/Mist) in CDC and NIOSH literature as shorthand.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Non-powered filters were also classified under the HEPA specification, if applicable.[1]

Only 30 CFR 11 HEPA filters were permitted by NIOSH for the prevention of tuberculosis[2] and asbestos-related diseases.[3]

NIOSH was concerned about users choosing inappropriate respirators, like confusion over choosing DM or DFM respirators with regards to particle penetration, so proposed Part 84 rules in 1994 dropped the contaminant/HEPA classification for most respirators in favor of three specifications, Type A, B and C, each representing filtration of 99.97%, 99%, and 95% respectively, with Type A proposed to be used in place of HEPA for non-powered respirators.[4][1]

(OBSOLETE) 30 CFR 11 efficiency levels[1]
Particulate Respirator
approval 		Maximum
dust penetration 		Minimum
efficiency level 		Permitted for
TB 		Permitted for
asbestos
158.4 mg silica Single-use Dust/Mist filters 1.8 mg 98.86% No No
158.4 mg, usually silica Replaceable Dust/Mist filters 1.5 mg 99.05% No No
0.3 micron DOP HEPA (includes
Dust/Mist approval)[5] 		N/A 99.97% Yes Yes
This section is an excerpt from NIOSH air filtration rating § 30 CFR 11.[edit]
Example Part 11 HEPA Label, TC-21C particulate, with approval for Dusts, Fumes, Mists, radionuclides, and asbestos
3M 6200 with magenta 'Dust-Fume-Mist Radionuclides Asbestos' (30 CFR HEPA) markings on the filters

Prior to the approval of 42 CFR 84, MSHA and NIOSH approved respirators under 30 CFR 11. Non-powered respirator filters were classified based on their design against a contaminant, including substances like Dusts, Fumes, Mists, radionuclides, and asbestos. Dust/Mist was usually tested with silica, and Fume was usually tested with lead fume. The most popular respirator filters were often referred to as DM (Dust/Mist) or DFM (Dust/Fume/Mist) in CDC and NIOSH literature as shorthand.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Non-powered filters were also classified under the HEPA specification, if applicable.[1]

Only 30 CFR 11 HEPA filters were permitted by NIOSH for the prevention of tuberculosis[2] and asbestos-related diseases.[3]

NIOSH was concerned about users choosing inappropriate respirators, like confusion over choosing DM or DFM respirators with regards to particle penetration, so proposed Part 84 rules in 1994 dropped the contaminant/HEPA classification for most respirators in favor of three specifications, Type A, B and C, each representing filtration of 99.97%, 99%, and 95% respectively, with Type A proposed to be used in place of HEPA for non-powered respirators.[4][1]

(OBSOLETE) 30 CFR 11 efficiency levels[1]
Particulate Respirator
approval 		Maximum
dust penetration 		Minimum
efficiency level 		Permitted for
TB 		Permitted for
asbestos
158.4 mg silica Single-use Dust/Mist filters 1.8 mg 98.86% No No
158.4 mg, usually silica Replaceable Dust/Mist filters 1.5 mg 99.05% No No
0.3 micron DOP HEPA (includes
Dust/Mist approval)[5] 		N/A 99.97% Yes Yes
{{Excerpt|Science#Branches}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from Science § Branches.[edit]

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and formal science.[1] Each of these branches comprises various specialised yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[2] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences,[3] as their knowledge is based on empirical observations and is capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[4]

This section is an excerpt from Science § Branches.[edit]

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and formal science.[1] Each of these branches comprises various specialised yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[2] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences,[3] as their knowledge is based on empirical observations and is capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[4]

{{Excerpt| Science # Branches }}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from Science § Branches.[edit]

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and formal science.[1] Each of these branches comprises various specialised yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[2] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences,[3] as their knowledge is based on empirical observations and is capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[4]

This section is an excerpt from Science § Branches.[edit]

