This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Science template. |
|
Science Template‑class | |||||||
|
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)
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. Hrafn Talk Stalk( 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. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 10:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
Hello! Is philosophy no science?-- Diwas ( talk) 18:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
No, from the US-POV it is not, it is " Humanities". This is seen to be an arbitrary border eg. here in Germany. This is why I added Humanities to the Template as a "Related Topic".
IM POV, it would belong under a new list between "Formal Sciences" and "Related Topics" with at least the contents:
I won't make this edit before there is consensus about it here; but even if US-America does not accept those topics as worth the term "science", the inclusion of "Humanities" as "Related topic" should not be altered as a sign that other regions differ from this exclusion. -- 129.13.72.197 ( talk) 17:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the following over to here from my talk page: Kenosis ( talk) 12:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 08:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Here are some definitions of science taken from Dictionary.com
If the sacred sciences don't fit these, I don't know what does. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 11:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The formal sciences were formerly last, and separated from the natural (physical, biological) sciences. Improved links emphasized the formal aspects of mathematical sciences like logic, statistics, and computer science, because those disciplines also include also empirical, engineering, and practical (practice) parts.
I moved them above the natural sciences, following the traditional hierarchy of sciences, dating back to Charles Sanders Peirce (and to Comte and to neo Platonism's great chain of being to Plato, etc.). At least mathematics is closer to physics! Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I also want to change the "natural sciences" to physical and chemical sciences, because historically "natural" sciences contrasted with super-natural (or a priori) science (reasoning from first principals, following Aristotle's followers). (It is true that "natural science" is sometimes used as restricted to physical sciences, at least implicitly.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 23:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest Atomic physics and Molecular physics be removed and replaced with Atomic, molecular, and optical physics which is the field encompassing all 3 subtopics. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
According to the guidelines for navigation templates, good navigation templates should cover a small, well-defined group of articles; and the topics in a sidebar should be tightly related. The {{ Science}} sidebar is about as far away from this ideal as I have seen, and can only contribute to template creep. My view is that it should be removed from all articles and replaced by a link to Outline of science. Any thoughts? RockMagnetist ( talk) 00:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Harizotoh9, @ Steve Quinn, @ DMacks: Since this discussion, the template has only become more bloated, with the particularly egregious addition of a lot of glossaries. I am going to make another attempt to reduce it to a more reasonable level. RockMagnetist( talk) 16:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Harizotoh9, Steve Quinn, DMacks, and RockMagnetist: It appears that that this template may have become more bloated again. Perhaps you would like to take another look at it compared to this version from before last year's restucturing by Infogiraffic. Do we really need an "Extrascientific fields" section in a "Science" template? And do we need two sections on pseudoscience in this template when {{ Pseudoscience}} also exists? Biogeographist ( talk) 16:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
In the social science section of the template there is a link to Law. However, the article Law is not about the scientific study of law, but about law as a social institution. The article about the scientific study of law is called Jurisprudence. Of course, the word "law" is often used to mean "jurisprudence", which is why there is a hatnote in the Law article pointing towards the Jurisprudence article, and which is probably also why Law made it into this template. But given that the template has links to articles about scientific disciplines rather than links to the phenomena studied by these disciplines, the link should be to Jurisprudence rather than to Law. Marcos ( talk) 10:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@ RockMagnetist, I'm quite and clearly aware of that 'Interdisciplinary' is not a branch, but neither is 'Applied'. In fact, there are even some disciplines within 'Interdisciplinary' which are not sciences. The reason I put it in the template has been shown in the edit summary, that is, to fill the second line. If it is not included, the template will be (as is being) more misleading than the interdisci being inculded. Another reason to include the interdisci is some disciplines within it are also fundamental, e.g., mathematical physics, which would be hard to classify into one of three branches.-- Cswquz ( talk) 17:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Science template. |
|
Science Template‑class | |||||||
|
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)
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. Hrafn Talk Stalk( 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. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 10:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
Hello! Is philosophy no science?-- Diwas ( talk) 18:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
No, from the US-POV it is not, it is " Humanities". This is seen to be an arbitrary border eg. here in Germany. This is why I added Humanities to the Template as a "Related Topic".
IM POV, it would belong under a new list between "Formal Sciences" and "Related Topics" with at least the contents:
I won't make this edit before there is consensus about it here; but even if US-America does not accept those topics as worth the term "science", the inclusion of "Humanities" as "Related topic" should not be altered as a sign that other regions differ from this exclusion. -- 129.13.72.197 ( talk) 17:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the following over to here from my talk page: Kenosis ( talk) 12:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 08:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Here are some definitions of science taken from Dictionary.com
If the sacred sciences don't fit these, I don't know what does. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 11:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
The formal sciences were formerly last, and separated from the natural (physical, biological) sciences. Improved links emphasized the formal aspects of mathematical sciences like logic, statistics, and computer science, because those disciplines also include also empirical, engineering, and practical (practice) parts.
I moved them above the natural sciences, following the traditional hierarchy of sciences, dating back to Charles Sanders Peirce (and to Comte and to neo Platonism's great chain of being to Plato, etc.). At least mathematics is closer to physics! Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I also want to change the "natural sciences" to physical and chemical sciences, because historically "natural" sciences contrasted with super-natural (or a priori) science (reasoning from first principals, following Aristotle's followers). (It is true that "natural science" is sometimes used as restricted to physical sciences, at least implicitly.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( Discussion) 23:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I suggest Atomic physics and Molecular physics be removed and replaced with Atomic, molecular, and optical physics which is the field encompassing all 3 subtopics. IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
According to the guidelines for navigation templates, good navigation templates should cover a small, well-defined group of articles; and the topics in a sidebar should be tightly related. The {{ Science}} sidebar is about as far away from this ideal as I have seen, and can only contribute to template creep. My view is that it should be removed from all articles and replaced by a link to Outline of science. Any thoughts? RockMagnetist ( talk) 00:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
@ Harizotoh9, @ Steve Quinn, @ DMacks: Since this discussion, the template has only become more bloated, with the particularly egregious addition of a lot of glossaries. I am going to make another attempt to reduce it to a more reasonable level. RockMagnetist( talk) 16:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@ Harizotoh9, Steve Quinn, DMacks, and RockMagnetist: It appears that that this template may have become more bloated again. Perhaps you would like to take another look at it compared to this version from before last year's restucturing by Infogiraffic. Do we really need an "Extrascientific fields" section in a "Science" template? And do we need two sections on pseudoscience in this template when {{ Pseudoscience}} also exists? Biogeographist ( talk) 16:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
In the social science section of the template there is a link to Law. However, the article Law is not about the scientific study of law, but about law as a social institution. The article about the scientific study of law is called Jurisprudence. Of course, the word "law" is often used to mean "jurisprudence", which is why there is a hatnote in the Law article pointing towards the Jurisprudence article, and which is probably also why Law made it into this template. But given that the template has links to articles about scientific disciplines rather than links to the phenomena studied by these disciplines, the link should be to Jurisprudence rather than to Law. Marcos ( talk) 10:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@ RockMagnetist, I'm quite and clearly aware of that 'Interdisciplinary' is not a branch, but neither is 'Applied'. In fact, there are even some disciplines within 'Interdisciplinary' which are not sciences. The reason I put it in the template has been shown in the edit summary, that is, to fill the second line. If it is not included, the template will be (as is being) more misleading than the interdisci being inculded. Another reason to include the interdisci is some disciplines within it are also fundamental, e.g., mathematical physics, which would be hard to classify into one of three branches.-- Cswquz ( talk) 17:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)