Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:19, 6 January 2006 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,015 edits →Physical science: "older" -> FA; "well-known expert" POV: "well-known pro-CF" might be too: removed description instead← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:01, 27 December 2024 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,668,136 edits Added: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Weather. 
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=
*] - how breed registries should be included in the article 18:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Should the article’s infobox reflect EF2/T4 or F3/T5-6? This question stems from the fact the infobox inputs can only accept a single set of values (i.e. EF2/T4 or F3/T5-6, not both). The EF2/T4 rating comes from a peer reviewed paper by ] and Stuart Robinson with the Haag Engineering Co. in the ] in August 2006. The F3/T5-6 rating comes from the ] (TORRO), the creators of the ], T-scale, .
*]: Whether the term "virago" is a concept in anthropology. 23:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
* ] — A dispute exists as to the neutrality of one section of this article.


Since the infobox can only contain one set of the ratings, this discussion more or less needs to determine which source (Haag Engineering Co. or TORRO) should be the infobox source.
==Mathematics==
*'''Option 1''' — EF2/T4 using the Haag Engineering Co. paper.
::''Mathematics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]''
*'''Option 2''' — F3/T5-6 using the ] paper.
*]- 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)


'''The ]''' (] 03:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
==Clinical and medical topics==
''']'''
* ] - 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)
{{rfcquote|text=
* ] - 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)
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.
* ] - 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)
*] - &mdash; 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 &mdash; understandably &mdash; 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)
*] &mdash; 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''


] '''Previous discussions:''' ], ]
==Physical science==


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.
::''Physics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]''


* ] &ndash; Edit conflict with several competing versions, one of which is a revert to the featured article version. Please have a look and help build a reasonable consensus version. Article looks like it will lose featured status (]). ] 02:38, 6 January 2006 (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)}}
* ] Please check on the neutrality and accuracy. 04:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
''']'''
{{rfcquote|text=
Should the lead of the article mention alternatives that may affect cats not affected by catnip? ] <sup>]</sup> 13:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}}
''']'''
{{rfcquote|text=
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>
* ] &ndash; Long dispute about the validity of the term "false doppler". 14:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
The Blue Marble (remastered).jpg|'''A:''' Color-calibrated picture <small>''(])''</small>
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:
==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)
* ]
*] - Basically boils down to whether ] should redirect to ] or ]. 00:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
* ]
*] - Should the various other Screens of Death be merged into ]? 23:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
] (]) 19:46, 5 December 2024 (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)
{{RFC list footer|sci|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }}
**B4L is a POV pusher with a history of 3RR on this article. &nbsp;]]] 13:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
*] - should we have a link to 05:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

==Technology and engineering==
*] has an edit war about the infobox. The issue was taken to ] as well. Please respond on ]. Thanks, ] 03:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
*] which version best reflects Misplaced Pages policy, is more factual, and is NPOV or 03:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

==Unclassified==
* ] The issue is how to apply the ] policy in the case of pro or non-pro scientific studies or scientific 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>-->
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 13:01, 27 December 2024

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Talk:2005 Birmingham tornado

Should the article’s infobox reflect EF2/T4 or F3/T5-6? This question stems from the fact the infobox inputs can only accept a single set of values (i.e. EF2/T4 or F3/T5-6, not both). The EF2/T4 rating comes from a peer reviewed paper by Timothy P. Marshall and Stuart Robinson with the Haag Engineering Co. which was published in the American Meteorological Society in August 2006. The F3/T5-6 rating comes from the Tornado and Storm Research Organisation (TORRO), the creators of the TORRO scale, T-scale, published in this 2015 paper.

Since the infobox can only contain one set of the ratings, this discussion more or less needs to determine which source (Haag Engineering Co. or TORRO) should be the infobox source.

  • Option 1 — EF2/T4 using the Haag Engineering Co. paper.
  • Option 2 — F3/T5-6 using the TORRO paper.

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

recycle Previous discussions: New tornado articles and the news, Proposal - Criteria for inclusion on Tornadoes of XXXX articles

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.


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... WP:NTORNADO (with it's own project page)? Starting an RfC, since obviously community input is needed. Also pinging @Departure–:, who suggested this. :) EF 18:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Catnip

Should the lead of the article mention alternatives that may affect cats not affected by catnip? Escape Orbit 13:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Cookeville tornado

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)

Talk:Earth

Which picture should be used in the lead?

Prior discussion:

WhatisMars (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)


Requests for comment (All)
Articles (All)
Non-articles (All)
InstructionsTo add a discussion to this list:
  • Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
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.