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and formal science.[1] Each of these branches comprises various specialised yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[2] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences,[3] as their knowledge is based on empirical observations and is capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[4]

{{Excerpt|Holodomor in modern politics|Recognition|references=no}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from Holodomor in modern politics § Recognition.[edit]
Recognition of the Holodomor by country

Since 2006, the Holodomor has been recognised as a genocide by the Ukrainian parliament. Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has run campaigns and lobbied the United Nations and the Council of Europe to recognise the Holodomor as a genocide internationally. Sovereign states to have recognized Holodomor as genocide include Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland's senate, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, the Holy See in Vatican City and Wales. As the United States Congress passed resolution of recognition through the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. Similarly, governments and parliaments of several other countries have also officially recognized the Holodomor as an act of genocide.

In November 2022, the Holodomor was recognized as a genocide by Germany, Ireland's senate, Moldova, Romania, and the Belarusian opposition in exile. Pope Francis compared the Russian war in Ukraine with its targeted destruction of civilian infrastructure to the "terrible Holodomor Genocide", during an address at St. Peter's Square. As of December 2024, 35 countries recognise the Holodomor as a genocide.

The following countries have recognised the Holodomor as a genocide:

Other political bodies whose legislatures have passed a resolution recognizing Holodomor as a genocide:

Many countries have signed declarations in statements at the United Nations General Assembly affirming that the Holodomor was as a "national tragedy of the Ukrainian people" caused by the "cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime".[a] Similar statements were passed as resolutions by international organizations[b] such as the European Parliament,[c] the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE),[d] the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO).[a]

Countries to have signed declarations for the United Nations on the Holodomor[e][f] include Albania,[g] Argentina, Australia,[g] Austria,[g] Azerbaijan,[g] Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Czechia, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Ukraine, and the United States.

This section is an excerpt from Holodomor in modern politics § Recognition.[edit]
Recognition of the Holodomor by country

Since 2006, the Holodomor has been recognised as a genocide by the Ukrainian parliament. Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has run campaigns and lobbied the United Nations and the Council of Europe to recognise the Holodomor as a genocide internationally. Sovereign states to have recognized Holodomor as genocide include Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, France, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland's senate, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, the Holy See in Vatican City and Wales. As the United States Congress passed resolution of recognition through the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. Similarly, governments and parliaments of several other countries have also officially recognized the Holodomor as an act of genocide.

In November 2022, the Holodomor was recognized as a genocide by Germany, Ireland's senate, Moldova, Romania, and the Belarusian opposition in exile. Pope Francis compared the Russian war in Ukraine with its targeted destruction of civilian infrastructure to the "terrible Holodomor Genocide", during an address at St. Peter's Square. As of December 2024, 35 countries recognise the Holodomor as a genocide.

The following countries have recognised the Holodomor as a genocide:

Other political bodies whose legislatures have passed a resolution recognizing Holodomor as a genocide:

Many countries have signed declarations in statements at the United Nations General Assembly affirming that the Holodomor was as a "national tragedy of the Ukrainian people" caused by the "cruel actions and policies of the totalitarian regime".[a] Similar statements were passed as resolutions by international organizations[h] such as the European Parliament,[i] the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE),[j] the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the United Nations Organization for Education, Science and Culture (UNESCO).[a]

Countries to have signed declarations for the United Nations on the Holodomor[k][f] include Albania,[g] Argentina, Australia,[g] Austria,[g] Azerbaijan,[g] Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Czechia, Croatia, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Ukraine, and the United States.

Subsections

[edit]
{{Excerpt|NIOSH air filtration rating|42 CFR 84|sections=yes}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from NIOSH air filtration rating § 42 CFR 84.[edit]
Example Part 84 Label, TC-84A particulate, with older NIOSH logo, for P100 respirator, equivalent to Part 11 HEPA.
People wearing 3M 2091 magenta P100 filters. Note that these filters do not block vapors.

