This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Template talk:Natural sciences-footer is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
Inclusion of physical science
I don't believe physical science should be here, at least not as an independant field of its own. The physical sciences, as described by the article, covers other sciences in this template, and this field isn't so much an academic disipline in itself as it is an aggregation of those sciences considered 'physical' as opposed to biological. Ecology is disputable because it contains some physical science elements such as earth science, as well as biology, so it would be difficult to categorize the template further with a 'Physical sciences' group and 'Life sciences' group (Biology, Ecology?). I think the best outcome would be simply to remove Physical sciences from the template. Richard001 08:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Many of these categories are problematical. For example, I'm not persuaded that environmental science is separate from biology chemistry and physics. It is all of those. But nothing listed in the footer is "subfield" in any sense. All are definitely large fields of study, so I changed the title on the footer. People can click through to the specific field to see lists of subfields. I feel the same about the list at the top of the natural science entry, which is inconsistent in listing details of geology, but no other fields. Eperotao 18:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- As James D. Watson once famously remarked There is only one science, Physics. The rest is all social work. That aside, I just don't see why environmental science and geology are listed separate from Earth Science. It should be simple: Physical science of stuff outside the earth - Astronomy. Science of physical stuff just pertaining to earth - Earth science. We should just stick to Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science and Physics and provide a link to a detailed categorization at Portal:Science/Categories. Does anybody have any objections to this? Shushruth \talk page \ contribs 03:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. A link to Portal:Science should be enough really. Richard001 04:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Shushruth as well. Environmental science is included in this template yet Oceanography is not. The later is sub-categorized under Earth science. Why not the former as well? It would be good to be consistent. — RJH (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Removed environmental science. Richard001 21:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Shushruth as well. Environmental science is included in this template yet Oceanography is not. The later is sub-categorized under Earth science. Why not the former as well? It would be good to be consistent. — RJH (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. A link to Portal:Science should be enough really. Richard001 04:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 6 April 2007, at 21:54.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Template talk:Natural sciences-footer".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.