This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Emerging technologies template. |
|
Technology Template‑class | |||||||
|
This template was considered for deletion on 2019 November 29. The result of the discussion was "split". |
I think this is by far overly broad for a template and I wonder if there's any good criterion for deciding what would and would not be included in this template. How about various forms of AI, biofuels, quantum computing, UAVs, etc., ad infinitum? There must be hundreds of articles that could be included. 165.123.208.203 ( talk) 04:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Red link entries should not be included in this template as without an article there is no way to test if that Emerging technology meets the WP:GNG or is in fact Emerging and/or a real technology and/or not some pipe dream so unless someone comes up with a very good reason no to, I am going to remove them. Mtking ( talk) 22:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The Experimental medical treatments section is a template in open to making this template un-manageable I suggest a separate template be created for Emerging medical treatments. Mtking ( talk) 03:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can suggest any new SciFi idea or vague futuristic concept and add it here. Old technologoies might stay for years, also after the technology has been passed by other alternatives. For example "fiber optics" became widespread in telecom and CATV networks in the 1970s and 1980s, and large portion of the population at least in my country (Sweden) already have fiber-to-the-home. So that is definitely not an emerging technology.
It is very important that this list followes clearly defined criteria for what is relevant. Any suggestions? It could rely on some other list article where sources are required. It may also rely on sources in the linked articles. For example, we may require that the linked article should include recent scientific journal articles where the technology is mentioned, let's say newer than 5 or 10 years. If no research is ongong in an area, then it is not emerging. Also, no successful commercial product should exist based on the technology or a competing technology; otherwize it is no longer emerging but existing or surpassed by alternatives.
A template should also be limited to a certain maximum number of technologies. The correspnding list article categories might me longer.
Personally, I would prefer several short discipline specific lists, for example IT, medical technology, etc. Then people in those areas actually would be interested in keeping the list up-to-date. Mange01 ( talk) 07:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I think an emerging technology is a technology that has already shown some practical application or "working demo" technology but whose true scope and societal and technological effect is still largely unknown. That should be the criteria we make this category on. Ampdot ( talk) 05:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
"[Technologies] under active development up until the point they reach the cusp of deployment", as proposed by Mtking, appears largely reasonable. This would allow Cryonics to remain in the template: in spite of the definition given for it in the first sentence of the article on it ("preservation ... with the hope that ..."), it has not yet reached the cusp of deployment. Past life regression would belong into the template, but we cannot include it due to the fact how the subject of reincarnation is dealt with in the public.
There are also still big developmental problems with 3D television. 3d television will probably have to remain in the template for another one or two years or so. This would — as I understand the principles the template is so far based on — also mean that the link to the generic term 3-D film — in bigger letters — would have to stay in the template, like that to Energy storage, because it allows to unite 3D television and 3D display as a little sub-category of the Energy section. -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Altogether, I think I slowly begin to survey the issue of criteria for the template. One basic requirement is clearly that the proposed technology is based on accepted scientific theory. This still does not suffice for past life regression, even though those who practise it are in many cases licensed as therapists and state that they do not at all claim a supposed existence of reincarnation, but just let their clients dive into some contents of consciousness that have been preserved from different (and in most cases unknown) people of past times not necessarily to be identified with the client. There is going on research on this type of regression, but the doubts concerning it are so strong that it still appears impossible to insert the term into the template, thus defining the method as "emerging".
On the basis of scientific acceptance, one could then say: everything may be included that is either not yet marketable or, though already marketable, has not yet reached the cusp of deployment.