Under the current revision of Part 84 established in 1995, NIOSH established nine classifications of approved particulate filtering respirators based on a combination of the respirator series and efficiency level. The first part of the filter's classification indicates the series using the letters N, R, or P to indicate the filter's resistance to filtration efficiency degradation when exposed to oil-based or oil-like aerosols (e.g., lubricants, cutting fluids, glycerine, etc.).[1][2][3] Definitions and intended use for each series is indicated below.[4]

  • N for not resistant to oil. Used when oil particulates are not present. Tested using sodium chloride particles.
  • R for resistant to oil. Used when oil particulates are present and the filter is disposed of after one shift. Tested using dioctyl phthalate (DOP) oil particles.
  • P for oil-proof. Used when oil particulates are present and the filter is re-used for more than one shift. Tested with DOP oil particles.

The second value indicates the minimum efficiency level of the filter. When tested according to the protocol established by NIOSH each filter classification must demonstrate the minimum efficiency level indicated below.

NIOSH particulate respirator class minimum efficiency levels[1]
Particulate Respirator class Minimum efficiency
level 		Permitted for
TB 		Permitted for
asbestos
NaCl (N) or DOP (R,P) N95, R95, P95 95% Yes No
N99, R99, P99 99%
N100, R100, P100 99.97% Yes

All respirator types are permitted for TB.[5][6] Class-100 filters can block asbestos.[7][8][9] For N type filters, a 200 mg load of NaCl is used, with an undefined service time. For R type filters, a 200 mg of DOP is used, with a defined service time of "one work shift". For P type filters, an indefinite amount of DOP is used until filtration efficiency stabilizes.[10] P100 filters, under 42 CFR part 84, are the only filters permitted to be magenta in color.[11]

HE (high-efficiency) labeled filters (described in the subsection) are only provided for powered air-purifying respirators. HE-marked filters are 99.97% efficient against 0.3 micron particles and are oil-proof.[12][13][14]

Since filters are tested against the by definition most penetrating particle size of 0.3 μm, an APR with a P100 classification would be at least 99.97% efficient at removing particles of this size.[3] Particles with a size both less than and greater than 0.3 μm may be filtered at an efficiency greater than 99.97%.[15][16] However, this may not always be the case, as the most penetrating particle size for N95s was measured to be below 0.1 μm, as opposed to the predicted size of between 0.1 and 0.3 μm.[17]

This section is an excerpt from NIOSH air filtration rating § 42 CFR 84.[edit]
Example Part 84 Label, TC-84A particulate, with older NIOSH logo, for P100 respirator, equivalent to Part 11 HEPA.
People wearing 3M 2091 magenta P100 filters. Note that these filters do not block vapors.

Under the current revision of Part 84 established in 1995, NIOSH established nine classifications of approved particulate filtering respirators based on a combination of the respirator series and efficiency level. The first part of the filter's classification indicates the series using the letters N, R, or P to indicate the filter's resistance to filtration efficiency degradation when exposed to oil-based or oil-like aerosols (e.g., lubricants, cutting fluids, glycerine, etc.).[1][2][3] Definitions and intended use for each series is indicated below.[4]

  • N for not resistant to oil. Used when oil particulates are not present. Tested using sodium chloride particles.
  • R for resistant to oil. Used when oil particulates are present and the filter is disposed of after one shift. Tested using dioctyl phthalate (DOP) oil particles.
  • P for oil-proof. Used when oil particulates are present and the filter is re-used for more than one shift. Tested with DOP oil particles.

The second value indicates the minimum efficiency level of the filter. When tested according to the protocol established by NIOSH each filter classification must demonstrate the minimum efficiency level indicated below.

