This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Clarification is needed for our criteria for an "invention by country", see Category:Inventions by country and its children. This has festered on for years and we're no better off. These categories are still no more than a playpen for POV nationalist socks. Is a " Croatian invention" one made in Croatia, by a Croatian, by a Croatian ex-pat, or by someone with Croatian ancestry a century earlier? Is sourcing required for these claims? Or is WP:V to be ignored for these? Is it still an "invention" if an inventor makes it half a century after the basic invention is already in use?

This hasn't been discussed adequately before. "Categories for discussion" refuses to discuss it and any attempt to do so gets squashed WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 16#Category:Inventions by country / Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 29#Category:Inventions by country. But the problem still remains - highly-charged nationalistic categories, with no rules for either meaning or sourcing. These aren't encyclopedic, they're just a space for graffiti. The nearest we've had has often been the worst cases, the socks: Europefan Filipz123

So, should we have these categories and lists? If we must, what are their criteria for inclusion and WP:VERIFIABILITY? Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• The point is not that CFD refuses to discuss it per se. The point is that you need to state a clear proposal on how to best solve the issues you raise. Just asking questions will probably lead nowhere at any platform. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Well my clear proposal has always been to delete the lot, as simply unworkable - recurrent nationalist bias is incompatible with WP:V. But that's a personal opinion.

What I'm after here are suggestions by others as to how to reconcile POV and V. Or do we simply retract core policies for this area, as we do for GEOLAND, where any old rubbish is accepted? Andy Dingley ( talk) 08:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

According to these categories, Fleming " invented" Penicillin. I'd happily see the back of them after seeing just a fraction of the trouble they cause. Alternatively, we could have a clear policy on what belongs in them, but that seems less likely to happen. Burninthruthesky ( talk) 13:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with "invention or discovery". But the German Saturn V is just one of the more ludicrous claims. We also have a Croat invented the hydraulic lift, a device that was around decades before he was born. The real trouble though are the unclear cases: where someone did invent a thing, but they were neither the first nor the important inventor of the concept. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• At CfD it's currently not at all a clear proposal to delete, nor was it in the previous discussion. Could you please rephrase your nomination at CfD and tag the categories accordingly? That would help a lot. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• CfD is Categories for Discussion, not just Deletion. Yet you, as the clear WP:OWNer of CfD, have resolutely refused to discuss this issue. So clearly CfD is an irrelevance. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not owning anything. Besides I have invited you to come up with a clear delete or rename proposal in that same discussion. I really can't understand why you don't. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Because I neither want to delete nor rename it, I want to discuss it. You seem to have a problem reconciling that with the title of the WP page. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm particularly concerned about edits like this. A new editor appears and starts posting large amounts on one country's inventions. These have been reverted as "nonsensical" by Carlo0 ( talk · contribs), but re-added anyway.

These edits are not valid claims for an invention. They epitomise all the problems raised above. The sourcing is poor, the specific inventions here are not the novel invention that we would recognise for that topic, the claims of nationalism are weak and contradictory. I hope Sheldonium ( talk · contribs) will join the discussion here to explain them. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

For every invention I provided five to twenty different, reliable, independent sources. If you want to prove something is nonsensical then provide at least one more independent, reliable sources than I have which explicitly say it is not Croatian invention. Constantly removing sourced material is considered to be vandalism. Discussion closed. -- Sheldonium ( talk) 11:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

And why are you so obsessed with Croatian inventions. Look at the list of Serbian inventions. They apparently invented miniskirt 5000 years B.C. And noone ever used talk page to discuss Croatian inventions.-- Sheldonium ( talk) 11:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The main issue is not with sourcing, it's with the definition of "invention". It's no good proving beyond all doubt that a person invented a thing, if that thing was already in widespread use when they did so. They might be an inventor. That version of it is their invention. It might be the best sort of that thing ever invented. But it's still not the primary and novel invention of that thing, which conveys its primacy and origin. Even James Watt didn't invent the atmospheric engine, Thomas Newcomen did.

You are claiming (as just one example) Peter Miscovich as the inventor of the hydraulic lift. But James Watt and Lord Armstrong was selling these nearly twenty years before Miscovich was even born.

Sheldonium, DO NOT edit my previous talk: pages comments like this. See WP:TPO Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

You are also wildly inaccurate with your crediting to Croatia - admittedly the definition to use is unclear anyway - but you claim both inventions in Australia by those with a vague Croat ancestry as "Croatian", you claim Tesla as Croatian rather than Serbian (and working in the US) and you claim the Polish-Dutch Eduard Penkala as Croatian, despite being born in Slovakia. You want it every way, provided that it boosts your pro-Croat POV. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The place to discuss nationality is on the page where the topic is the inventor. The whole jingoistic issue of claiming inventions as belonging to a nationality or ethnicity is an abomination and should be nuked from orbit, the ground salted and the perpetrators banned indefinitely as not here to build an encyclopaedia. not appropriate content. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

In answer to Andy Dingley's original question, these categories are not useful, they attract POV pushers. I think they should be abolished as divisive. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Completely wrong. I do not claim anything, reliable, independent sources claim. You definatelly did not read the first two sentences of the list:

Croatian inventions and discoveries are objects, processes or techniques invented or discovered, partially or entirely, by a person from Croatia or of Croatian descent.

Often things discovered for the first time are also called inventions, things created by metal, wood or other materials that have not been invented it's also something that benefits the people and their life ways, in many cases, there is no clear line between the two:

These two sentences say everything, so I do not have any comments. Be smarter next time you write something. -- Sheldonium ( talk) 16:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

And how do you dare talking about my pro-Croat POV and mention British inventors like James Watt and Thomas Newcomen which have nothing to do with this discussion. That is clearly imposing pro-British POV. Shame on you, hypocrite. -- Sheldonium ( talk) 16:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Sheldonium_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Criteria

To try and drag this back into a useful direction, what are we going to do about criteria?

• An "invention or discovery", I'm happy with either.
• An "invention" needs to be a novel invention. An invention can be either scientific (principles) or engineering (practice).
• A "discovery" needs to be a novel recognition of some scientific observation, from any of the recognised sciences. This can include geography (but see below).
• "Significance" is necessary. For discoveries in particular, discovering the Kreb's cycle is significant, taxonomy of a new beetle species is not. Where's the boundary in-between? Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Novelty" needs to be either (ideally) the first such, or a near-simultaneous coincidental invention by two separate people at once, or a major improvement to an existing concept, or the first useful and practical application of an existing theoretical principle.
• "Nationality" is a big problem and needs to be clarified. So far we are seeing claims on any of the following:

• An invention made (by foreigners or immigrants) in the subject country
• An invention made by someone born in that country, but not made in that country.
• An invention made by someone born in that country, who no longer has that nationality
• An invention made by someone not of that country, and not in that country, who has some distant ancestry from there
• An invention made by someone not of that country, and not in that country, who has no ancestry there, who has adopted that nationality (but isn't there at the time)
• An invention made under one of those conditions, but at a time when the relevant country was nonexistent or otherwise an anachronism.

