This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | SUPER was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 09 August 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | ISTAG was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 04 August 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development was split to Horizon 2020 on 16:34, 26 December 2016 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
I have converted the EU Framework Program for Research and Technological Development article into a redirect page that leads here as the article contained on this pagecorresponds to all Wikipedia standards whereas the other one is simply redundant and "unencyclopaedic". RedZebra 16:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The fiware page redirects here and there is NO information on fiware here!!! Please make a fiware page. see https://fiware.org https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/50615/paper0728.pdf I want to know if FI in fiware stands for Federated IoT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 ( talk) 20:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I started removing the over-promotional language, removing PR jargon to make a more effective discussion. This in an encyclopedia, not a promotional web site. There's still some more to go. I added subheads, but references are needed for the criticism section, and a few key terms need internal links. DGG ( talk) 23:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Apart from being quite sceptical of Muldur et al.'s claims of returns on investment (I doubt the reliabilitiy of a prediction of returns on a current, i.e. 2006, research investment 25-30 years in the future, especially as it pertains to overall impact on GDP growth), I believe this article still needs revision.
Passages such as:
"Changes triggered by research policy directly affect people and enterprises, which experience broader horizons and experience the advantages of international collaboration." (Well the fact that changes caused by research effect people and businesses is hardly surprising... Apart from that: the "advantages" of collaboration could actually be downsides/failures, if the collaboration goes awry?)
"Diversity introduces additional costs, but it facilitates addressing competitors in an even more diverse world." (How exactly does diversity facilitate addressing competitors? And again what exactly is the point of this passage? And what does it actually mean?)
"This complements the institutional activities of the EU, building a community united in diversity capable of facing the challenges of a globalized world." (Well hurrah, bring out your blue & star banners... Why is this here? It sounds more like a promotional slogan than an encyclopedic entry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojowiha ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
When I saw a few of the projects up for deletion, I started merging the one line about each that had some info into this article. The articles generally read like the promotional language of the grant applications, not appropriate for Wikipedia. It seems there are many more projects that have articles but do not seem notable, and even more projects that never had articles. See Category:FP5 Projects Category:FP6 Projects and Category:Seventh Framework Programme projects (note inconsistent category naming). I then thought about a table, but if there are hundreds of projects that could get unwieldy. Perhaps one idea would be a general discussion of the thrusts of each program, if we can cut through the government-speak. For example, I noticed many projects on " Grid computing" which was trendy at the time. There was even a FP6 Grid Computing Projects list article with a table already. And the List of grid computing projects list which should probably go, since the term quickly got untrendy. Any thoughts? W Nowicki ( talk) 18:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Your English is execllent, and input appreciated. However, if you will excuse an idiom, I think you are presenting a straw man argument: what you are arguing against is not what anyone is proposing. Do have any evidence that "one hundred pages" have been flagged for deletion without discussion? There has been discussion for months on many individual articles, and when projects do have evidence of notability they are kept. A merge generally does not require as much discussion since the history is still around, so can be easy retrieved and the article restored without administrator intervention. A claim that articles on "FP5, FP6 projects were evolving" does not have much evidence. Most of the deleted articles were created by single-purpose accounts in the present and future tenses and never updated. For example, the Fifth European Community Framework Programme article history shows almost no improvement to the body from 2006.
