This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of emerging technologies article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 16 February 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
There have been two new additions, neither of which have linked WP articles, and I would be grateful for others' thoughts as to the merits of their inclusion as I am personally doubtful. The additions in question are:
1. Computational knowledge - this appears to be a marketing term used to describe the Wolfram Alpha search engine, but not otherwise to be in common useage, and certainly not to refer to an emerging technology per se: [1]
2. Algorithm discovery - It appears that this phrase is used in a number of different contexts, but I have been unable to identify a currently emerging technology by this name. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
3. I don't want to screw up the formatting by trying to enter it myself, but under Agriculture, development of drought, heat, and saline resistant crops, whether by genetic engineering or conventional breeding, should be included. It it not just "a nice thing", but will be mandatory, in the face of progressive global warming. Hsfrey (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 28 January 2012
4. Ditto for Architecture designed for areas newly affected by heat waves, floods, and high energy hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. Hsfrey (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 28 January 2012
Why ground effect train is included but Ground effect vehicle not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.66.66.167 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Unless a tech has a reference within the last 12 months that calls it an "Emerging technology" then it must be removed. Mtking (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
At the AfD over 2 years ago the vast majority of paticipents recomended a better definition of emerging technologies and refrances this has not happened and needs to. Mtking (talk) 00:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
If references establish that a technology meets the given definition for "emerging technology" (that it's new but not hypothetical and not mainstream) then that should be enough to verify that it is an emerging technology. Just the same as we accept that a source which says someone enrolled at a school is sufficient to support the claim that they were a student there. I don't think there needs to be any particular deadline for completion. If you want to start removing items unsupported by references, it's fine to start doing that now, but it would be unproductive to do so without checking for easily-found references in the linked Wikipedia article or doing a basic web search since the vast majority of items do seem to be included legitimately. -- Beland (talk) 06:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
can we add in a reference to reversible computing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.55.44 (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
This list definitely needs a building technologies section. There are a lot of well documenting emerging technologies in building. Inhabitat [2], Worldchanging [3] and hundreds of other sources you can find searching "architecture", "permaculture", "landscape".
Many of the technologies exist to radically reduce energy or enable growing, tighten ecological feedback loops so that wastes are used immediately, make use of waste materials, cut water use, and so on. This is at least one of the most aggressive areas of innovation there is, and obviously very important socially and ecologically, so it needs due attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.94.114 (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
5G cellular communication will come in the 2020s. Is it okay that I put it on this page tomorrow?
Anonymous173.57.37.111 (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Note: This should be translated into additional languages. Especially German, French, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Russian, Hebrew and Arabic. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
An emerging technology could be separable from a hypothetical invention on the early side of its development. Likewise, a technology could still be regarded as emerging when products exist, but are not yet widely taken up. This page lacks a clear standpoint of its scope. As a result it contains some ludicrous hypothetical inventions (which properly belong in Science Fiction plot devices) as well as some quite mature technologies.
I would personally suggest that it should be confined to TRL levels 2 through 6 for components and subsystems, or, for products at a higher level of integration, to those which can be placed in the first peak of the Gartner hype cycle.
--Matt Whyndham (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
There are lot of crappy links in this article. Without a criterion it is hard to remove. I reviewed Electrothermal-chemical technology and from the intro nothing since 1993. If it was just me, I'd say remove everything that hasn't had an update in 5-10 years. Or create a new article: really emerging tech. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Several issues.
1. Status. There are a hodgepodge of assessments lacking consistency. A Technology readiness level should chosen and used throughout.
2. Field. The technology should be related to a field by a reference. Example: Claytronics is listed under Construction however the only reference is within Wikipedia and does not mention construction or indicate any relationship.
3. Categories. Depending on the field the categories can vary wildly while others reflect opinion of the wiki editor rather that some industry assessment. The following categories should be reviewed and a template should be considered: Potentially marginalized technologies, Replacing, Aim.
