Template talk:Emerging technologies

Scope

I think this is by far overly broad for a template and I wonder if there's any good criterion for deciding what would and would not be included in this template. How about various forms of AI, biofuels, quantum computing, UAVs, etc., ad infinitum? There must be hundreds of articles that could be included. 165.123.208.203 (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Red link entries

Red link entries should not be included in this template as without an article there is no way to test if that Emerging technology meets the WP:GNG or is in fact Emerging and/or a real technology and/or not some pipe dream so unless someone comes up with a very good reason no to, I am going to remove them. Mtking (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

For those which don't appear in List of emerging technologies (which is virtually all if not all of them) then I would like to see some citations provided to justify inclusion. To single out a few that I have doubts about:

• I would be interested to know exactly what is meant by a maglev car, since my understanding of the concept is that maglev by definition requires a track.
• Hi MEMS is I believe the name of a US Department of Defense research programme rather than a technology per se.
• "Multi-primary color display" seems to have quite a lot of coverage online, but how does is overlap with the other display technology already included in the template?
• Driverless tractor / sprayer and Fruit picking robots strikes me as duplicative of Agricultural robots

I am very open minded on all of this though if appropriate sources can be provided. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the red-links, I agree Multi-primary color display, looks likely to be an early return, but to be consistent at this time should wait till an article exists. I Agree with the status of Hi MEMS so have also removed that from both also :

• Intelligent apparel - Have also removed from List of emerging technologies as no cite.
• Metal Insulator Metal chips - Have also removed from List of emerging technologies as the cite is a self published one.

Mtking (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Experimental medical treatments

The Experimental medical treatments section is a template in open to making this template un-manageable I suggest a separate template be created for Emerging medical treatments. Mtking (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is scope for a spin off template there including the great number of emerging/in development pharmaceutical and other treatments. This template should not in my view contain specific treatments for specific ailments. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Criteria?

Anyone can suggest any new SciFi idea or vague futuristic concept and add it here. Old technologoies might stay for years, also after the technology has been passed by other alternatives. For example "fiber optics" became widespread in telecom and CATV networks in the 1970s and 1980s, and large portion of the population at least in my country (Sweden) already have fiber-to-the-home. So that is definitely not an emerging technology.

It is very important that this list followes clearly defined criteria for what is relevant. Any suggestions? It could rely on some other list article where sources are required. It may also rely on sources in the linked articles. For example, we may require that the linked article should include recent scientific journal articles where the technology is mentioned, let's say newer than 5 or 10 years. If no research is ongong in an area, then it is not emerging. Also, no successful commercial product should exist based on the technology or a competing technology; otherwize it is no longer emerging but existing or surpassed by alternatives.

A template should also be limited to a certain maximum number of technologies. The correspnding list article categories might me longer.

Personally, I would prefer several short discipline specific lists, for example IT, medical technology, etc. Then people in those areas actually would be interested in keeping the list up-to-date. Mange01 (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You make some fair points. I agree that if research in an area has not taken place for 5 years then a technology cannot reasonably be defined as 'emerging' and should be removed. Emerging does not in my view mean that no commercial products have been launched, but that where they have they are very early stage and not in wide useage. Re competing technologies, often there can be more than one technology which serves the same or a similar purpose e.g. cars and trains or satellite television and cable television, so I'm not convinced on that point. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Rangoon, that Emerging does not mean that no commercial products have been launched, but that where they are very new and not in wide usage (care is needed with this last point where a technology has a limited scope for example spacecraft). Mtking (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think an emerging technology is a technology that has already shown some practical application or "working demo" technology but whose true scope and societal and technological effect is still largely unknown. That should be the criteria we make this category on. Ampdot (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not see so clearly what You might mean with "a limited scope". Spacecraft, for example, can have a very wide potential scope, but simply not yet have developed to it, together with society.

We could say that only technologies should be included, here, that are in a wide and, so to say in a traditional economic sense, marketable use. That would, for example, exclude telecommunication satellites, but still include other satellites that are not yet in as wide a usage, so that it really seems one would get a clear and usable criterion. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I add what I have just written on User talk:Mange01:

Technologies that already exist in the template Emerging technologies

Mange01 has undone the edit by which I have added Computer animation to the template, arguing that this technology already exists.