NIOSH particulate respirator class minimum efficiency levels[1]
Particulate Respirator class Minimum efficiency
level 		Permitted for
TB 		Permitted for
asbestos
NaCl (N) or DOP (R,P) N95, R95, P95 95% Yes No
N99, R99, P99 99%
N100, R100, P100 99.97% Yes

All respirator types are permitted for TB.[5][6] Class-100 filters can block asbestos.[7][8][9] For N type filters, a 200 mg load of NaCl is used, with an undefined service time. For R type filters, a 200 mg of DOP is used, with a defined service time of "one work shift". For P type filters, an indefinite amount of DOP is used until filtration efficiency stabilizes.[10] P100 filters, under 42 CFR part 84, are the only filters permitted to be magenta in color.[11]

HE (high-efficiency) labeled filters (described in the subsection) are only provided for powered air-purifying respirators. HE-marked filters are 99.97% efficient against 0.3 micron particles and are oil-proof.[12][13][14]

Since filters are tested against the by definition most penetrating particle size of 0.3 μm, an APR with a P100 classification would be at least 99.97% efficient at removing particles of this size.[3] Particles with a size both less than and greater than 0.3 μm may be filtered at an efficiency greater than 99.97%.[15][16] However, this may not always be the case, as the most penetrating particle size for N95s was measured to be below 0.1 μm, as opposed to the predicted size of between 0.1 and 0.3 μm.[17]

{{Excerpt|NIOSH air filtration rating|42 CFR 84|subsections=yes}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from NIOSH air filtration rating § 42 CFR 84.[edit]
Example Part 84 Label, TC-84A particulate, with older NIOSH logo, for P100 respirator, equivalent to Part 11 HEPA.
People wearing 3M 2091 magenta P100 filters. Note that these filters do not block vapors.

Under the current revision of Part 84 established in 1995, NIOSH established nine classifications of approved particulate filtering respirators based on a combination of the respirator series and efficiency level. The first part of the filter's classification indicates the series using the letters N, R, or P to indicate the filter's resistance to filtration efficiency degradation when exposed to oil-based or oil-like aerosols (e.g., lubricants, cutting fluids, glycerine, etc.).[1][2][3] Definitions and intended use for each series is indicated below.[4]

  • N for not resistant to oil. Used when oil particulates are not present. Tested using sodium chloride particles.
  • R for resistant to oil. Used when oil particulates are present and the filter is disposed of after one shift. Tested using dioctyl phthalate (DOP) oil particles.
  • P for oil-proof. Used when oil particulates are present and the filter is re-used for more than one shift. Tested with DOP oil particles.

The second value indicates the minimum efficiency level of the filter. When tested according to the protocol established by NIOSH each filter classification must demonstrate the minimum efficiency level indicated below.

NIOSH particulate respirator class minimum efficiency levels[1]
Particulate Respirator class Minimum efficiency
level 		Permitted for
TB 		Permitted for
asbestos
NaCl (N) or DOP (R,P) N95, R95, P95 95% Yes No
N99, R99, P99 99%
N100, R100, P100 99.97% Yes

All respirator types are permitted for TB.[5][6] Class-100 filters can block asbestos.[7][8][9] For N type filters, a 200 mg load of NaCl is used, with an undefined service time. For R type filters, a 200 mg of DOP is used, with a defined service time of "one work shift". For P type filters, an indefinite amount of DOP is used until filtration efficiency stabilizes.[10] P100 filters, under 42 CFR part 84, are the only filters permitted to be magenta in color.[11]

HE (high-efficiency) labeled filters (described in the subsection) are only provided for powered air-purifying respirators. HE-marked filters are 99.97% efficient against 0.3 micron particles and are oil-proof.[12][13][14]

Since filters are tested against the by definition most penetrating particle size of 0.3 μm, an APR with a P100 classification would be at least 99.97% efficient at removing particles of this size.[3] Particles with a size both less than and greater than 0.3 μm may be filtered at an efficiency greater than 99.97%.[15][16] However, this may not always be the case, as the most penetrating particle size for N95s was measured to be below 0.1 μm, as opposed to the predicted size of between 0.1 and 0.3 μm.[17]

2020 powered air-purifying respirator update

[edit]
PAPR
A person wearing a powered air-purifying respirator

Template loop detected: Template:Excerpt

This section is an excerpt from NIOSH air filtration rating § 42 CFR 84.[edit]
Example Part 84 Label, TC-84A particulate, with older NIOSH logo, for P100 respirator, equivalent to Part 11 HEPA.
People wearing 3M 2091 magenta P100 filters. Note that these filters do not block vapors.

