| Revision as of 21:14, 4 April 2007 editTearlach (talk | contribs)6,734 edits →Clinical and medical topics: Food and Drug Administration added← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 10:01, 5 January 2025 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,669,443 edits Added: Talk:Breyers.Tag: Manual revert |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
<noinclude> |
|
{{shortcut|] or<br>] or<br>]}} |
|
|
|
{{rfclistintro}} |
|
{{RFCheader|Mathematics, natural science, and technology}} |
|
|
|
</noinclude> |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
In ], does the sentence about ] with a 2013 diet book as a source have ] to the brand's history and products? ] (]) 06:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Should we principally refer to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 as a "crash" or an "accident"? ] (]) 23:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Do sources support retention of "the lab leak theory and its weaponization by politicians have both leveraged and increased anti-Chinese racism." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or should we remove it (as unsourced) or '''re-write it to only say ""the lab leak theory increased anti-Chinese racism."?''' |
|
'''Place requests ''within'' the appropriate section by subject, at the top of the section.''' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* '''A''' Keep |
|
<!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP for each section. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> |
|
|
|
* '''B''' Remove |
|
|
* '''C''' Re-write |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 18:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
===Biology and related=== |
|
|
|
''']''' |
|
*] - Please help determine whether the latest set of revisions improve the accuracy and direction of the article as compared to the previous version. Should the article remain in its new form, be reverted, some portion of the old version moved to the new version, or some portion of the new article moved to the old version? 04:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
*] Following a discussion in the Hebrew Misplaced Pages about whether or not each species should have its own article, the subject of the self-incompatibility article has also risen. Someone claims that this article should be split - as it relates to different mechanisms which are evolutionarily independent. One of the disadvantages of the current (merged) format, is that the S locus, described for different mechanisms in parallel, can be mistakenly conceived to consist of a single locus for all mechanisms. Do you think this article should be split? I don't. 20:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
How should ] describe the current for-profit/non-profit status of Grand Canyon University? |
|
*]. This RfC involves the question of where information about fetal development should be presented. Should it be presented in the ] article and then be summarized in the ] article? Or the reverse? Until this question is settled, writing the ] article will continue to be a nightmare. Thanks! 00:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Option 1''': Do not describe GCU as presently "for-profit" or "non-profit" in Misplaced Pages's voice (such as in ]); or |
|
*]. This RfC involves an image that a user named Severa has repeatedly reverted. This is the first time that I have initiated an RfC (though I previously joined an RfC initiated by someone else). 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Option 2''': Describe GCU in ] as presently a "for-profit" institution (such as in ]); |
|
* ] I have attempted to put a <nowiki>{{neutrality}}</nowiki> tag on this article due the POV edits by one user ] who continues to use this page (and others) to further his positions on abortion. I original removed a non-point of view edit, to have it reverted by the individual. Rather that engage in an edit war, I left the page alone for awhile, and then put the tag on the page, after seeing this individual continue in the same vein with other editors. The user removed it, saying I didn't explain why it was there (I felt the multiple existing discussions between this individual and others on the talk page was adequate). I replaced the tag, giving a full explaination on the talk page. He removed it again, claiming I didn't "clearly and exactly explain" what I had issue with. I would like opinion as to whether the neutrality tag is appropriate. 02:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Option 3''': Describe GCU in Misplaced Pages's voice as presently a "non-profit" institution. |
|
<!--Add new items at the TOP of this section, NOT HERE. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign.--> |
|
|
|
— ] <sub>]</sub> 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{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:''' ], ] |
|
===Clinical and medical topics=== |
|
|
*]: WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, SPA concerns. Also does ] merit a separate article? 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Disagreement over whether Barrett's board-certification status is relevant or notable enough to include in his article. 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] This is a form of bloodletting apparently common in the Middle-East, but obviously not accepted by Western medicine. The article does not reflect this; it is written by someone who obviously believes in its efficacy. Please help! 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
*]. BLP, POV and OR concerns; subject of ArbCom ruling. 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*] I hope it's appropriate to separate this RfC from the other one immediately below. This RfC involves subsections of the "Abortion" article which summarize main articles. The subsections cite various sources, many of which have POV issues that are described in the main articles. When I tried to insert the POV info into the "Abortion" article, others objected that the POV of the footnoted sources should not be mentioned. Thanks for any help with this. 02:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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)}} |
|
*] An editor has reverted numerous edits, but refuses to provide any reasons for those reverts, beyond saying that the edits require consensus. No reason is given why the editor thinks that the edits do not warrant consensus. The pertinent Misplaced Pages guideline is . 00:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
|
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
*] This page has become an advertisement for the American Society of Exercise Physiology (ASEP). All attempts at moderation and neutral point of view have been thwarted by members of ASEP. Help is appreciated. 11:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Should the lead of the article mention alternatives that may affect cats not affected by catnip? ] <sup>]</sup> 13:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
''']''' |
|
*] Is there sufficient evidence to state that ADHD is neurological in nature? If so, how much weight should it be given compared to other views? Will require a literature review. 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
<!--Add new items at the TOP of this section, NOT HERE. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign.--> |
|
|
|
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)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
''']''' |
|
===Mathematics=== |
|
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
::''Mathematics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]'' |
|
|
|
Should weak and unimpactful tornadoes be included in list articles? ] (]) 14:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{RFC list footer|sci|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} |
|
===Physical science=== |
|
|
::''Physics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]'' |
|
|
::''Chemistry RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]'' |
|
|
<!--Add new items at the TOP of this section, NOT HERE. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign.--> |
|
|
|
|
|
===Technology and engineering=== |
|
|
|
|
|
*] Please comment on exclusively restricting software articles to the latest version number. 12:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] This is a dispute about the meaning of NTFS. Is it (a) "Native Transactional File System" or (b) "NT File System"/"New Technology File System"? 00:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Please comment about appropriateness of an external link to a list of C++ related resources. 05:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Contention lies between an explanation of drum brake failure caused by heat deformation of drums and gas bearing generated from brake material as opposed to loss of servo effect from change in friction coefficient. De facto evidence exists in the use of disk brakes today that have no servo and no total fade at high tmperatures. 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
<!--Add new items at the TOP of this section, NOT HERE. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign.--> |
|
|
|
|
|
===Fringe science=== |
|
|
* ] Basically the dispute is whether "psychic" should be defined as someone with purported paranormal powers, or simply as someone with those powers (with mention later in the article that there is dispute that psychics exist ). 15:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
