Template talk:Technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Older comments[edit]

The entries in this template should be structured somehow. As it is now it is too overwhelming to be helpful. --Fenice 19:53, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I object to the removal of construction and sport from this template.

Construction is not a sub-discipline to civil engineering anymore than manufacturing is to mechanical engineering.

Sport is a technology. It is repleat with processes, procedures, technique, tools, etc, just as engineering, communication, etc. Technology is not just hardware, but sport does include alot of hardware. It meets the criteria very nicely. By the way, this is not an idea that is new with me, it is mentioned by Jacques Ellul in one of his book, I think it is The Technological Society.

-Steven McCrary 20:03, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ok but it needs to be either drastically shortened or organized in some way, at least spread up into engineering and technology. An alphabetic listing is pretty much useless.--Fenice 20:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that. I have moved a copy of this template to User:Stevenwmccrary58/sandbox to work on it, but please feel free to make suggestions, or even work on it in my sandbox. Thanks. Steven McCrary 21:01, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I did not know how to reorganize a chart. Thank you Seven. --Admiral Roo 11:21, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Biotechnology can easily fit in applied sciences too. it is one of those grey areas Oldag07 21:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Woodworking and metalworking[edit]

Shouldn't woodworking and metalworking be in this template? Luigizanasi 03:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Means Mining the term Data mining[edit]

If Mining means the term Data mining, then there should be the direct link to it. JKW 04:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Athletics and Recreation[edit]

Shouldn't that be Sports and Recreation? --Usgnus 22:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Place template[edit]

This template can not be "dumped" on all the subjects it relates to, technological polution !!! --Quasarq 07:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree, it is way too extensive to actually relate. I am removing it from Bioinformatics as there are two perfectly good specialist templates which are more informative than this. Linking to a portal would be a better idea that planting this template down in random "technology" subjects. Ansell 09:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

quantum computing?[edit]

Why is quantum computing in this list? It seems to me to be pretty specialized, not a “major field.” --jacobolus (t) 06:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Transport row links[edit]

  1. Do we need links to both aerospace and aerospace engineering in the transport row ?
  2. Also do we need the transport link again in the transport row ?

-- Myth (Talk) 18:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What is this template for?[edit]

My first reaction is that this template should be taken out and shot. What is the purpose of this template? It is so extremely eclectic that there is no way that I can imagine someone using as a nav template to go from one topic to another related topic. Does anyone have a clue what this template is for? Anyone else think it should be deep sixed? (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree it doesn't add much. But it is only at the foot of articles. Perhaps it should default to hide and only expand if wanted? --BozMo talk 21:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess somebody made this template probably to serve a better as a guide for complex science such as Systemaics and Informatics or a historical overview of human advancement? --Ramu50 (talk) 01:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Entertainment Engineering and Design[edit]

Entertainment Engineering has been created at UNLV. Without any negative comments, I am going to add it to the engineering category. Locopingvin (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Medical technology -> Biomedical technology?[edit]

Instead of a category of Medical technology, I suggest that Biomedical technology is more suitable, since the category in question includes bioinformatics, biotechnology, and cheminformatics, none of which are specifically medical (but all can certainly be applied to medical ends). Allens (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, I will make the change.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Particle physics[edit]

is not an applied science. It should not be in this template and the template should be removed from the article Widefox; talk 09:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I will remove it now.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Way too big![edit]

This template is way too big and we should reach a consensus on how to split it up into several smaller templates. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 02:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Agreed. It is too big. Hard to use it. I like smaller template, for example, half of current size. Joeinwiki (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This template is, still, far too big to be usable. I understand that lots of people want to increment their edit count but this mess does not benefit readers. This template should be cut down into one or more bite-size pieces. bobrayner (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)