Under the current revision of Part 84 established in 1995, NIOSH established nine classifications of approved particulate filtering respirators based on a combination of the respirator series and efficiency level. The first part of the filter's classification indicates the series using the letters N, R, or P to indicate the filter's resistance to filtration efficiency degradation when exposed to oil-based or oil-like aerosols (e.g., lubricants, cutting fluids, glycerine, etc.).[1][2][3] Definitions and intended use for each series is indicated below.[4]

  • N for not resistant to oil. Used when oil particulates are not present. Tested using sodium chloride particles.
  • R for resistant to oil. Used when oil particulates are present and the filter is disposed of after one shift. Tested using dioctyl phthalate (DOP) oil particles.
  • P for oil-proof. Used when oil particulates are present and the filter is re-used for more than one shift. Tested with DOP oil particles.

The second value indicates the minimum efficiency level of the filter. When tested according to the protocol established by NIOSH each filter classification must demonstrate the minimum efficiency level indicated below.

NIOSH particulate respirator class minimum efficiency levels[1]
Particulate Respirator class Minimum efficiency
level 		Permitted for
TB 		Permitted for
asbestos
NaCl (N) or DOP (R,P) N95, R95, P95 95% Yes No
N99, R99, P99 99%
N100, R100, P100 99.97% Yes

All respirator types are permitted for TB.[5][6] Class-100 filters can block asbestos.[7][8][9] For N type filters, a 200 mg load of NaCl is used, with an undefined service time. For R type filters, a 200 mg of DOP is used, with a defined service time of "one work shift". For P type filters, an indefinite amount of DOP is used until filtration efficiency stabilizes.[10] P100 filters, under 42 CFR part 84, are the only filters permitted to be magenta in color.[11]

HE (high-efficiency) labeled filters (described in the subsection) are only provided for powered air-purifying respirators. HE-marked filters are 99.97% efficient against 0.3 micron particles and are oil-proof.[12][13][14]

Since filters are tested against the by definition most penetrating particle size of 0.3 μm, an APR with a P100 classification would be at least 99.97% efficient at removing particles of this size.[3] Particles with a size both less than and greater than 0.3 μm may be filtered at an efficiency greater than 99.97%.[15][16] However, this may not always be the case, as the most penetrating particle size for N95s was measured to be below 0.1 μm, as opposed to the predicted size of between 0.1 and 0.3 μm.[17]

2020 powered air-purifying respirator update

[edit]
PAPR
A person wearing a powered air-purifying respirator
This section is an excerpt from Powered air-purifying respirator § 42 CFR 84.[edit]

42 CFR 84, from 1995 to 2020, copies 30 CFR 11 rules for PAPRs.[18]

The following table lists the air flow requirements for NIOSH-approved PAPRs under Part 84.175. Tight-fitting PAPRs may be fit tested with the facepiece unpowered and in negative-pressure (under 29 CFR 1910.134) while loose-fitting PAPR fit test protocols have not been changed from 30 CFR 11.[19]

Part 84 air flow requirements
Facepiece Air flow in
liters/minute
Tight-fitting 115
Loose-fitting 170

The following table lists the ratings for particulate ratings for Part 84 PAPRs.[19] PAPR100 ratings were added in 2020.[20]

