![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Evaluation The article was well written and based on what needed to be fixed, for example: add more references to back up information has been added. I would not say there is good as is. P.f.n96 ( talk) 19:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Philosophy has various subareas that can be about other disciplines in some sense, e.g. philosophy of physics, philosophy of art, philosophy of biology, philosophy of psychology. But this isn't quite like applying physics to music, so cross-disciplinary as defined in the entry doesn't seem the right term for this. Philosophy raises questions about the fundamental assumptions of other disciplines, in which capacity it acts as a discipline about other disciplines. Hence the term "metadisciplinary" would be more appropriate (cf. metaethics, metalogic, metalanguage). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.94.35 ( talk) 2011-06-21T16:04:10 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the academic discipline page were merged into Academic discipline/Archive 1 on 21 November 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article near completely lacks references. All sections without reference should be removed - it reads like a baseless personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.175.199 ( talk) 02:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This article was using made up words. I removed those. It also had a completely wrong definition for transdisciplinary (which is still not a word according to the Oxford but is on dictionary.com so I kept it) StevenHickson ( talk) 03:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Steven Hickson
<These categories explain how the different academic disciplines interact with one another.> I am confused as to the interactions portion of the document. What purpose does it serve for the article? Elizabethhadams ( talk) 21:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Elizabethhadams
The word specialism isn't even used once in the article. We were going to merge everything to Academic discipline. Now we have this strange title. The title should changed back to Academic discipline. If we really have to have a parenthetic title it should be Discipline (academic) like Tenure (academic) Bhny ( talk) 03:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC).
I would say the article is well-developed but could use some fixes such as including more sources for more credibility. I think more sources need to be incorporated throughout the text. Tyetenekian1 ( talk) 04:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved b uidh e 22:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Discipline (academia) →
Academic discipline – Per
WP:NATURALDISAMBIG
Rreagan007 (
talk)
02:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Evaluation The article was well written and based on what needed to be fixed, for example: add more references to back up information has been added. I would not say there is good as is. P.f.n96 ( talk) 19:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Philosophy has various subareas that can be about other disciplines in some sense, e.g. philosophy of physics, philosophy of art, philosophy of biology, philosophy of psychology. But this isn't quite like applying physics to music, so cross-disciplinary as defined in the entry doesn't seem the right term for this. Philosophy raises questions about the fundamental assumptions of other disciplines, in which capacity it acts as a discipline about other disciplines. Hence the term "metadisciplinary" would be more appropriate (cf. metaethics, metalogic, metalanguage). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.94.35 ( talk) 2011-06-21T16:04:10 (UTC)
![]() | The contents of the academic discipline page were merged into Academic discipline/Archive 1 on 21 November 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This article near completely lacks references. All sections without reference should be removed - it reads like a baseless personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.175.199 ( talk) 02:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
This article was using made up words. I removed those. It also had a completely wrong definition for transdisciplinary (which is still not a word according to the Oxford but is on dictionary.com so I kept it) StevenHickson ( talk) 03:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Steven Hickson
<These categories explain how the different academic disciplines interact with one another.> I am confused as to the interactions portion of the document. What purpose does it serve for the article? Elizabethhadams ( talk) 21:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Elizabethhadams
The word specialism isn't even used once in the article. We were going to merge everything to Academic discipline. Now we have this strange title. The title should changed back to Academic discipline. If we really have to have a parenthetic title it should be Discipline (academic) like Tenure (academic) Bhny ( talk) 03:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC).
I would say the article is well-developed but could use some fixes such as including more sources for more credibility. I think more sources need to be incorporated throughout the text. Tyetenekian1 ( talk) 04:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved b uidh e 22:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Discipline (academia) →
Academic discipline – Per
WP:NATURALDISAMBIG
Rreagan007 (
talk)
02:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)