Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RFC bot (talk | contribs) at 15:01, 14 February 2010 (Updating RFC list). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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)