I think that we have to be careful with these, and a lot tighter. I'm happy to credit someone inventing in that country, at a time when the country exists, or for someone of that nationality at the time of the invention. Otherwise not. So Tesla is almost entirely American as an inventor, not Serbian, not Croat. Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

That means that in the future someone will invent teleporter and you will say: "Sorry, teleporter was actually invented by Gene Roddenberry because it was depicted in Star Trek." or "H. G. Wells invented time machine in the 19t century." or even better: "Tablet computer was invented by ancient Babylonians who first wrote on stone tablets." -- Sheldonium ( talk) 20:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course not. "A scientific principle for a teleporter" is more than inventing a fictional one. The principle is needed, not merely the concept. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

• Geography has an issue of its own. Captain Cook "discovered" Australia, but the people already living there might well disagree. I think this should be included as a discovery, but we do need to clarify that this was a European discovery (i.e. its notable addition to European maps), not the creation of a new land from nowhere. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

And just to clear up something that ought to be obvious, the woomera et al are Australian inventions, even though they're ancient and indigenous. Australians were perfectly capable of inventing things before the Europeans arrived. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. So were Serbians before the Slavs arrived in the 7th century, as people have inhabited those lands for tens of thousands of years. I.e List of Serbian discoveries and inventions edit history User:Carlo0

The case to delete the lot

I've been in and out of following these lists and categories for a while now, thanks to the activity of certain relentless sockpuppeteers, and I have seen no discernible pattern to any of it, other than that some editors will latch on to any shred of connection to celebrate their own nationality, reliable sources be damned. This, of course, is not how Wikipedia works. Personally I support doing away with this categorization scheme altogether, and replacing it with something more properly thought out with universal guidelines. One step towards that, I feel, is separating "things invented by a [nationality] person" from "things invented in [country]", because we can argue about what is or is not a "Croatian invention" until all our fingers fall off and still get nowhere. But it's very plain to say "here is a thing invented by a German person" or "here is a thing invented in Germany"; in that case I suppose it's likely to be a German invention, but what if a German invents something in Russia? Or they invent something in Germany which only has applications in France? Or they're born in Germany but then move to Mexico, renounce their citizenship, and then invent something which is a novel innovation on a previous Canadian invention? If we can definitely identify who invented something, and definitely identify both where it was invented and what the accepted nationality of the inventor is, then those two types of lists are easy. Using Tesla as an example again, an ethnic Serb born and educated in the Austrian Empire who later moved to and did all of his notable work in the United States, who once lived in an area which later became Croatia: his inventions belong in a list of things invented in the United States, and in a list of things invented by American, Serbian, and Austro-Hungarian inventors (the three "inventor" categories attached to his bio), and not on any list related to Croatia, and I don't think anyone could reasonably argue otherwise. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 20:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The whole issue of claiming that an invention is somehow an ethnic or national property is vexatious and should be dropped/deleted. An invention has an inventor. Where it is invented or what group claims the inventor is a matter for the biography of the inventor and should be eliminated from categories as generally unhelpful and a magnet for POV pushers and similar soapbox nationalists who are not here to build the encyclopaedia. Similarly, all articles of the format "List of (nationality/country/ethnic group) discoveries and inventions" should be eliminated. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC).

• Agreed. I too favour deleting the lot. But I can't see that as likely, so in the meantime, how about deciding just which arbitrary groups get the credit for Tesla? At least it's a bigger sockhammer. Andy Dingley ( talk) 09:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest the small arbitrary group containing only Nikola Tesla. Why should others inflate their tiny egos by claiming that he represents them in any way? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Justice and consistency

If somebody could please clarify why other lists can display ancient inventions but Serbia got nuked apparently last night. I've reverted prehistoric inventions from a few pages as an experiment and I got reverted, rightfully. Still not seeing the justice with the Serbia list. I invite User:Doug Weller to discuss as well as he has reverted my edit of removing prehistoric inventions from China. I'm even using the same catchphrase that was used in the Serbia list "these people were hardly *country of choice*". We need to come to a serious consensus as to what is or isn't allowed, and then apply it to EVERYONE. User:Carlo0 If also like to mention that a political movement was removed from the Serbia (non aligned movement) list but under Germany you can blatantly see 'Marxism

Please read WP:POINT. You were blocked yesterday for edit-warring, then unblocked on a promise of good behaviour. Your response since then was to start a campaign of WP:POINTy blankings, against the same admin who unblocked you. If and when they notice this, expect a longer block, which I would fully support.

If you want to discuss criteria for what should be included, then you are welcome to contribute here. But edit-warring is not the way. This sort of behaviour is why I support deleting all of these categories as simply unworkable. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm trying to do. I'm not even making edits. I am trying to come to a compromised conclusion on this talk page because I am not seeing justice. I am all for new policies and complying with old policies as long as they are enforced across the whole spectrum. Not just pick and choose. It seems like somebody picks a single article and then terrorizes it whether removing everything like with the Serbia list or adding jokes of claims like with the Croatia list. I'm trying to manage the articles and restore consistency but none of it makes sense. User:Carlo0

There are no WP policies on justice or consistency. There are policies which require verifiability, and suggestions which advocate group consensus for projects and groups of articles, and a hope that the emergent result might be somewhat consistent. But as, as yet, we don't even have such criteria in place, there can be no expectation of a consistent result. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

So that being said, as of right now, all countries may display their ancient contributions but Serbia is s**t out of luck. User:Carlo0

 it's hard to make progress when Pakistan's, China's, Australia's, Mexico's, etc.. ancient contributions have been readded but Serbia's remain eradicated. Very inconsistent and almost discriminatory  User:Carlo0

Carlo0 a Confirmed sock

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Filipz123. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yet more

I'm concerned to see yet more of these cats appearing, particularly ones like this: Sail. Amongst other problems (sourcing for one), this is taking a widely used device in the early historical era and assigning it to a range of modern contexts, based more on the discovery of archaeological specimens today than any real claim for historical precedence. Also assigning such to such modern countries as "Italy" or "Romania" is anachronistic.

Some edits, like gas cylinder, are technically suspect and unsourced. The Chinese dug and drilled for gas and piped it for use, but didn't have the compression or sealing technology to adequate store it like this.

Although surely gf additions, I'd hope that Backendgaming ( talk · contribs) might join this discussion here. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Just adding good faith edits here and there. I'm doing what I can to add proper sourcing. I don't have any POV pushing miscreants or motivations whatsoever. Backendgaming ( talk) 10:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

But what would you say about my point for Sail? If these are " inventions", then that indicates either a single invention, or the rare case of multiple simultaneous inventions. I don't see it as appropriate to record multiple, unrelated inventions when they're separated by major distances (many people will have invented and re-invented simple machines such as plaited string or umbrellas, but that's not our purpose here). The inventions recorded for sail do, if anything, simply indicate that we don't know a single clear moment of invention for them, which can be traced to a single novel culture and incident. If we can't do that, we shouldn't record it as an invention. Andy Dingley ( talk) 10:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating a separate article, at least for the "moveable sail" section, signifying the ancient Chinese contribution for it or else I would delete my recent addition entirely until I can think something more fruitful other than shoving more multiple unrelated inventions. Backendgaming ( talk) 10:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about movable sails, but I understand the Chinese use of battened sails to be an original invention. But that needs to be noted on an article (or just a redirect) about that specific type, not the general sail article. Andy Dingley ( talk) 11:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Natural gas

An IP is repeatedly removing this from Chinese inventions, on the grounds that it's "natural", therefore not an invention. Comments welcomed. Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

For convenience, copied from: Talk:Natural_gas#This_article_is_not_about_an_invention

This article is not about an invention

@ Andy Dingley: This article is about the naturally occurring gas and is not primarily about a "unique or novel device, method, composition or process" Articles about related technologies, extraction methods, etc. can be categorized as "inventions", however it would be just as incorrect to categorize this article on natural gas as a "Chinese invention" as categorizing the article on potatoes as a "Peruvian invention". 135.23.232.202 ( talk) 23:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, these invention categories include "inventions and discoveries" equally. Please join the discussion at the Technology project as to just what ought to be in them. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology#National invention categories

Secondly, there is substantial novel invention required in the exploitation of natural gas. The Chinese did this, and did this far in advance of the West. If you look at the early history of Chinese gas use, it's well recorded and surprisingly advanced. Andy Dingley ( talk) 08:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@ Andy Dingley: Unfortunately, I think you may have some confusion here over the meaning of "natural" in the phrase "natural gas": In this context "natural" is used to mean "naturally occurring" and as an antonym of "man-made" (cf. propane). It doesn't really matter what the opinion of anyone working on the "Technology" or any other wikipedia project is, the fact is that if something is "naturally occurring" it was not "invented" (i.e. by man. Technically I guess all of nature might be considered a divine invention by some, but I digress.)

While it is true that "invention" and "discovery" can be used in similar context, these two words have distinct meanings and are not synonyms. In general, a "discovery" occurs when something previously unknown becomes known. By convention "discovery" is attributed to the historical "first discovery" by individual person or group. "Discoveries" are not necessarily "technologies" (e.g. the discovery of Antarctica), whereas "inventions" can always be considered "technologies". All truly novel "inventions" are also technically "discoveries" but not vice versa.

With regard to technologies, by convention, something is considered "invented" if and only if it did not occur in nature before it was initially created by humans. Ambiguity between the terms "discovery" and "invention" can ensue when the technology described includes both man-made and naturally occurring. E.g. Solar power can be considered as both discovered and invented depending on context; Photosynthesis was "discovered" and photovoltaics were "invented". Although it may seem complected what I'm trying to explain, the photovoltaic effect was "discovered" and the photovoltaic cell was "invented". Although these two articles have overlap, one is clearly about an invention of a man-made device and the other about a natural process that was discovered.

To confuse matters, in general, "invention" is uniquely attributed to humans, and may sometimes include an element of the uniquely human "intention". I do feel obliged to point out that, although I previously stated that it is silly to consider potatoes as a Peruvian invention (and potatoes are not a Peruvian invention at least on the basis that potatoes predate the modern country of Peru), the modern cultivars of potatoes that are consumed could be legitimately described as human inventions if they resulted solely as a result of human genetic modification through selective breading (like how canola was "invented" from rapeseed).

It is very important to recognize that this article is not primarily about a a technology, rather it is about a natural occurring substance (cf. Glycol_dehydration).

Anyone that says the articles on DNA, uranium or natural gas should be categorized as a human national "invention" is misinformed, or even perhaps acting in bad faith.

One does not need to be a rocket surgeon to realize that any substance (like natural gas) that existed on earth before homo sapien sapiens could not have possibly been "invented" by humans, but the fact is that the only requirement to be a wikipedia editor is access to the internet.

@ Andy Dingley: I contribute to Wikipedia because I love the cause, and I only ever contribute to improve accuracy and to try to make Wikipedia the best possible. I'm assuming, in good faith, that you are similarly motivated and not looking to advance any sort of personal agenda. I sincerely hope that you read my comments and that they help you be the best Wikipedia editor you can be! However, when I removed the inappropriate category of Chinese inventions for the naturally occurring substance of natural gas with an explanation and you re-add the category, this is not constructive to Wikipedia. If you are willing to create an article on the Use of natural gas as a fuel for humans or similar, then that would be constructive and useful! You could categorize that article as an invention because, in general, the novel use, as fuel, of any substance would qualify as an "invention"/"technological discovery".

@ Andy Dingley: The truth is that this article on natural gas is not about a Chinese invention. To the best of my knowledge, peoples living in what is now modern day China were likely the first to extract and use natural gas as a fuel source. I expect you agree with me on this. This is explicitly explained in the history section of this article.

I know that the objective truth is that "natural gas" is a "naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas mixture consisting primarily of methane, but commonly including varying amounts of other higher alkanes, and sometimes a small percentage of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, or helium." So, @ Andy Dingley:, I'm going to remove the "Chinese Inventions" category because a naturally occurring substance is by definition not invented by humans. I've been verbose on this talk page and I appreciate that you are trying to engage in constructive interaction by answering on the talk page, but reverting my edit without consensus is not constructive.

It's a fact that Wikipedia is, by design, a crowd sourced encyclopedia. The corollary, is that Wikipedia unintentionally crowd-sources truth (or from another perspective, ignorance). @ Andy Dingley: if you want, you can you solicit other Wikipedia editors to weight-in with a 3rd(et al) perspective and offer their opinion(s) here on the talk page; this would be constructive. Like I said, I try to edit wikipedia because I want it to be accurate, but if you want go to the trouble of intentionally finding at least one or more editors that want to side with you and purport that the naturally occurring gas was really an invention by the modern country of China, I'll just bugger off and let your community write their own consensus of what 'truth' is. 135.23.232.202 ( talk) 18:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's not an invention. It's a discovery. Our practice, established beforehand, discussed and stated here, and as yet unchallenged, is that both inventions and discoveries belong within it. Arguing about the "naturalness" of natural gas is simply irrelevant. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• I came here from WP:AN/I. We cannot go on like this. Discoveries are not inventions, so natural gas is not an invention. Inventions are not national, are often shared. disputed, or arrived at independently in different places. Andy Dingley made a good point at 18:24, 24 July 2017. Could others read it and comment here? Can anyone who sees encyclopedic merit in keeping these categories please post here what it is? As it is, I see it as a hugely unencyclopedic mess and a beacon for the worst king kind of nationalists. We do already have an article at List of Chinese inventions to give (properly-sourced) credit for this interesting story. The category is misleading, unhelpful and has caused a lot of trouble. -- John ( talk) 12:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I have one pretty good reason: the categories help admins track sockpuppet activity (speaking of the king of nationalists, although I think your comment is a typo) by following additions to some of the categories. That's not the kind of reason that benefits the encyclopedia, but it is what it is. For the concept itself, there are some inventions (and discoveries and innovations and whatever else) which are connected to certain national identities; the snowmobile comes to mind, the Avro Arrow is another although I wouldn't call it an invention. Then there's things like AC Hazlet rye which we could debate about whether it's an invention or a scientific innovation (I argue the latter), things like natural gas which are definitely not inventions but get categorized here anyway because of bizarre precedent, and things like Vegeta (condiment) which everyone agrees (excepting a certain contender for "king of nationalists") is not an invention but gets edit-warred into the category anyway.

