957:, I can see what RockMagnetist means. This template does not appear to meet the suggested guidelines. Mostly, it has too many links for a sidebar at the top of an article. Also, not all of these articles in this template will refer to each other (per guideline #3). In fact relative to the entire number of links only a small group will actually relate to each other, so in this case this template has exceeded its intended use. Per guideline number #5, most of the links would be irrelevant to any given "see also" list in a given article. Therefore, I agree with RockMagnetist that this template should be replaced with a link to
1294:, I'm quite and clearly aware of that 'Interdisciplinary' is not a branch, but neither is 'Applied'. In fact, there are even some disciplines within 'Interdisciplinary' which are not sciences. The reason I put it in the template has been shown in the edit summary, that is, to fill the second line. If it is not included, the template will be (as is being) more misleading than the interdisci being inculded. Another reason to include the interdisci is some disciplines within it are also fundamental, e.g., mathematical physics, which would be hard to classify into one of three branches.--
1368:) before the reduction and most of earlier revisions before that, 'Interdisciplinary', 'Physical', and 'Life' were always of the highest-level, or at least second-highest. 'Interdiscipinary' just indicates that there may be repeated disciplines in the outlines (e.g. mathematical physics can be classified into both maths and physics). BTW, 'fill the second line' means 'Interdisciplinary' and 'Applied' are of other dimensions of dividing science, that is, both of them are concepts rather than major branches. In fact, most of the applied ones are interdisci.--
148:
99:
130:
158:
702:
The formal sciences were formerly last, and separated from the natural (physical, biological) sciences. Improved links emphasized the formal aspects of mathematical sciences like logic, statistics, and computer science, because those disciplines also include also empirical, engineering, and practical
814:
computer science is mostly an applied science (mix of math, physics). This can also be reflected that the computer science department is often organized under the applied science & engineering college in major universities. The original placement under formal sciences is confusing and cheating
835:
I also want to change the "natural sciences" to physical and chemical sciences, because historically "natural" sciences contrasted with super-natural (or a priori) science (reasoning from first principals, following
Aristotle's followers). (It is true that "natural science" is sometimes used as
1340:
The dramatic reduction was a reaction to the increasing bloat of this template, which had reached ridiculous levels and badly failed the guidelines for good templates. In the discussion above, the consensus was that it should be much leaner. I tried to keep only the highest-level subjects, for
785:
In the formal sciences, experimentation takes the role of thought experiments more than actual experiments, so clearly the formal sciences belong at an extreme end of the sciences. Shouldn't they be closest to where they are used the most? (I would repeat that the "formal sciences" link to the
781:
Peirce observed that other fields of science are in the process of being incorporated into mathematics, and of incorporating greater mathematics: The ongoing progress in physics or chemistry or biology or economics supports his claim. Those fields have greater mathematics and computational and
977:
The goal (as I understand it) seems good, to illustrate how the different branches or topics in science relate to each other. But it does seem too full an outline...has not just parent/child/sibling topics, but also all the sub (and sub-sub?) topics of every other top-level topic. Making it
961:. With this template we are essentially reproducing a smaller version of the "Outline of Science" anyway. Ultimately, if consensus agrees to remove the template, I think the template will have to be deleted just so it is not longer available. Of course there may be better suggestions. ---
488:
I won't make this edit before there is consensus about it here; but even if US-America does not accept those topics as worth the term "science", the inclusion of "Humanities" as "Related topic" should not be altered as a sign that other regions differ from this exclusion.
1421:. That was exactly what I was worried about when you added Interdisciplinary. Now you have added parenthetical links, and one thing will lead to another until we have a bloated and useless sidebar once again. Please take the time to read
782:
statistical applications than do the other fields, so it is useful to have the formal sciences closer to the physical sciences. (He made other comments that are not relevant to moving formal sciences next to physical sciences.)