It is also odd to accuse me of recentism. I tend to focus on long-term history, so the computer articles I have worked on range from the 1940s and 1950s through the 1970s and 1980s, with anything beyond about 1995 I would consider "recent" in terms of an encyclopedia that is supposed to cover all of recorded history. W Nowicki ( talk) 20:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
My hope is we can reach a compromise. There is a a minimal Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing which might be a place to have some guidelines for computer projects at least. Just a simple litany that duplicates the CORDIS database is probably not adding value (and would quickly get dated). One idea is to group the projects that are closely related. I put some for example into the European Grid Infrastructure perhaps more could go there. For example, often the same project will get a different name and acronym every few rounds of funding. For a while grid computing is trendy and they all use that, then cloud computing , then who knows what else. A reader then gets a historical narrative of what evolved into what. What I am hoping for is to keep the information only, not the promotion and crystal ball predictions. Although it is sometimes tempting to quote some outrageous predictions that turn out in hindsight be way off the mark. W Nowicki ( talk) 20:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It would help readability if @ W Nowicki: would indent his two replies appropriately. I'm tempted to do it (based on the time&date), but talk page rules don't seem to allow me. - Rod57 ( talk) 14:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I find that comments such as:
"Framework Programme projects are generally funded through instruments, the most important of which are listed below. The application form to apply for grants is formidable, it can take up to 3 months to fill in the forms which are not written in standard UK or US English, but in some jargon that the EU has invented. In many countries such as Sweden you can obtain a 3 month grant to write the grant. The application procedure is made deliberately difficult to employ an army of overpaid bureaucrats. Can the EU afford this? look at Greece."
have no place in a Wikipedia article, and hence should be removed at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.208.151 ( talk) 14:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
IClass redirects here, but is not mentioned anywhere in the article.-- Fabrictramp(public) ( talk) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Horizon 2020 is simply the 8th instalment of the Framework programmes and should briefly be covered there. No need for independent articles for each 7 year version of this programme, just cover the changes in a single paragraph in the overall article. Randykitty ( talk) 13:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Keeping Emulation Environments Portable. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 12:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
FROG (project) redirects here, but no project by that name is mentioned in this article or in any other article (according to the article previously at that location, "FROG" stands for "Fun Robotic Outdoor Guide"). Would some discussion of that project be a useful addition to this article, or should the redirect be deleted? (Pinging Randykitty who redirected it here.) – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 15:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect FROG (project). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 26#FROG (project) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 23:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The redirect
CyberEmotions has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 2 § CyberEmotions until a consensus is reached.
Belbury (
talk)
15:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | SUPER was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 09 August 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | ISTAG was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 04 August 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development was split to Horizon 2020 on 16:34, 26 December 2016 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
I have converted the EU Framework Program for Research and Technological Development article into a redirect page that leads here as the article contained on this pagecorresponds to all Wikipedia standards whereas the other one is simply redundant and "unencyclopaedic". RedZebra 16:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The fiware page redirects here and there is NO information on fiware here!!! Please make a fiware page. see https://fiware.org https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/50615/paper0728.pdf I want to know if FI in fiware stands for Federated IoT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.184.76 ( talk) 20:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
I started removing the over-promotional language, removing PR jargon to make a more effective discussion. This in an encyclopedia, not a promotional web site. There's still some more to go. I added subheads, but references are needed for the criticism section, and a few key terms need internal links. DGG ( talk) 23:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Apart from being quite sceptical of Muldur et al.'s claims of returns on investment (I doubt the reliabilitiy of a prediction of returns on a current, i.e. 2006, research investment 25-30 years in the future, especially as it pertains to overall impact on GDP growth), I believe this article still needs revision.
Passages such as:
"Changes triggered by research policy directly affect people and enterprises, which experience broader horizons and experience the advantages of international collaboration." (Well the fact that changes caused by research effect people and businesses is hardly surprising... Apart from that: the "advantages" of collaboration could actually be downsides/failures, if the collaboration goes awry?)
"Diversity introduces additional costs, but it facilitates addressing competitors in an even more diverse world." (How exactly does diversity facilitate addressing competitors? And again what exactly is the point of this passage? And what does it actually mean?)