Any comments? -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 08:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe this template should contains new pages so there would be less text. For example:
Opinions? Virtualerian ( talk) 13:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why this template is now well out of sync with List of emerging technologies? Tim PF ( talk) 09:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Mtking has demanded I should provide references, here, for "others" counting past life regression an emerging technology. I can provide the following:
These sources do not literally call past life regression an "emerging technology". They, nevertheless, clearly point to the fact that scientific research on past life regression is being conducted and, in particular, that Dr. Adrian Finkelstein and others hope for, resp. are working on, a strengthening of the process by physical resp. biometric technologies. -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 16:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd removed Cells Alive System from the Biomedical:Cryonics category, but it has since been replaced. Note that vitrification has been the standard optimal protocol used by all extant cryonics organizations for several years, and is not included in this template. Why should CAS feezers be included considering that there exists no citable connection whatsoever to cryonics; As with cryogenic storage straws, any connection to cryonics seems to constitute WP:SYNTH. If CAS freezers are being used by cryonics organizations (or mentioned as possible future technologies) in their official literature, I am unaware of it. Furthermore, since CAS is a trademarked brand of commercial food freezers (irrespective of their use in academic research settings), this may also be a violation of WP:PROMOTION. Without an explicit reference establishing the connection between CAS and cryonics, I don't see how the inclusion can be justified without violating WP:SYNTH. Blacksun1942 ( talk) 00:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi @ Primefac: (or anyone else), I have a question about the documentation: for a template such as this which falls into two different template series and they both have separate template documentations, if for purposes of bookkeeping it would be useful to know what other templates there are in the series to have them organized, is it possible to combine them into one doc page and list that document instead, or is that expressly forbidden because its still pulling data from two template docs? For example, this could be one way to do it:
{{documentation|Template:Emerging technologies/doc|heading=|link box=off}} {{documentation|Template:Quantum mechanics topics/doc|heading=|link box=off}}
Another question: I noticed this template has overlapping coverage with {{Quantum mechanics topics}} and think it should be merged. However, the template also has been through TfD before. If I feel strongly about the merge, can I boldly merge it or would this be considered a controversial move? -- AquaDTRS ( talk) 05:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone remove the warp drive link from the template? Alcubierre Drives are not all that plausible seeing how you need a form of matter that no one has discovered yet. 67.204.251.118 ( talk) 01:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I added horizon scanning into topics.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 08:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest removing at least the following from this template because they have been widely commercialized for mainstream uses for several years:
Possibly also (but I'm not familiar enough with their current status to be sure):
Completely separately, change " Beltway battery" to " LiFePO4 battery", as "Beltway" is not an established term for this type of battery. 73.223.72.200 ( talk) 03:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 19:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)what about thorium reactors and humanoid robots? Michael Ten ( talk) 03:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Emerging technologies template. |
|
Technology Template‑class | |||||||
|
This template was considered for deletion on 2019 November 29. The result of the discussion was "split". |
I think this is by far overly broad for a template and I wonder if there's any good criterion for deciding what would and would not be included in this template. How about various forms of AI, biofuels, quantum computing, UAVs, etc., ad infinitum? There must be hundreds of articles that could be included. 165.123.208.203 ( talk) 04:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Red link entries should not be included in this template as without an article there is no way to test if that Emerging technology meets the WP:GNG or is in fact Emerging and/or a real technology and/or not some pipe dream so unless someone comes up with a very good reason no to, I am going to remove them. Mtking ( talk) 22:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The Experimental medical treatments section is a template in open to making this template un-manageable I suggest a separate template be created for Emerging medical treatments. Mtking ( talk) 03:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Anyone can suggest any new SciFi idea or vague futuristic concept and add it here. Old technologoies might stay for years, also after the technology has been passed by other alternatives. For example "fiber optics" became widespread in telecom and CATV networks in the 1970s and 1980s, and large portion of the population at least in my country (Sweden) already have fiber-to-the-home. So that is definitely not an emerging technology.
It is very important that this list followes clearly defined criteria for what is relevant. Any suggestions? It could rely on some other list article where sources are required. It may also rely on sources in the linked articles. For example, we may require that the linked article should include recent scientific journal articles where the technology is mentioned, let's say newer than 5 or 10 years. If no research is ongong in an area, then it is not emerging. Also, no successful commercial product should exist based on the technology or a competing technology; otherwize it is no longer emerging but existing or surpassed by alternatives.
A template should also be limited to a certain maximum number of technologies. The correspnding list article categories might me longer.
Personally, I would prefer several short discipline specific lists, for example IT, medical technology, etc. Then people in those areas actually would be interested in keeping the list up-to-date. Mange01 ( talk) 07:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I think an emerging technology is a technology that has already shown some practical application or "working demo" technology but whose true scope and societal and technological effect is still largely unknown. That should be the criteria we make this category on. Ampdot ( talk) 05:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
"[Technologies] under active development up until the point they reach the cusp of deployment", as proposed by Mtking, appears largely reasonable. This would allow Cryonics to remain in the template: in spite of the definition given for it in the first sentence of the article on it ("preservation ... with the hope that ..."), it has not yet reached the cusp of deployment. Past life regression would belong into the template, but we cannot include it due to the fact how the subject of reincarnation is dealt with in the public.