It might help the situation to replace this category tree with something properly neutral; I've suggested variations before. As an example: instead of Category:Canadian inventions, what if we eliminate the "invention" category (since we haven't been able to decide on a definition of "invention" for several years and it invites content disputes when things aren't clear) and replace the category with various "Foo from Canada"? This could include "discoveries originating in Canada", "technological innovations developed in Canada", "products developed in Canada", "military aircraft developed in Canada", Category:Sports originating in Canada, and on and on, but it should be relatively easy to determine from reliable sources if any article topic fits into one of the categories, and to split and/or merge the resulting categories through normal processes. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 13:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. Let's do it. The current system is clearly not fit for purpose. -- John ( talk) 08:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• Several points in there:

We cannot go on like this.

We have done for some years (years of bulk socking too). I am as yet unoptimistic that things will get much better. I would support deletion, but I'm too worn down to suggest it again.

Discoveries are not inventions,

No-one is claiming that they are. But the set of "items of interest" is the union of both inventions and discoveries. We ought to list both in the same category structure; splitting this is pointless: inconvenient to navigate, simply an excuse for hair-splitting as to which is which. We would then need to name such a category and I see "inventions" as preferable to some unwieldy compound term. If you disagree with these axioms, then please say which and what your better solution would be.

so natural gas is not an invention.

See above. Also read the article, wherein most of that article is about inventions of human ingenuity, not the inherent attributes of nature's-own all-organic "natural" gas. Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

The WT:MOSCOMP#Definite article section is proposed, here, to be substantially revised for better agreement with RS practice, linguistics, and MoS norms.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:18, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi WikiProject Technology!

I've just proposed WikiProject STS to cover issues in the academic field of Science and Technology Studies, which examines scientific issues from a social sciences/humanities perspective. As our main article is tagged with your Wikiproject, we thought you might be interested in looking at the proposal. This would be a sort of sister group to Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science, and likely a child group of your own project.

We'd appreciate if you took a look at the proposal and commented on it! We'd be a relatively small project, but if we can find 10 or so people who'd be willing to help out, we could get started on organizing the project!

We're also open to the creation of a task force within this WikiProject, or within wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science or Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology if we thought that'd be better given the scope. Again, let me know what you think!

Mathmitch7 ( talk) 04:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look in here about newly uploaded scientific images on commons during Wiki Science Competitions 2017.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 12:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Editors from this WikiProject might be interested in some proposed updates for the article on Sageworks, which makes financial data and analysis software. In full disclosure, I'm here on behalf of Sageworks as part of my work with Beutler Ink. To start with, I've suggested a proposal for the History section, to provide some background on how the firm got started and a few major milestones.

A quick note about the history on the page prior to my involvement. More than two years ago, individuals from Sageworks edited without disclosure, created multiple accounts, and the accounts were rightly blocked for sockpuppetry; Sageworks understands and does not intend to appeal the block or try to directly edit the page again. There were also editors involved in discussions and editing the article whose opinions and suggestions appear to be motivated by a dislike for the company. Because of this history and the debates that followed, I think fresh eyes on the article in general would be helpful. If there's any feedback or questions, please let me know. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 20:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Following up to say this request has been reviewed. Of course if anyone has an interest in taking a look and has any questions, I'm more than happy to discuss. Cheers, 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 21:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Is NASA 20-year time-lapse Earth animation and can we use the gif image as public domain? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

And I don't even know how to categorize it. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:03, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

On behalf of Honor, I'd like to propose some improvements to the Huawei Honor 9 article, which is currently underdeveloped and inappropriately sourced. The draft I've proposed here very closely resembles the Huawei Honor 8 and Huawei Honor 8 Pro articles, and offers an overview of the model's specifications, release, and reception.

I am looking for an uninvolved editor to review the draft for accuracy and neutrality, and copy over content appropriately. The draft is not very long and should not take much time to review. You can read more about the proposed updates within the edit request on the article's talk page. Thanks again for your consideration and help. Inkian Jason ( talk) 16:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Inkian Jason ( talk) 17:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Technology

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 18:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi! We need some feedbacks in this discussion on commons about new subcategories for images related to liquid nitrogen.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 02:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Computer security#Some initial ideas on a split and an overhaul.

Summary: The present article is a mish-mash of material of a general nature (technical, academic, practices, history, terms, incidents, notable-figures) and material of a socio-political nature (infrastructural, regulatory, legal, corporate, financial, espionage and cyberwar, public impacts).

This started as an RM discussion but turned into a scope one. I've proposed that a Cybersecurity article (using the term favored in technology-and-public-policy circles) should be a spinoff, per WP:SUMMARY, for the second group of material, leaving the bulk of the more general info at Computer security (the basic, non-jargon, descriptive term for the field). This would be in keeping with Cyberwarfare, Internet privacy, Internet censorship, Genetically modified food controversies, and numerous other clear splits between technology and technology policy articles (sometimes multiple such articles, e.g. Electronic cigarette → Regulation of electronic cigarettes, Safety of electronic cigarettes, and several others – but let's just start with one here).

I've done a section-by-section review of what needs to be done, but it's just one opinion, so additional input is sought.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  10:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Sponge (material), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Hello guys at the Wikiproject Technology, do you guys think you can help shorten and fix up inaccuracies in the technology such as the batteries section in the Electric Car page? Thanks for the response. LordLimaBean ( talk) 01:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

(I meant to say batteries, and infrastructure, as the infrastructure gets in depth into technology.) LordLimaBean ( talk) 02:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, there is a proposal here to merge Airbreathing jet engine into Jet engine. The discussion is getting a bit bogged down, so more votes would be appreciated. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 16:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I just started Nanodumbbell and have no idea what I'm doing. Please visit the article and see if the "Effect of Surfactant on Growth of ZnO Nanodumbbells..." external link is the right thing. Are these things silica or zinc or what? Many thanks! :) Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The articles Pixel (smartphone) and Pixel 2 could potentially be merged onto the Google Pixel article. Any feedback is welcome and encouraged. The area for discussion can be found here. Plantduets ( talk) 16:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I am totally new on Wikipedia. I use Wikipedia a lot and wanted to upload some videos here as a way of saying 'thanks'. My company produces 3D animations so I am only really investing the time it takes to edit the videos and then upload them. I wanted to upload videos similar to this:

Pinch Valve - Showing how it works:

https://vimeo.com/286318990

Different Valves:

https://vimeo.com/277098226

https://vimeo.com/277086621

Each video would show clearly how a certain valve works. We have about nine valves in our 3D database and can make the videos from any angle. I just need to know roughly how long they should be? Essentially I just want to show how the valve operates and how they look in real life. There will be no branding in the video or watermarks etc. I have checked through most of the valves on wikipedia and the articles definitely would benefit from a working animation video.

My main question is, if I start uploading videos of valves will they be removed because they are all from me and must be attributed to my website? I don't want to get banned before I even start.

If this went well, I would also upload some 3D animations showing an engine working etc. We have about 300 3D models in the database and they are all engineering related.

Thanks!

