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

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

Talk:Bicycle helmets in Australia

Currently there are some 13 references to material on the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation web site. Given that it is a single-issue web site, I have sought opinions at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bicycle_Helmet_Research_Foundation on whether it is a suitable authority for the relevant assertions which cite it in this article. Please provide feedback on this question in the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bicycle_Helmet_Research_Foundation section of the RS noticeboard. Tim C (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Map projection

Is a common sphere (like the surface of a soccer ball) a two-dimensional or a three-dimensional object?184.186.8.148 (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Computus

Is the table addition in this edit by User:Q5968661 comprehensible and sufficiently connected to the remainder of the article that readers will understand why it is included? Is this table useful to readers, and therefore merit inclusion? Is "regular pattern" a correct and useful titile for that portion of the table? Jc3s5h (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Migraine

It is proposed that we change Chiropractic manipulation, physiotherapy, massage and relaxation might be as effective as propranolol or topiramate in the prevention of migraine headaches; however, the research had some problems with methodology. The evidence to support spinal manipulation is poor and insufficient to support its use. to A systematic review found that massage therapy, physiotherapy, relaxation and chiropractic spinal manipulative might be as effective as propranolol and topiramate to prevent migraine, however both this review and a subsequent systematic review raised concerns over the quality of the research, and the latter concluded that evidence does not support use of spinal manipulation as a therapy for migraines. References Support Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather

The April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak was the largest continuous outbreak on record. In fact, it was so large that the article relevant to the outbreak is breaking templates because of the sheer size. As such, the article needs to be broken up into two while maintaining appropriate titles. With prior discussion, neither United States Man nor myself have been able to come up with a title...suggestions? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:NGC 6357

The "Madokami Nebula" stuff seems to be some kind of advertizement for a "petition" to IAU to change the name of the nebula. First: IAU has no name list for nebulae, secondly, the ones using Wikipedia to advertize petitions are violating the rules of Wikipedia, especially WP:NOTADVOCATE, especially not an area for advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind. I'm going to investigate on how to solve this problem, if a Wikipedia:Requests for comment or a Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is needed to block the page from anon IP edits, or what formal action is to be taken. I'm letting this "Madokami Nebula" stuff stand for other editors to examine and take action, but it is a violation of Wikipedia rules. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Tazerdadog/Tau (Proposed mathematical constant)

Is tau notable enough for an article in mainspace under any name? If yes, a second RFC will determine the name to be used. (added) The subject to this RFC is User:Tazerdadog/Tau_(Proposed_mathematical_constant). John W. Nicholson (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Water fluoridation

Currently the article section in question reads: "A 2000 systematic review found that water fluoridation was statistically associated with a decreased proportion of children with cavities (the median of mean decreases was 14.6%, the range −5 to 64%), and with a decrease in decayed, missing, and filled primary teeth (the median of mean decreases was 2.25 teeth, the range 0.5–4.4 teeth), which is roughly equivalent to preventing 40% of cavities." The authors of the review cited state "The best available evidence suggests that fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce caries prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries free and by the mean change in dmft/DMFT score. The studies were of moderate quality (level B), but of limited quantity. The degree to which caries is reduced, however, is not clear from the data available. The range of the mean difference in the proportion (%) of caries-free children is -5.0 to 64%, with a median of 14.6% (interquartile range 5.05, 22.1%). " and that "What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth." http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm , http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm The York authors' conclusion is that, while the evidence suggests that fluoridation reduces caries, it is not possible to make definitive statements about levels of reduction of caries based on their data. This has been replaced with the interpretation of Worthington H, Clarkson J. (The Evidence Base for Topical Fluorides. Community Dental Health, 2003, 20: 74-76.) cited in a pamphlet by the British Fluoridation society offering the interpretation their interpretation of the York data as "roughly equivalent to preventing 40% of cavities." Tilapidated (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Request board

This is a human-edited list of requests for comment. Click here to add a new request.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. This list is updated every 30 minutes by RFC bot.