There are also still big developmental problems with 3D television. 3d television will probably have to remain in the template for another one or two years or so. This would — as I understand the principles the template is so far based on — also mean that the link to the generic term 3-D film — in bigger letters — would have to stay in the template, like that to Energy storage, because it allows to unite 3D television and 3D display as a little sub-category of the Energy section. -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Altogether, I think I slowly begin to survey the issue of criteria for the template. One basic requirement is clearly that the proposed technology is based on accepted scientific theory. This still does not suffice for past life regression, even though those who practise it are in many cases licensed as therapists and state that they do not at all claim a supposed existence of reincarnation, but just let their clients dive into some contents of consciousness that have been preserved from different (and in most cases unknown) people of past times not necessarily to be identified with the client. There is going on research on this type of regression, but the doubts concerning it are so strong that it still appears impossible to insert the term into the template, thus defining the method as "emerging".
On the basis of scientific acceptance, one could then say: everything may be included that is either not yet marketable or, though already marketable, has not yet reached the cusp of deployment.
Any comments? -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 08:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe this template should contains new pages so there would be less text. For example:
Opinions? Virtualerian ( talk) 13:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why this template is now well out of sync with List of emerging technologies? Tim PF ( talk) 09:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Mtking has demanded I should provide references, here, for "others" counting past life regression an emerging technology. I can provide the following:
These sources do not literally call past life regression an "emerging technology". They, nevertheless, clearly point to the fact that scientific research on past life regression is being conducted and, in particular, that Dr. Adrian Finkelstein and others hope for, resp. are working on, a strengthening of the process by physical resp. biometric technologies. -- Hans Dunkelberg ( talk) 16:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd removed Cells Alive System from the Biomedical:Cryonics category, but it has since been replaced. Note that vitrification has been the standard optimal protocol used by all extant cryonics organizations for several years, and is not included in this template. Why should CAS feezers be included considering that there exists no citable connection whatsoever to cryonics; As with cryogenic storage straws, any connection to cryonics seems to constitute WP:SYNTH. If CAS freezers are being used by cryonics organizations (or mentioned as possible future technologies) in their official literature, I am unaware of it. Furthermore, since CAS is a trademarked brand of commercial food freezers (irrespective of their use in academic research settings), this may also be a violation of WP:PROMOTION. Without an explicit reference establishing the connection between CAS and cryonics, I don't see how the inclusion can be justified without violating WP:SYNTH. Blacksun1942 ( talk) 00:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi @ Primefac: (or anyone else), I have a question about the documentation: for a template such as this which falls into two different template series and they both have separate template documentations, if for purposes of bookkeeping it would be useful to know what other templates there are in the series to have them organized, is it possible to combine them into one doc page and list that document instead, or is that expressly forbidden because its still pulling data from two template docs? For example, this could be one way to do it:
{{documentation|Template:Emerging technologies/doc|heading=|link box=off}} {{documentation|Template:Quantum mechanics topics/doc|heading=|link box=off}}
Another question: I noticed this template has overlapping coverage with {{Quantum mechanics topics}} and think it should be merged. However, the template also has been through TfD before. If I feel strongly about the merge, can I boldly merge it or would this be considered a controversial move? -- AquaDTRS ( talk) 05:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could someone remove the warp drive link from the template? Alcubierre Drives are not all that plausible seeing how you need a form of matter that no one has discovered yet. 67.204.251.118 ( talk) 01:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I added horizon scanning into topics.-- Geysirhead ( talk) 08:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I suggest removing at least the following from this template because they have been widely commercialized for mainstream uses for several years:
Possibly also (but I'm not familiar enough with their current status to be sure):
Completely separately, change " Beltway battery" to " LiFePO4 battery", as "Beltway" is not an established term for this type of battery. 73.223.72.200 ( talk) 03:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 19:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)what about thorium reactors and humanoid robots? Michael Ten ( talk) 03:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)