Jump to content

Talk:List of emerging technologies/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Splitting up the article

[edit]

I have noticed that the number of new technologies being suggested for this article has gone drastically down since the beginning. This could be due to the need to discuss changes before making them, but I also believe that a significant factor is that the article has become too long. I, therefore, suggest splitting the article so that the new articles will be named List of emerging energy technologies, List of emerging information technologies, etc.--hulagutten (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. By adding correct categories to each list, it would attract experts within the fields.~~
Nay. Too long for what? That the number of suggestions has gone down is natural, sooner or later an article transitions from construction to maintenance. Adding categories is always good. I checked a handful of random entries, and found that none of them is in category:Emerging technology, directly or indirectly. That would provide much more impact than advertising a bunch of lists. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the list is not too long. How long is too long? This should be a quantitative measure(i.e. number of words, bits, lines, etc.), not qualitative (addition & subtraction of entries for one reason or another not related to amount). That said, some semblance of segregation would be helpfull, as much of this tech ranges from strong possibility to highly unlikley. Example: unmanned may replace food delivery, but not kitchens or restuarants in general, especially four star restuarants. Also use of unmanned may be overspeculitive due to the probible establishment of off limit zones. Splitting the article is possibly avoidable with better vetting and more annotating too general entries. High speed rail in Europe and East Asia is at a high level, and to identify it as marginialized by Vacctrains is presumptive in that for the rest of the world (including the United States) high speed rail is still under development or even just a dream. This should have some mention. I live in Las Vegas and most of my family live in and around Nashville, and neither cities has ANY form of passenger rail, let alone high speed or vacctrain. --User:retrograde62 12:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the IT section

[edit]

In a template, I have suggested that the section List of emerging technologies#Information technology should be given its own article. The idea is to hopefully attract more experts in the field by making it more specialized. A suggested name is List of emerging information technologies, or just Emerging information technologies if we want to include some analysis besides the list.

A problem of this page is that none of the technologies are supported by any references. And that no criteria is formulated regarding a technology can be including in the list, and when it should be removed. I would prefer a page about current trends in research and development, ongoing research, planned standards and products, etc.

Related pages and categories are:

Mange01 (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe List of emerging information technologies is the best title as I believe that the discussions should be on the pages that the list page links to. The reason for this is that I believe it would fill too much to have all the for and against a technology on the same page that maybe 50 technologies are listed.
It is a great idea to have a page "about current trends in research and development, ongoing research, planned standards and products, etc." These could all be subcategories of the list of emerging information technologies page. This would be a good filter as technologies like teleportation or other star trek technologies would not fit in any of the categories.--hulagutten (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There appears to be a valid argument for developing this list further and for the need at some point to create sub-lists from this parent. However, at the moment the article/list is in need of appropriate referencing and reviewing the way it is structured, and how articles appear on the list. The tables include columns on "Status", "Potentially marginalized technologies and/or industries", etc. The data in these columns should be sourced otherwise it appears to be the opinion of whichever editor contributes that day. It would be inappropriate at this stage to create a new article which is entirely unsourced and which appears to contain original research. Also, the section is not yet long enough to justify splitting out per WP:Summary style. Develop and source the article, and the splitting out will occur when the section is appropriately developed. Split tag removed and sourcing tags replaced. The sourcing is the priority. SilkTork *YES! 12:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Unreferenced sections"

[edit]

I've removed the templates that instruct editors that references are needed. This is a list, not an article; as such, the references are needed in the articles listed, not in this article (list).

If something is contentious (for example, the status of a technology), then it's fine to footnote that, so that other editors are less likely to change the status by mistake. But let's save the footnotes for the articles themselves, not for this list, otherwise. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the reason the tags were present is concern that, without reference, determining the membership of a list like this could be considered WP:OR. --Kvng (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Wikipedia can be a wp:CHRYSTAL ball, but then we need authoritative sources for what validates as emerging technologies. Any suggestions? Can we restore the templates? Mange01 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list article contains unsourced opinion. I have placed appropriate tags on the article. The sourcing needs to be dealt with. The sourcing issue was raised during the AfD. SilkTork *YES! 12:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Status of Quantum Computing

[edit]

The commerzialization of quantum computing is highly controversial since there is only one start-up (D-Wave Systems) that claims to have built a working quantum computer but up to now did not provide any credible experimental evidence for this claim. In my opinion the status should therefore be "Theory, Research". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japh44 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


True. And see the book by N. David Mermin for a commentary on overblown claims. Practical quantum computing is a long way off, but partial successes for particular calculations (i.e. much restricted applications) involving one or two Q-Bits are just about possible. Every slight advance is puffed up as a major success.88.110.123.140 (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing 4G cellular communication

[edit]

It's just another infrastructure upgrade. It's emerging like the next processor. It's going to be faster and more efficient. The basic problem is that 4G celluar communicaton too focused. The correct category would be just "celluar communication", which is too old for this list. "4G" is mostly a marketing construct anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.6.6 (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Head transplant

[edit]

The head transplant is bogus. The blood supply to a monkey's head was furnished by another monkey's body. The nerves were not connected up and this will remain impossible for at least decades, if not centuries to come.

