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 23:06, 5 November 2005 editR. S. Shaw (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,668 editsm →Technology and engineering: update link← Previous edit Revision as of 04:55, 6 November 2005 edit undoWoohookitty (talk | contribs)Administrators611,228 edits →Technology and engineeringNext edit →
Line 29: Line 29:


==Technology and engineering== ==Technology and engineering==
*] and ] - on whether or not motorized bicycle and electric bicycle should be one article or two. --]<sup>]</sup> 04:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


*] - on whether artificial islands that are not products of ], such as constructed in the manner of oil platforms, are artificial islands. 16:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC) *] - on whether artificial islands that are not products of ], such as constructed in the manner of oil platforms, are artificial islands. 16:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:55, 6 November 2005

Template:RFCheader

Shortcut
  • ]

Biology and related

  • præpuce — A dispute exists at præpuce about whether the præpuce helps protect the protective properties against heat cold, mechanical, et cetera, to such structures as the glans, meatus, frænulum, its own inner smooth and ridge mucosa, et cetera. One side claims it does, while the other side claims that the præpuce is devoid of function. The discussion on the talkpage can be found here: Præpuce
  • Category_talk:Nursing care plans -- the medical content of all these pages is redundant with their main articles; should the nursing material be merged with the main articles? 13:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Template talk:Suicide-- Should this navigational template for suicide related pages include a short statement that "medical consensus is that people who are considering suicide or having suicidal thoughts should seek immediate assistance"?--Kewp (t) 07:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor - is it reasonable to mention a side-effect that has not been studied well and may not exist 05:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • talk:engram Is engram widely use in Neuroscience? 11:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Gliding Action
    • ¿Does a certain quotation refer to what it should? ¿Is the quotation ambiguous? Given that another quotation unambiguously referring to the the subject already exists with none disputing it, ¿should the allegedly ambiguous quotation allegedly referring to something completely different stay? — 2005-10-05T05:20:00Z
    • Both possible and common have the same denotation as they are used in the article. ¿Which has the correct connotation? — 2005-10-05T05:20:00Z
  • Talk:Prostate cancer - what constitutes a suitable external link for a medical article? On what grounds should these links be removed? 13:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Bit#Trivial bits — Whether adding 'trivia' to the bit article – regarding bit information storage capacity of the human brain and Data (a fictional science fiction TV character) – is irrelevant or necessary to provide conceptual context for (esp. novice) visitors regarding (artificial) intelligence. – 11:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Mathematics

  • Talk:Mathematics. How to define mathematics. Is the current version POV and/or original research? 15:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Natural science

  • Talk:Alcubierre_metric -- Should an article describing a scheme for faster-than-light travel exclude a statement of the standard understanding that faster-than-light travel is equivalent to time travel? 02:05 30 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Fire -- see the section on burninate; does fire's role in animation/cartoons merit a place on this page? 05:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Plasma_cosmology -- Is wording of a picture caption, NPOV? 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Julian year What is a "Julian year"? Is it restricted to astronomic time interval, or can it have also have a historical context as well? Two editors disagree on this and some other editorial input would help to settle the issue. 07:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • talk: Tropical Storm Alpha (disambiguation) and talk: Tropical Storm Alpha (2005) -- Should there be disambiguation of something which is not ambiguous? Isn't is just sufficient to link to article titles which are only similar and not identical (in this case Subtropical Storm Alpha of 1972 and Subtropical Storm Alfa of 1973) to avoid confusion? It is proper for one or two users to almost immediately revert such good faith changes in articles?  –radiojon 14:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Telecommunications and digital technology

  • Talk:RealPlayer revert war in the criticism section 18:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Technology and engineering

  • talk:artificial island - on whether artificial islands that are not products of land reclamation, such as constructed in the manner of oil platforms, are artificial islands. 16:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act - on whether or not suspending state liability laws and preventing private persons from insuring themselves against a nuclear catastrophy is protecting the public or Unprotecting the public 00:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Whats going on with this? no mention on the page or talk page, but suggestion in the archive contining four day old discussion that this is ongoing??? Sandpiper 02:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Essentially, I put a test RfC for user Ben Gatti on my personal user page. He decided to open up a RfC on Price-Anderson Act even though we're in our 2nd mediation and this is a long long LONG standing dispute. It goes back to June. I ended up having the one on my user page deleted because it was being edited by Ben and this was just going to be a practice thing. Anyway, his RfC was just a response to mine. As you can see, we're over 400K in archives. If you want to participate, by all means do so. But honestly, it's not absolutely necessary. --Woohookitty 04:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Unclassified

Categories: