Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology: Difference between revisions

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 Wikipedia 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)
• SSRI discontinuation syndrome the article goes lengths to tell that discontinuation syndrome is not addiction. I smell bias from Prozac peddlers. Can anyone with pharmaceutical knowledge do a POV-check? `'mikka 21:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• WT:WEAPON#Article names for firearms Extensive debate over naming conventions for firearms could use input from more editors. 14:33, 18 December 2006 (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)

Biology and related

• Canine reproduction -- an editor has objected to the article containing a section "copulation" on the basis that it is "venial" or asking if it should be "rated M 18+", and asserting OR. He then deleted the entire section. I responded with a number of (agreed correct) cite links to support one of the facts he called "rubbish" and "crap", and commenting that his motive seems to be not a wish that the article is cited properly, but a wish specifically to target that one section. I stated that mass-deletion was inappropriate in the context. (See the relatively short section Talk:Canine reproduction#Turning). His response has been to slap {{citeneeded}} on every statement - 23 tags in one short section, often two per line, including demands to cite even uncontroversial statements such as "When copulating, a male canine initially mounts the female from behind, as with most tetrapods". I don't have a problem with citing per se, obviously. My question is the use of WP:CITE in this manner for gaming the system (WP:POINT) and as an alternative way to express disapproval; not one statement in the entirety of the rest of the article, of which this is only about 15%, got tagged with a cite request. I'm not sure how to deal with this. Cite everything to meet the game? Or what? Passed to others for advice and input on the talk page. 00:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Epinephrine#The name issue Should the title be adrenaline or epinephrine? Your comments are welcome. 05:43, 22 December 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: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)

Mathematics

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

• Talk:Exclusive disjunction Should this article be renamed "Exclusive or"
  • Apparently already done, although I would have opposed, because of the confusing relationship with "logical inequality" and the opposites, "logical equality"/"XNOR"/"NXOR". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Physical science

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

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

• Talk:Gibbs free energy#Gibbs free energy to Gibbs energy move debate Gibbs free energy is the traditional and widely-used name, Gibbs energy is the IUPAC recommendation. RFC cross-posted at WikiProject Chemistry and WikiProject Physics. 23:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Nitrogen#Liquid to solid Nitrogen Video 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)
• Talk:Non-standard cosmology#Request for Comment: Fixing an error in section "Early GR attempts" 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)
• Talk:Pressure Should the article refer to 'gage pressure' or 'gauge pressure'? 03:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Technology and engineering

• Talk:Comparison of memory cards#Adding USB flash drive A debate on whether adding USB flash drive is appropriate for comparison article of memory cards. 21:20, 5 January 2007 (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)
• 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 Wikipedia, 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)