Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nightngle (talk | contribs) at 14:48, 3 January 2007 (→Clinical and medical topics: adding a rfc). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:48, 3 January 2007 by Nightngle (talk | contribs) (→Clinical and medical topics: adding a rfc)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut
  • ]

Template:RFCheader

Clinical and medical topics

  • Quorn 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 Talk:Quorn 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)
  • Talk:Abortion/First paragraph#Definition of abortion 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)
  • Talk:Homeopathy#Misplaced Pages guidelines re categorization summarizes a long, heated debate about the use of the Categorization 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)
  • Talk:Depleted uranium#Comparison of the two versions contains a comparison of the current version of Depleted uranium 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.LossIsNotMore 10:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Biology and related

  • Talk:Irreducible complexity#Discredited 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)
  • Talk:Turkish Van#Request for comment - 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)
  • Talk:Evolution#Request_for_comment_November_22_2006 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)
  • Talk:Gliding action 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)
  • Talk:Bloat#Picture 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)
  • Talk:Epinephrine#The name issue Should the title be adrenaline or epinephrine? Your comments are welcome. 05:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics

Mathematics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Physical science

Physics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics
Chemistry RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemistry

Technology and engineering

  • Talk:List of supercars#RFC on Suitability of Topic for List, Content 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 WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability? If an existing page is difficult to reconcile with policy, how should it be handled? 15:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Artificial_life 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)
  • Talk:Video_game_crash_of_1983#Serious_Problems 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: WP:OR WP:RS WP:VERIFY. Comments? /Blaxthos 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Talk:Windows_Me#Memory_Eater Is it appropriate to mention in the "Criticisms" section that Windows Me has been called "memory eater", and are the existing citations sufficient for verifiability? This diff shows the disputed content. 03:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Category: