Talk:2000s in science and technology

This article was nominated for deletion on 27 April 2012. The result of the discussion was snow keep.

Lists High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science High‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Science High‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discussion

What does this bit mean? "Google and Yahoo search engines increases trafficability of the internet"

Eh? —greenrd 22:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animated .gif files VS Adobe/Macromedia Flash

I think it's worth mentioning how the Adobe flash format replaced gifs (that were used through out the 90’s) as the most common Internet advertisement format. Also maybe mention the dramatic rise of malicious software.

Social Networking Sites

Shouldn't we include things like myspace and facebook because it has so far had decent amount of impact on society to be included in this article. -Pro66 21:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^^^ I agree, social networking sites boomed this decade and related phrases are used in common dialect in the western world.

Merger proposal

I suggest merging Technology of the 2000s into this page, as they seem to be about the same thing. When I searched for a page on Technology of the 2000s I found that, but meant to find this. And this page seems to be consistent with the set up of "technology in the..." for other decades, such as 1990s in technology & science and 1970s in technology. Hm, okay, admittedly the uniformity I was hoping for seems to be lacking... but that can be fixed. - A.J. (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE: I support a merger, but the sections provided for video games and television should be integrated into the their subject pages, (e.g. 2000s in video gaming, 2000s in television, etc...) The page would need to be cleaned(Tigerghost (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

MERGE: Agree per Above. Pro66 (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge but change: I do not agree with you that this should be merged with that article. I believe that the things related to technology. Like the TV and all that should be merged to the article you propose. But anything related to science should be given it's own article as it is only indirectly connected to the technology of the 2000s. What I am saying is yes, merge anything related to Technology to the article you propose but anything related to science be given it's own article...like Advances in Science of the 2000s or something. Whatever you guys choose. Rgood erm ote 17:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE: I support the merging of Technology of the 2000s into this article. It is redundant to have two articles that discuss essentially the same thing albeit a few exceptions. It would not only be more logical, but also easier to navigate with only one article. Award888 (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domcabcd (talk • contribs) 13:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the merge and redirect. Mdwh (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update

A lot of recent things are missing from this article. Specifically the finding of certain missing links and a very large atom smasher in Sweden. I also remember that in the recent months there have been a lot of recent findings in space and about our planet. I'm no science guy so I don't follow these things closely..so just do what you guys feel. Just suggesting here.Rgood erm ote 17:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

–Sweden? Don't you mean Switzerland? And more accuratly Geneva? (This is where CERN and the LHC are located). :) 83.136.195.130 (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Sexting".

I do not believe Wikipedia should take a stance on this issue. We do not exist to tell people what manner of sexual behaviour is appropriate, nor do we have any authority to tell people when they should engage in such pursuits. Hence I have removed a negative inference wherein "sexting" was cited as a negative social implication. Please answer here before reverting (and allow me to answer that), if you deem that necessary. Also note that the same edit contained some copy-editing, and should not be undone wholesale, should such an action be deemed necessary.
I,E ^• ^{Wouldst thou speak?} 00:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour that was being referred to, at least, given enough nudity, is illegal almost everywhere under child pornography statutes, I believe. Even in jurisdictions where proposals have been made to treat sexting by minors as a lesser offense (and I don't understand how this is supposed to interface with child porn laws), it is still supposed to be treated as a criminal offence. I don't see anyone except you, and possibly the perpetrators of these crimes and their relatives, arguing that they should be allowed.--greenrd (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take back what I just wrote. From reading sexting, I've learned that a New York politician has proposed allowing it for minors under certain circumstances, so you are right - it is a disputed area. I was not aware of this.--greenrd (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better sources needed

This page should not depend on a rather small group of Wikipedia authors that decide what technologies that are worth mentioning here and which are not, based on our private preferences and rather narrow interests. We should be more systematic. The starting point is to find good sources and good criteria. Are there any scientific prize to look at? Some journal or book that on a regular basis identifies the most important advanced that were made within quite wide areas. Some trend analysis and prognoses company identifying the most topical buzzwords in science and technology papers? Some lists of scientific papers with highest citation indices? Some futurology researcher that systematically makes prognoses for the future? Etc. Any concrete suggestions? Mange01 (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2000s in science and technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.nrri.ohio-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/2068/814/3/Article+1-Bethea+_Broadband_.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decade ?!

It took me some time to become sure that this article is about a decade (rather than about a centennium or millennium). Could we make that explicit in the first sentence? ... in the 2000s (the decade). How can this be expressed less awkwardly? --Ettrig (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2000s in science and technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/090923-moon-water-discovery.html
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nrri.ohio-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/2068/814/3/Article%2B1-Bethea%2B_Broadband_.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.cnet.com/Study%2BBroadband%2Bpenetration%2Bto%2Bsurge%2Bby%2B2010/2100-1034_3-5815756.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150714062141/http://www.jcmit.com/diskprice.htm to http://www.jcmit.com/diskprice.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.textually.org/textually/archives/cat_mobile_phone_projects_third_world.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2000s in science and technology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]