Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather
| Should we have notability standards for individual tornado articles? We already have informal inclusion criteria for "Tornadoes of YYYY" articles. Below is a preliminary proposal for such criteria, with the hope that it can evolve into a formal guideline that can possibly be referenced in future AfD discussions.
This has been nagging at me for a while now, and since another editor has talked to me about this issue, I think we bring this up. Since we have a sort of "inclusion criteria" for "Tornadoes of YYYY" articles, I suggest we come up with notability criteria for individual tornadoes as well. I'll be copy-and-pasting this from User:EF5/My tornado criteria: { |
| Should the lead of the article mention alternatives that may affect cats not affected by catnip? Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC) |
| I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the tornado image in the article, including whether it was truthfully even taken in Cookeville. The image mentions it was taken from Reddit, and searching the image on Reddit reveals a high level of skepticism even from users there. I propose that this image be discussed and potentially removed unless it can be otherwise proven that the picture was taken in Cookeville on March 3. United States Man (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather
| Should weak and unimpactful tornadoes be included in list articles? Departure– (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)
| Shall we add this text:
In the case of a monotypic genus, the species and genus are covered in a single article. See WP:MONOTYPICFLORA and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA for more advice. to the lead of this notability guideline? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
| Is the blog Science-Based Medicine in whole or in part, a self-published source? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC) |
Which picture should be used in the lead?
Prior discussion: |
.jpg)
Talk:Decline in insect populations
Include or Exclude (diff) this text:
In October 2024, researchers from the European Molecular Biology Laboratory tested the influence of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and plant growth inhibitors in the laboratory against to larvae of the fruit fly, caterpillars of painted lady butterflies (Vanessa cardui) and in larvae of mosquitoes (Anopheles stephensi). Results suggested that agrochemical exposure, even at sublethal levels, affects insect populations.[1] Thanks for your comments! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC) |
| Is there enough reputable source material—in favor of the lab leak hypothesis—referenced in the body of this page, to justify softening the anti-lab leak tone in the lead paragraph and including some acknowledgement of the hypothesis being viable/legitimate/plausible? Lardlegwarmers (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC) |
- ^ Gandara, Lautaro; Jacoby, Richard; Laurent, François; Spatuzzi, Matteo; Vlachopoulos, Nikolaos; Borst, Noa O.; Ekmen, Gülina; Potel, Clement M.; Garrido-Rodriguez, Martin; Böhmert, Antonia L.; Misunou, Natalia; Bartmanski, Bartosz J.; Li, Xueying C.; Kutra, Dominik; Hériché, Jean-Karim (2024-10-25). "Pervasive sublethal effects of agrochemicals on insects at environmentally relevant concentrations". Science. 386 (6720): 446–453. doi:10.1126/science.ado0251. ISSN 0036-8075.