Talk:2021 in science

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

Created the talk-page

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

Images

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)

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)

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)

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)

Poor sourcing

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)

So fix it yourself then. Thanks for ruining the page with a big banner. Wjfox2005 (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reliability of Trinity College Dublin study report, RSN discussion

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)