Jump to content

Talk:2021 in science

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is a table of non-included items
(some relevant to other articles or with non-inclusion rationales)

Created the talk-page

[edit]

Created the talk-page for the 2021 in science page - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Please stop flooding this article with images. They should be used sparingly, and shouldn't intrude into month sections where they don't belong. Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update 21/10/2021 – I am having to ask this again. STOP FLOODING THIS PAGE WITH 50 MILLION IMAGES. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright – I already tried to reduce the amount of images before. I only added them whenever they're quite illustrative of the findings, and preferably new images from the respective studies themselves. No need for the capslock.
I think readers would like to have images whenever they're useful and help illustrate the results, and generally mostly more images. I could make a small survey of some readers whether they would like less or more images. They don't intrude into next months' sections on the setups that I preview & test with (they could be moved further up if they do). I don't know why you oppose a few more images though. I hope it's okay for you to remove images if there's too many and/or some that aren't sufficiently specific and illustrative. --Prototyperspective (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the capslock. I don't oppose images per se. It's fine to have, say, 3 or 4 per month. The issue for me is when you have 7 or 8, intruding into months where they don't belong, especially when they're for relatively minor/uninteresting breakthroughs. Recently a whole bunch appeared that I had to delete, and others had to be moved back up the page. I'm viewing on a 1080p desktop monitor, so maybe it looks different on your screen. Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poor sourcing

[edit]

A lot of medical content on this page is inadequately sourced (see discussion at WT:MED). The page needs a good thinning. Alexbrn (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it yourself then. Thanks for ruining the page with a big banner. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What "ruins the page" is having crappy/false medical information on it. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, and sometimes that takes work. Alexbrn (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Examples? Please be specific. The banner will be removed again, btw, unless you can back up your claim. It seems you found a Twitter reference, which has now been removed, but you seem to feel the entire article is somehow poor quality? I and others here pour a tremendous amount of time and effort into making this page high quality and well-referenced. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a couple but it is going to take time; probably more eyes will be needed, for which the banner might help. The banner is not about "the whole article" and is specific in its wording. Please read WP:MEDRS to start to understand the scale of the problem. If you try to edit-war away a legitimate banner you will be being disruptive. You are showing signs of thinking you WP:OWN the page. Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wjfox2005 why do you keep removing this? The way to fix the problem is to fix the problem, not to brush it under the carpet. The first thing I looked at just now, about mRNA vaccines for multiple sclerosis, is sourced to churnalism and unreliable medical sources. Is there nothing better? Alexbrn (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That entry (7 January) contains three references. One is a news release directly from the company, containing some very useful information. The next is a release by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. And the third is literally a peer-reviewed study in one of the world's most reputable scientific journals. I don't have a problem with any of these, but you seem to believe it's some sort of fake news? Wjfox2005 (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A churned press release is just puffery, and the journal article fails WP:MEDRS. "Fake news" is maybe putting it too strongly, but there's nothing reliable to support the grand claim of "great promise" - or indeed to show any of this is even newsworthy. Much medical research is just wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of Trinity College Dublin study report, RSN discussion

[edit]

FYI, Reliability of the following sources in this article are being discussed at RSN.[1] More opinions are welcome. Also suggest seeing the update/correction at The Register.[2]

  • "Study reveals scale of data-sharing from Android mobile phones". Trinity College Dublin. Retrieved November 16, 2021.
  • Liu, Haoyu; Patras, Paul; Leith, Douglas J. (October 6, 2021). "Android Mobile OS Snooping By Samsung, Xiaomi, Huawei and Realme Handsets" (PDF). Retrieved November 16, 2021.

-- Yae4 (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]