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 01:58, 9 January 2007 editSamboy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,613 edits →Technology and engineering: I'm removing this; it looks like the person I'm working with is able to pull up hard data supporting his side and what not← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:01, 29 December 2024 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,668,145 edits Added: Talk:Grand Canyon University. 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>
{{shortcut|] or<br>] or<br>]}}
{{rfclistintro}}
{{RFCheader|Mathematics, natural science, and technology}}
</noinclude>
''']'''
{{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.
— ]&nbsp;<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.
<!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP for each section. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>-->
*'''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)}}
===Clinical and medical topics===
''']'''
{{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.


] '''Previous discussions:''' ], ]
*] 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)
*] 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)
*] Extensive debate over naming conventions for firearms could use input from more editors. 14:33, 18 December 2006 (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)
<!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP of this section. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>-->


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.
===Biology and related===
* ] -- an editor has objected to the article containing a section "copulation" on the basis that it is "venial" or asking if it should be "rated M 18+", and asserting OR. He then deleted the entire section. I responded with a number of (agreed correct) cite links to support one of the facts he called "rubbish" and "crap", and commenting that his motive seems to be not a wish that the article is cited properly, but a wish specifically to target that one section. I stated that mass-deletion was inappropriate in the context. ''(See the relatively short section ])''. His response has been to slap <nowiki>{{citeneeded}}</nowiki> on ''every'' statement - 23 tags in one short section, often two per line, including demands to cite even uncontroversial statements such as "When copulating, a male canine initially mounts the female from behind, as with most tetrapods". I don't have a problem with citing per se, obviously. My question is the use of ] in this manner for gaming the system (]) and as an alternative way to express disapproval; not one statement in the entirety of the rest of the article, of which this is only about 15%, got tagged with a cite request. I'm not sure how to deal with this. Cite everything to meet the game? Or what? Passed to others for advice and input on the talk page. 00:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
*] Should the title be ''adrenaline'' or ''epinephrine''? Your comments are welcome. 05:43, 22 December 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)
*] 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)
<!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP of this section. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>-->


===Mathematics===
::''Mathematics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]''
* ] Should this article be renamed "Exclusive or"
** Apparently already done, although I would have opposed, because of the confusing relationship with "logical inequality" and the opposites, "logical equality"/"XNOR"/"NXOR". &mdash; ] | ] 17:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
<!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP of this section. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>-->


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)}}
===Physical science===
''']'''
::''Physics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]''
{{rfcquote|text=
::''Chemistry RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]''
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>
*] ''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)
The Blue Marble (remastered).jpg|'''A:''' Color-calibrated picture <small>''(])''</small>
*] 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)
The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg|'''B: ''' NASA picture {{br}}<small>''(])''</small>
*] 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)
Earth Seen From DSCOVR.jpg|'''C: ''' 2018 NASA image {{br}}<small>''(])''</small>
*] Should the article refer to 'gage pressure' or 'gauge pressure'? 03:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
</gallery>
<!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP of this section. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>-->


Prior discussion:
===Technology and engineering===
* ]

* ]
*] A debate on whether adding ] is appropriate for comparison article of ]s. 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
* ]
*] 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)
] (]) 19:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)}}
*] 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)
{{RFC list footer|sci|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }}
*] 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)
<!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP of this section. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>-->
]

Latest revision as of 20:01, 29 December 2024

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

Talk:Grand Canyon University

How should Misplaced Pages's voice 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 this revision); or
  • Option 2: Describe GCU in Misplaced Pages's voice as presently a "for-profit" institution (such as in this revision);
  • Option 3: Describe GCU in Misplaced Pages's voice as presently a "non-profit" institution.

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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.