Does the original definition of the term or its current use take precedent.

BikingFish (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: Generally reliable
• Option 2: Additional considerations
• Option 3: Generally unreliable
• Option 4: Deprecate

This proposal came up at a recent discussion of ZDNet [1]. While Red Ventures itself has been infrequently discussed [2] prior to this RfC, sites now owned by it have been frequently discussed in the past, such as CNET, ZDNet, Healthline, and others. For the purposes of keeping this RfC clear due to Red Ventures' enormous reach, this applies to content published by sites during the period of time they were owned by Red Ventures, so pre-acquisition content would be exempt. This RfC also excludes the following sources as they were previously discussed at WP:RSP:

• WP:CNET, WP:MREL since being acquired by Red Ventures in October 2020, unreliable after November 2022
• WP:HEALTHLINE, deprecated
• The Points Guy, blacklisted and split between WP:MREL and WP:GUNREL.

It also excludes sources sold by Red Ventures in 2022 to Fandom as they were identified in the previous discussion as possibly needing an exception due to frequent use/not spending that much time under Red Ventures. Examples include Metacritic, TV Guide, and Gamespot (which are considered generally reliable at WP:RSP and WP:GAMESOURCES). However, this RfC would apply to ZDNet and Lonely Planet as of the time they were acquired by Red Ventures. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Three options come to mind here:

• Option 1: Climate descriptions should not be generalized, even when classifications conflict. This leads to the structure given below being the only acceptable description:

Budapest has a humid subtropical (Köppen: Cfa) or oceanic (Trewartha: Doa) climate.

• Option 2a: Climate descriptions could be generalized, but this should be kept to cases where intractable disputes form due to wording and/or climate type (see Talk:Budapest#Climate for example); therefore the structure given below would also be acceptable in certain circumstances:

Budapest has a humid temperate climate (Köppen: Cfa, Trewartha: Doa).¹

• Option 2b: Much like 2a, but without the dispute requirement. Climate types could be generalized at will as long as climate classifications conflict.

¹ Keep in mind that both Köppen and Trewartha place Budapest into a climate class within the scope of a humid temperate climate (humid subtropical and oceanic respectively). For some cities, the category might need to be broader; Portland, Oregon would simply have a temperate climate under this scheme, as that is the first level of intersection between Mediterranean and oceanic climates. Despite this, within the rules of Köppen and Trewartha, a point of no overlap is mathematically impossible; and it is vanishingly rare to see another classification besides these two on a city page.

Uness232 (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1: No for all articles
• Option 2: Yes for info cited to sources that only use imperial units, otherwise no
• Option 3: Yes for all articles

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

One wants to list them in numerical order based on 200, the other based on 8.

Generally, manufacturers number aircraft types in chronological order of first production. One interesting exception is the Boeing 717 which post-dates the every Boeing aircraft except the 787. However, it is listed in numerical order in the list of Boeing aircraft rather than date of first flight.

So the question here is which should we do here? Do we list in chronological order of first flight or in strict numerical order (given that the MAX 200, while a derivative of the MAX 8, is a separate model)? Another option would be to list by order of date that Ryanair ordered each model.Lard Almighty (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2024 (UTC)