Misplaced Pages

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)

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)

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)

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)

Because there has been some confusion about which discussion threads are active or not, I'm bringing together material from two related discussions in this new section to clarify the situation.

Here's the latest version of the table (recently bot-archived four days after the last edit to it) which was originally introduced by Coppertwig with this edit, where he invited "others to edit it and add to it."

{

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?

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

• Biographies (bio)
• Economy, trade, and companies (econ)
• History and geography (hist)
• Language and linguistics (lang)
• Maths, science, and technology (sci)
• Media, the arts, and architecture (media)
• Politics, government, and law (pol)
• Religion and philosophy (reli)
• Society, sports, and culture (soc)

• Misplaced Pages style and naming (style)
• Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines (policy)
• WikiProjects and collaborations (proj)
• Misplaced Pages technical issues and templates (tech)
• Misplaced Pages proposals (prop)
• Unsorted

• 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.