"This complements the institutional activities of the EU, building a community united in diversity capable of facing the challenges of a globalized world." (Well hurrah, bring out your blue & star banners... Why is this here? It sounds more like a promotional slogan than an encyclopedic entry) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojowiha ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
When I saw a few of the projects up for deletion, I started merging the one line about each that had some info into this article. The articles generally read like the promotional language of the grant applications, not appropriate for Wikipedia. It seems there are many more projects that have articles but do not seem notable, and even more projects that never had articles. See Category:FP5 Projects Category:FP6 Projects and Category:Seventh Framework Programme projects (note inconsistent category naming). I then thought about a table, but if there are hundreds of projects that could get unwieldy. Perhaps one idea would be a general discussion of the thrusts of each program, if we can cut through the government-speak. For example, I noticed many projects on " Grid computing" which was trendy at the time. There was even a FP6 Grid Computing Projects list article with a table already. And the List of grid computing projects list which should probably go, since the term quickly got untrendy. Any thoughts? W Nowicki ( talk) 18:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Your English is execllent, and input appreciated. However, if you will excuse an idiom, I think you are presenting a straw man argument: what you are arguing against is not what anyone is proposing. Do have any evidence that "one hundred pages" have been flagged for deletion without discussion? There has been discussion for months on many individual articles, and when projects do have evidence of notability they are kept. A merge generally does not require as much discussion since the history is still around, so can be easy retrieved and the article restored without administrator intervention. A claim that articles on "FP5, FP6 projects were evolving" does not have much evidence. Most of the deleted articles were created by single-purpose accounts in the present and future tenses and never updated. For example, the Fifth European Community Framework Programme article history shows almost no improvement to the body from 2006.
It is also odd to accuse me of recentism. I tend to focus on long-term history, so the computer articles I have worked on range from the 1940s and 1950s through the 1970s and 1980s, with anything beyond about 1995 I would consider "recent" in terms of an encyclopedia that is supposed to cover all of recorded history. W Nowicki ( talk) 20:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
My hope is we can reach a compromise. There is a a minimal Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing which might be a place to have some guidelines for computer projects at least. Just a simple litany that duplicates the CORDIS database is probably not adding value (and would quickly get dated). One idea is to group the projects that are closely related. I put some for example into the European Grid Infrastructure perhaps more could go there. For example, often the same project will get a different name and acronym every few rounds of funding. For a while grid computing is trendy and they all use that, then cloud computing , then who knows what else. A reader then gets a historical narrative of what evolved into what. What I am hoping for is to keep the information only, not the promotion and crystal ball predictions. Although it is sometimes tempting to quote some outrageous predictions that turn out in hindsight be way off the mark. W Nowicki ( talk) 20:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
It would help readability if @ W Nowicki: would indent his two replies appropriately. I'm tempted to do it (based on the time&date), but talk page rules don't seem to allow me. - Rod57 ( talk) 14:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I find that comments such as:
"Framework Programme projects are generally funded through instruments, the most important of which are listed below. The application form to apply for grants is formidable, it can take up to 3 months to fill in the forms which are not written in standard UK or US English, but in some jargon that the EU has invented. In many countries such as Sweden you can obtain a 3 month grant to write the grant. The application procedure is made deliberately difficult to employ an army of overpaid bureaucrats. Can the EU afford this? look at Greece."
have no place in a Wikipedia article, and hence should be removed at once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.208.151 ( talk) 14:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
IClass redirects here, but is not mentioned anywhere in the article.-- Fabrictramp(public) ( talk) 16:24, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Horizon 2020 is simply the 8th instalment of the Framework programmes and should briefly be covered there. No need for independent articles for each 7 year version of this programme, just cover the changes in a single paragraph in the overall article. Randykitty ( talk) 13:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Keeping Emulation Environments Portable. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 12:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
FROG (project) redirects here, but no project by that name is mentioned in this article or in any other article (according to the article previously at that location, "FROG" stands for "Fun Robotic Outdoor Guide"). Would some discussion of that project be a useful addition to this article, or should the redirect be deleted? (Pinging Randykitty who redirected it here.) – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 15:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect FROG (project). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 26#FROG (project) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 23:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The redirect
CyberEmotions has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 2 § CyberEmotions until a consensus is reached.
Belbury (
talk)
15:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)