Talk:2019 in science

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

@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)

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

• 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)

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

Appreciate any replies. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Monthly Science Summary images based on this list

I'm making monthly Science Summary images based on this list.

As I'm also making German versions of these images I created the German article too a few days ago.

Its structure deviates a bit from this list - mainly in that items are grouped into 3 subsection per month. The layout is less timeline-like with a separate bullet point for each item, not day, with some entries being combined into a single item and the whole list, including its formatting and wikilinks, being optimized for readability and inquiry (as well as for the creation of missing Wikipedia-articles).

Links and stats for the English version (the reach of the German version is roughly the same):

Month	Sources	Popularity / most popular reddit post
July	Reddit post with sources	0.3k reddit-rInfographics / 11,151+ imgur-views
August	Reddit post with sources	1.3k reddit-rSciences / 9,572 imgur-views, 2.2k 9gag (most popular so far)
September	Reddit post with sources	0.8k reddit-rSciences / 8,949 imgur-views
October	Reddit post with sources	0.7k reddit-rSciences, 1,487 imgur-views
November	Reddit post with sources	0.2k reddit-rScienceFacts, 1,036 imgur-views
December	Reddit post with sources

• Monthly Newsletter
• Twitter

Thought you might be interested in these things. It's a sideproject of mine because nobody else was doing these monthly reviews.

Also I want to thank all the contributors to the list for making it possible - especially User:Wjfox2005 and User:Drbogdan.

---

Right now I hope that I can help make the list and the list's content more popular and better understood by more people.
I found a number of significant news reports / studies which aren't included in the list. So far I avoided adding items to the list so that the basic selection of items is more clearly decoupled from these summaries and I'm not sure whether it would be best to suggest their inclusion here or to add them right away and hope that somebody improves the texts if they should be changed.
I'll make a new section for these and other suggestions for the list later.

Over time I have established some (additional) inclusion- and rating-criteria and principles. Here are some of those:

• One criteria for main items is that it's an update to our scientific knowledge of the world (or a somewhat practical technological invention) in terms of understanding (including of solidifying an existing theory), not in terms of plain data and e.g. not just the capacity to do so or the possibility that it might become such.
• One principle for the images is that they should be the most explanatory, interesting, complementary ones for their items that I can find and create/edit.
• One of the core principles is having 7 to and preferably 9 main items within 10 tiles in the image.
• Another is that I aim for the texts to be over-precise and accurate while being short and comprehensible to as many as possible with ideally no scientific or terminological pre-knowledge assumed.

---

Maybe at some point more than the basic pre-selection/aggregation of items can be done via Wikipedia. I certainly would love ways for cutting time to make these images, for making them more popular or for improving their quality. I would upload them to Commons but I don't think that's possible due to some of the included images. Right now the number of items added to the list is possible for me to check on my own - but I hope it'll become more comprehensive over time. Note that I'm not planning to do any kind of year-review or decade-review. So there's a lot of things people could do to contribute.

Unlike all the previous months, where I always initially had more than 9 main items and then combined some or moved some to the last tile, this month I only selected 5 main items which means that as of right now I need at least 4 more main items. It would be great if you could add some more items to the list over the next days because otherwise this December version will deviate from rating-criteria applied earlier. Currently I'm posting these images every first weekend of the month.

Prototyperspective (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for this. I've just followed you on Twitter, so I could retweet some of these. You can follow me back if you want :) – https://twitter.com/future_timeline Wjfox2005 (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Done, interesting content you're posting. Didn't know you made this website.

Also I just uploaded the version for December 2019 and added a link to it to the table above.

Because I was missing 4 main items I added 3 new items I consider important, major achievements that I found here to the list and used 2 tiles for category-2 entries instead of only 1.

Have a happy new year!

--Prototyperspective (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Homo erectus new.JPG

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Homo erectus new.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)