I have added the item to the template because it is still developing so strongly that decisive improvements are still to be expected. Various sources have come to the conclusion that the capacity of current computers is still going to increase with the same pace as it has done over the last decades. The logical following of this would be that really decisive, maybe even fantastic new results should still be expected.

Nevertheless, the thing depends on where one sees the boundaries for the template. I would like to draw Your attention, therefore, to the fact that the template, at the moment, also contains links to other technologies that already exist. Examples are Cryonics, Electroencephalography, Full genome sequencing, 3-D film (inserted by me the last days), Holographic display, Energy storage, Renewable energy (here also three sub-items, Biofuels, Concentrated solar power, and Nantenna; biofuels could be kept in the template, as long as the term is used in plural, so far).

Maybe, we could say we are going to exclude all from the template that is already marketable — what about that? --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I made my first computer animation in 1978. The technology is developing, but not emerging.

But you are right. This is a highly problematic template that could include thousands of technologies if you allow very old techniques such as computer animation. Then you could just as well allow cellular telephony or the Internet, which are younger than computer animations, but still under development.

We need rather exact criteria for including a technology. If a commercially successful product exists it should of course not be allowed. The status as emerging should be supported by a source. I also suggest that the template should be divided into several subjects. For example "Emerging technologies in IT". THen it would attract specialists in that area. Mange01 (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Template content generally isn't sourced in the template but in the articles linked to from the template. As I mentioned above we have templates for entire countries and for topics as massive as the Cold War, Second World War and economies of nation states. These could include tens of thousands of links. Of course they don't, and neither does this one.

This talk page exists to enable discussion about the content of this template. Yes we can try to nail down a clear set of criteria, and I'm very happy to participate, but we should recognise there will always be an element of editorial judgment as to what is and is not included.

Re split off templates, yes a reasonable idea in a few cases e.g. medical treatments, but not as a replacement for this template, which provides very useful cross-linking between fields and key developments therein.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, it should only include technologies under active development up until the point they reach the cusp of deployment. For example I think Maglev (transport) should be removed (I know that Rangoon11 disagrees) as it is in use and IMO is not therefore emerging. Mtking (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Cryonics are for sure already marketable, at least in the sense of the word as given in the article on them, at the moment:

"Cryonics (from Greek kryos- meaning icy cold) is the low-temperature preservation of humans and animals who can no longer be sustained by contemporary medicine, with the hope that healing and resuscitation may be possible in the future."

I agree that one can not do without editorial judgement. This latter, again, but also referring to the differences between cell phones, computers generally, and computer animation. The telephone as such is, so to say, ready as of 2011, and, similarly, the fact that machines can compute things quicker than people has also already been understood by the lion share of our readers. It is something different that one will, if the development continues as it has so far, soon be able to create naturalistic films, with whole towns, landscapes, revived historic figures, only with computers. In the same way, cryonics have not yet reached the full extent of what they aim for: they are not yet ready.

I have to repeat that I see past life regression as a very similar case. It is also already marketable, but — in my eyes — has by far not yet reached the full extent of what it aims for. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So far as I understand it cryonics is commercially available, although only in the U.S. and Russia - but is still very far from being widely available or used. In a very key sense it is therefore still emerging. To draw an analogy with computers, yes the power of computers continues to develop rapidly and in 20 years' time computers will be unrecognisable from today - and as result so will society - but computers are nonetheless very widely available and used today. They are emerged.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, yes, as I have said. I was talking about the special case of computer animation, in which I envisage that the overall character of the thing is still going to transform. I envisage a really new world to come up, here, very widely in the sense that the technique would still have to reach the cusp of deployment (naturalistic films to be made entirely as computer animations). I admit that my arguments are not really strong, in this case. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"[Technologies] under active development up until the point they reach the cusp of deployment", as proposed by Mtking, appears largely reasonable. This would allow Cryonics to remain in the template: in spite of the definition given for it in the first sentence of the article on it ("preservation ... with the hope that ..."), it has not yet reached the cusp of deployment. Past life regression would belong into the template, but we cannot include it due to the fact how the subject of reincarnation is dealt with in the public.

