Category talk:Science

message: If you are new to Wikipedia, and you have just selected the :category:science for reading, you may have been surprised to have seen two lists:
#Subcategories of :category:science, such as :category:astronomy, and
#Article lists, such as the Wikipedia article on astronomy.
*When you are interested in an individual science, look in the second list (#2 above) for more information on that science.
*The first list contains categories, but not topic articles. If you already understand what the topic astronomy is all about, but you want to learn more, then you can use :category:astronomy to find more articles, either more specialized, or more general. A category is a list which serves to classify topics; for example, the :category:astronomy is meant to hold the individual topics, such as the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.
To find a more general category, look at the bottom of that page. Both the article pages and the category pages can have Categories:links at the bottom of the page. But to find a sub-category of a category, look at list #1 above.
If you are still confused, just stick with individual articles until you need to learn about the categories. You can think of the categories as lists which were machine generated, to be studied later.Bartimaeus 11:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the new reader: 

message: Salute, as you can see: I have been upgrading ten social and two applied sciences to this level, because I'm a top down kind of guy. This chance will make it more efficient to reach the different angles of science from the top, from the main page. - Mdd 21:00, 5 oct 2004
:From user talk:Mdd:
:I've noticed several of your edits adding things to :Category:Science, most of these are problematic, since social sciences belong in :Category:Social science.  They should not be in both parent and child categories.  Thanks for helping out with the categories in general, but just be a bit careful when adding categories to large numbers of articles, as it is easy to overlook these things.  —siroχo 23:40, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
Dear Siroxo, I have a simple question: Is it forbitten in Wikipedia to put a subcategorie both in a parent and child categories...?? If it is... your arguments stand as an absolute order... If it is not... you have overseen my argument that I've try to increase the efficiency. There is a lot more to it, but I would like an answer to this first... Mdd 8:21, Oct 6, 2004
:Hi, Mdd, thanks for asking about it.  As it stands, Wikipedia:Categorization reads "An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory".  It also says "When a given category gets too crowded, consider making several subcategories. Group similar articles together in a meaningful way that will hopefully be easy for readers to navigate later."  Which is what has happened with :Category:science. You can always post on the talk page to propose a change to a policy, (ie policies are not absolute), however I tend to agree with this scheme, because otherwise almost all articles would seem to fit under a category in addition of one of its subcategories.  There may be other methods of categorization that Wikipedians have yet to discover, but for now I think science should be set up this way to make it easier to browse.  —siroχo 09:44, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
Dear Siroxo, I agree with the principles of categorisation of articles from Wikipedia:Categorization. This source has more to say about categories requirements and usage :"categories (along with other features, like cross-references) should help users find the information they are looking for as quickly as possible, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called". This is an argument for my attempts. But this is not the point I want to state...... The situation is that I started changing out of new ideas about the classification of society and science. I've introduced some parts in the top of the Dutch Wikipedia with succes so far. Now I tried it here, and you shoot it down... without even give it some time. My question is now: If I want to make some of these changes... must I first explain my ideas...?? Mdd 20:17, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)      
:I guess it depends on the magnitude of the changes, collapsing subcategories into their parent categories or duplicating them within it will probably be changed back most of the time, since it takes away from the ability to categorize efficiently.  In general, when making some major changes to the way the encyclopedia is set up, its often good to discuss the changes first, because they have more far-reaching effects than normal article-edits.   —siroχo 05:08, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
Maybe I have to make some things clear first: It was not my intention to dublicate the ten social and two applied sciences... I want to upgrade these. I want to bring these into the categorie science to get one level of, what I call, basic scientific disciplines. As concession I left ten of these items in the subcategory social science. If I would have deleted these ten out of there, then we would have had another discussion...!? 
My point is, that I would like to see a gathering of basic scientific disciplines in the categorie science. This set can create a layer to reach most angles of science. This point is part of a larger picture for the categorization in Wikipedia, which I'm willing to explain... but I don't know if this is the time and place to do so...?? What do you think about the idea of one level of basic scientific disciplines...?? Mdd 12:37, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
: I tend to agree with Mdd here, the hierarchy system should be flatter, and navigation is helped if you can reach things with fewer clicks.  So just because Archaeology is in Social Science does not mean it should not also be in Science, and there is no reason Social Science should not be in Science as well.  It is a navigation tool, not the organization of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not paper.
::I think there's a danger in cluttering category space too much.  You can't have too many things at your fingertips, or else none are.  In this case, yes, I think it would be nice to have a dedicated subcategory for "Basic fields of science", perhaps mentioned in the intro text.  There are lots of articles about science in general, so the clutter danger here is high. -- Beland 04:29, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New discussion: other methods of categorization

message: Discussion concluded and article kept on June 18, 2004
*Seems redundant with :Category:Academic disciplines and possible source of confusion.  Perhaps these should be merged?  --Eequor 04:18, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old discussion from [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion|Votes for deletion]]

message: Many of the articles and subcategories need to be assigned to major subcategories. -- Beland 23:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the protection, it's editable now. Bryan 06:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is, indeed, a mess 

message: Commons has images on this category. HenkvD 13:01, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons 

message: Hi
I'm working on the portal at :Category:Geography. We and a few other categories have decided to turn the category page into the portal as well so that the user is greeted with a more intersting first page. You may wish to look at that page and see if there's anything you want to incorporate. We should probably all aim to have similar designs for consistency. Cheers, --komencanto 13:38, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi from the Geography category

message: Over the past few days efforts have been made to 1- merge the portal pages of the 8 main-page subjects with their category pages, and 2- make them consistant with each others. Before making
significant layout changes please discuss it so the 8 pages remain consistant. Elfguy 19:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistancy

message: The page has this on top: "fk u asshole"
It's been there for ages. I don't get it. Why isn't that obvious vandalism reverted?
:Actually it's only been there since this morning.  I have reverted the text to what it should be. -- Francs2000 | Talk  15:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. Something's going on with this Wikipedia. Everything's messed up. I can swear I checked the history and it definitely showed up a dozen or so before the last edit! And on some other articles as well... er... it goes "buggy". Anybody noticed problems? --logixoul 16:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's going on??? 

message: does hot water freeze faster than cold water does? i have heard various arguments for each side. please let me know!
: Why don't you make an experiment? Karol 07:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please ask such questions on the Wikipedia:Reference Desk. --R.Koot 13:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  science question!!! 

message: Is one or the other official for the Science category? If not, then can I suggest we select one? I would suggest GB English; since it is the more accepted spelling in science but I'm not that bothered either way, I'd just like to see some consistency.Bartimaeus 11:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National varieties of English. Thanks, Ian Cairns 11:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that International English should be used. --Meno25 02:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US or GB English

message: Why did you make this category part of the Top 10 category but with an inicial space:
  Science
It doesn't look so good to me, mainly because it isn't sorted in the S block but instead, in a no initial block. jοτομικρόν | Talk 13:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Top 10 

message: I've been hobbling my way through some Quantum theory pages, and I thought I may've come up with a novel idea that could be spread throughout this category.
How about a Topic/Section within each page that expresses in simple English the most basic explanation of the idea?  Something that removes all references to theory, etc., (when possible) and simply states what is proposed by the idea.  A la "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." as far as Force is concerned.
Perhaps this would be a crime against knowledge, but it would allow one to grasp the concept before backtracking through proofs.
Simply an idea.
--Jblotto 07:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Science Entry Topic 

message: because science is more global than knowledge + prevent the evidents loops between science and knowledge. I would like to say that a big part of the loops problem was coming from this loop.Zipodu (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  I remove knowledge category