Category talk:Subfields by academic discipline

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education

Education

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation

actual category scope and title

actually, this category should really be "academic discipline by subfield", shouldn't it?

--Sm8900 (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swagalicious.15 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for consistency

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome was: no renames.

Moved from WP:CFDS

Category:Branches of thermodynamics to Category:Subfields of thermodynamics – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fields of seismology to Category:Subfields of seismology – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Branches of psychology to Category:Subfields of psychology – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Branches of philosophy to Category:Subfields of philosophy – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Branches of meteorology to Category:Subfields of meteorology – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody is reviewing this renaming proposition? I am neutral on the matter but this has been proposed for far too long. It should be resolved. Pierre cb (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion is happening further down the page, under "Archaeological subdivisions". Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fields of mathematics to Category:Subfields of mathematics – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Linguistics disciplines to Category:Subfields of linguistics – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Branches of immunology to Category:Subfields of immunology – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fields of history to Category:Subfields of history – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Branches of geography to Category:Subfields of geography – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Forensic disciplines to Category:Subfields of forensics – C2A: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fields of finance to Category:Subfields of finance – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Economics by specialty to Category:Subfields of economy – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Areas of computer science to Category:Subfields of computer science – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Branches of botany to Category:Subfields of botany – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Branches of biology to Category:Subfields of biology – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Astronomical sub-disciplines to Category:Subfields of astronomy – C2A: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Archaeological sub-disciplines to Category:Subfields of archaeology – C2C: As in rest of Category:Subfields by academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose speedy There is no clear convention for the proposed format in Category:Subfields by academic discipline, and therefore C2C doesn't apply. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is: the convention of of the parent category, which features the keyword "Subfields", not any of "sub-disciplines", "disciplines", "branches", "fields", or "areas". fgnievinski (talk) 01:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clear convention means almost every category in uses the proposed format in the tree. Currently, however, only 8 of the 32 subcategories of Category:Subfields by academic discipline uses the "Subfields of FOO" format, so it's not a clear convention. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support it's simply citing the wrong criterion; we normalize subcat names to parentcat names absent an unusual reason not to. No prejudice against a later and larger CfR on the whole tree to use one convention consistently. This one should be done per WP:COMMONSENSE anyway, since "branches" is a vernacularism; people actually in academic disciplines/fields don't call them "branches" (or "areas" for that matter; "areas" means topical scopes of focus/specialization by individuals or groups, and "branches" doesn't really mean anything). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support with SMcCandlish.

Oppose speedy, CFR instead Start a proper CFR and link it to science projects. What is needed here is the participation of as many people from many different disciplines/fields as possible. CN1 (talk) 13:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Many of these have pages associated with them, often of the same name (e.g. Branches of botany, Archaeological sub-disciplines, Branches of science), which seem to indicate that "subfield" is not the accepted standard (as a historian it is not, for what it is worth, the term that I would reach for to describe my own research area). More importantly, these pages indicate that a decision made here will have impacts beyond categorisation - so discussion should take place in a venue where input from a wide variety of wiki-bureaucrats, not just those of the categorisation sub-field, have a reasonable chance of participating. Also, it would be a great shame to lose "branches of botany." Furius (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Fields of mathematics is bad enough but subfields is worse — both field and subfield are technical terms in mathematics with specific meanings that are unrelated to research categorization. The old name Category:Subdivisions of mathematics (replaced in 2011) was much better. This is the sort of problem created by trying to fit all of these different subjects into a single restrictive naming scheme. I imagine the same issue will come up in other subjects as well; anyway my position is that, for consistency, we should agree to remain inconsistent. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question

Why is the article not giving enough context on the topic?Sarahkadhium (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]