Jon

SaVRee ( talk) 09:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I would like to either find or write the article on scientific digital cameras. Is there one? If there isn't, what should I name it?-- BeamWeaver ( talk) 22:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I would like to expand the Imperva article with well-sourced information, but since I work for the company, I would like some feedback on the new content. Please see my comment on the article's Talk Page. Talk:Imperva for suggested source materials. -- Tamicasey ( talk) 18:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

As I discussed at Talk:KosherSwitch#Patent, I am having a bit of trouble figuring out [ https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/48/4f/8c/b1df4e115e8359/US7872576.pdf ]. In particular, I am having trouble with

"FIG. 3 shows an embodiment of the present invention including a device having one pair consisting of one transmitter positioned opposite one receiver. FIG. 5 shows an embodiment of the present invention including a device having two pairs, each pair consisting of a transmitter positioned opposite a receiver."

What is the point of the two transmitters and receivers (which anyone else would call light sources and light detectors)? Figure 7 shows one or the other being blocked. Why?

Because I can't conceive of an engineer who isn't also interested in the religious aspects (and because the religious aspects may be the reason for the two sets of light sources and light detectors), I discuss them at Talk:KosherSwitch#Patent. I would like to keep all discussion on this centralized there. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a more-specific project regarding Lock (security device), so I am posting here.

I have recently created Glossary of locksmithing terms and merged several articles which were primarily unsourced WP:DICTDEFs to that page. I intend to continue to expand that article throughout this week, both by merging further stub dictionary definitions, and by adding other terms not currently discussed anywhere on Wikipedia. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I've also been doing some spin-outs of Key (lock) and Lock (security device) (including a stand-alone article on Locksmithing), and expect to merge them later this week. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 18:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see Version 2 EAD Airframe. It is my first aircraft start and I am not sure how to do the infobox properly. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 01:06, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

A requested move discussion is taking place at Talk:Ice resurfacer, and your input would be welcome. Mathglot ( talk) 08:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't know much about the subject. Could someone please look at the history of Version 2 EAD Airframe? Many thanks.

See also: this

Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 05:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

I've been working with Vox Media to update related Wikipedia articles. I've disclosed my COI appropriately, and I'm proposing updates on talk pages instead of editing articles directly. I was working with User:Lordtobi to update The Verge, but they are currently experiencing health issues, so I'm hoping another editor can review my request here to update the article.

One request is to remove unsourced content about Engadget's "The Engadget Show", and another is to add mention of The Verge's gadget blog, "Circuit Breaker". I figured WikiProject Technology participants might be interested. Is someone willing to take a look at the proposed changes and update the article appropriately? Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason ( talk) 19:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Thanks, Inkian Jason ( talk) 18:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Greetings! I am seeking editors to review a new draft of Saylor Academy in my user space and at Talk:Saylor_Academy#New_draft_available. Saylor Academy is an online non-profit organization offering free and open courses. Editors here might be interested because Saylor Academy was founded by Michael J. Saylor of MicroStrategy, with the purpose of making education accessible via the internet.

I will not be making edits to the article as a result of my conflict of interest. Would someone with an interest in technology be so kind as to review this request?

Thanks in advance for your help!

Regards,

Andrewggordon84 ( talk) 14:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Gas stove, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

There has been a discussion on how to spell the word "aluminum"/"aluminium" at Talk:Charles Martin Hall#Re my revert. It will be greatly appreciated if you see the discussion and provide your opinions.-- R8R ( talk) 12:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

There is an old discussion about forming a science and technology studies WikiProject or task force. Similarly, I've been interested in creating a technology ethics task force. I invite all of you to join the discussion there. Qzekrom 💬 ^they_them 06:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Formal request has been received to merge: Radiant cooling and Radiant heating into Radiant heating and cooling system article; dated: 7 April 2019 (UTC). Proposer's Rationale: {none stated}. >>>Discussion is here<<<. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Biodegradable plastic, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Windmills is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Windmills until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the reliability of Xconomy and HealthLeaders (healthleadersmedia.com) on the reliable sources noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Xconomy and HealthLeaders for eMix. —  Newslinger  talk 00:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the reliability of The Next Web on the reliable source noticeboard. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § The Next Web for ProProfs. —  Newslinger  talk 06:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the notability of the Aluminum internal combustion engine on the reliable sources noticeboard. The discussion involves the reliability of Russian news sources, including TASS. If you're interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Reliability of (mostly) Russian news sources for an engineering breakthrough in Russia. —  Newslinger  talk 06:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

A new WikiProject has been proposed where your knowledge and competence could be very useful.
You are invited to join the discussion about this proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Technical standards. Thanks. -- Daniele Pugliesi ( talk) 01:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Microsoft is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Microsoft (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Nanotechnology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nanotechnology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Nautical is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Nautical until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Transport is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Transport until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I have nominated List of Chinese inventions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 22:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I rewatched Rain Man last night, today I looked up the Sony Watchman which featured in the movie a lot, found the article, but my problem is actually finding citations to use on the internet to help fix up the article. Thought I post here, maybe someone else can help out the article. Cheers. Govvy ( talk) 15:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

First, how do articles end up in Category:Technology articles needing attention to grammar? I can't see, for example, how Talk:Samsung_Galaxy_S8 is so labelled.

Second, what criteria is used for this category. Checking around at Category:Technology articles needing attention to grammar, in the first 200 pages I quickly saw Talk:Murder of Pam Basu. Now look at the article Murder of Pam Basu. Technology? Technology? That's a technology article?

Balloon is a technology article? Oh, look, they both have {{WikiProject Technology|class=C |importance=Low}} template usage. Oh, look, that instantly means every such article will permanently have bad grammar:

|MAIN_CAT           = Technology articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
|B1_CAT             = Technology articles needing attention to referencing and citation
|B2_CAT             = Technology articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy
|B3_CAT             = Technology articles needing attention to structure
|B4_CAT             = Technology articles needing attention to grammar
|B5_CAT             = Technology articles needing attention to supporting materials
|B6_CAT             = Technology articles needing attention to accessibility

Oh, look, let's hardcode the cats in the template: [1] by User:Jj98 9 October 2012. Oh, look, that user is gone now: Special:Contributions/Jj98

6 years later an enthusiast adds {{WikiProject Technology|class=C |importance=Low}} to an article about a murder: Murder of Pam Basu. (see also User_talk:Dimadick#Your_edit_of)

Is this project still active? Does anyone here have a grasp on what this template does to articles? Shenme ( talk) 05:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated List of Chinese inventions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 18:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

FreeBSD, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Tonystewart14 ( talk) 01:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The article is pretty bad and I've done some cleanup on it. There is some debate as to whether the cartel planned to limit the lifespan of lightbulbs intentionally to increase sales, and this is a very popular theory in the public. I'm leaning towards this being a total myth based on people not understanding the engineering. More input from people is needed. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi ,

 Kindly guide me how can I contribute in Subject Technology. I am new to this platform. Its kind a confusing for me.