NIOSH particulate classes for powered air-purifying respirators
Particulate Respirator
class 		Minimum
efficiency level 		Permitted for
TB 		Permitted for
asbestos[21]
0.3 micron DOP HEPA or HE 99.97% Yes Yes
0.075 to 1.86 micron NaCl PAPR100-N Rating
discontinued 		Not yet
defined
0.075 to 1.86 micron DOP PAPR100-P

PAPR100-N is not designed to filter oil particulates, and the official color-coding for all three respirator types is magenta.[19]

{{Excerpt|Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters|Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page)|subsections=yes}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page).[edit]

Add new items at top of list; move to Concluded when decided, and summarize the conclusion. Comment at them if interested. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

Current

[edit]

(newest on top) Move requests:

Other discussions:

Pretty stale but not "concluded":

Concluded

[edit]
Extended content
2023
2022
2021
This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Capitalization discussions ongoing (keep at top of talk page).[edit]

Add new items at top of list; move to Concluded when decided, and summarize the conclusion. Comment at them if interested. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

Current

[edit]

(newest on top) Move requests:

Other discussions:

Pretty stale but not "concluded":

Concluded

[edit]
Extended content
2023
2022
2021
{{Excerpt|Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 30|Is "The Academy" a proper noun as used in [[Mountain State University]]?}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 30 § Is "The Academy" a proper noun as used in Mountain State University?.[edit]

Can someone please look into the recent edit history of Mountain State University? An unregistered editor is insisting that "The Academy" is a proper noun and refuses to discuss the issue in Talk so it would be helpful to have the opinion of another editor. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Nope. It's the same as "the university". The sub-institution is question has had proper names of: the Academy at Mountain State University, and later Mountain State Academy. But per WP:THE and MOS:THECAPS we should not even render the former as The Academy at Mountain State University. A possible exception: I have noticed over time that we've been ignoring this rule for cases in which the official acronym of the entity in question includes a capital-T for The in it. I recently codified this exception in the relevant section, to better reflect actual practice. TICA (which is never known as ICA) can properly be referred to as The International Cat Association, and it is also a case in which WP:THE would not be applied to remove the The from the article title. But almost every US college and university pretentiously capitalizes the leading "The" in front of their names in their own materials, while using acronyms that do not start with T for The. So, it's the University of Where-ever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 30 § Is "The Academy" a proper noun as used in Mountain State University?.[edit]

Can someone please look into the recent edit history of Mountain State University? An unregistered editor is insisting that "The Academy" is a proper noun and refuses to discuss the issue in Talk so it would be helpful to have the opinion of another editor. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Nope. It's the same as "the university". The sub-institution is question has had proper names of: the Academy at Mountain State University, and later Mountain State Academy. But per WP:THE and MOS:THECAPS we should not even render the former as The Academy at Mountain State University. A possible exception: I have noticed over time that we've been ignoring this rule for cases in which the official acronym of the entity in question includes a capital-T for The in it. I recently codified this exception in the relevant section, to better reflect actual practice. TICA (which is never known as ICA) can properly be referred to as The International Cat Association, and it is also a case in which WP:THE would not be applied to remove the The from the article title. But almost every US college and university pretentiously capitalizes the leading "The" in front of their names in their own materials, while using acronyms that do not start with T for The. So, it's the University of Where-ever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Files

[edit]
{{Excerpt|Science|only=file}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This file is an excerpt from Science.[edit]
This file is an excerpt from Science.[edit]
{{Excerpt|NIOSH air filtration rating#30 CFR 11|only=file}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This file is an excerpt from NIOSH air filtration rating § 30 CFR 11.[edit]
Example Part 11 HEPA Label, TC-21C particulate, with approval for Dusts, Fumes, Mists, radionuclides, and asbestos
This file is an excerpt from NIOSH air filtration rating § 30 CFR 11.[edit]
Example Part 11 HEPA Label, TC-21C particulate, with approval for Dusts, Fumes, Mists, radionuclides, and asbestos
{{Excerpt|Science|files=0}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from Science.[edit]

