| Revision as of 14:48, 3 January 2007 editNightngle (talk | contribs)920 edits →Clinical and medical topics: adding a rfc← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 20:01, 30 December 2024 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,668,302 edits Added: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. | ||
| 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>--> | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| ===Clinical and medical topics=== | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| 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."? | |||
| *] is a meat substitute made from mycoprotien and egg albumin. In the "Controversy" section of the article, there is a discussion of possible allergic reactions, etc. A Misplaced Pages user has added a negative testimonial quoted on a website (claiming that the product made him/her incontinent of feces in public). A discussion ensued and a request for comment has been made on the ] page under the "Colorful Quote" and "Request for comment" sections, with one user concerned about NPOV and the other user believing that because the quote can be referenced to a website it should be allowed, among other reasons. An objective look at the "Controversy" section and comment would be most helpful. Thank you. 14:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * '''A''' Keep | |||
| *] the article goes lengths to tell that ] is not ]. I smell bias from ] peddlers. Can anyone with pharmaceutical knowledge do a POV-check? `'] 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''B''' Remove | |||
| *] Extensive debate over naming conventions for firearms could use input from more editors. 14:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''C''' Re-write | |||
| ] (]) 18:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| *] is the last in a long line of discussions over the definition of abortion, focusing on whether it should include the word 'death'. There are several definitions of abortion, most of which (the medical ones) don't use the word, but some do. The article uses the second type, giving the first as sort of an 'afterthought'. The suggestion to give both definitions side by side did not reach a consensus. Oddly, the conclusion form that was that the second definition should be used as the primary one in stead of stating the most used medical definition first. I don't know about the way such things should be resolved, but this seems wrong to me. Note that any new discussions on this are 'archived' the moment they are put on the talk page. 09:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| {{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 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. | |||
| *] summarizes a long, heated debate about the use of the ] guidelines, specifically the part that says "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Some editors feel that it is self-evident and un-controversial that homeopathy belongs in quackery while other editors feel that such a categorization is not self-evident and is highly controversial 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''' — EF2/T4 using the Haag Engineering Co. paper. | |||
| *] contains a comparison of the current version of ] with a recent major revision which replaced a lot of what some people had been taking out of it over the past several months, mostly in the "Health considerations" section.] 10:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''' — F3/T5-6 using the ] paper. | |||
| '''The ]''' (] 03:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| ===Biology and related=== | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| *] Three descriptors have been proposed - "controversial" (which is inaccurate, since there is no scientific controversy, simply dismissal), "Behe's theory" (which misses the broader context) and "discredited" (which is accurate, but may not be the best choice of words). 16:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| *] - This page has undergone regular frequent reversion lately by two editors involved in a dispute about how exactly the name of the article should be applied. 01:13, 5 December 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. | |||
| *] Any talk about making clear that parts of evolution are theory is summarily archived. You will have to look into the history of the talk page to see it, because of course it's been archived. There is no addressing of the issues. --05:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] Please contribute comments on the neutrality and relevance of the possibly NPOV statement that a foreskin is similar to wearing a condom. 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] Please comment whether the image of "splenic necrosis" due to bloat has clinical and reader value to a vet or other interested reader. 14:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] Should the title be ''adrenaline'' or ''epinephrine''? Your comments are welcome. 05:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] '''Previous discussions:''' ], ] | |||
| ===Mathematics=== | |||
| ::''Mathematics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]'' | |||
| * ] Should this article be renamed "Exclusive or" | |||
| 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. | |||
| ===Physical science=== | |||
| ::''Physics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]'' | |||
| ::''Chemistry RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]'' | |||
| *] ''Gibbs free energy'' is the traditional and widely-used name, ''Gibbs energy'' is the ] recommendation. RFC cross-posted at and . 23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] I do not want to get into a revert war over a potential health safety issue over a link to a YouTube amateur video - outside opinions are welcomed. 17:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] Is there in Einstein's gravitation any '''attraction between masses''' or is the gravitational force an '''inertial force''' generated by the curvatures of spacetime? 19:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] Should the article refer to 'gage pressure' or 'gauge pressure'? 03:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] ] wishes to put across certian ideas which will need to be carefully weighed, he has prudently decided to debate on Talk due to ArbCom probation; Ian and ScienceApologist are the only two active here and they do not work well together. More eyes definitely required. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] There is a dispute and edit war of the neutrality of the article and as to whether or not both sides of the issue are being presented well enough within the article. ] 12:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] We are having a heated dispute in the ] article over a proper definition for ] (specifically whether systems are irreducible and cannot be predicted/described by their constituent parts) and moreover what sort of citations should be required for this article. Please help us resolve these disputes and get the article unprotected. 16:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] Is EVP recognized by the scientific community as a legitimate phenomenon, or is it a pseudoscience? Can research by non-peer review publications be claimed as factual? 08:56, 19 November 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)}} | |||
| ===Technology and engineering=== | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| *] A list currently without any kind of objective criteria, and almost entirely composed of original research. If a list is with an extremely subjective definition is, in fact, appropriate for Misplaced Pages, how do editors follow ], ] and ]? If an existing page is difficult to reconcile with policy, how should it be handled? 15:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| *] Discussion on what the article should be about: artificial life, or the field of study with the same name. 05:34, 20 December 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)}} | |||
| *] Article, though well written and interesting, seems rife with original research, unverified claims, and is largely unsourced. Seems as though some insiders sheppard the article, and may even be 100% correct, however there seems to be a ''massive'' amount of synthesis of thought, unreferenced claims, and a wholly unverifiable article. Editors in the past have brought up concerns of factual accuracy as well. Major policy problems: ] ] ]. Comments? /] 15:46, 4 December 2006 (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> | |||
| *] Is it appropriate to mention in the "Criticisms" section that ] has been called "memory eater", and are the existing citations sufficient for verifiability? '''''' shows the disputed content. 03:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The Blue Marble (remastered).jpg|'''A:''' Color-calibrated picture <small>''(])''</small> | |||
| <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | |||
| 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: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ] (]) 19:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{RFC list footer|sci|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} | |||
Latest revision as of 20:01, 30 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?
|
| 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.
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.
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. | |