Talk:Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering

Proposed merger of Biologically inspired engineering
Please see Talk: Biologically inspired engineering 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  L ondon 08:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)

Notability Concerns
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)
 * 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).
 * 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)
 * 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)

Proposed merge of Draft:Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering into Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering
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)

Merge proposal
@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)


 * 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)

Removal of 'Response to COVID' section
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)