Part of a series on
Science
A stylised Bohr model of a lithium atom
General
Branches
In society

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe.[1][2] Modern science is typically divided into two or three major branches:[3] the natural sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology), which study the physical world; and the behavioural sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies.[4][5] The formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which study formal systems governed by axioms and rules,[6][7] are sometimes described as being sciences as well; however, they are often regarded as a separate field because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the scientific method or empirical evidence as their main methodology.[8][9] Applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine.[10][11][12]

The history of science spans the majority of the historical record, with the earliest identifiable predecessors to modern science dating to the Bronze Age in Egypt and Mesopotamia (c. 3000–1200 BCE). Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped the Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes, while further advancements, including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of India.[13]: 12 [14][15][16] Scientific research deteriorated in these regions after the fall of the Western Roman Empire during the Early Middle Ages (400–1000 CE), but in the Medieval renaissances (Carolingian Renaissance, Ottonian Renaissance and the Renaissance of the 12th century) scholarship flourished again. Some Greek manuscripts lost in Western Europe were preserved and expanded upon in the Middle East during the Islamic Golden Age,[17] along with the later efforts of Byzantine Greek scholars who brought Greek manuscripts from the dying Byzantine Empire to Western Europe at the start of the Renaissance.

The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe from the 10th to 13th centuries revived natural philosophy,[18][19][20] which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century[21] as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.[22][23] The scientific method soon played a greater role in knowledge creation and it was not until the 19th century that many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape,[24][25] along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".[26]

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems.[27][28] Contemporary scientific research is highly collaborative and is usually done by teams in academic and research institutions,[29] government agencies,[30] and companies.[31] The practical impact of their work has led to the emergence of science policies that seek to influence the scientific enterprise by prioritising the ethical and moral development of commercial products, armaments, health care, public infrastructure, and environmental protection.

This section is an excerpt from Science.[edit]

Part of a series on
Science
A stylised Bohr model of a lithium atom
General
Branches
In society

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe.[1][2] Modern science is typically divided into two or three major branches:[3] the natural sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology), which study the physical world; and the behavioural sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies.[4][5] The formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which study formal systems governed by axioms and rules,[6][7] are sometimes described as being sciences as well; however, they are often regarded as a separate field because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the scientific method or empirical evidence as their main methodology.[8][9] Applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine.[10][11][12]

The history of science spans the majority of the historical record, with the earliest identifiable predecessors to modern science dating to the Bronze Age in Egypt and Mesopotamia (c. 3000–1200 BCE). Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped the Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes, while further advancements, including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of India.[13]: 12 [14][15][16] Scientific research deteriorated in these regions after the fall of the Western Roman Empire during the Early Middle Ages (400–1000 CE), but in the Medieval renaissances (Carolingian Renaissance, Ottonian Renaissance and the Renaissance of the 12th century) scholarship flourished again. Some Greek manuscripts lost in Western Europe were preserved and expanded upon in the Middle East during the Islamic Golden Age,[17] along with the later efforts of Byzantine Greek scholars who brought Greek manuscripts from the dying Byzantine Empire to Western Europe at the start of the Renaissance.

The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe from the 10th to 13th centuries revived natural philosophy,[18][19][20] which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century[21] as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.[22][23] The scientific method soon played a greater role in knowledge creation and it was not until the 19th century that many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape,[24][25] along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".[26]

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems.[27][28] Contemporary scientific research is highly collaborative and is usually done by teams in academic and research institutions,[29] government agencies,[30] and companies.[31] The practical impact of their work has led to the emergence of science policies that seek to influence the scientific enterprise by prioritising the ethical and moral development of commercial products, armaments, health care, public infrastructure, and environmental protection.

