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

<noinclude>
{{rfclistintro}}
</noinclude>
'''[[Talk:Billion#rfc_0602B1D|Talk:Billion]]'''
{{rfcquote|text=
There is currently a dispute about how this article should be structured. Here are the two competing options:

# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billion&oldid=1070657022 Version 1], using bullet points to treat the definition on the two number scales equally and clearly.
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billion&oldid=1070653570 Version 2], prioritising the modern-day definition in English speaking countries.

Other relevant considerations:
* [[#No, there are not two current definitions to the word in English]] – the discussion above that led to this RFC
* The [[Trillion]] article
* [[Names of large numbers]] article
[[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 17:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)}}
'''[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#rfc_27F1A69|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard]]'''
{{rfcquote|text=
Are independent, secondary sources considered reliable to state the [[Staffordshire Bull Terrier]] was formerly known by the names "Bull and Terrier", "Bull Terrier", "Pit dog", "Half and Half" and "Bulldog Terrier"? [[User:Cavalryman|Cavalryman]] ([[User talk:Cavalryman|talk]]) 02:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)}}
'''[[Talk:Vision therapy#rfc_993D4D3|Talk:Vision therapy]]'''
{{rfcquote|text=
Vision Therapy is an umbrella term for many practices, some of them fraudulent, but many of them - based on my own and several family-members' experiences - ''not'' fraudulent. Going by the rest of the talk page, I am far from the only one who's upset that this whole entire field of medicine is being framed as a pseudoscience - but the fact that most of the existing sources are sneerish handwringing about the efficacy studies which have been done, makes it hard to actually edit the thing. People just revert it for "removing sourced content". I need help.[[Special:Contributions/2406:5A00:329C:4600:6496:382F:F297:11C5|2406:5A00:329C:4600:6496:382F:F297:11C5]] ([[User talk:2406:5A00:329C:4600:6496:382F:F297:11C5|talk]]) 06:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)}}
'''[[Talk:Addiction#rfc_91E5318|Talk:Addiction]]'''
{{rfcquote|text=
Should addiction be called a "biopsychosocial disorder" or a "brain disorder"? <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 14px;">[[User:Markworthen|Mark D Worthen PsyD]] [[User talk:Markworthen|(talk)]]</span> <span style="font-family: Papyrus; font-size: 11px;">[he/him]</span> 22:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)}}
'''[[Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#rfc_DE7704C|Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory]]'''
{{rfcquote|text=
The second paragraph of the lead currently reads as follows:

{{talk quote block|The idea that the virus was released from a laboratory (accidentally or deliberately) appeared early in the pandemic.<ref name=":1"/><ref name="WeaponizedAtlanticCouncilReport"/> The theory gained popularity in America through promotion by conservative figures including president [[Donald Trump]] and other members of the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] in the spring of 2020,<ref name="SuddenRiseNYer"/> fomenting tensions between the US and China.<ref name=npr983156340/> Many in American liberal media and political circles subsequently dismissed it as a [[conspiracy theory]].<ref name="FrutosMarch2021"/><ref name="BBCTakenSeriously"/>}}

'''QUESTION:''' Should the following sentence be added to the lead...

{{talk quote block|Some scientists initially supported the lab leak theory in early 2020, but later changed their stance.<ref name="TelegraphFauciEmails2022"/><ref name="NBCNewsFauciEmails"/>}}

... so that it reads ...

{{talk quote block|The idea that the virus was released from a laboratory (accidentally or deliberately) appeared early in the pandemic.<ref name=":1"/><ref name="WeaponizedAtlanticCouncilReport"/> '''Some scientists initially supported the lab leak theory in early 2020, but later changed their stance.<ref name="TelegraphFauciEmails2022"/><ref name="NBCNewsFauciEmails"/>''' The theory gained popularity in America through promotion by conservative figures including president [[Donald Trump]] and other members of the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] in the spring of 2020,<ref name="SuddenRiseNYer"/> fomenting tensions between the US and China.<ref name=npr983156340/> Many in American liberal media and political circles subsequently dismissed it as a [[conspiracy theory]].<ref name="FrutosMarch2021"/><ref name="BBCTakenSeriously"/>}} [[User:Le Marteau|Le Marteau]] ([[User talk:Le Marteau|talk]]) 20:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)}}
'''[[Talk:Climate change in the United States#rfc_F56DB14|Talk:Climate change in the United States]]'''
{{rfcquote|text=
The narrow question is: ''which one of the following two [[Traditional ecological knowledge]] (TEK) '''''<u>sections</u>''''' is most appropriate for a Wikipedia article on the topic of '''[[Climate change]]''':''
# The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Climate_change_in_the_United_States&oldid=1064705095#Traditional_Ecological_Knowledge_(TEK) 9 Jan 2022 version (which has been reverted)], versus
# The current (16 Jan) version, {{blue|[[Climate change in the United States#Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)]]}}
''The following issues are raised:''
* [[WP:NEUTRAL]] Point of View
* [[WP:NOTAFORUM]]
* [[WP:Minority viewpoints]] (esp. re breadth interpreting the term, "[[climate change adaptation|climate change ''adaptation'']]")
* Direct [[WP:RELEVANCE]] to [[climate change adaptation]] (distinguish from [[WP:UNDUE]] weight re background topics such as relative virtues of TEK in general, power politics of getting TEK accepted, etc.)
* [[WP:WIKIVOICE]] and general [[WP:PROMOTION]]al tone 
The debate is not about editors' "world views", personal "expertise", underlying righteousness of a cause, etc. —<span style="font-family:Times New Roman;font-size:100%;color:dark blue;background-color:transparent;;">[[User:RCraig09|RCraig09]] ([[User talk:RCraig09|talk]])</span> 19:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)}}
'''[[Talk:House system at the California Institute of Technology#rfc_277D910|Talk:House system at the California Institute of Technology]]'''
{{rfcquote|text=
The names of two buildings, the South Houses and North Houses, have been capitalized in this article since it was created in 2005.  There have recently been discussions and edits proposing that these terms should be lowercase.  The disagreement arises from whether these building names are proper nouns, and whether the sources using capitals constitute a "substantial majority".  

According to [[MOS:CAPS]], "In English, [[Proper noun|proper names]], which can be either single words or phrases, are typically capitalized," and "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia."  This RfC applies to this article as well as the related articles [[History of the Caltech house system]], [[Campus of the California Institute of Technology]], and [[California Institute of Technology]].

Please !vote whether to retain '''uppercase''' or change to '''lowercase'''. [[User:Antony-22|Antony&ndash;'''''22''''']] (<sup>[[User talk:Antony-22|talk]]</sup>⁄<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Antony-22|contribs]]</sub>) 03:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)}}
'''[[Talk:Malassezia#rfc_5D066C0|Talk:Malassezia]]'''
{{rfcquote|text=
I propose '''to replace''' the following statements concerning Dermatitis and dandruff (D/SD) diseases and related to [[Malassezia]] info ({{oldid2|1014079800#Dermatitis_and_dandruff|Revision of 01:44, March 25, 2021}}):--<span style="font-size: small" >[[User:Alexander_Davronov|<span style='color:#a8a8a8'>AXO</span><span style="color:#000">NOV</span>]] [[User talk:Alexander_Davronov|(talk)]] [[Special:Contributions/Alexander_Davronov|⚑]]</span> 19:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)}}
{{RFC list footer|sci|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }}