Talk:2005 in science

Arrgh! Science &ne; Technology!
(This comment originally appeared in Talk:List of years in science, but was moved here in order to increase its chance of being discovered and responded to before "too long". If there's a better, more actively visited, talk page for this thread to be responded to by sufficiently many contributors, please feel free to take appropriate action to get it moved there; in such a case, leave a link to that new location on this page).

Oh well, here we go again... In the List of years in science and  in science articles (such as the present one), as well as in many other science and technology-related articles, the words &laquo;science&raquo; and &laquo;technology&raquo; are bandied about as if they were identical concepts; most commonly done by implicitly equating science with technology. This misleading mix-up/misunderstanding should really not be present in a serious encyclopedia. >:-(

IMNSHO we should therefore try and get the affected articles automagically* renamed to List of years in science and technology,  in science and technology, and so forth (* e.g. [having a knowledgeable person] write+run some kind of script performing the renamings by way of SQL operations or whatever). --Wernher 12:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update: Separate lists of events is, of course, another alternative, but I'm not sure whether that leaves us with the best results either. --Wernher 01:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we should those categories together, and rename "_in_science" to "_in_science_and_technology". Anybody have a script? Awolf002 18:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Link to external lists/summaries
I think we should not collect a list of external links to other people's summaries. That would get ugly and awkward very fast. I will remove the one just added. Comments? Awolf002 15:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

To IddoGenuth: I feel, the addition of external links to other summary pages is not in the commonly accepted spirit documented in WP:EL. I think any notable information at this site should become part of this text, instead, if it is not already. Please, discuss here why you think the link is needed in this article. Awolf002 20:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, anybody else watching this page care to comment? Awolf002 14:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * To User Awolf002: The answer seems obvoius - this page like most pages on Wikipedia should have an external links section which will allow the readers to gather more relevant information. Every year there are many summeries of science and tech published around the web many of the (like the one I mentioned) add information which people won't put in this page but still find interesting.

Well, could you please look at WP:EL? Please, check What should be linked to, item 5, and What should not be linked to, item 8. I think you definitely skirting on the edges with this link. Anybody else have an oppinion to offer? Awolf002 22:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It says clearly in 6: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews. " I belive the page I added is relevant as are many others. You are not objecting to what I added you are objecting to putting "External links" on this page - and there is no reason for that as I mentioned before. I also added 3 articles from NewScientist, just to keep things rolling (there are many other interesting and worthwile summeries on the web). b.t.w. I can add some comments on your disscusion concerning the releshenship betwen science and technology (as my P.H.D. thesis conceres the releshenship betwen science and tech).