| Revision as of 22:37, 30 December 2006 editSusanLesch (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,106 editsm →Technology and engineering: quote← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:01, 22 January 2025 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,671,940 edits Added: Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <noinclude> | |||
| {{shortcut|] or<br>] or<br>]}} | |||
| {{rfclistintro}} | |||
| {{RFCheader|Mathematics, natural science, and technology}} | |||
| </noinclude> | |||
| <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| ===Clinical and medical topics=== | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| As per above, which of the following images should be used for Turing's infobox? ] (]) 09:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| Should the first sentence of this article be changed to include Uğur Şahin's Turkish ethnicity/background, rather than simply calling him "German"? ] (]) 22:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| Should this article contain a table of degrees of relationship with calculated coefficients of relationship, such as the one at ]? - ] (]) 03:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| I am requesting input from other editors regarding the level of detail in the description of the dilation and evacuation procedure in this article. My recent edits to expand this section, which included additional detail and references, were reverted. The current description in the article is as follows: | |||
| "Uterine contents are removed using a cannula to apply aspiration, followed by forceps to remove fetal parts." | |||
| I proposed revising this section to provide more specific details, including the instruments used and the other procedural steps. You can review my proposed changes in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dilation_and_evacuation&oldid=1270115407 | |||
| *] the article goes lengths to tell that ] is not ]. I smell bias from ] peddlers. Can anyone with pharmaceutical knowledge do a POV-check? `'] 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] Extensive debate over naming conventions for firearms could use input from more editors. 14:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I ask editors the following: | |||
| *] 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) | |||
| # Are terms such as "dismemberment" and "decapitation," which are referenced in medical literature, appropriate for inclusion? | |||
| *] summarizes a long, heated debate about the use of the ] 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) | |||
| # Should the article include information about the crushing of the fetal skull, a common part of the procedure? | |||
| *] contains a comparison of the current version of ] 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.] 10:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| # Should the article mention that dilation & evacuation is the most common abortion procedure in the second trimester? | |||
| I appreciate feedback from the community to help resolve this dispute. Thank you. | |||
| ] (]) 00:55, 18 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= | |||
| {{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1739068436}} | |||
| What is the reliability of ]? | |||
| * '''Option 1: ]''' | |||
| ===Biology and related=== | |||
| * '''Option 2: ]''' | |||
| *] 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) | |||
| * '''Option 3: ]''' | |||
| *] - 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) | |||
| * '''Option 4: ]''' | |||
| *] 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) | |||
| ] (]) 19:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| *] 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) | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| *] 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) | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| *] Should the title be ''adrenaline'' or ''epinephrine''? Your comments are welcome. 05:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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."?''' | |||
| ===Mathematics=== | |||
| ::''Mathematics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]'' | |||
| * ] Should this article be renamed "Exclusive or" | |||
| * '''A''' Keep | |||
| ===Physical science=== | |||
| * '''B''' Remove | |||
| ::''Physics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]'' | |||
| * '''C''' Re-write | |||
| ::''Chemistry RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]'' | |||
| ] (]) 18:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| *] ''Gibbs free energy'' is the traditional and widely-used name, ''Gibbs energy'' is the ] recommendation. RFC cross-posted at and . 23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| *] I do not want to get into a revert war over a potential health safety issue over a link to a YouTube amateur video - outside opinions are welcomed. 17:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{rfcquote|text= | |||
| *] Is there in Einstein's gravitation any '''attraction between masses''' or is the gravitational force an '''inertial force''' generated by the curvatures of spacetime? 19:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| How should ] describe the current for-profit/non-profit status of Grand Canyon University? | |||
| *] Should the article refer to 'gage pressure' or 'gauge pressure'? 03:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 1''': Do not describe GCU as presently "for-profit" or "non-profit" in Misplaced Pages's voice (such as in ]); or | |||
| *] ] wishes to put across certian ideas which will need to be carefully weighed, he has prudently decided to debate on Talk due to ArbCom probation; Ian and ScienceApologist are the only two active here and they do not work well together. More eyes definitely required. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 2''': Describe GCU in ] as presently a "for-profit" institution (such as in ]); | |||
| *] There is a dispute and edit war of the neutrality of the article and as to whether or not both sides of the issue are being presented well enough within the article. ] 12:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Option 3''': Describe GCU in Misplaced Pages's voice as presently a "non-profit" institution. | |||
| *] We are having a heated dispute in the ] article over a proper definition for ] (specifically whether systems are irreducible and cannot be predicted/described by their constituent parts) and moreover what sort of citations should be required for this article. Please help us resolve these disputes and get the article unprotected. 16:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| — ] <sub>]</sub> 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)}} | |||
| *] Is EVP recognized by the scientific community as a legitimate phenomenon, or is it a pseudoscience? Can research by non-peer review publications be claimed as factual? 08:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{RFC list footer|sci|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} | |||
| ===Technology and engineering=== | |||
| *] 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 ], ] and ]? If an existing page is difficult to reconcile with policy, how should it be handled? 15:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] 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) | |||
| *] 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: ] ] ]. Comments? /] 15:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] Is it appropriate to mention in the "Criticisms" section that ] has been called "memory eater", and are the existing citations sufficient for verifiability? '''''' shows the disputed content. 03:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * In ] is the last sentence reasonable? The article has only one primary source so far (the museum video, in which it is mentioned by one author casually). It seems crystal clear and appropriate to me, but I thought perhaps someone here would know for sure. Thank you. -] 22:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :* Because I will probably edit it here is the sentence: "It is also important in the history of software in that its developers broke from ] to become ]s, in this case, with a set of self-authored options." -] 22:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 13:01, 22 January 2025
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
| As per above, which of the following images should be used for Turing's infobox? Absolutiva (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the first sentence of this article be changed to include Uğur Şahin's Turkish ethnicity/background, rather than simply calling him "German"? Tserton (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Coefficient of relationship
| Should this article contain a table of degrees of relationship with calculated coefficients of relationship, such as the one at Coefficient_of_relationship#Human_relationships? - MrOllie (talk) 03:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC) |
| I am requesting input from other editors regarding the level of detail in the description of the dilation and evacuation procedure in this article. My recent edits to expand this section, which included additional detail and references, were reverted. The current description in the article is as follows:
"Uterine contents are removed using a cannula to apply aspiration, followed by forceps to remove fetal parts." I proposed revising this section to provide more specific details, including the instruments used and the other procedural steps. You can review my proposed changes in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Dilation_and_evacuation&oldid=1270115407 I ask editors the following:
I appreciate feedback from the community to help resolve this dispute. Thank you. DocZach (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC) |
Talk:Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243
| Should we principally refer to Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 as a "crash" or an "accident"? guninvalid (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC) |
Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
What is the reliability of NewsNation?
|
| 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."?
|
How should Misplaced Pages's voice describe the current for-profit/non-profit status of Grand Canyon University?
|
| Requests for comment (All) | |
|---|---|
| Articles (All) |
|
| Non-articles (All) | |
| Instructions | To add a discussion to this list:
|
| 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. | |