| Revision as of 20:05, 4 January 2006 editLumiere (talk | contribs)2,326 edits →Unclassified← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:01, 31 December 2024 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,668,586 edits Removed: Talk:2005 Birmingham tornado. | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude> | |||
| {{RFCheader|Maths, natural science, and technology}} | |||
| {{rfclistintro}} | |||
| {{shortcut|] or ] or ]}} | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| ==Biology and related== | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| *]: Whether the term "virago" is a concept in anthropology. 23:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Do sources support retention of "the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism." | |||
| * ] — A dispute exists as to the neutrality of one section of this article. | |||
| Or should we remove it (as unsourced) or re-write it to only say ""the lab leak theory increased anti-Chinese racism."? | |||
| ==Mathematics== | |||
| ::''Mathematics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]'' | |||
| *]- Heated dispute over content changes and revisions with major parties not discussing the issue but just repeatedly reverting. ] 16:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::See also ] for a similar dispute. ---] 01:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * '''A''' Keep | |||
| ==Clinical and medical topics== | |||
| * '''B''' Remove | |||
| * ] - Request for comments with regard to a variety of ] and ] related pages as to the appropriate content of the '''See also''' section. Multiple pages are involved - the disagreement centers on inclusion of a large number of links from one POV which often have little apparent bearing on the article at hand. 04:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''C''' Re-write | |||
| * ] - A device that "oxygenates" the body and supposedly heals a lot of things. Originally presented as fact. Claims and references were added, but the original editor keeps reverting them. 13:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * ] - a user has repeatedly added information claiming that talc on condoms was linked to cancer, that condoms had known carcinogen benzene in them, that pores in condoms were larger than the "so-called HIV", etc.08:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * ] - request for comments, a user believes "there is a realistic zombie threat that might happen". 18:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *] - — POV conflict between two editors, one of which appears to be a primary source on the topic. A second editor who appears to have a passive involvement in the topic has altered the content to denigrate the research and the researchers, as well as the credentials and validity of the primary source. I'm not familiar with the research or the participants, and hoping someone with more familiarity can shed some insight. 17:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * ] - Should the external webpage be included on this and other vaccine-related pages? Prior discussion about the topic and summary included on this talk page. 19:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * ] - Discussion is ongoing about whether to remove one of the images of the glans penis from the page. One editor keeps removing it for what are clearly censorship/prurience issues. Other editors are responding — understandably — by restoring the picture because ]. A third opinion is that the picture itself is inappropriate not because of a desire to censor, but because it is a poor photo, there are already other photos on the page that do a better job of illustrating the glans, and the number of photos on the page is making the layout of the page ugly. 15:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *] — edit conflict between two people, one of whom is aligned with an anti-psychiatry advocacy group, over how to adequately portray Torrey and his work in psychiatry. Neutral eyes needed. 03:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * ]—A dispute exists at ] about whether the ] helps protect the protective properties against heat cold, mechanical, et cetera, to such structures as the glans, meatus, frænulum, its own inner smooth and ridge mucosa, et cetera. One side claims it does, while the other side claims that the ] is devoid of function. The discussion on the talkpage can be found here: ]. ''This topic was entered into the RFC November 5, 2005'' | |||
| ] (]) 18:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ==Physical science== | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| How should ] describe the current for-profit/non-profit status of Grand Canyon University? | |||
| *'''Option 1''': Do not describe GCU as presently "for-profit" or "non-profit" in Misplaced Pages's voice (such as in ]); or | |||
| *'''Option 2''': Describe GCU in ] as presently a "for-profit" institution (such as in ]); | |||
| *'''Option 3''': Describe GCU in Misplaced Pages's voice as presently a "non-profit" institution. | |||
| — ] <sub>]</sub> 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| Should we have notability standards for individual tornado articles? We already have informal inclusion criteria for "Tornadoes of YYYY" articles. Below is a preliminary proposal for such criteria, with the hope that it can evolve into a formal guideline that can possibly be referenced in future AfD discussions. | |||
| ] '''Previous discussions:''' ], ] | |||
| ::''Physics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]'' | |||
| This has been nagging at me for a while now, and since another editor has talked to me about this issue, I think we bring this up. Since we have a sort of "inclusion criteria" for "Tornadoes of YYYY" articles, I suggest we come up with notability criteria for individual tornadoes as well. See ] for what this may look like. | |||
