Template talk:Technology topics

Administrators' note: Rationale for CSD

The creator of this template, Guilherme Burn, attempted to move the template away from the title where Template:Technology was previously deleted, and then flagged the redirect, not the template itself, for G4. He/she most likely intended to nominate their own template for deletion per G4, and it probably does meet those criteria. That's why I added G7 as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... I don't want to delete the template. I want to exclude only the redirect. --Guilherme Burn (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on structure

So as I mentioned at the TFD discussion, I definitely think this template is useful and only needs a little cleanup. Assuming the consensus is to keep it, I have two thoughts mainly....

First, imposing some discipline on how large the template gets would be good. There aren't too many items right now so it can wait, but at some point, I'd suggest discussing a hard ceiling for the number of links within each top-level group.

Second, adding more of a schema would improve the template a lot, probably without too much effort. For example:

• Within the top-level navbox, have 3 main groups for now (Technologies, Perspectives, Related) and a bottom-bar with inter-wiki links (Commons, Wikidata, etc.)
• Perspectives can be broken up into several (but not too many) humanities/social-sciences: History, Economics, Philosophy, Literature, Pop culture, etc.
• Related shouldn't need to be sub-divided & can have a few links that are clearly related but outside the schema (Engineering & Invention for example)

As for the Technologies section, I'd consider one of three approaches (ordered by my personal preference):

1. Just mirror the arrangement from the Technology section at WP:VA. That way, there's no need to think up a new schema, it automatically puts a hard limit on the number of links, and debates here over what does & doesn't belong in the template become moot.
2. Categorize by the underlying phenomenon the technology relies on; it's intuitive but already adds in some subjectivity and will require more back-and-forth.
3. Use the top-level categories from the EU/US CPC. I know I mentioned this at the TFD discussion, but after looking more, it's not very intuitive and incorporates a lot of historical / bureaucratic baggage. The one upside is that as an official, international standard, it's pretty objective for wikipedia.

--Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure no one will adhere to it, but I propose a limit of 100 links total. I predict that 5 years from now, it will have at least 500 links, and will be an even more useless pile of junk than it is now. Kaldari (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite Done (May 2021)

So I've finished my changes to the template. I'm really happy with how the Perspectives & Related topics child-boxes turned out; they're very concise but still wide-ranging.

As for the example technology list, I like some aspects of it, but it definitely needs further changes and to shrink in the long-run. I'll simply explain my choices and reasoning here:

• I do think the overall categories are really strong & don't need to be updated (though perhaps better links can be found)
  • I started from the CPC schema, but it's definitely not intuitive.
    • For example, genetic engineering is in the same subclass as fermented beverages.
    • On the other hand, "blasting" & "heating" are grouped with mechanical engineering, rather than the chemistry or physics sections.
  • So to make things simpler, I split off a new category for each relatively distinct science or engineering field.
• I know the previous version used generic articles like "... technology", but I feel specific inventions or technologies add more.
  • Essentially, I'm coming from the standpoint that link-hopping is one of the really nice things about Wikipedia.
  • By giving specifics and even some additional structure (for example, listing Differential under Machinery), the navbox can stimulate that.
• That said, I remember the concerns the template would get out of hand & agree that the tech list should be smaller still.
  • After my changes, I've counted 14 categories & 299 individual entries in the technology list.
  • Personally, I'd prefer to take the time to structure the underlying articles, then update the template as overarching technology articles fall out.
  • Adding & linking infoboxes to reflect those relationships could be a big part of that.
    • Currently, infoboxes for "technology" & "invention" just redirect to "industrial process" & "product", which seem too narrowly economic.
  • If somebody else just wants to hack away at the entries though (for example, cutting out everything listed under Electronics), you won't hear any complaints from me.

I don't plan to make any more edits, but will keep the template on my watchlist for a while if anyone has any thoughts. --Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)