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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
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 Revision as of 04:25, 17 January 2012 edit undoJayjg (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 editsm fixNext edit →
Line 4: Line 4:
''']''' ''']'''
{{rfcquote|text= {{rfcquote|text=
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) 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= {{rfcquote|text=

Revision as of 04:25, 17 January 2012

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

Talk:Circumcision

A debate has been taking place about whether the weight apportioned to HIV prevention in the lead of the current version of the circumcision 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. Jayjg 04:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Dwarf planet

This is primarily an NPOV and WEIGHT 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"?

There are several articles involved:

  • This page, in the section Official and "nearly certain" dwarf planets: 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?
  • The nav box {{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 here.)
  • The opening sentences of Makemake and 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, Sedna, OR10, Orcus, 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.

— kwami (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Daemon (computing)

I believe the File:Bsd_daemon.jpg 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 File:Bsd_daemon.jpg 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.)

kop (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Usage share of web browsers

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.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

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 BLP, NOR, and UNDUE, as it can lead to cherry-picking and may not allow for appropriate context and weight.

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. here), 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: Antonino Zichichi and Garth Paltridge. A third, George Chilingar, had been on this list despite no discussion of climate change in his article, but he was removed in November.

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? Dragons flight (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Vacuum

Should the introduction to the article Vacuum be amended to include the following reference to field-theoretic vacuum:
The notion of a perfect vacuum has become more complex with time, and today involves the ideas of virtual particles and vacuum fluctuations, which provide vacuum with physical attributes.
For example, QCD vacuum is paramagnetic, while QED vacuum is diamagnetic. See Carlos A. Bertulani (2007). Nuclear physics in a nutshell. Princeton University Press. p. 26. ISBN 0691125058. Brews ohare (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:ISO 2852

Is there any merit in including a link to a google image search result as an example of ISO 2852 fittings? Mitch Ames (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Creation and evolution in public education

#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.
  1. Is the level of quotation from the resolution excessive (given similar considerations)?
  2. 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. Lysenkoism), even in quotation marks? Does WP:REDFLAG apply?

HrafnStalk(P) 04:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Highways

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)


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.