There are also still big developmental problems with 3D television. 3d television will probably have to remain in the template for another one or two years or so. This would — as I understand the principles the template is so far based on — also mean that the link to the generic term 3-D film — in bigger letters — would have to stay in the template, like that to Energy storage, because it allows to unite 3D television and 3D display as a little sub-category of the Energy section. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just adjusted 3D - does it work for you now?Rangoon11 (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I think it was better, before. 3D display is not the generic term under which 3-D film and 3D television should be sorted, but under 3-D film, there should be sorted 3D television and 3D display. What have You pondered? --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If complete standards exist and products have reached the mass market, it is not an emerging technology, and should not be included in this template.

Complete standards for stereographic 3D-TV and 3D movies exist, and products have reached the mass market. Products for Multiview 3D-TV are available, but are too expensive for the massmarket and not very useful since we are waiting for open standards and media content. The products are only used for research/experimental purposes, and are consequently still emerging. So I suggest that the 3D link in the template should be narrowed down to multiview. Mange01 (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Without having read this Your contribution, I have just already replaced the three links to 3-D film, 3D television and 3D display by one to Autostereoscopy. I think a link to 3D display would be misleading, because the term also includes displays that work with glasses, i.e. something that is already accomplished an in a wide and successful use. A link to Autostereoscopy, on the other hand, appears useful because the term clearly includes only glasses-free systems. As You correctly remark, the main problem with these is, at the moment, that the displays, in most cases, only show a three-dimensional image at one very special spot in the space in front of them, so that, in most cases, only one viewer sees the three-dimensional image. There seem already to be some systems that allow also more than one viewer to see the three-dimensional image, at a time, but that, altogether, still seems to be very problematic. The aim of creating a device that shows a three-dimensional image for any arbitrarily chosen spot in the space in front of it clearly seems still to lie far ahead. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for a basic combination of criteria

Altogether, I think I slowly begin to survey the issue of criteria for the template. One basic requirement is clearly that the proposed technology is based on accepted scientific theory. This still does not suffice for past life regression, even though those who practise it are in many cases licensed as therapists and state that they do not at all claim a supposed existence of reincarnation, but just let their clients dive into some contents of consciousness that have been preserved from different (and in most cases unknown) people of past times not necessarily to be identified with the client. There is going on research on this type of regression, but the doubts concerning it are so strong that it still appears impossible to insert the term into the template, thus defining the method as "emerging".

On the basis of scientific acceptance, one could then say: everything may be included that is either not yet marketable or, though already marketable, has not yet reached the cusp of deployment.

Any comments? --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

New pages

Maybe this template should contains new pages so there would be less text. For example:

• Emerging computer memory technologies
• Emerging energy storage technologies
• Emerging renewable energy technologies
• Anti-aging drugs
• Emeging medical treatments

Opinions? Virtualerian (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Are you proposing separate templates for each of the above? In my view that would be overkill and is unnecessary at this time based on the amount of links and potential links, with the caveat of medical treatments where I have stated my position above.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sync with List of emerging technologies

Is there any particular reason why this template is now well out of sync with List of emerging technologies? Tim PF (talk) 09:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That article needs quite a lot of work. Rangoon11 (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Past life regression

Mtking has demanded I should provide references, here, for "others" counting past life regression an emerging technology. I can provide the following:

• A statement on the current development in parapsychology by Werner F. Bonin, the editor of the German Lexikon der Parapsychologie (Dictionary of parapsychology; Scherz publishers, Bern / Munich 1976), in a 1988 special edition of this book for Orbis publishers.

