Category talk:Science

Category:Science
I'd like to propose either a higher level "science" category or the creation of scientific categories such as "biology" and "physics". -- Jim 00:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Category:Science: Going with the suggested Portal:Science. Subcategories could be the various divisions of science, as well as existing Category:Scientists etc.; member articles could, for example, be the various list articles about sciences, research stations, science awards and so on... Note: The "scientists" category, for whatever reasons, already contains some articles that would much better be placed here. -- Cid Highwind 19:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. The science-related articles were put in the Category:Scientists for lack of a better place. -- Renegade54 19:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I saw people moving some of that stuff in the Category:Scientists, so I did that too. Personally, I would rather not put something in a category than put it in one that it doesn't belong in. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  19:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This might lead to some overlap with Category:Academic disciplines, which should be taken care of somehow... -- Cid Highwind 22:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was lookinging into Wikipedia for potential starting point for a list ideas of what applies to us and came up with the following:
 * Category:Science
 * Category:Astronomy
 * Category:Cartography (rename to something like Category:Stellar cartography?)
 * Category:Regions (rename to something like Category:Stellar regions?)
 * Category:Star systems
 * Category:Astronomical objects
 * Category:Nebulae
 * Category:Clusters
 * Category:Stars
 * Category:Planets
 * Category:Planetoids
 * Category:Moons
 * Category:Asteroids
 * Category:Comets
 * Category:Wormholes
 * Category:Biology
 * Category:Anatomy
 * Category:Physiology
 * Category:Species (or "Lifeforms")
 * Category:Hybrids
 * Category:Animals
 * Category:Plants (and Fungi and Protista)
 * Category:Chemistry
 * Category:Explosives (shared with Category:Technology)
 * Category:Materials
 * Category:Chemical compounds
 * Category:Drugs
 * Category:Elements
 * Category:Physics
 * Category:Planetary sciences
 * Category:Geography
 * Category:Geology
 * Category:Meteorology
 * Category:Meteorology


 * Granted there will be some overlap, there is an amazing amount in Wikipedia as well, and there is a lot of red above, but I'm confident I can compile enough lists to justify each of the above. --Alan del Beccio 00:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I made one small tweak, and that was to indent Category:Drugs one level to make it a subcategory of Category:Chemical compounds. I can't think of any drug that wouldn't be a chemical compound (and I'm a chemist by training). -- Renegade54 01:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a huge suggestion, so only some general points about this. First, at the moment I'm not sure if we need all individual "new" categories - especially, the intermediate categories like "Applied sciences", "Natural sciences" etc. seem superfluous to me. These may make sense on Wikipedia, but we're a specialized Trek encyclopedia, not an all-purpose encyclopedia for everything, so categories should at least have some connection to what's really there in Trek. It might be simpler, and at the same not really less useful, if we just omitted those. Second, I think that "Astronomy" and "Cartography" are related, but not necessarily the same - sectors and quadrants, for example, are "cartography", but not really "astronomy". Third, and this is more a general observation - I think we already found out that categorization doesn't work as a singular tree structure. For example "Star systems", which is now a sub of "Stars", should at least also be categorized as "Regions"; perhaps it should even be moved there (that is, remove "Stars" categorization). -- Cid Highwind 11:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That was more of an outline than a huge suggestion, as I was just trying to see how we can fit some of our current categories (that are just hanging out there in limbo) into the whole picture. With that said, I've toned it down a little, as I am really trying not to lose focus on the most evident, and most recurring topics that this site covers, which primarily include Chemistry, Biology and Physics, but also Planetary sciences. I think thouse would be key ones to have, considering how many blue links appear below each of those suggestions. Additionally, I would still like Category:Regions renamed to specify that it is referring to "regions of outer space", in contrast to "regions of a planet", etc. The same can be said about Category:Cartography, since the definition of the term has historically been "making maps of the Earth's surface", hence the advent of "stellar cartography", which is a subject in the field of astronomy, which brings me back to my orginal suggestion. Something like: Stellar cartography is to Star systems as Astronomy is to Stars. --Alan del Beccio 22:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)