Category talk:Subfields by academic discipline

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)

Nomination for consistency
The outcome was: no renames.


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I think the discussion is happening further down the page, under "Archaeological subdivisions". Aristophanes 68   (talk)  04:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Oppose speedy There is no clear convention for the proposed format in, and therefore C2C doesn't apply. Armbrust The Homunculus 18:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Clear convention means almost every category in uses the proposed format in the tree. Currently, however, only 8 of the 32 subcategories of uses the "Subfields of FOO" format, so it's not a clear convention. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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