Maintenance. |
Added: Talk:Circumcision. |
||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
Which one of these alternatives is supported by the cited source? [[User:Ladislav Mecir|Ladislav Mecir]] ([[User talk:Ladislav Mecir|talk]]) 16:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)}} |
Which one of these alternatives is supported by the cited source? [[User:Ladislav Mecir|Ladislav Mecir]] ([[User talk:Ladislav Mecir|talk]]) 16:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)}} |
||
'''[[Talk:Circumcision#rfc_52CA375|Talk:Circumcision]]''' |
|||
{{rfcquote|text= |
|||
}} |
|||
{{RFC list footer|sci|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} |
{{RFC list footer|sci|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} |
Revision as of 07:01, 23 December 2019
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
Is the guideline for leads in medicine-related articles in this version of the Medicine-related articles Manual of Style in agreement with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section? Should WP:MEDLEAD be in sync with WP:LEAD?
Please avoid threaded responses in the "Survey" section, and start a new sub-section in the "Discussion" section for threaded commentary. 22:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC) |
Should the maintenance template be removed from the article based on recent edits and clean up? Justin Goldsborough (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
I suppose I better get a consensus before an edit war breaks out. The second image is a modification of the first one. The original looks a lot nicer, but the modified version is easier to see, I guess. The original author of the image prefers the first one, as he's said the edit "looks like absolute garbage"... anyone else have an opinion on this? Saucy[talk – contribs] 04:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
Talk:Concealed carry in the United States
Which version of the bolded text should be in the lead: Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC) |
This RfS primarily concerns terms and definitions of Unicode standard. Which version of definitions of «codespace» and «code point» you like the most?:
Please, take a note that counting starts from zero and revisions are listed in chronological order. The discussion may be found here: #Definitions 2. Any of three versions going to have at least 3 sources. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 16:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC) |
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Can belgian-wings.be can be considered as reliable source for belgian-related aviation to be used in article of Belgian Air Component, or just a self-published website? Ckfasdf (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2019 (UTC) |
The issue at hand is whether the article should be about the three specific platforms built for the Apollo program and later used for Shuttle, the specific implementation of the "Integrate-Transfer-Launch" concept in the MLs and MLPs of LC-39, or the general concept of a "mobile launcher" or "mobile launch platform" as used by some vertically-integrated rockets. - Jadebenn (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC) |
The source cited is a The Verge article authored by Adrianne Jeffries.[1] The alternative formulations are:
Which one of these alternatives is supported by the cited source? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC) |
- ^ Jeffries, Adrianne (12 April 2018). "THE ONE TRUE BITCOIN - Inside the struggle between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash". The Verge. Retrieved 7 April 2019.