741:
Thank you for being bold, but please be prepared to defend this. One can argue for the exact opposite order: for example, Galileo acknowledged his debt to the engineers and mechanics who came before him which he documents in
1512:, saw you switch the image; I don't have any strong opinions on which image works better, so I figured this would be a perfect case for a Discord mini-poll, which you're free to participate in or argue for your preference
1441:
Before I edited this template, I had noticed the discussion sections above. I know your concern, but as I wrote, the template is now containing just the highest level of its old version, as your earlier edit summary
639:
had proved fruitless, and science was both independent and secular. Many religious people were scientists, but they did not expect science to give theological answers. Changing terminology, and changing concepts. . .
1600:
if anyone has strong opinions on whether we should use the telescope image or the atom image, but doesn't have a
Discord, mention it as a reply to this comment and I can add your opinion to the Discord poll totals.
356:"I think the categorization should be emulated." Why? Its categorisation appears to have no basis in any formalised system of categorisation, and gives heavy overemphasis to areas only on the boundary of science.
1150:
Since this discussion, the template has only become more bloated, with the particularly egregious addition of a lot of glossaries. I am going to make another attempt to reduce it to a more reasonable level.
978:
collapsible keeps it from looking so scary and assists navigation, but then when looking at a sub-subtopic field there's no way to know which section to expand to find closely related articles. Compare to
1323:
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "fill the second line". Surely you're not adding a link just to improve the layout? The template will have a very different appearance on different platforms.
512:
most certainly does not. This is true in every dialect of
English, not only American English, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say about "US-POV," and it is simply a question of what the word
1247:
made it into this template. But given that the template has links to articles about scientific disciplines rather than links to the phenomena studied by these disciplines, the link should be to
1581:
Makes sense, I just put it on
Discord since I didn't want to make an RfC or go through the trouble of finding an on-wiki audience for something small like this. I've added a comment below.
324:'s 'see-also' section is hardly the basis for a systematic template. Many of the topics are obscure, and the categorisation is idiosyncratic at best. I have reverted their reinclusion.
342:
The topics were already "systematicized" to a degree by being being rounded up into a table. While the individual topics may be obscure, I think the categorization should be emulated.
613:
but not here, for which I apologize. No apologies about removing the recently added category of "Sacred
Sciences" though--it simply is way too much of a stretch in today's world. ...
939:. I'm not sure what others however. It should be removed from non-broad pages, such as ones focusing on a field of science. I have begun to remove this template from such pages. --
635:
coining the term "scientist", and by the end of the 19th century the older meaning was clearly obsolete. By then early expectations that scientific investigation would support
1456:
I don't think the old version should be used as a guide because it was a mess. That said, if that's all you're going to add and no one else objects, I can live with it.
706:
I moved them above the natural sciences, following the traditional hierarchy of sciences, dating back to
Charles Sanders Peirce (and to Comte and to neo Platonism's
786:
mathematical theory of those disciplines; as a major contributor to the experimental statistics articles here, I am aware that statistics uses experiments, etc.)
815:(using the name of computer science by showing theoretical computing underneath). To give some qualification, I am a computer scientist at a major US gov lab. --
267:
The template's coverage has since been widened, but seems to be an oddball grab-bag of topics under some rather idiosyncratic headings. May I suggest that, if a
74:
1027:, especially for popular articles (major branches, and maybe some subbranches?), I think there's value in having a navbox at the lede position so readers can
533:("the science of theology") This doesn't really reflect common usage in the UK which is better reflected in the Collins and American Heritage entries in
1513:
985:
A useful nav is to have all the major branches listed on the major-branch pages (sibling articles in the outline-level sense), and the subbranches of
276:
242:
1625:
1194:. Do we really need an "Extrascientific fields" section in a "Science" template? And do we need two sections on pseudoscience in this template when
39:
80:
1630:
1031:
some key topic relationships. The "small, well-defined group of articles" could be the major branches and major components of each. For example,
876:
1349:, both of which include Applied science as a fourth branch. But I agree, that's debatable. Do you think it would be better placed in Society?
