Template talk:Science: Difference between revisions
m Reverted edits by 202.83.93.34 (talk) to last version by Hrafn |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::The list of topics that accumulated in [[Science]]'s 'see-also' section is hardly the basis for a systematic template. Many of the topics are obscure, and the categorisation is idiosyncratic at best. I have reverted their reinclusion. <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></font> 15:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC) |
::The list of topics that accumulated in [[Science]]'s 'see-also' section is hardly the basis for a systematic template. Many of the topics are obscure, and the categorisation is idiosyncratic at best. I have reverted their reinclusion. <font face="Antiqua, serif">''[[User:Hrafn|Hrafn]]<sup>[[User talk:Hrafn|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Hrafn|Stalk]]</sub><sup>''('''[[M:Precisionism|P]]''')</sup></font> 15:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::The topics were already "systematicized" to a degree by being being rounded up into a table. While the individual topics may be obscure, I think the categorization should be emulated. [[User:SharkD|SharkD]] ([[User talk:SharkD|talk]]) 15:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC) |
:::The topics were already "systematicized" to a degree by being being rounded up into a table. While the individual topics may be obscure, I think the categorization should be emulated. [[User:SharkD|SharkD]] ([[User talk:SharkD|talk]]) 15:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
--[[Special:Contributions/202.83.93.34|202.83.93.34]] ([[User talk:202.83.93.34|talk]]) 05:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
<br />gju----y7iy\ |
|||
lalalala hahah |
|||
::::"I think the categorization should be emulated." Why? Its categorisation appears to have no basis in any formalised system of categorisation, and gives heavy overemphasis to areas only on the boundary of science. |
::::"I think the categorization should be emulated." Why? Its categorisation appears to have no basis in any formalised system of categorisation, and gives heavy overemphasis to areas only on the boundary of science. |
||
Revision as of 05:55, 21 April 2009
Unfixed vandalism
What happened here, and why isn't it fixed? Which begs the question, what were the original intentions with this template. It looks interesting. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Relevance
The contents of this template don't appear to be particularly relevant to some of the topics it's being placed upon (e.g. Relationship between religion and science). I would suggest that 'Science' is to broad a subject to cover with a single template, and that more specifically targeted templates might be appropriate. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The template's coverage has since been widened, but seems to be an oddball grab-bag of topics under some rather idiosyncratic headings. May I suggest that, if a general Science template is desired (and I still think specific templates would be a better idea), then it should follow the hierarchy of Portal:Science/Categories and Main topics. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- I merely copied the table that already existed at the bottom of the Science article. If there's some better organization, then by all means change it. SharkD (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- "I think the categorization should be emulated." Why? Its categorisation appears to have no basis in any formalised system of categorisation, and gives heavy overemphasis to areas only on the boundary of science.
Mineralogy
I'm wondering if we could add mineralogy to the list of Earth sciences. It is listed as one of the major topics within the Earth science article.--Lorikeet (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)