This category was nominated for merging to Category:Scholars and academics on 12 March 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why exactly do we need a category for "Academics"? I think it's far too vague to be of any use, as it would seem to subsume everyone who has ever studied/taught anything in an institution of higher learning. And we already have categories for philosophers, economists, etc. -- zenohockey 02:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it's too vague as well. Shawnc 10:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
it s clear enough - those who are active in post-sec education teaching and/or peer-reviewed research (in academia) Mayumashu 03:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to second the first opinion here. A category for academics is unnecessary. Academics who have a public profile (Simon Schama, for example) will have articles in any case. Those who do not (the wife of the author Mark Haddon, for example) do not belong in an encyclopedia. Holding an academic post and publishing academic works that do not reach beyond a specialized audience is not sufficient distinction to justify inclusion in a general public reference work. There are just too many such people. Moreover, such articles could only be written by the subjects themselves, or by friends of the subjects. (Nobody else would be that interested.) This is not the way to produce a representative guide to a category.
Hi all -- there is a new CFD discussing this issue at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_28#Academics_categories CFD 11/28. I'm posting notice here; if that discussion closes without consensus perhaps we can arrive at a good solution here & go back to CFD when we have consensus. The relevant facts:
Some things that are more my opinions than facts:
Thoughts? -- Lquilter ( talk) 01:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Johnbod proposed a solution for Category:Journalism academics that I believe could work well here as well: Category:Scholars and academics. Including both terms in the overall category name has the following benefits:
I'm not quite sure how it will relate to Category:Scientists; maybe Category:Scientists is just a subcategory under this one as well as listed parallel to it. But I believe it would be a vast improvement to the current unnecessarily bifurcated tree. -- Lquilter ( talk) 23:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
... Discussion continuing at Category talk:Journalism academics. -- Lquilter ( talk) 16:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
i think there are only two main categories for all five of them: scientists and educators.in Category:Scientists, all academics, scholars and scientists can be listed. for those whoever contributed to their fields. therefore, we need those new subcategories:
in "scientists by subject" category. These subcategories use "academics" or "scholars" as a last word in stead of "scientists".
other academics and scholars who have been full time academics in universities should be listed in the educators category. but not in the teachers category. teacher means and educators who practices in K12 schools. therefore academics are not teachers. in education sciences, people who practice education in universities in an "academic" understanding are called Higher Education Professional. Therefore I suggest :Category:Higher education professionals as a subcategory in educators category and create another subcategory Category:Higher education professionals by subject, Category:Higher education professionals by nationality etc. within Category:Higher education professionals
As aresult, in a neat and beautiful way of classification wich is meaningful and consistent with the education science literature will be achieved. therefore:
are needed.
regards.
-- Polysynaptic ( talk) 14:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to mention in the category description that an academic does not necessarily have to have a doctorate degree. User:BrownHairedGirl suggested to me that a doctorate requirement is really not a good idea for categories such as this one, and that requirement needs to be removed from the subcats. [1] An academic is a person who does peer-reviewed academic research and/or teaches in a place of higher education. Those posts have often been held by people without PhDs, who should not be excluded from the categories. So, category descriptions like the one in Category:Canadian academics ("An academic is a person who holds a Doctorate degree and does peer-reviewed academic research or is a Chancellor /Vice-Chancellor/President of a college or university") need to be changed, and mentioning the matter here will deter repetition of this type of error. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
This category was nominated for merging to Category:Scholars and academics on 12 March 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why exactly do we need a category for "Academics"? I think it's far too vague to be of any use, as it would seem to subsume everyone who has ever studied/taught anything in an institution of higher learning. And we already have categories for philosophers, economists, etc. -- zenohockey 02:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it's too vague as well. Shawnc 10:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
it s clear enough - those who are active in post-sec education teaching and/or peer-reviewed research (in academia) Mayumashu 03:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to second the first opinion here. A category for academics is unnecessary. Academics who have a public profile (Simon Schama, for example) will have articles in any case. Those who do not (the wife of the author Mark Haddon, for example) do not belong in an encyclopedia. Holding an academic post and publishing academic works that do not reach beyond a specialized audience is not sufficient distinction to justify inclusion in a general public reference work. There are just too many such people. Moreover, such articles could only be written by the subjects themselves, or by friends of the subjects. (Nobody else would be that interested.) This is not the way to produce a representative guide to a category.
Hi all -- there is a new CFD discussing this issue at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_November_28#Academics_categories CFD 11/28. I'm posting notice here; if that discussion closes without consensus perhaps we can arrive at a good solution here & go back to CFD when we have consensus. The relevant facts:
Some things that are more my opinions than facts:
Thoughts? -- Lquilter ( talk) 01:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Johnbod proposed a solution for Category:Journalism academics that I believe could work well here as well: Category:Scholars and academics. Including both terms in the overall category name has the following benefits:
I'm not quite sure how it will relate to Category:Scientists; maybe Category:Scientists is just a subcategory under this one as well as listed parallel to it. But I believe it would be a vast improvement to the current unnecessarily bifurcated tree. -- Lquilter ( talk) 23:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
... Discussion continuing at Category talk:Journalism academics. -- Lquilter ( talk) 16:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
i think there are only two main categories for all five of them: scientists and educators.in Category:Scientists, all academics, scholars and scientists can be listed. for those whoever contributed to their fields. therefore, we need those new subcategories:
in "scientists by subject" category. These subcategories use "academics" or "scholars" as a last word in stead of "scientists".
other academics and scholars who have been full time academics in universities should be listed in the educators category. but not in the teachers category. teacher means and educators who practices in K12 schools. therefore academics are not teachers. in education sciences, people who practice education in universities in an "academic" understanding are called Higher Education Professional. Therefore I suggest :Category:Higher education professionals as a subcategory in educators category and create another subcategory Category:Higher education professionals by subject, Category:Higher education professionals by nationality etc. within Category:Higher education professionals
As aresult, in a neat and beautiful way of classification wich is meaningful and consistent with the education science literature will be achieved. therefore:
are needed.
regards.
-- Polysynaptic ( talk) 14:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to mention in the category description that an academic does not necessarily have to have a doctorate degree. User:BrownHairedGirl suggested to me that a doctorate requirement is really not a good idea for categories such as this one, and that requirement needs to be removed from the subcats. [1] An academic is a person who does peer-reviewed academic research and/or teaches in a place of higher education. Those posts have often been held by people without PhDs, who should not be excluded from the categories. So, category descriptions like the one in Category:Canadian academics ("An academic is a person who holds a Doctorate degree and does peer-reviewed academic research or is a Chancellor /Vice-Chancellor/President of a college or university") need to be changed, and mentioning the matter here will deter repetition of this type of error. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)