The guy who did it is a lunatic.

The references are to two tabloids and the BBC, who after a couple of paragraphs of their usual scare mongering allow an actual expert to get a few words in.

Please remove, if you guys really want thus to be an encyclopaedia.88.110.123.140 (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has since been removed. -- Beland (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Extreme sports, anti-gravity

[edit]

I object to having these listed. Extreme sports is not a new or emerging way for the average Joe to get to work. Anti-gravity in its literal and narrow sense is fringe science that belongs in soft scifi novels. The credibility of this article would be greatly improved by replacing anti-gravity with levitation/flight technologies, such as maglev, hypersonic flight, ion propulsion, nuclear pulse propulsion... most of which is already listed.

These are the worst offenders. Some 'emerging' technologies borders on the fantastic, fringe, or have been mentioned as a remote possibility in a respectable scientific publication. I could dig up hundreds of articles discussing absurd megascale engineering, like encasing our solar system in a Dyson sphere, however no reasonable person could label that an emerging technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.53.1.104 (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme sports and anti-gravity have since been removed. -- Beland (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Create a page

[edit]

May I suggest that whoever creates pages on this site create a page for Physical Internet?

Anonymous173.57.37.111 (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand the meaning, this is already listed under Immersive virtual reality. -- Beland (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


contains original research?

[edit]

Please list it by bullet lists of the contested claims made; Otherwise add inline citations to the article. --J. D. Redding 17:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When is technology emerged?

[edit]

Ten or twelve years ago, e-readers and smartphones would have been excellent entries on this list...now they are ubiquitous. When will this happen to, say, 4G, which is already limited availability and is going to be replaced by 5G, for which research and development is currently hot. When is it time to delete an item on this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.25.32 (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be arbitrary, but let's try limiting the list to all technologies released in the last 5 years to 5 years in the future. A technology that exists only in science fiction isn't an "emerging" technology. Neither is a technology that is only possible through unreasonable expense and effort. I suggest we further limit the list to include only technologies for which there exists either a clearly defined technology roadmap or a clear path to development with existing materials. This is not intended as a list of products and services, however for clarity the names of products and services are often given with the names of technologies and interesting specifications listed beside them. This list should excludes theoretical technologies not being pursued by tech companies, state funded agencies or military technology groups, and small companies that are not listed in a small cap index (S&P SmallCap 600, Russell 2000). YouBloodyMook (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removals by RuleTheWiki

[edit]

User:RuleTheWiki recently removed many entries in these two edits: [1] & [2]. I wonder if these edits have been checked as they seem to contain some valid emerging technologies. Atmospheric carbon dioxide removal seems to be emerging and Magnetic refrigeration, despite having been discovered long ago, seems to enter commercialization just now. And I'm pretty sure Organic light-emitting transistor, Three-dimensional integrated circuit and Solar roadway are emerging technologies. Also I'm going to readd autonomous car if nobody else does it.

--Fixuture (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed many of these such as Atmospheric carbon dioxide removal (We've been doing it for a century or two, ala Tree planting and Scrubbers), Magnetic refrigeration (It cannot be applied practically due to the extreme magnetism, like in MRI's and also using the quote from the article, "As of 2013 this technology had proven commercially viable only for ultra-low temperature cryogenic applications available for decades.". If you can find good sources for OLET's then you can re-add it to the table. Three-dimensional integrated circuits have already been developed in the form of NAND Flash, but if you want to re-add it then you can, also for Solar Roadways, it was debunked a long long time ago as being a terrible and unruly project that had no chance of becoming commercially or economically or physically viable. Autonomous car conflicted with the Unmanned vehicles listing, but if you want to re-add it, you sure can. --RuleTheWiki (talk) 06:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disproportionate amount of emerging display technologies

[edit]

Some of these aren't in any way commercially viable. I've edited these more or less to be more recent, please give me feedback on how I did! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:205:0:3C29:21DC:29B4:FC0:92B2 (talk) 06:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robotic surgery under robotics?

[edit]

Should "robotic-assisted surgery" perhaps be under Robotics also? It's currently under Medicine

Anti-gravity is not an emerging technology

[edit]

Just as much as cold fusion and faster-than-light neutrinos, the claims of anti-gravity are fully based on a flawed experiment (reports of which are referenced). There is no indication whatsoever that it might actually be possible. Therefore it's merely a hypothetical something, but certainly not an emerging technology. Anti-gravity should be removed from this list and placed somewhere more appropriate. --Geek3 (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has since been removed. -- Beland (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_emerging_technologies/Archive_2&oldid=1091478031"