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 00:01, 17 March 2020 editLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,668,135 edits Added: Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:01, 27 December 2024 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,668,135 edits Added: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Weather. 
Line 2: Line 2:
{{rfclistintro}} {{rfclistintro}}
</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, .
Is the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines a fringe viewpoint? ] (]) 23:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)}}

''']'''
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 ] paper.

'''The ]''' (] 03:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
''']'''
{{rfcquote|text= {{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.
Due to , in which this WP article and history are named (mainly at 7:48 and 15:10), an influx of editors came to edit the page with ]. Those wanting to know the overall narrative of the video can read .
<br>An admin recently . However, the question remains as to how long this restriction should last. ] (]) 23:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)}}
''']'''
⚫ {{rfcquote|text=
Are coronavirus maps, should we use Our World in Data as a reliable attributable source, or should we be making calculations not yet published in reliable sources? --] (]) 14:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)}}
''']'''
⚫ {{rfcquote|text=
Should ] (currently a stub) be merged into a "Late-onset" section of ] (similar to ])? <span style="background-color:#c4c4c4;border-radius:8px;padding:0px 2px;">]</span> <span style="color:#000;font-weight:bold;font-size:.8em;">(])</span> 18:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)}}
''']'''
{{rfcquote|text=
Should the lead section of ] include the following?
*A clause in the sentence on Reagan's first term stating that during said term he {{gt|largely ignored the burgeoning ]}}.
*A sentence (immediately preceding the ones on USSR) stating {{gt|Reagan resisted calls for stringent sanctions against the ] regime in South Africa and vetoed a ] but was overridden by Congress.}}
Citations for both additions would be placed in the article body in the respective sections for AIDS (which includes the relevant sources listed immediately below) and Apartheid (which was ]). ] (]) 05:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)}}
''']'''
{{rfcquote|text=
Which description is more suitable here?


] '''Previous discussions:''' ], ]
A) She is a climate change denialist.


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.
B) She is a climate change skeptic.


C) She is a climate change denier.


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)}}
--] (]) 04:10, 6 March 2020 (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)}}
Should the lead article have the sentence {{tq|In minutes the city of Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, ceased to exist.}}? Please decide on one of the three following proposals:
''']'''
#Keep {{quote|In minutes the city of Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, ceased to exist. Eighty-five percent of the buildings in the city collapsed or were unusable, all services failed, and most of the highway and railway bridges collapsed or were seriously damaged.}}
#Replace with {{quote|In minutes, eighty-five percent of the buildings in Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, collapsed or were unusable, all services failed, and most of the highway and railway bridges collapsed or were seriously damaged.}} (with or without the {{tq|an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants}} sub-clause)
#Replace with {{quote|In minutes the city of Tangshan, an industrial city with approximately one million inhabitants, ceased to exist as a functioning entity. Eighty-five percent of the buildings in the city collapsed or were unusable, all services failed, and most of the highway and railway bridges collapsed or were seriously damaged.}}
Thanks in advance. 07:16, 3 March 2020 (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)}}
The "Data and figures" section of this navbox links either exclusively or almost exclusively to the template namespace. Here are three options:
''']'''
*'''Option A''': Keep as is and continue to link to template namespace.
*'''Option B''': Expand the linked templates into standalone articles.
*'''Option C''': Remove the linked templates from the navbox.
I look forward to reading your thoughts. ]&nbsp;] 05:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)}}
''']'''
{{rfcquote|text= {{rfcquote|text=
Should weak and unimpactful tornadoes be included in list articles? ] (]) 14:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Rfc participants are asked to support any of the following position statements, give their reasoning, and make any general comments or observations they might have.
⚫ ''']'''
⚫ {{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>
'''Position statement #1:''' This article's ] is poor.<br/>
The Blue Marble (remastered).jpg|'''A:''' Color-calibrated picture <small>''(])''</small>
'''Position statement #2:''' The lead requires improvement to comply with ].<br/>
The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg|'''B: ''' NASA picture {{br}}<small>''(])''</small>
'''Position statement #3:''' {{free diff|942223230|942223054|Article version #1}} is unacceptably pro-electronic cigarette, advocates that readers should take up electronic cigarettes, or evangelises for e-cigarettes in any way.<br/>
Earth Seen From DSCOVR.jpg|'''C: ''' 2018 NASA image {{br}}<small>''(])''</small>
'''Position statement #4:''' {{free diff|942223230|942223054|Article version #1}} is preferable to {{free diff|942250849|942250316|article version #2}}.<br/>
</gallery>


Prior discussion:
Thanks for participating!—]&nbsp;<small>]/]</small> 16:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)}}
* ]
''']'''
* ]
{{rfcquote|text=
* ]
Should we use the current graph or make visual changes to become a more standard ] per ]? As we can see in the . --] (]) 06:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)}}
] (]) 19:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)}}
{{RFC list footer|sci|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} {{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.