Talk:2022 in science

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 13 October 2020 by reviewer DGG (talk · contribs).

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science Low‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for 2022 in science (19 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	249	249
Events	1,035	544,652
January	64	64
February	66	66
March	70	70
April	60,349	60,349
May	62,550	62,550
June	60,587	60,587
July	50,548	50,548
August	81,098	81,098
September	65,083	65,083
October	39,597	39,597
November	63,933	63,933
December	59,672	59,672
Awards	721	721
Deaths	5,482	5,482
See also	216	216
References	33	33
External links	393	393
Total	551,746	551,746

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[3D bioprinting#Transplantable organs and organs for research|3D bioprinted transplant]] The anchor (#Transplantable organs and organs for research) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Here is a table of non-included items
(some relevant to other articles or with non-inclusion rationales)

Created the talk-page[edit]

Created the talk-page for the 2022 in science page - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shackleton[edit]

I think the discovery of the Endurance belongs in archeology, not science? Reesorville (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the discovery is part of maritime archaeology, The website for the expedition "Endurance22" mentions it here. But archaeology is a science. So it should be listed here. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean there is a 2022 in archaeology page on wikipedia; it would belong there rather than here? Archeology is a scientific study of past remains, but I would argue that this page should be studies of things other than stuff created by human beings. If it was tools by early hominids, I feel that would be OK, but this is something very much in the modern-era. Otherwise why not include new historical discoveries, new theories in sociology, economics or other fields of knowledge? Reesorville (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is already on that page as well. I think it is fine on this page. If the page seemed bloated or too long I would think about being choosy, but it is not, so it is fine with me. Richard-of-Earth (talk)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Starliner approaches ISS.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Frontiersupercomputer2022.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List inclusion criteria[edit]

Hi Folks, the article series (year) in science which has zero inclusion criteria is very similar to the series (year) in climate change which has (in my view) poorly defined criteria. Since these are articles series, the WP:TPG urges us to avoid WP:MULTI discussions and instead have one place to talk about such things. If folks working on this series want to hear the details about LISTCRIT as applied to these series, you're welcome to check out the thread I started at

Talk:History_of_climate_change_science#Central_discussion_thread_for_associated_List_articles_like_"2022_in_Climate_change"

I don't care what LISTCRIT are used for these articles, so I don't plan to help develop them. I just thing if we're going to collect these things in these lists, then there should be articulated and actionable inclusion standards. Carry on NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but things are fine as they are. Don't change anything please. This article is managed perfectly by the various regular contributors here, and we don't need a rigid set of rules. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with what Wjfox2005 said but also support developing some form of criteria (these wouldn't necessarily be a rigid set of rules – for example exceptions could be made and later become part of additional criteria). Here I have developed and proposed a list of, partly broad, inclusion criteria: Talk:2020_in_science#Inclusion_criteria_and_routine_addition_of_entries_(e.g._of_weekly_science_reviews).

I suggest developing this set of criteria further. A userspace-list that I~~'ll create~~created may help to better understand and formalize these. There ~~are~~were some additions/changes to it that I haven't yet added there (participation in the discussion there was low anyway). I have linked the proposed criteria at Talk:2023 in science and am or aim to be making additions to this list based on this mostly formalized set of criteria. Other than that (additions or) removals of specific items can always be discussed (and/or tagged within the article) on a case-by-case basis if needed. --Prototyperspective (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Big changes and developments[edit]

Astronomers reported discovery ofHD1 110.224.240.168 (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]