Thanks in advance Shijublogs ( talk) 13:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed that articles for non-flagship mobile devices often have issues with formatting consistency, presence and absence of different info and so on. To help with this issue, I am proposing that a basic article structure (currently at User:RedBulbBlueBlood9911/Non-Flagship Smartphone-or-TabletComputer-or-FeaturePhone Standard Article Structure) be adopted for all such articles. This structure is meant to make it easier for editors to know what belongs in the article and how it should be presented, and is not meant to be strictly followed (the infobox is the only place where I believe that formatting conventions should be more rigid, but editors should rephrase sentences and rewrite paragraphs if needed). The structure is currently still being created, but I’d like community input on improving this structure in terms of grammar, technical accuracy and conciseness. RedBulbBlueBlood9911| Talk 07:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion is also available on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing. All discussion is expected to be in this section on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Technology

I have added some comments to User talk:RedBulbBlueBlood9911/Non-Flagship Smartphone-or-TabletComputer-or-FeaturePhone Standard Article Structure. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Invention, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Hello! You are invited to join my discussion for a new WikiProject: Elevators Hkbusfan ( talk) 09:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I have started WikiProject Barcode to improve and add new articles related with barcode technology, software and hardware.

Barcode is a single technology, which allows to add machine reading tag to any object of real world with less than one cent and in the same way it uses hardware to read these tags with less then one hundred dollars cost. It is less expensive in markings than RFID technology and less expensive in recognition as other classic neural networks recognition technologies. In this way this technology will be widely spread (already spread) and requested in the next one hundred years.

Anyone could join the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandr.gavriluk ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

3D projection is currently an article on perspective.

There is also a notable topic concerning the growing ability of data projectors to process three dimensional images. But I can find no coverage in Wikipedia of these developments.

Suggestions? Andrewa ( talk) 18:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

I'm looking for someone to write an article for the company I work for, Wejo, who partner with automotive manufacturers to organise and enhance streams of authentic connected vehicle data unlocking its value for drivers, public and private sector organisations.

I'm unable to write the article myself due to conflict of interest, but I have submitted a request with a description and included multiple independent, reliable sources. Here is the link:

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences#Vehicle/automotive_technology

Wejo believes in the power of Data for Good - that's why we want to make connected car data accessible to even more like-minded businesses to drive innovations in safety, convenience and sustainability. Having a Wikipedia page will help raise awareness of the exciting work we do, so it would be great if someone could help me set this up.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Wejoltd. ( talk) 08:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I've now drafted the article, Draft:Wejo which is waiting for review. Let me know your thoughts and suggestions.

OH123 ( talk) 14:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Murley, an employee of TomTom, here on behalf of the company to request changes to the article under the guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest. As a paid employee, I will never edit the article myself.

I left a more detailed note on the TomTom Talk page, but in short, I'm hoping an editor can review my request to trim the article of excess technical and unsourced information that is susceptible to deletion. I'm happy to answer any questions or approach differently, if editors prefer. Thank you! Murley from TomTom ( talk) 06:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Technology topics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Guilherme Burn ( talk) 11:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Shielded metal arc welding for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ( t · c) buidhe 23:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

On behalf of Citrix Systems, I've posted a request at Talk:Citrix Systems to update the article's infobox and Operations section with fairly basic information. I'm not editing the article directly because of my conflict of interest. Could a member of WikiProject Technology take a look and update the page on my behalf if they agree with the suggestions? Thanks for any help in advance. Inkian Jason ( talk) 19:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

NOTE: I am proposing these edits for FleishmanHillard on behalf of World Wide Technology. I am a paid editor and aware of the COI guidelines. I have posted proposed revisions/rewrite to the World Wide Technology article’s Talk page and wanted to flag this to related WikiProjects to hopefully gain consensus or feedback from editors on proposed re-writes. Thank you for your consideration! Jon Gray ( talk) 15:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Internet#Request for comment: should "internet" be capitalized as a proper noun?
There's some debate there about the difference between "the Internet" and "an internet", about what a proper name is, and about whether news style guides (cf. WP:NOT#NEWS policy) should be considered reliable for how to write about technical topics.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Please help to fix this mess. Bearian ( talk) 20:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Need your thoughts on whether a separate article should be created for Complex smart cards. Please discuss at Talk:Smart card AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 14:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello editors, SCbhaynes here. I am an employee of Sharecare and a representative on Wikipedia for the company. I posted a request recently on the article's Talk page to pursue editor assistance with adjusting the number of employees noted in the current article's infobox. You can see my full request on the Sharecare talk page. I take the site's guidelines seriously -- especially for editors with a paid conflict of interest like myself -- and know that I can't edit the article directly in keeping with that. Since my request remains unanswered so far, I thought this WikiProject could be a place to reach out in case there are any interested editors here who would care to assist. Also, I am new to the community, so please let me know if this is an acceptable method for a conflict of interest editor like me to collaborate with the community of volunteer editors. Any questions or feedback that editors may have are greatly appreciated, as I'm eager to be a positive contributor overall. Thanks in advance for any consideration! SCbhaynes ( talk) 22:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done ~ Kvng ( talk) 13:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again, Kvng, for your help! SCbhaynes ( talk) 22:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi editors, SCbhaynes here again. As noted above by Kvng, my initial request to update the number of employees on the article has been handled. I'm back again though, with an follow-up request in hopes of updating the article's list of subsidiaries as well. I will continue to avoid direct edits to the Sharecare article, due to my conflict of interest. If there are any interested editors here, please see my full request and comments at the Sharecare Talk page. Thanks again for any consideration! SCbhaynes ( talk) 22:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

NEW REQUEST: PROPOSED SECTION DRAFT - Blue Zones Project and Community Well-Being Index

Hi editors. SCbhaynes from Sharecare here again to notify of another new request for any interested editors to review at the Sharecare Talk page. I proposed a drafted section to incorporate content about Sharecare's Blue Zones Project and Community Well-Being Index, including sources. My hope is to gain assistance with these changes to the current Sharecare article, as I have a conflict of interest and will not edit the article myself. Thanks again! SCbhaynes ( talk) 00:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

On the Page /info/en/?search=Category:Technology_by_type "Architectural technology" is listed under the letter the letter "c" rather than "A" as it should be. I tried to edit the page to rectify this mistake, but it seems to be generated automatically from a template. Does anyone know how to rectify this mistake? -- Christophe Krief ( talk) 23:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Fixed ~ Kvng ( talk) 16:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - -- Christophe Krief ( talk) 20:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi guys!

I'm writing you since I've had the task of creating a wiki page for the danish software company, Bruhn Newtech.

Since the review is 4 months or more, I kindly ask for your help in reviewing and approving.

I work as an external consultant for the company ATM, so I have a COI. The numbers and listed facts are proven, and please wrote me if You have any questions.

Have a lovely day :)

/Carl Emil

This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Draft:Bruhn Newtech.

