Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:31, 14 February 2010

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

Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories

Hi. I am requesting input regarding this article. For some reasons the article has managed to survive deletion. I believe however there has been manipulation of the time frames on the deletion requests and reviews by adding speeding keeps. I believe this article is very detrimental to the quality of Misplaced Pages. IMO it lacks notability except for some yellow journalism websites that blatantly said Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez said the earthquake was a product of an American attack. This was later debunked by several sources. However it sprung a number of stories over the internet and mostly on non-reliable sources that there were a number of conspiracy theories. I believe if we are intending Misplaced Pages to have some level of quality pseudo-scientific stories like this and especially when they are the product of some attention needed websites, should be filter out. Although it is true some news programs mentioned Hugo Chavez's supposedly statement, the number of different theories included in the article are all not related in a different way beyond the term conspiracy.

I added a deletion review here for the ones interested in voice their opinion there too.

Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Push-button telephone

Please indicate which of these versions is more encyclopedic. --Jeffro77 (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Should this article be renamed? If so, what should it be? Cla68 (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:High-speed rail

As discussed above I'm of the view that Misplaced Pages should have an internal definition of what counts as high-speed rail, so that we know what content to include in this and related articles. As fudoreaper said:

As a hypothetical example, if Vietnam now has 120 km/h trains, which is high-speed compared to the 60 km/h trains they had before, should that be included? In other countries, like Germany, a 120 km/h train is just regular speed. This suggests the need for policy to guide us on what we should be discussing when talking about 'high-speed rail'.

Comments? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Electronic cigarette

See User talk:Mariociccolini for the main discussion that's occurred up until now. Mario thinks that the term "e-cigarette" is linguistically inaccurate and shouldn't be used, because the "e-" prefix denotes software rather than hardware. He therefore thinks the term should be "ecigarette" instead. My stance is that "e-cigarette" (with the dash) is the way the media refers to the product, so that's the name we should be using in the article, rather than questioning its linguistic accuracy. I know it seems like a silly thing to argue over, but we haven't been able to make much headway. Hoping some outside input will help. Thanks. Equazcion 03:56, 8 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients

Clearly restricting this to wiki-notable instead of notable—in the plain English sense of the word—software is counter-productive. The purpose of a page like this is to be more comprehensive about this kind of software, but still not indiscriminate. The distinction between these notions is in the depth of coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources. This is acceptable per WP:LSC: "exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles". I propose the following criteria, in line with WP:V, WP:NNC, WP:DUE, WP:LSC:

Typical examples of WP:SECONDARY WP:RS would be book mentions, e.g. , , . Thoughts? Pcap ping 14:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Homosexual behavior in animals

An issue has arisen regarding whether "List of animals displaying homosexual behavior" should be merged with "Homosexual behavior in animals".Jstanierm (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Lizard

Should we keep the Domain: Eukarya in the taxobox or not? Mokele (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Steve Shnider

Would you support including reports of current citation totals or calculations of h-index in an article about an academic (or a particular work) to substantiate notability? If so, can a single standard source (such as the Web of Knowledge) be considered authoritative?—Ash (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)