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

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Talk:ExxonMobil

This article used to have a heading "Support for climate change denialism" which was removed or changed in this extensive edit. Should a heading called "Support for climate change denialism" be restored in the article? Note that there has been discussion of this issue with involved editors above on this talk page. Note also that we're not looking so much for votes here, as for in-depth comments on the content issues, and possible proposals of how the content should read. The RfC is posed as a question, but we welcome comments and new ideas as per the above section. SageRad (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Human spaceflight

Should Apollo 1 be included in the Fatality Risk section? Both sides' arguments can be found in the section "Does Apollo 1 belong in the Fatality Risk section?"SaltySeas (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox medical condition

In the encyclopedia, the manual of style recommends the following with regards synonyms: [...] the title can be followed in the first line by one or two alternative names in parentheses — Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Usage in first sentence Alternatively, if there are more than two alternative names, these names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section; it is recommended that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line — Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Separate_section_usage Medical conditions frequently have many synonyms (e.g. Burning mouth syndrome). The idea of including a list of synonyms in the infobox medical condition started on WT:MED (permalink here: [1]). James has kindly made a preview, seen here: Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome. Another idea for dealing with the list of synonyms is to have them as a footnote (e.g. geographic tongue, this method discussed on WT:MED here: [2]). If there is support for the above idea, then this raises other questions: should the list of synonyms replace entirely the list of synonyms in the lead, or elsewhere in the article? Or should the infobox be in addition to a list of synonyms in the lead or in a section within the article? Ping to anyone who has expressed opinion on this so far. JakobSteenberg, Little pob, Johnbod, Doc James, Ozzie10aaaa, Boghog, TylerDurden8823, Looie496, Barbara (WVS). Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy

I was going to post this but no one seems to check its talk page too much anymore so might as well post this here, and plus is this quite an notable issue. PHL (some people call it by the project name HEC), once agian has reformated their listings of Habitable exoplanets, They have split the list into a "Conservative" and "Optimistic" lists which was well needed indeed. The formatting of PHL's lists is drastically different and included values that List of potentially habitable exoplanets doesn't list, and List of potentially habitable exoplanets lists values like SPH, HZC, and HZA which are no where to be found on the PHL's page (Some older archived lists from PHL used the HZD (like this one), but generally it has been replaced with Stellar flux Denoted as SE, S⊕ or Seff(<- See table 1 in that link) (But generally in Scientific papers Seff appears to be most commonly used) to critique planatary habitability (Just look at that link I just posted)). Not to mention so many KOI's that aren't on PHL's KOI List which we do have a better orginized list than this one that acctually has the ones that are there, plus some other ones that are backed by Nasa's Exoplanet Archive. I'm thinking we should just redo the whole list from PHL's data as since there is no explanatory citation for any of the other units presented it must of all came from thin air. Another question that we have to answer is if we want a two separate tables (on the same page) for exoplanets in the "Conservative" HZ and "Optimistic" HZ or continue on with lumping all of them into one table or have all 3 tables on the same page or a sort of compromise which would be a single table, with some sort of sorter that would allow us to sort out "Optimistic" HZ planets and "Conservative" HZ planets. For the format of the table I nominate the PHL style format which can be seen in use here. Davidbuddy9 Talk  01:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Monkey Kingdom

Expert attention requested also if somebody here reads Sinhalese readily. About a week ago, Ceylonpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) added material to the article about destruction of a banyan tree during production of the movie. I rewrote a compromise version of the text, but Koala15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) deleted it outright. The issue seems to be the Divaina story used as a source.[3] It's in Sinhalese, and I'm reading the Google machine-translated version of the text. As best as I can see, the newspaper is accusing the production company of destroying the tree. It's hard to tell if this is an editorial opinion or the result of journalistic investigation, but it feels like the former. So, that creates an issue of verifiability and self-sourcing. I'd like some fresh eyes to look at this and help determine a few things: Is Divaina a source we should refrain from using? If not, is it writing in editorial tone instead of journalistic? If it is editorial tone, can we use the material at all, or is it an unbacked allegation? Or, do we need to disclaim it by saying that the newspaper is making the accusation? Again, I think getting a few more editors involved would help, especially if they can read the article directly. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:ExxonMobil

Should the following sentence be added to the "Funding of global warming skepticism" section: In December 2009 Mother Jones magazine said ExxonMobil was among the most vocal climate change deniers. Harkinson, Josh (December 7, 2009). "The Deniers' Inconvenient Truthiness". Mother Jones. Retrieved December 21, 2015. Here's a guide to the dozen loudest components of the climate disinformation machine.  Harkinson, Josh (December 4, 2009). "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial". Mother Jones. Retrieved December 21, 2015. Meet the 12 loudest members of the chorus claiming that global warming is a joke and that CO2 emissions are actually good for you.  Hugh (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Global cooling

;Summary of my concerns An accuracy dispute tag has been removed before the dispute is settled There is a dispute about what the term Global cooling actually means I allege that the lead section of the article is inaccurate and biassed My critics claim that it is "not useful" to include temperature data published by the University of Alabama in Huntsville in the article. I claim that it is useful Biscuittin (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Dodge Tomahawk

Include your !votes in the Survey. Yes means to remove the adjective. No means to keep the adjective. Do not engage in threaded discussion in the Survey. That is what the Threaded Discussion is for. Be civil and concise in both the Survey and the Threaded Discussion. If any editors want any other RFCs, I will try to work with them to develop neutrally worded RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every hour by Legobot.