Talk:Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering

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

Please see Talk: Biologically inspired engineering#Bionics for a proposed merger of that short article into Bionics. I am notifying it here as this article seems to be the only other one that uses the same phrase. – Fayenatic London 08:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs to be built up, not merged. Wyss has contributed a number of cutting edge discoveries in in silico technology. Using 'a grammatical approach' to the interim text of the article-in-process makes no sense, IMO. MaynardClark (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Concerns[edit]

While the Wyss Institute seems to be rather new, it appears that all of the institutes at Harvard listed in the infobox here on Wikipedia have pages; is this alone enough for it to pass the notability threshold? UnknownCytoplasm (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The institutes generally get added to the infobox when they are notable enough that articles get written. Harvard has dozens , if not hundreds of institutes. They also have a web site, whee they can include them all. This is a general encyclopedia , not a guide to the university. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 30 April 2022 (UTC) .[reply]
Frankly speaking, how does an institute that generates 25% of Harvard's IP and is considered one of the top 10 most impactful biomedical research institutes in the world not considered notable?Chrisvanlang (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that was some of @Robert McClenon's point in the draft decline, although I'm not 100% sure the best route forward given the two versions. Thoughts @DGG @Z1720? Star Mississippi 18:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't say anything except that the institute exists. The draft contains a great deal of information, but also has a long history of promotion. Common sense, which has been in short supply, needs to be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

@DGG, @Chrisvanlang @Star Mississippi @Robert McClenon @MaynardClark @UnknownCytoplasm @Theroadislong

Hi everyone,

As noted on the Draft talk page, the Draft has been thoroughly rewritten, cut down, and neutralized.

I believe I have responded in good faith to DGG's initial edit request review including addressing notability concerns and WP:CRYSTAL issues--those are now resolved. The new version is as tight and non-promotional as possible while incorporating nearly 50 reliable sources that discuss the subject.

I think the Draft sections on Scientific Developments and Response to Covid are appropriate improvements for the main article.

I propose someone else who has reviewed and approves of the Draft version, such as Chrisvanlang, move those two sections into the main article (which is a sad stub). Any objections?

Thanks, Seth S.A.Kroll (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the material is merged by someone else I will of course not interfere with their work,but will if I think necessary edit it afterwards--I have no special rights, but neither does anyone else. DGG ( talk ) 08:01, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 'Response to COVID' section[edit]

In exploring what has come of the efforts of Wyss in response to COVID, they do not strike me as being significant enough to warrant this section.

I therefore suggest removal of this section and propose an addition of a section that discusses its funding -- Hansjörg Wyss recently gifted it $350million, that is very substantial and probably deserves a closer look.

Any thoughts? Dorney5 (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]