902:, good navigation templates should cover a small, well-defined group of articles; and the topics in a sidebar should be tightly related. The
180:
752:, which can be considered the hallmark of modern science. On the other hand, not too much came from antiquity itself, as witnessed by the
1231:
is not about the scientific study of law, but about law as a social institution. The article about the scientific study of law is called
764:
agreed with this viewpoint. If there are other editors left who have something to contribute about this, now is the time to speak up. --
490:
997:
ideas), up-link to the major topic, and also its own subsubtopics. And we seem to have these already in footer navboxes (for example,
1186:
It appears that that this template may have become more bloated again. Perhaps you would like to take another look at it compared to
1309:
Plus, in the most part of history of this template, 'interdisciplinary' was included, until the dramatic reduction two months ago.--
445:". This is seen to be an arbitrary border eg. here in Germany. This is why I added Humanities to the Template as a "Related Topic".
1559:
I don't have a
Discord account either. Decision-making about Knowledge (XXG) articles should happen in the open, on-wiki, not in a
1418:
20:
1090:
A belated thanks for your comments. There appears to be consensus that this is not a good sidebar. It does not satisfy any of the
222:, and why isn't it fixed? Which begs the question, what were the original intentions with this template. It looks interesting. --
1606:
1586:
1525:
1187:
171:
135:
69:
1516:. I thought of using that image (great minds think alike :p) but went with Galileo because I wanted to give a sort of romantic
989:
major branch also listed (child articles about topics in that branch). And a sub-branch would likewise list other subbranches
110:
249:' is to broad a subject to cover with a single template, and that more specifically targeted templates might be appropriate.
60:
241:
The contents of this template don't appear to be particularly relevant to some of the topics it's being placed upon (e.g.
1001:
935:
The
Science sidebar is perfectly fine for pages that are extremely broad. For certain, that would include the page for
1602:
1582:
1554:
1521:
401:
331:
286:
256:
979:
448:
IM POV, it would belong under a new list between "Formal
Sciences" and "Related Topics" with at least the contents:
853:
803:
731:
659:
1535:
I don't have a
Discord account because I don't use Discord and I'm not planning on making one in the far future.
1341:
example, natural science but not physics, chemistry etc. For branches of science, I went by the main sections in
1572:
1209:
1011:
686:
593:
116:
1462:
1431:
1355:
1330:
1157:
1100:
925:
627:
My tuppenceworth: in the 18th century "science" meant "knowledge", and what we now call science was called "
494:
1235:. Of course, the word "law" is often used to mean "jurisprudence", which is why there is a hatnote in the
1198:
1382:
Made a new revision, with Formal-Physical-Life-Social-Interdisciplinary-Applied in the 'Branches' part.--
582:? The word "science" simply means knowlege, and philosophy, canon law and theology are forms of knowlege.
50:
1517:
1115:
966:
839:
789:
769:
749:
717:
179:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
65:
944:
707:
645:
1422:
954:
899:
1568:
1342:
1205:
884:
680:
587:
913:
1458:
1427:
1351:
1346:
1326:
1291:
1181:
1153:
1096:
1051:, but ripping out all the subtypes of chemistry (does that address the template-creep problem?).
958:
921:
917:
753:
628:
384:
1191:
1032:
872:
521:
46:
1477:
1447:
1401:
1387:
1373:
1314:
1299:
1275:
1260:
1173:
1138:
1111:
1078:
1056:
962:
906:
765:
744:
636:
576:
347:
311:
227:
24:
1091:
760:
showed that informal mathematics is a fountainhead for mathematics in the first place, and
1169:
1131:
1071:
940:
696:
641:
632:
538:
427:
631:". Not the same thing as theology. The shift in meaning was prominent in the 1830s, with
534:
516:, not a value judgment, so I'm not sure what you mean about what's "worth the term". --
912:
sidebar is about as far away from this ideal as I have seen, and can only contribute to
147:
129:
1543:
1048:
880:
868:
820:
163:
1619:
1560:
1248:
1240:
1232:
380:
376:
530:
1425:, think very carefully about any additions, and wait for other people to weigh in.
916:. My view is that it should be removed from all articles and replaced by a link to
757:
610:
517:
157:
1270:
Since no one disagreed for almost five months, I have no implemented this change.
1564:
674:
skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
1473:
1443:
1412:
1397:
1383:
1369:
1310:
1295:
1271:
1256:
1177:
1145:
1094:, so I'll just remove it from all the articles. Then we'll see if anyone cares.