The dictionary as well has an entry on Reinkarnation (reincarnation) as one on Altersrückversetzung (age regression), running:

"Altersrückversetzung, engl. age regression, hypnotisches Verfahren, bei dem dem Hypnotisierten suggeriert wird, dass er sich auf immer früheren Stufen seines eigenen Lebens befindet. Scheint der 'Sprung hinter die Geburt' zu gelingen, so werten dies manche Autoren als Beweis für → Reinkarnation. Lit.: Bernstein [, M., Protokoll einer Wiedergeburt, Bern / München / Wien] 1973, Dethlefsen [, Th., Das Leben nach dem Tod, Gütersloh] 1974, Stevenson [, I., "Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation", in: Proceedings of the American Society for Psychical Research, vol. 26,] 1966 [, ²1967, German ed. Freiburg 1976]" ("Age regression, (...), hypnotic technique during which the hypnotized is suggested that he be found on ever earlier steps of his own life. When the 'jerk behind birth' seems to succeed, some authors consider this a proof for → reincarnation. Lit.: Bernstein [, M., Protokoll einer Wiedergeburt (Protocol of a rebirth), Bern / München / Wien] 1973, Dethlefsen [, Th., Das Leben nach dem Tod (Life after death), Gütersloh] 1974, Stevenson [, I., "Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation", in: Proceedings of the American Society for Psychical Research, vol. 26,] 1966 [, ²1967, German ed. Freiburg 1976])

The statement on the current ongoings is on page 589. It refers to the development from 1976 to 1988 and runs:

"Die Theorie — keine bloß spekulative, sondern eine, die Voraussagen für die experimentelle Arbeit ermöglicht — erhofft man sich als Ergebnis interdisziplinärer Bemühungen (vor allem unter Mitsprache der Physik)." ("The theory — not just a speculative one, but one that allows predictions for the experimental work — is hoped for to emerge from interdisciplinary efforts [above all with a participation of physics].")

• World Class Speakers & Entertainers states about Dr. Adrian Finkelstein:

"Dr. Adrian Finkelstein: expert in past-life regression therapy; former professor at three universities; [recipient] of the first distinguished awards from two top notch medical institutions for his outstanding and groundbreaking research work on mind over matter."

(Corporate Entertainment: Adrian Finkelstein, M.D. Wcspeakers.com, retrieved July 10, 2011)

• Fox News has transmitted a telecast about past life regression, on February 11, 2010. They state that past life regression therapy is "popular" and that

"Dr. Adrian Finkelstein, is an expert in past-life regression therapy. Finkelstein has written extensively on the past life subject and he is studying something called Iris Recognition to try to prove the theory."

At the end of the telecast, the statement is made

"DNA may some day provide scientific answers (...)"

(Have You Had A Past Life? – Past-Life Regression Therapy. Fox News, February 11, 2010)

These sources do not literally call past life regression an "emerging technology". They, nevertheless, clearly point to the fact that scientific research on past life regression is being conducted and, in particular, that Dr. Adrian Finkelstein and others hope for, resp. are working on, a strengthening of the process by physical resp. biometric technologies. --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - the whole concept of reincarnation has no scientific basis and is currently firmly in the realm of the paranormal. That doesn't mean that many people don't believe in it, or attempt therapies to retrive details of past lives, but it has no place in this template at the present time. It should go in a template on the paranormal though.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Absent some sources calling it an "emerging technology" it should not be included, I agree with Rangoon11 in that it has no scientific basis and as such any research being conducted can not reasonably be called scientific research. Mtking (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Justification for inclusion of CAS freezers?

