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 03:43, 23 February 2006 editCDN99 (talk | contribs)5,605 edits +chiropractic← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:01, 27 December 2024 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,668,000 edits Added: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Weather. 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>
{{shortcut|] or<br>] or<br>]}}
{{rfclistintro}}
{{RFCheader|Mathematics, natural science, and technology}}
</noinclude>
<!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>-->
''']'''
{{rfcquote|text=
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, .


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.
===Clinical and medical topics===
*'''Option 1''' — EF2/T4 using the Haag Engineering Co. paper.
* ] - two editors prefer the article be written with no criticism, as if chiropractic is mainstream and used by all to cure all. Attempts at reasoning have been futile. 03:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
*'''Option 2''' — F3/T5-6 using the ] paper.
* ], with central issue described 17:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
* ] - an editor with an interest in autism prefers a longer version detailing the possible use of these substances in patients with autism. 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
*Tourette syndrome: newbie in distress. I requested help 8 days ago, and have gotten no answer. The situation is summarized in this request: ]. If you look at the ], you'll see that I'm having a very hard time. I'm new to Misplaced Pages, and the other user seems to be as well. I need assistance. I don't think it's bad faith, but there are no experienced editors there to help, and I hope to get some work done. 01:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
*] - edit war between and . Thoughts? 16:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
: NOTE: Suggest delete this RfC and a block on ] - This RfC was posted by an anon 16:24, 4 February 2006 213.130.141.147 whose only contribution to Misplaced Pages is this RfC ]. See also the anon's "contribution" ] from a very similar IP address ] (emphasis added) "''Proof of efficacy of '''woo-woo therapies''' depends heavily on anecdotal evidence''" Anon clearly knows his/her way around Wiki procedures. Believe know who this is - unsuccessful edit warrior from other pages. ] 08:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
*] - The ] a division of the National Institute of Health (NIH) is alledged to be "controversial" with references to skeptic organization journals or websites in support. This vague or meaningless criticism of a respectable organization is not even expressed as the opinion of these skeptic organizations. 14:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
*] User ] has been trying to remove any scientific criticism of the so-called AIDS dissident movement which claims HIV does not cause AIDS. He has repeatedly done this by bullying and insulting other editors and keeps telling people to stop editing "his" page. ] 04:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
* ] Anon editor has placed a couple comments linking juvenile diabetes and milk, which seems suspicious to me, but I'm no expert. Medical folks? 03:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
*] - should the biography mention that his son was Fritz Klenner, implicated in multiple murder? 14:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
*]: Discussion on whether an image of visible smegma on a human male penis should be displayed inline or linked.
* ] - 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 and repeated deletion of a number of links, nominally from one POV, which (allegedly) often have little apparent bearing on the article at hand. 04:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
* ] - 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)


'''The ]''' (] 03:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
===Biology and related===
''']'''
*] The concept of "irreducible complexity" is credited to Ludwig von Bertalanffy. Both this claim and the given citation have been called into question. 20:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
{{rfcquote|text=
*] - how breed registries should be included in the article 18:38, 5 January 2006 (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.
*] Did an extensive re-write for the tagged article ]. Changed so much of it though I want to make sure I'm not stepping on anyone's toes and need to know if its suitable to replace with the current article. New article is linked from the talk page. (also not sure if this type of a request is appropriate here) --] 11:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


] '''Previous discussions:''' ], ]
===Mathematics===


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


===Physical science===
::''Physics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]''
::''Chemistry RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]''


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===
''']'''
*] — should external links to unofficial phpBB sites be allowed, specifically phpbbhacks.com? 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
{{rfcquote|text=
*] Should we include a long list of external links to software that uses the VNC protocol. 15:31, 21 January 2006 (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)}}
*] &mdash; ] is about to move another ... er ... small hill. But a consensus is required on the naming scheme to be employed. Please review ], ], ], and ]; and then contribute to the discussion. 16:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
''']'''
*] &mdash; 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=
*] &mdash; should we have a link to 05:58, 5 January 2006 (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>
*Yesterday, the ] and ] engine pages were merged and then unmerged. There was difficulty unmerging properly and now ] resides at ] and cannot be moved back to W12 without an administrator. There is now debate over whether it should be moved back to ] or whether a disambiguation page should be created to deal with people searching for the ] postal district and possible future articles. 13:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg|'''B: ''' NASA picture {{br}}<small>''(])''</small>
*Does this video work:{{video|filename=Photos21 001.ogg|title=Power-assisted bicycle.|description=Riding a power on demand, power-assisted bicycle|format=]}}:What could be done to improve this video for the article ]. 19:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Earth Seen From DSCOVR.jpg|'''C: ''' 2018 NASA image {{br}}<small>''(])''</small>
*] (debate on if we should be including this picture or not in the article ].) (this one was by me on 6 January 2006 (UTC)) 22:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
</gallery>
*], POV-pushing, lack of citation ], revert warring in between ] and ]. Some ] violations also. 17:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Prior discussion:
===Miscellaneous===
* ]
* ] 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>-->
] (]) 19:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)}}
]
{{RFC list footer|sci|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }}
]
]
]
]

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.