Draft was WP:G11 deleted. ~ Kvng ( talk) 15:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

On February 19-21, 2021 Wikipedia:WikiProject_Organized_Labour/Online_edit-a-thon_Tech_February_2021 - Online and global about trade unions and technology ~ Shushugah ( talk) 23:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This draft article may interest editors here. Draft:Paysera

Frequency33 ( talk) 14:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings ( talk) 11:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Matthew and I work for Unity Software. I've disclosed this on my profile and at Talk:Unity Technologies, where I am proposing updates to the article with current information. Most recently, I've suggested adding details about Unity's business model, which has changed in recent years. I’m hoping another editor will make the changes on my behalf given my COI. My proposed changes have been added to Category:Requested_edits, and because it's quite backlogged, I thought I'd reach out here as well. Thanks! Matthewpruitt ( talk) 16:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Matthewpruitt, when you added "Category:Requested_edits|Request log" it triggered request edit template and made a bot think there was an edit request on this page. I removed the coding to avoid confusion. Please let me know if you have any questions. Also, I encourage all editors here to help us with the request edit backlog, which can be found at Template:Request edit/Instructions along with instructions. Thanks! Z1720 ( talk) 01:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, could someone make a very quick infobox fix? The founding date for iFit is quite incorrect (it says 2013) and has no citation. It should be corrected to "2000" with the following citation: ^[1]

I have a COI so even though this is a fairly non-controversial edit I'm not doing it myself. I put in an edit request on the talkpage a while ago (which contains further confirmation of the founding date), but since infobox stats are fairly vital and this is a quick fix I thought I'd try to reach out here for assistance. Any help appreciated -- thanks very much. TerryBG ( talk) 15:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• This request has now been fulfilled. Thank you. TerryBG ( talk) 14:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Murley, an employee of TomTom, here on behalf of the company to request changes to the article under the guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest. As a paid employee, I will never edit the article myself.

I left a more detailed note and proposed draft on the TomTom Talk page, and have updated my request after discussion with editors. With no replies since updating the proposed draft, I'm hoping a volunteer here may review my request and proposed content. If in agreement, I also ask an editor to please apply updates to the TomTom Group business structure section of the current article in my place. I'm happy to answer any questions or approach the content differently, if editors prefer. Thank you! Murley from TomTom ( talk) 09:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Release her permeatly. Leave her alone yes me I’m begging to be free as it is my right

Please see Talk:Verizon_Wireless#No_longer_a_division. I am seeking guidance on the best way to update the Verizon Wireless article since the description of Verizon Wireless as a division of Verizon Communications is no longer accurate and I believe bringing clarity to this issue will improve the article. As I work for Verizon and have a conflict of interest, I ask others to look at my requests and make edits on my behalf. Thank you, VZEric ( talk) 16:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Matthew. I'm here on behalf of my employer, Unity Software. I've disclosed my conflict of interest on my profile and at Talk:Unity (game engine), where I am proposing updates to the article. My most recent request suggests adding information about the game engine's usage statistics and efforts to expand the game engine's use beyond gaming. Because of my COI, I don't make direct edits. I did add my request to the edit request queue, and because it's quite backlogged, I thought I'd post here as well. Thanks! Matthewpruitt ( talk) 13:34, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi all. About a month ago I proposed making layout changes to the ByteDance article to comply with MOS:LAYOUT and WP:CSECTION, among other things. Specifically, I suggested using a chronologically organized "History" section (similar to Twitter#History) as well as integrating the contents of the Controversy section into other appropriate parts of the article. But I've struggled to generate a constructive discussion on the Talk page ( Talk:ByteDance#Fixing MOS:LAYOUT and MOS:LEAD issues) and I will not make the edits myself due to my COI as a ByteDance employee.

I would greatly appreciate if editors reading this could take a few minutes to look at the discussion and consider implementing my proposal, either in part or in full. Thanks, JatBD ( talk) 13:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in a discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science#Category:Science_articles_needing_expert_attention about the following articles:

• Microprinting
• Microscope image processing
• 15 articles primary about other disciplines. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 14:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Desktop computer, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Hello! I am looking for editors to review a request at Talk:Citrix Workspace to expand the stub slightly and offer some additional detail on Citrix Workspace on Citrix Systems' behalf. Could WikiProject Technology editors take a look and update the page if my suggestions look appropriate? I've sought help at WikiProject Software and a couple individual editors, but haven't received any feedback yet. Thanks! Inkian Jason ( talk) 13:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Blast furnace, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 ( talk) 13:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I would appreciate some wider input on the proposed merge of Tesla Dojo into Tesla Autopilot from 20 August 2021. Reason: I don't think Tesla Dojo is notable enough to warrant a standalone article. I propose merging into Tesla Autopilot (or maybe History of Tesla, Inc.) instead, at least until we wait and see if the project ultimately gains notability over time. The chip is yet to be released, and all of the sources are simply echoing Tesla's PR announcement yesterday. And of course Tesla has announced numerous projects over the years that have failed to come to fruition: plans to produce a COVID-19 vaccine [2], battery swapping [3], robotaxis [4], Model S Plaid Plus [5], etc. WP:NOTNEWS says "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.". Discussion can be found >>>Here<<<. Thanks Stonkaments ( talk) 21:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of screw drives § Images in Section Headings. — Marchjuly ( talk) 08:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL
• Arabeyes ( | talk| history| links| watch| logs| google) AfD discussion

Open source publisher trying to aid Arab language users with their computers etc. It was established in early 2001 by a number of Arab Linux enthusiasts. Trying to find sources is hampered by the presumed language of sources. Arabic language speakers needed. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 15:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated San Francisco for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ( t · c) buidhe 04:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I'm dropping by this WikiProject to ask if someone here might be interested in taking a look at the edit request I recently posted to the software company Icertis's talk page. The request, which proposes a few straightforward updates to the page's outdated infobox, is available here.

To be clear, I'm an Icertis employee with a COI, so I'm asking other editors to implement my proposed edits rather than directly editing the page myself. Any help I can get on updating the infobox would be deeply appreciated. Thanks! Icertis Laura ( talk) 23:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Google, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

There is a proposed split discussion at Talk:Apple M1 Pro and M1 Max#Split again that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Itsquietuptown ✉️ 📜 06:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I've identified a few factual inaccuracies in the infobox and introduction of the Pitney Bowes article. As a Pitney Bowes employee, I understand that I shouldn't make edits to fix those details myself. Instead, I posted a request with the specific parameters and claims that need updating on the Pitney Bowes talk page. I made that initial request back in mid-January but unfortunately have not had any luck getting it implemented. I would deeply appreciate it if an editor from this WikiProject could take a look at my proposed changes. Thanks so much! MTatPitneyBowes ( talk) 13:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Monopulse radar#Requested move 24 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 23:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:BATM Advanced Communications#Requested move 27 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm dropping by this WikiProject to ask if anyone might be interested in taking a look at the edit request I recently posted to the contract services technology company Icertis's Talk page. The request proposes a brief Operations section that contains high-level information on the company's size, ownership, and leadership structure. You can view it here.

