Talk:2019 in science

Science List‑class 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
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years C‑class Low‑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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science List‑class Mid‑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
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tesla Semi-Truck

An editor recently removed the portion of this page which noted:

"Tesla plans to begin production on an all-electric, semi-autonomous semi-truck, the Tesla Semi."

The editor's reason for removed this was "A product launch is not necessarily a science relevant event." This certainly is true, but this also does not mean any information related to a product is inappropriate for a page about science. First, this information was not about a "product launch," which I understand to be when a company announces a product. This article noted, rather, when production is planned to begin on the product. As it happens, the actual product launch is already noted in the article 2017 in science, under 17 November:

"17 November – Elon Musk reveals his company Tesla's first electric and semi-autonomous truck, called the Tesla Semi, as well as an updated version of the company's sports car Tesla Roadster."

It would seem either the deleted material should be restored or the reference on the 2017 in science page to the Tesla semi-truck announcement should removed. I would be interested to hear others' thoughts about whether it is appropriate for certain products to be included in a page about science. The worry I suppose is the use of Wikipedia as an advertising platform (see Wikipedia:Advertising), and whether the inclusion of the Tesla Semi material amounts to this. For what it is worth, it seems relevant to me; it has its own article after all: Tesla Semi (though I was also the one who originally added it, so perhaps I am biased in the matter). JEN9841 (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems relevant to me. It's not like the section is bloated and needs trimming of the least important information.SophiaRex (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipses

Eclipses generally don't make it into the ongoing science by year and therefore I wonder if they should be shown here? I can see why they would be included, but I think they can be found easily elsewhere and wikipedia is about more than just correct data and numbers: it's supposed to be interesting. I come to the future years in science page looking for what technology and novel events may (or may not, some degree of speculation is fine, but not the kind that involves "if so-and-so is still alive") happen and not to read about eclipses. What do other people think?SophiaRex (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

European Grid stability study

The study has so many caveats that I'm not sure if we can represent it accurately here. It assumes upgrades to existing hardware, but no major change in the mixture of production, demand, or tons of other things. At least a constant mixture of the different electricity sources means this is a purely hypothetical exercise anyway, that makes me question its relevance. --mfb (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it as no one objected. --mfb (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft

How is MS or Windows science? Will we hear about problems with pliers ore other tools in this article too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.22.83.181 (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Chandrayaan-2 lander and orbiter integrated stack.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request article rename to 2019 in science and technology

Would like to request to rename this article to 2019 in science and technology. this rename could be highly beneficial. if more users realize that this article includes technology as well, then we will get much more editors to edit here. the info box for 2019 articles in the entry 2019 already refers to this article by that name. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the original article title (ie, "2019 in science") seems ok and sufficient - after all - "science" is a way of thinking ("common sense made efficient"?; "a systematic approach to the accumulation of knowledge"?) and, afaik atm, may include the traditional (or usual?) "science topics" as well as those related to "technology topics" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - creating a new technology is science as well, and I don't think the current name is stopping anyone from editing the article. --mfb (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

well, I did the name change. if multiple editors are opposed to that, then the actual name change should attract more attention via editors' watchlists, and accordingly should generate more comment and feedback here. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sm8900: Restored original article title name - please obtain WP:CONSENSUS first before any such title changes - there is no such agreement at the moment - Thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok, fair enough. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly oppose - For consistency, this would need to be done for every year in history. That's a massive task. I doubt anybody here wants to do that. Maybe it's something we could do eventually, if there's a quick way of mass-editing pages. But also I agree with mfb that "science" sort of includes technology anyway. And yeah, as Drbogdan said, please obtain consensus first before making such a huge change. Wjfox2005 (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

question re article notes

added this note under Feb 21 for DNA news item. what do others here think of using notes like this in this manner?

Added

– added to 2010s in science and technology

thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]