Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention: You can sign up to receive a user talk page invitation to participate in discussions of interest to you, see Wikipedia:Feedback request service
Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine
| I am requesting an RFC on whether recent peer-reviewed research on Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) can be proportionally reflected in the article's lead to better comply with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:SUMMARY.
The current lead heavily emphasises the pseudoscientific status of TCM while minimising the existence of a growing body of high-quality academic literature exploring physiological mechanisms (such as gut microbiota interactions, neuroimmune pathways, and systems biology models), published in RS-compliant journals. I proposed limited, policy-compliant updates to reflect the existence of such research without making efficacy claims or violating WP:MEDRS. My proposed sources include: - The New England Journal of Medicine (Eisenberg et al. 1993, doi:10.1056/NEJM199301283280406) - The Lancet (Tang et al. 2008, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61354-9) - Pharmacology & Therapeutics (Yuan & Lin, 2000) - Frontiers in Pharmacology (Li et al. 2020, Zhou et al. 2021) - NCCIH (official NIH center on complementary medicine) A full discussion and dispute resolution process has already occurred at the DRN: Link to DRN filing I am requesting community input to determine whether limited neutral inclusion of these RS sources is appropriate under existing policy. Thank you. YellowFlag (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2025 (UTC) |
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Aircraft)
| There is currently an impasse between several editors (including myself) on the topic of how to display an aircraft's specifications if there are several variants. For instance, the Boeing 737 Classic generation has 3 variants: The -300, -400, and -500. On several existing pages, these variants and their specifications (Such as range, physical dimensions, engine types, etc.) are listed in a large table which encompasses either the entire family of aircraft (See Boeing 747#Specifications) or for the specific generation (See Boeing 737 MAX#Specifications). However, under the Style guide these should be a single variant in a list (See Boeing 737 Next Generation#Specifications (Boeing 737-800 with CFM56-7B26 and winglets)) to minimize the amount of extraneous data.
The disagreement comes in with which one should be used. The side I am on argues the tables give the most complete view of the variants while providing a quick reference lookup for data within the article. The side for the guidelines in the style argues that the tables violate Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE due to being too information dense, and that the singular variant model is more readable and better for reader understanding. My request for comment is whether We should follow the style guide, or We should use the existing data tables. Bimmons (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the following proposed edits be implemented? PeteskiPete (talk) 17:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC) |
| Should the following sentences be removed from the Lead of Polyvagal Theory?
There is consensus among experts that the assumptions of the polyvagal theory are untenable.[1] Ian Oelsner (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC) |
- ^ Grossman, Paul (2023). "Fundamental challenges and likely refutations of the five basic premises of the polyvagal theory". Biological Psychology. 180. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2023.108589. PMID 37230290.