Just so there's no confusion: I'm an Icertis employee with a COI, so I obviously can't make edits to the Icertis page myself. If an editor here could take a look at what I've put forward, I would really appreciate it. Thanks! Icertis Laura ( talk) 20:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith " Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith " Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb { t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I recently created an article for Anomaly Six, a secretive American company which develops tools that can be used in mass surveillance. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 01:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi editors! I am looking for help with a requested edit for software and hardware developer Synaptics. I'm trying to help improve the encyclopedic quality of the page and have put forward a draft to make some edits to the History. The draft would: remove content that isn't well sourced; trim or reword promotional sourcing copy; add new well-sourced information. As an employee of the company I have a conflict of interest, so I shouldn't make the edits myself and have posted a request instead. You can see it here on the Talk page. Could you provide any feedback on my draft or point me to anywhere else I might find someone to review? Thanks, Sheryl at Synaptics ( talk) 16:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm leaving a message at this WikiProject again to ask for help from editors here who are familiar with tech companies and (hopefully) the different publications that write about them. In the last few months, I've shared drafts and new sourcing to help bring the Icertis page up to Wikipedia's standards, and make it a more accurate encyclopedic overview of the company. While editors have reviewed and added the drafts, an editor has tagged the page and raised a concern about the sourcing. I'd very much like to help fix the issues, so I'm wondering if editors could look at the existing sources and give me any pointers on which may need to be replaced, and what sources might be better. The discussion about the tag and sources is here.

For disclosure: I'm an Icertis employee with a COI and have not been making edits to the Icertis page myself and have been putting forward requests for review. If an editor here is able to look over the page references, I would really appreciate it. Thanks! Icertis Laura ( talk) 17:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm a Pitney Bowes employee trying to get some help with a recent edit request I made on the company article's Talk page. I've reached out to a few editors with no luck and thought the folks at this WikiProject might be able to help. Essentially, I'm trying to get a few awards added to the article, some "buzzword" tags removed, and a slight restructure of the article's History section done. If that piques anyone's interest, the full edit request is ready for review at this link. Thanks! MTatPitneyBowes ( talk) 19:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Apple Worldwide Developers Conference#Requested move 5 June 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 00:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion whether particular sources are reliable in context at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#heise.de (heise online / Heinz Heise) / c't (c't 3003) that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 84.250.14.116 ( talk) 17:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Editors of this project might be interested in suggestions to update the article about Dan Wagner (a well-known U.K. entrepreneur). The proposals are here: Talk:Dan Wagner#Request Edits April 2022. Since I have a COI, an independent editor or editors must review these. Thanks. W12SW77 ( talk) 15:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I've submitted an edit request with a few suggested updates for the WiTricity article here. I've struggled to get editor feedback despite using Template:Request edit so I'm hoping a member of this project might be willing to take a look at the proposed updates. For what it's worth, I don't think reviewing will take long since the additions are single sentences. Thanks! Inkian Jason ( talk) 14:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey there! I'm Greg, an employee at the software company Evernote. I've been trying for the past few months to improve the company page, which has multiple flags on it and quite a few informational gaps. As a COI editor, I have to propose changes and then let non-COI editors take a look at my suggestions. I've unfortunately hit a snag and can't seem to find any interested editors. Maybe someone at this WikiProject can help? I currently have two active edit requests on the Evernote Talk page, but the simpler one is a proposed Operations section, which contains some key facts about the company and how it operates. Here's a link to that request. Any help I can get from editors at this WP would be awesome. Thanks for your time! Evernote Greg ( talk) 15:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Retractable pen, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

I posted some updates to the page about Modern Meadow, a biotech company here Talk:Modern Meadow that I’d love to have a member of this project review. The proposals address the concerns of the warning boxes posted on the article, but I have a COI and don’t want to violate Wikipedia rules by editing the page myself. Thanks in advance. Olympus4Me2 ( talk) 19:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello! On behalf of HubSpot, I've submitted a request to update the Software and services section. I've proposed specific text additions based on Wikipedia-appropriate sources about some of the company's major products, similar to what's already said about HubSpot CRM Free. I've disclosed my conflict of interest and included Template:Request edit, but so far the request has gone unanswered. Might a member of WikiProject Technology be willing to take a look and update the article appropriately? Thanks for your consideration. Inkian Jason ( talk) 14:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm Robin from Beutler Ink. I've posted a draft article on behalf of our client Monolith Inc. at Articles for Creation. Because of my COI, I am looking for editors who might be interested in reviewing the draft. I previously posted a similar note to WikiProject Nebraska. If you'd like to take a look, you can find the draft article here. I welcome feedback and suggestions. Cheers! BINK Robin ( talk) 16:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

• Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL
• Early Warning Labs ( | talk| history| links| watch| logs| google) AfD discussion

Early Warning Labs, An R&D partner with the USGS for the ShakeAlert project, was nominated for deletion. Please see COI! Any help with references or thoughts on ATD would help. EricFishers11 ( talk) EricFishers11 ( talk) 20:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi editors. I am seeking assistance from others to review requests of mine to update the articles for SaaS company Diligent Corporation and its CEO, Brian Stafford.

Diligent Corporation

• History updates
• Acquisitions and expansion request

Brian Stafford (businessman)

• Diligent section updates

I'm happy to discuss these requests further on the article Talk pages. I have a COI so I will not edit these articles myself. Thanks. JHDiligent ( talk) 20:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Different ways to build quality software in cost saving way. 70.113.0.232 ( talk) 16:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback on "types" of Communication would be helpful at Talk:Communication/Archive 1#Types of communication. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi editors! I have been looking for help with a requested edit for software and hardware developer Synaptics. The company was one of the early pioneers in touchpad technology. I've shared a new draft for the page's Products information to completely replace the existing text that is largely sourced just to Synaptics. I have also posted a request to ask for removal of an "Industry alliances" section that is not well sourced and very confusing. It's been several months since I posted the latter request, and I've not been able to find an editor to help. I'm an employee of the company and have a conflict of interest so I shouldn't make the edits myself and have posted these requests instead. Can anyone here give feedback, help with the requests, or point me to any other helpful venues? Thanks, Sheryl at Synaptics ( talk) 21:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

So I've just created technology in science fiction, and redirected (after discussion with User:TompaDompa and User:Daranios the mess that was at fictional technology there. But then I run into hypothetical technology and emerging technologies. Setting aside whether one should be renamed (singular vs plular), see Talk:Emerging_technologies#Merge_from_Hypothetical_technology and the section I started below it (about when a technology is no longer emerging and what to do with the content in that article then?). Another issue is whether those terms are notable, and how to divide emerging/hypothetical/fictional stuff (what's in these articles is a tip of the iceber, see rather wild and chaotic stuff in Category:Hypothetical technology and Category:Emerging technologies+ Category:Fictional technology - again, plural and singular dissonance, sigh). Also in need of attention, List of hypothetical technologies and List of emerging technologies (tagged with Wikipedia:CRYSTAL). Thank deity for small mercies, we don't have a List of fictional technologies (probably b/c the mess at fictional technology listicle was that anyway). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:45, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I've created a WikiProject proposal for WikiProject Android that may be of interest for some people in this WikiProject. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I recently created an article for David Bowie’s BowieNet, a pioneering presence on the internet. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley ( talk) 04:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Could we get some more eyes on this RfC. NickCT ( talk) 13:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, there's an RM discussion ongoing at Talk:Lucidchart#Requested move 22 January 2023 that may be relevant to members of this WikiProject. Please feel free to weigh in if you have an opinion on the proposed move. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)