{{Excerpt|Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle}}
Non-free image
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle.[edit]

The Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle or Advanced Satellite Launch Vehicle (also known as ASLV) was a small-lift launch vehicle five-stage solid-fuel rocket developed by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) to place 150 kg satellites into LEO.[1] This project was started by India during the early 1980s to develop technologies needed for a payload to be placed into a geostationary orbit.[2][3] Its design was based on Satellite Launch Vehicle.[4] ISRO did not have sufficient funds for both the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle programme and the ASLV programme at the same time and the ASLV programme was terminated after the initial developmental flights.[2] The payloads of ASLV were Stretched Rohini Satellites.[4]

This section is an excerpt from Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle.[edit]

The Augmented Satellite Launch Vehicle or Advanced Satellite Launch Vehicle (also known as ASLV) was a small-lift launch vehicle five-stage solid-fuel rocket developed by the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) to place 150 kg satellites into LEO.[1] This project was started by India during the early 1980s to develop technologies needed for a payload to be placed into a geostationary orbit.[2][3] Its design was based on Satellite Launch Vehicle.[4] ISRO did not have sufficient funds for both the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle programme and the ASLV programme at the same time and the ASLV programme was terminated after the initial developmental flights.[2] The payloads of ASLV were Stretched Rohini Satellites.[4]

{{Excerpt|U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking}}
Non-free image in infobox
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
This section is an excerpt from U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking.[edit]

U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking is an annual set of rankings of colleges and universities in the United States, which was first published by U.S. News & World Report in 1983. It has been described as the most influential institutional ranking in the country.

The Best Colleges rankings have raised controversy, and they have been denounced by several education experts.[1] Detractors argue that they rely on self-reported, sometimes fraudulent data by the institutions,[2][3][4][5] encourage gamesmanship by institutions looking to improve their rank,[6] imply a false precision by deriving an ordinal ranking from questionable data,[7] contribute to the admissions frenzy by unduly highlighting prestige,[8] and ignore individual fit by comparing institutions with widely diverging missions on the same scale.[9]

In 2022, Columbia University was lowered from second to 18th in the rankings[10] after a report by Columbia University mathematics professor Michael Thaddeus, which revealed that Columbia University misreported data to U.S. News & World Report. The remaining "national universities" were not renumbered.[11]

This section is an excerpt from U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking.[edit]

U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking is an annual set of rankings of colleges and universities in the United States, which was first published by U.S. News & World Report in 1983. It has been described as the most influential institutional ranking in the country.

The Best Colleges rankings have raised controversy, and they have been denounced by several education experts.[1] Detractors argue that they rely on self-reported, sometimes fraudulent data by the institutions,[2][3][4][5] encourage gamesmanship by institutions looking to improve their rank,[6] imply a false precision by deriving an ordinal ranking from questionable data,[7] contribute to the admissions frenzy by unduly highlighting prestige,[8] and ignore individual fit by comparing institutions with widely diverging missions on the same scale.[9]

In 2022, Columbia University was lowered from second to 18th in the rankings[10] after a report by Columbia University mathematics professor Michael Thaddeus, which revealed that Columbia University misreported data to U.S. News & World Report. The remaining "national universities" were not renumbered.[11]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d See the United Nations for a list of resolutions with references.
  2. ^ See United Nations section for details and references.
  3. ^ See European Parliament section for text and references for European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2008 on the commemoration of the Holodomor, the Ukraine artificial famine.
  4. ^ See Council of Europe for details and references.
  5. ^ For details on recognition, see National recognition.
  6. ^ a b Referenced are a list of nations which were co-author sponsors of the United Nations Declaration on 85th anniversary of Holodomor.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h Nation has signed the United Nations Declaration on the Eighty-Fifth Anniversary of the Holodomor of 1932-1933 in Ukraine.
  8. ^ See United Nations section for details and references.
  9. ^ See European Parliament section for text and references for European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2008 on the commemoration of the Holodomor, the Ukraine artificial famine.
  10. ^ See Council of Europe for details and references.
  11. ^ For details on recognition, see National recognition.

References

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Excerpt/testcases3&oldid=1263177768"