I'd removed Cells Alive System from the Biomedical:Cryonics category, but it has since been replaced. Note that vitrification has been the standard optimal protocol used by all extant cryonics organizations for several years, and is not included in this template. Why should CAS feezers be included considering that there exists no citable connection whatsoever to cryonics; As with cryogenic storage straws, any connection to cryonics seems to constitute WP:SYNTH. If CAS freezers are being used by cryonics organizations (or mentioned as possible future technologies) in their official literature, I am unaware of it. Furthermore, since CAS is a trademarked brand of commercial food freezers (irrespective of their use in academic research settings), this may also be a violation of WP:PROMOTION. Without an explicit reference establishing the connection between CAS and cryonics, I don't see how the inclusion can be justified without violating WP:SYNTH. Blacksun1942 (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, just to be clear; Cells Alive System might itself be appropriately added to the template as an "emerging technology." That's a different issue than connecting it to cryonics (for example, I'm willing to bet that the inventors of CAS and the scientists who use it in research would be quite adamant that no such connection exists). Blacksun1942 (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be best to ask this on WT:MED#Organ preservation for transplant. 114.94.27.250 (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned clearly above, if Cells Alive System can be placed in this template as an organ preservation technology, then it should be. Again, the issue is its placement under cryonics. Unless there is a reference establishing a direct link to this specific practice (i.e. in the official literature of cryonics, or even in speculation by the media, etc), its association with cryonics is WP:SYNTH and cannot be justified. I haven't removed it because there may indeed be such a reference establishing an explicit link (messageboards don't count). Please understand, the issue here is not whether CAS should be included in the template as an emerging technology (I believe that it unambiguously meets this standard; Wikipedia requires only references, and peer-reviewed research and media articles establish this). However, connecting CAS to Cryonics (if no reference has established this link) means that Wikipedia itself is the sources of such a link because its editors are engaging in synthesis and original research; this is especially important given the controversial nature of cryonics and the consideration that the researchers using CAS may be tarnished by such a connection; that would be no problem (and too bad for the CAS researchers) if some journalistic article featured speculation about such a connection...but we as editors cannot be the ones who make that connection. Blacksun1942 (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

About documentation and template

Moved from Template talk:Emerging quantum technologies

Hi @Primefac: (or anyone else), I have a question about the documentation: for a template such as this which falls into two different template series and they both have separate template documentations, if for purposes of bookkeeping it would be useful to know what other templates there are in the series to have them organized, is it possible to combine them into one doc page and list that document instead, or is that expressly forbidden because its still pulling data from two template docs? For example, this could be one way to do it:

{{documentation|Template:Emerging technologies/doc|heading=|link box=off}}
{{documentation|Template:Quantum mechanics topics/doc|heading=|link box=off}}

Another question: I noticed this template has overlapping coverage with {{Quantum mechanics topics}} and think it should be merged. However, the template also has been through TfD before. If I feel strongly about the merge, can I boldly merge it or would this be considered a controversial move? -- AquaDTRS (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this split pretty much since I made it, and to be honest I'm really not happy with how it went. When splitting {{emerging technologies}} it seemed like some of the links could go into multiple sections because they fell into multiple categories. I think what I'm going to do is actually re-merge them all, but keep the templates like this one as wrappers that will call a specific sub-section (see {{Shanghai Metro}} for an example of how that looks).

As far as the documentation goes, if I don't end up re-merging all of these templates, probably the best option would be to use Labeled section transclusion to transclude the second /doc into this template's /doc.

As far as merging this template into that template, there's no issue with creating that nomination, but it does appear to largely be a duplicate so you could just add in what's missing and only use one of the templates. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

These are excellent suggestions, thank you for your help! -- AquaDTRS (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

Could someone remove the warp drive link from the template? Alcubierre Drives are not all that plausible seeing how you need a form of matter that no one has discovered yet. 67.204.251.118 (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks :) 67.204.251.118 (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Added horizon scanning into topics

Hello, I added horizon scanning into topics.--Geysirhead (talk) 08:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Just realized that topics from {{Emerging technologies}} is similar to Science and technology studies from {{Science and technology studies}}. Reorganized horizon scanning into technology forecasting.--Geysirhead (talk) 09:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2022 - cleanup

I suggest removing at least the following from this template because they have been widely commercialized for mainstream uses for several years:

• Genetically modified food
• OLED - used in almost all high-end smartphones
• Ultra HD
• Wireless power - numerous smartphones support this
• Hybrid electric vehicle
• GPGPU
• RFID (its subtopic can be promoted)
• Synthetic diamond - established industrial uses
• Uncrewed vehicle - widely used, e.g. military drones

Possibly also (but I'm not familiar enough with their current status to be sure):

• Biofuels
• Concentrated solar power
• Battery electric vehicle
• Electroencephalography - I thought this is an established medical test?

Completely separately, change "Beltway battery" to "LiFePO₄ battery", as "Beltway" is not an established term for this type of battery. 73.223.72.200 (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

what about... ?

what about thorium reactors and humanoid robots? Michael Ten (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)