4. Definition of "Emerging Technology" should be stated and examples of what would qualify and what would not. For example: there is an entry for "Magnetic levitation" and "Maglev train, Vactrain." Maglev trains have been around for 30 years and the "Levicar" mentioned "was a concept car Ford displayed in 1959." There might be an article here for technologies that showed promise but failed to take off.
Jleipold (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
What do you think about added Reccomender system? Dawid2009 (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Added music software? Dawid2009 (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure where this would go, but there is a new process called "programmable tooling" that has emerged in recent years. I did not see it in the article and believe it would benefit it to have it included.
"Programmable Tooling, as demonstrated on Collider’s proprietary Orchid machine, is a hybrid technology that brings together the benefits of continuous DLP technology and traditional plastic casting." - From this article
Please see this article from engineering.com as well.
This is my first time contributing to Wikipedia. Beehoyle (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there an expanded version of page history where one could find previously existing entries?
And does anybody know what happened to russian version over a year ago? Why was it completly removed? 93.84.30.67 (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
@93.84.30.67: You'd have to ask somewhere on https://ru.wikipedia.org -- Beland (talk) 07:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
it'd be cool to be able to show a list of open source projects and attempts being made by different groups around the world in each of these fields of emerging technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6001:E24C:A700:C1A0:FBFD:BB7C:2A77 (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The list should be limited to specific technologies that can be named without resorting to brands or trademarks. As it is, it's too generic. An entry like "biometrics" isn't an emerging technology at all. It's an established technology. But if a company is developing a biometric sensor that can use someone's breath as an ID metric (this is just for example), this should be entered separately under a technical description (something like "pulmonary biometric sensor"), but not under its trademark name (ex: "RespiScan"). So for instance, Intel's drive acceleration SSD is called "Optane"; but it should be listed as something like "bulk variable resistance non-volatile memory." The description should explain it is for accelerating access to bulk storage volumes and give "Optane" as an example, even though it is the only existing example. This way, we have a list of technologies and not a list of fields of study or of products.
I would also limit the list to technologies that are or were being actively pursued by companies that are either listed in a major stock exchange or which are backed by a venture capital firm. This way, we can avoid fly-by-night groups that exist only on paper and claim extraordinary products that can't exist. This would also exclude GoFundMe projects like the infamous Aero Fontus water bottle since no serious VC would ever back a project like that.
I am going to insert a few of these technologies under "IT and communications." Anyone who wants to help, please contribute one or more entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouBloodyMook (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
As many of these technologies are theoretical, fictional, possible in wide-scale commercial usage no longer relating to Emerging technology field, we need to go through the page and remove or modify technologies that are no longer relevant. If someone want's to arrange a cleanup with myself, please notify me on my talk page please. SumeetJi (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Can someone add green hydrogen to the Energy table? Thanks! :) --Eatthecrow (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
The third criteria is "Not be widely used yet. Mainstream technologies cannot be considered emerging."
This is impossible to prove and makes this article nothing more than "technologies that Wikipedia editors think are cool". For instance, I would argue cryptocurrencies are "mainstream"--they've existed commercially for 10 years, I could buy one from my phone in minutes, and most people are likely aware of them. Multiple publicly traded companies are based on the technology. The same could be said for many things; virtual reality and augmented reality exist and are commercialized, speech recognition is on every phone, and Gyrobuses used flywheels for energy storage in the 1950s.
The counterargument to this is that in the future, perhaps these technologies will become even more mainstream. It's certainly possible, I can't rule it out for any of the above technologies. But this could be said for anything--if I'm a big believer in blimps, I might be justified in adding "airships" to this page, because I think that in 2050 they're going to have a huge resurgence. Because of that, I believe the decision whether to include something or not constitutes WP:NOR.
There are a few options:
KenyonP (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
How is going to know what li-fi is? Perhaps change the potential application column to description/applications. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
@Hexatron93: I removed Nano Urea because [4] it seems like it might be pseudoscience, and LCSHR, Regional Rapid Transit System (RRTS) (These both seem like cool train systems, but it's unclear why they'd be considered emerging.) If you feel I made a mistake, feel free to re-add them (preferably with a clear indication of what makes them emerging) KenyonP (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)