| Revision as of 04:25, 17 January 2012 editJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits replace with neutral description of issue, in accord with WP:RFC. If original poster wishes to take credit for it, he is free to.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:01, 22 December 2024 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,667,807 edits Removed: Talk:Decline in insect populations. |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
<noinclude> |
|
<noinclude> |
|
|
{{rfclistintro}} |
|
'''The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:''' |
|
|
</noinclude> |
|
</noinclude> |
|
''']''' |
|
''']''' |
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
{{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, . |
|
A debate has been taking place about whether the weight apportioned to HIV prevention in the lead of the current version of the article is appropriate. The proposed methodology/methodologies for establishing relative weight of aspects of the topic have been discussed, as have aspects of some of the policies and guidelines governing such issues on Misplaced Pages. An impasse appears to be have been reached and outside input is sought. A new sub-thread titled '''RfC comments''' has been created for the purpose. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
|
|
''']''' |
|
| ⚫ |
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
This is primarily an ] and ] dispute: Given that sources disagree as to which bodies are known beyond reasonable doubt to be dwarf planets (DPs), what should we do to ensure that, in the words of WP:RSN, "when reliable sources disagree, we document the dispute without taking sides"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
There are several articles involved: |
|
|
|
*'''Option 1''' — EF2/T4 using the Haag Engineering Co. paper. |
|
*This page, in the section ]: Should the tables be merged from 4 to 2, with coding to distinguish who accepts which bodies as dwarf planets? (Proposed mergers are given above.) Should the wording of the section and table titles be changed? |
|
|
|
*'''Option 2''' — F3/T5-6 using the ] paper. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''The ]''' (] 03:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
*The nav box {{tl|Moons of dwarf planets}}: Should we list all five bodies that Brown, Tancredi, et al. accept as DPs and which have moons, or should we limit the box to the three accepted by the IAU? If five, how should we, or should we, distinguish the two sets? (The three are in the current version; the five are shown .) |
|
|
⚫ |
''']''' |
|
|
|
|
*The opening sentences of {{dp|Makemake}} and {{dp|Haumea}}: Is the Sheppard ''et al.'' citation enough to treat these "likely" bodies as having an intermediate degree of confidence between the "bonafide" DPs (Eris, Pluto, and Ceres) and the other four "likely" bodies accepted by Brown ''et al.''? Or is IAU acceptance and the majority of astronomers sufficient for us to say they "are" DPs without qualification? |
|
|
|
|
|
*The leads of the other four, {{dp|Sedna}}, {{dp|OR10}}, {{dp|Orcus}}, {{dp|Quaoar}}: These are accepted as DPs by Brown and others, but have not been addressed (nor accepted) by the IAU and are not generally called DPs by other astronomers. How best to word the leads to be NPOV and consistent with other DP and TNO articles. We are probably closer to agreement here. |
|
| ⚫ |
— ] (]) 04:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
{{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)}} |
|
I believe the ] image must be removed from this page for copyright reasons, should it? If so what can be done to keep it from coming back? |
|
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
|
|
As near as I can tell this article does not meet the non-free-use rationale associated with the ] image. The article is not about FreeBSD and the image is not used in association with FreeBSD. I removed this image once already, some time ago, but it has returned. |
|
|
|
|
|
(It's too bad the image cannot be used, because it's perfect. Such is life.) |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 06:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
{{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)}} |
|
Since there is really no consensus above and everyone involved can agree on nothing, I ask for outside comment on whether the medians should be included.] ] 00:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)}} |
|
|
⚫ |
''']''' |
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Should weak and unimpactful tornadoes be included in list articles? ] (]) 14:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
This list article currently requires that editors provide at least one specific quote showing that each included scientist has challenged the consensus regarding global warming. However, in a majority of cases, only a single source is used for each scientist on the list itself. This can be problematic from the standpoint of ], ], and ], as it can lead to cherry-picking and may not allow for appropriate context and weight. |
|
|
|
''']''' |
|
⚫ |
{{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> |
|
If this list is understood primarily a navigational aid, then problems of insufficient context are mitigated by the ability of readers to get more information from each scientist's biography. However, at present, there is no requirement that target biographies provide any discussion of climate change. As a means of establishing notability, we do require that the target biography already exist, but we have no requirements beyond simple existence. I'd like to propose that inclusion on this list further require that each scientist's biography elaborate on his or her views regarding climate change. This issue was raised in November (e.g. ]), with some people supporting stronger inclusion criteria, but no conclusion was reached. The main thrust of the opposition was that content here should not be dependent on the content of other wiki pages. Currently, there are two people on the list for whom there is no discussion at all of climate change in their biographies: ] and ]. A third, ], had been on this list despite no discussion of climate change in his article, but he was removed in November. |
|
|
|
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: |
|
So what do people think, should we explicitly require that any scientist included on this list must have a discussion of their climate change views in their biography? ] (]) 05:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
* ] |
| ⚫ |
''']''' |
|
|
|
* ] |
| ⚫ |
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
|
* ] |
|
Should the introduction to the article ] be amended to include the following reference to ]: |
|
|
⚫ |
] (]) 19:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
:The notion of a perfect vacuum has become more complex with time, and today involves the ideas of ] and ], which provide vacuum with physical attributes.<sup>1</sup> |
|
|
:::<sup>1</sup>For example, ] is ], while ] is ]. See {{cite book |title=Nuclear physics in a nutshell |author=Carlos A. Bertulani |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=n51yJr4b_oQC&pg=PA26 |page=26 |isbn=0691125058 |year=2007 |publisher=Princeton University Press}} ] (]) 21:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)}} |
|
| ⚫ |
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Is there any merit in including a link to a google image search result as an example of ISO 2852 fittings? ] (]) 07:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
#Is the level of (mainly primary sourced) coverage of the 'drafting and adoption' of this resolution excessive? Particularly with view to the Parliamentary Assembly's lack of prominence, and purely advisory nature. Such primary-sourced details would most probably be available for many (most?) of the other sections, but has not been included. |
|
|
#Is the level of quotation from the resolution excessive (given similar considerations)? |
|
|
#Is it appropriate to include the factual claim "that Darwinian evolution was a favorite theory of their former communist rulers" given clear evidence of communist distaste for Darwinian evolution (e.g. ]), even in quotation marks? Does ] apply? |
|
|
<font face="Antiqua, serif">'']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub><sup>''(''']''')</sup></font> 04:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)}} |
|
| ⚫ |
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Should coordinates be included in highway articles? If so, how should this be done, in terms of 1) what points of the road should be tagged or how certain roads are tagged and 2) the style that the coordinates should be presented in? 01:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)}} |
|
|
{{RFC list footer|sci|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} |
|
{{RFC list footer|sci|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} |
.jpg)