| * ] Please check on the neutrality and accuracy. 04:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * ] – Long dispute about the validity of the term "false doppler". 14:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| This is my very primitive way of determining the notability of several tornado articles I've written, and am hoping that it could be integrated into a refined set-in-stone WPW policy that could be used in actual AfDs. I'd assume that the table will be gotten rid of and turned into a list. This has been discussed in the past, but never really came to anything. Maybe it could be... ] (with it's own project page)? Starting an RfC, since obviously community input is needed. Also pinging {{ping|Departure–}}, who suggested this. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 18:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ==Telecommunications and digital technology== | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| *] - Disagreement over two pieces of criticism. I left a note on ], to which he responded on ], but since then nothing else has transpired. ] 22:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| *] - Basically boils down to whether ] should redirect to ] or ]. 00:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Should the lead of the article mention alternatives that may affect cats not affected by catnip? ] <sup>]</sup> 13:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| *] - Should the various other Screens of Death be merged into ]? 23:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| *] - disageements about Sony Computer Entertinment losses, POV editions, Kutaragi be acused to be responsible of Sony Corp losses, POV about Sony board of directions changes, page protected today because a revert war just emerge. --] 23:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| **B4L is a POV pusher with a history of 3RR on this article. ]]] 13:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the tornado image in the article, including whether it was truthfully even taken in Cookeville. The image mentions it was taken from Reddit, and searching the image on Reddit reveals a high level of skepticism even from users there. I propose that this image be discussed and potentially removed unless it can be otherwise proven that the picture was taken in Cookeville on March 3. ] (]) 19:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| Should weak and unimpactful tornadoes be included in list articles? ] (]) 14:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| Is the blog ] in whole or in part, a ]? ] (]) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| Which picture should be used in the lead? | |||
| <gallery> | |||
| ==Technology and engineering== | |||
| The Blue Marble (remastered).jpg|'''A:''' Color-calibrated picture <small>''(])''</small> | |||
| *] which version best reflects Misplaced Pages policy, is more factual, and is NPOV or 03:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg|'''B: ''' NASA picture {{br}}<small>''(])''</small> | |||
| Earth Seen From DSCOVR.jpg|'''C: ''' 2018 NASA image {{br}}<small>''(])''</small> | |||
| </gallery> | |||
| Prior discussion: | |||
| ==Unclassified== | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] The issue is how to apply the ] policy in the case of pro or non-pro scientific studies or affirmations about the transcendental meditation technique, including assertions on the scientific methods used. See also Rfc in] 19:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | |||
| ] (]) 19:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] | |||
| {{RFC list footer|sci|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 17:01, 31 December 2024
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| Do sources support retention of "the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism."
Or should we remove it (as unsourced) or re-write it to only say ""the lab leak theory increased anti-Chinese racism."?
|
How should Misplaced Pages's voice describe the current for-profit/non-profit status of Grand Canyon University?
|
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Weather
| Should we have notability standards for individual tornado articles? We already have informal inclusion criteria for "Tornadoes of YYYY" articles. Below is a preliminary proposal for such criteria, with the hope that it can evolve into a formal guideline that can possibly be referenced in future AfD discussions.
This has been nagging at me for a while now, and since another editor has talked to me about this issue, I think we bring this up. Since we have a sort of "inclusion criteria" for "Tornadoes of YYYY" articles, I suggest we come up with notability criteria for individual tornadoes as well. See User:EF5/My tornado criteria for what this may look like.
|
| Should the lead of the article mention alternatives that may affect cats not affected by catnip? Escape Orbit 13:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC) |
| I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the tornado image in the article, including whether it was truthfully even taken in Cookeville. The image mentions it was taken from Reddit, and searching the image on Reddit reveals a high level of skepticism even from users there. I propose that this image be discussed and potentially removed unless it can be otherwise proven that the picture was taken in Cookeville on March 3. United States Man (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Weather
| Should weak and unimpactful tornadoes be included in list articles? Departure– (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Is the blog Science-Based Medicine in whole or in part, a self-published source? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
Which picture should be used in the lead?
Prior discussion: |
.jpg)
| Requests for comment (All) | |
|---|---|
| Articles (All) |
|
| Non-articles (All) | |
| Instructions | To add a discussion to this list:
|
| For more information, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. Report problems to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment. Lists are updated every hour by Legobot. | |