Talk:List of hypothetical technologies

No longer hypothetical - Female Sperm
Female sperm has been successfully made in mice as of 2018. See Female sperm Benx45h (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Anticarcinogen
I've removed this for a rather complex reason. Any entry in this list must be a technology that doesn't already exist, and it must be backed-up by a Wikipedia article (i.e. blue-linked) or a source. In the case of Anticarcinogen there is a wikipedia article, but it lacks any source except a dictionary definition, so we're relying on the blue-link rather than any source being available. The problem with the Wikipedia page on anticarcinogens, and the source it uses (the dictionary definition) is that neither says that anticarcinogens don't yet exist, and are merely a hypothetical technology yet to be developed. In fact, the article says that health claims for anticarcinogens are regulated by the FDA etc., which implies that such claims are being made, and therefore that someone thinks they have developed an anticarcinogen. Therefore we can only have it in this list if someone can find a source that indicates that the FDA has currently refused all possible usages of the term on the grounds that no one has yet made an anticarcinogen. Is this the case? We can't say they're hypothetical simply because we don't believe the claims. Elemimele (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A follow-up; a Google search for anticarcinogen food supplements indicates that claims of the practical existence of anticarcinogens are certainly numerous! Elemimele (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Creating Pages for Red links
Should articles of the technologies that are red linked be made? Are there more sources besides the links next to them that can warrant article creations? FireInMe (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)