Talk:Science and technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Science (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Technology (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Why: Science and technology[edit]

I have created this article to consolidate the disparate comparisions from three other articles because the three articles were all in disagreement. My aim is to get to a common definition and standard of quality. -- MCG 19:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Which three articles, and have you worked in those articles to correct the "disagreement"? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Most of this was inspired by a poorly written section in Technology (I moved the section here as a start point), but this also drew from Science and Engineering. There is still a lot of work to be done on this article, but I feel that consolidation the comparisons is worth while. I also feel this article is relevant due to the frequency that one finds the term “science and technology” used in modern English. -- MCG 21:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
One also finds the term "salt and pepper" and "meat and potatoes" commonly used. Not sure if this needs its own article, but rather perhaps just a disambig page to the two main articles. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see this as much more than a disambig. It highlights the differences in three terms that are often confused to varying degrees. At the same time, you will not find an article History of meat and potatoes but you do find History of science and technology (Same with Salt and pepper studies vs Science and technology studies). -- MCG 01:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Both of those are established academic disciplines. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
The scope of the article should be changed to not just explaining what the two terms mean, but to explaining the relationship between science and technology and the development of both. So I think it should be kept, or at least renamed to "Relationship between science and technology". --Lobizón 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

For the article to have encyclopedic value, IMO, it should not just be a re-stating of the definitions of terms from their own separate articles, but rather present a history & notability of the particular phrase "science and technology". Currently, the article fails to do this. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but instead of recomending the article be deleted, it should be marked for improvement: { { Expand } }
MCG 13:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

New version[edit]

Based on discussions, the article should simply be something like the following:

Science and technology is a term of art used to encompass the relationship between science and technology. It was first used (citation of first use) and frequently appears within titles of academic disciplines (science and technology studies) and government offices (Office of Science and Technology).

But without a proper discussion of the term's history and usage, this might be little more than a dictionary definition. (Proper citations would be necessary, of course, to avoid original research). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes. I have used your suggestion to make a change to the article for it to better express its purpose. As I mentioned in the deletion discussion, it is probably easier to get this article going in the right direction than start again when someone else recreates it. There is still a lot of work to be done. -- MCG 15:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In the 6 years since these discussions took place, it might be beneficial to take another crack at this. The Internet has grown signficantly since then, and there might be more resources available to develop this article in order to support its existence. Jodayagi (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)