Talk:Nanotechnology

Nanoscience

"Nanoscience" redirects to "Nanotechnology" but this seems absurd, for the same reason as it would seem absurd if "Science" redirected to "Technology." Please discuss. Drttm (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you were to write a Nanotechnology and a Nanoscience article, how different would they be? Surely they would end up referencing each other dozens of times. Nanotechnology is a good title for a page that summarizes the physical inventions and the ideas involved. If someone wants details on the hard science that goes into nanotechnology, they can look at more specific articles, e.g. self-assembly, atomic force microscopy, microfluidics, et cetera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.44.0.124 (talk • contribs)

"Nanoscience" and "nanotechnology" are used fairly interchangably, and haven't really been used to describe substantively different fields. If there were to be a nanoscience article, it would mostly focus on how different authors define nanoscience; there's just not any technical material which isn't included in nanotechnology to begin with. Antony-22 (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that nanoscience and nanotechnology are used interchangeably by anyone actually working in the field(s). Anything with the word "technology" in it should not be characterized as the "study" of something. Technology is an application; nanoscience is the study of objects at the nanometer scale, and how they behave. Nanofabrication is the process used to create nanoscale objects, and nanotechnology is the application of the unique properties nanoscale objects to solve problems. Incidentally, the current definition nanotechnology is essentially the definition of a subfield of Chemistry, which wikipedia differentiates by calling "the science of matter and the changes it undergoe." To me, "the study of manipulating matter on an atomic and molecular scale," therefore sounds like nanotechnology is a form of Chemistry. (I would argue that nanoscience is in fact an offshoot of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, but I doubt that is an opinion held by a majority of people.) ChezChemistry (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is, that so long as Wikipedia does not have an article called "nanoscience" this is the only sensible place to redirect someone who has typed that in the search box. Do you have an alternative suggestion for where nanoscience should redirect? There is nothing stopping anyone, other than motivation, from writing an article at nanoscience and then we will be able to see if there is a difference between the content there and here. Until that happens, it is far preferable that readers are redirected here rather than left hanging. SpinningSpark 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that there's already an article on Nanoengineering, which has been a stub since it was started in 2001 (by Larry Sanger (!)), and I fear that any article on nanoscience will remain similarly undeveloped. Microstubs were actually created for Nanoscience in 2003 and again in 2007, and both times they were quickly reverted to redirects.

I'd be amenable to an attempt to create a new nanoscience article, but the trick is it must cite sources to establish that nanoscience is notably different than nanotechnology, these sources must agree enough that the article doesn't become original research, and the content of the article must cover substantially different material than this article. It can be done, but doing it well enough for it to stay a separate article would take a fair bit of care, time, and effort. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, laughably, the first stub actually said it was a synonym of the article it was linking to! Not surprising that one got redirected. The second one was a dicdef which is also against guidelines. SpinningSpark 20:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How could it delete (-64,839) ??

Can someone review the last pages ,I guess something is wrong but I couldn't see.Did someone delete information? (Ertugrul.Bülbül April 2009)

Not too sure what this refers to but the pages (talk and article) seem ok with no major losses of info from April to August 2009 and stable between 53,000 and 55,000 bytes Chaosdruid (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The technology

How is it possible to create the nano molecules and structures? For example,how can we produce c60 in it's solid form, or how are nano tubes produced? --Reza M. Namin (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Try the Reference Desk. Alternatively, there are some details about this on Buckminsterfullerene and Carbon nanotube i think. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Box cleanup

I have removed the To-do list, which hasn't been used and is mostly cluttering up the top of the talk page. The text is at Talk:Nanotechnology/to do, and if anyone wants to put it back they can just add "{{todo}}" in the appropriate place. I have also removed a Spoken Wikipedia request which has been unfulfilled for several years. Antony–22 (^talk/_contribs) 03:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

External Link suggestion

Does this merit inclusion in the external links for this article?:

• Nanotechnology patents, patent applications and prior art (A live updating list) — Snarkosis (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

mp3

"Without nanotechnology, BlackBerries would not be possible along with flash drives, digital cameras, and even MP3 files." - Doesn't make any sense. MP3 is a file format. That has nothing to do with nanotech. The whole section looks bad. --Arebenti (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Coffee table magazine lazy jounalism. Delete. SpinningSpark 23:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Selected articles and images for Portal:Nanotechnology

The nanotechnology portal has laid abandoned for quite some time. I'm going to set it up to automatically rotate through a selection of articles and images over the course of a year, and I'd like some input on which content should be used. If interested, please discuss at Portal talk:Nanotechnology/Selected article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 05:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2012

www.nanox.simplesite.com

Nirmalgvr (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Lock on article imposes unnecessary restraints to use and improvement of this and other articles, please explain.

Please explain why this article, on an important and rapidly changing subject, is locked. I understand individuals in this field (and their trainees) have decided perspectives on the subject, but its locking (i) hinders use of materials (images, quotations, references) in this article, in other related articles, and (ii) hinders addition of links here to other articles through simple edits (e.g., addition of a phrase linking Nanotechnology to to other areas involving supramolecular assembly, or tying it to biological and medical applications). Professionals and other busy contributors simply do not have time to engage in proposals/requests over matters of simple access (or even, at times, to log) when on the run between commitments. Make this easy, or do not expect contributions from the busiest (and sometimes most knowledgable) editors. LeProf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.244.80 (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It is locked because it attracts a lot of vandalism. Do you actually want to edit it now? I will unlock it if you do. SpinningSpark 19:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, the article is only "semiprotected", meaning that only unregistered users are unable to edit. If you create an account, you will be able to edit this article (after making 10 other edits and waiting 4 days). Editing under a registered name is also more anonymous, since your IP address is no longer publicly recorded. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

My edits are a mix of logged and not-logged for practical and personal reasons, including desire to make a quick edit while in transit, and past experience with abuse at hands of a wiki editor misusing UserTalk information (identified my institution, made disparaging public comments, etc.).