1085:
1052:
618:
559:
343:
307:
223:
462:
452:
442:
423:
419:
397:
372:
327:
282:
252:
153:
1365:
I don't think it's a good idea to put it in 'Society'. In the last revision(
379:. It is listed as one of the major topics within the Earth science article.--
1537:
1509:
1044:
1040:
816:
457:
668:
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
306:
article. If there's some better organization, then by all means change it.
1610:
1590:
1576:
1547:
1529:
1520:
feel to the image (and be a bit more inclusive of non-physical sciences).
1481:
1467:
1451:
1436:
1405:
1391:
1377:
1360:
1335:
1318:
1303:
1279:
1264:
1213:
1162:
1119:
1105:
1060:
970:
948:
929:
888:
857:
824:
807:
773:
735:
690:
648:
622:
597:
563:
541:
524:
498:
431:
407:
388:
351:
337:
315:
292:
275:
templates would be a better idea), then it should follow the hierarchy of
262:
231:
477:
1036:
1018:
936:
472:
321:
303:
246:
176:
614:
555:
761:
711:
1223:
In the social science section of the template there is a link to
678:
If the sacred sciences don't fit these, I don't know what does.
482:
1252:
1244:
1236:
1228:
1224:
467:
92:
15:
504:
There is obviously a problem of translation here. German
1110:
I don't have a problem with the template's removal. ---
554:
I've moved the following over to here from my talk page:
1366:
836:
restricted to physical sciences, at least implicitly.)
756:. So why might formal science be given pride of place?
606:
299:
219:
714:, etc.). At least mathematics is closer to physics!
175:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
879:which is the field encompassing all 3 subtopics.
778:Nobody denies that practice inspired mathematics.
982:, where the outline is not multiple levels deep.
658:Here are some definitions of science taken from
831:Natural science: Physical and chemical sciences
271:Science template is desired (and I still think
109:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s
8:
572:Why did you remove the Sacred Sciences from
609:. I previously made a comment about it at
124:
605:I removed it for the reason given in the
277:Portal:Science/Categories and Main topics
243:Relationship between religion and science
1243:article, and which is probably also why
320:The list of topics that accumulated in
126:
877:Atomic, molecular, and optical physics
441:No, from the US-POV it is not, it is "
863:Atomic, molecular and optical physics
508:includes the humanities, but English
169:This template is within the scope of
98:
96:
7:
993:(siblings, to help find potentially
1286:About Interdisciplinary and Applied
955:guidelines for navigation templates
900:guidelines for navigation templates
189:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Science
115:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
748:-- and this from a founder of the
665:systematized knowledge in general.
14:
671:a particular branch of knowledge.
45:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
156:
146:
128:
97:
40:Click here to start a new topic.
1626:Template-Class science articles
1092:reasons for deleting a template
298:I merely copied the table that
1631:NA-importance science articles
1611:23:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
1591:23:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
1577:21:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
1548:01:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
1530:01:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
980:Knowledge (XXG):Article series
825:13:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
691:11:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
649:21:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
623:12:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
598:08:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
564:12:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
542:15:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
371:I'm wondering if we could add
1:
1239:article pointing towards the
1120:04:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
1106:15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
875:be removed and replaced with
774:13:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
736:23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
352:15:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
338:15:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
316:22:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
293:10:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
263:04:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
232:04:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
183:and see a list of open tasks.
37:Put new text under old text.
1265:10:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
1190:last year's restucturing by
953:After a quick review of the
192:Template:WikiProject Science
1396:'Natural' has been added.--
1061:08:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
971:05:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
949:01:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
930:00:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
1647:
1214:16:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
1163:16:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
531:Merriam Webster dictionary
499:17:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
408:07:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
389:06:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
1563:such as Discord. Keep it
1280:08:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
858:23:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
808:23:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
245:). I would suggest that '
141:
123:
75:Be welcoming to newcomers
1603:– Closed Limelike Curves
1583:– Closed Limelike Curves
1522:– Closed Limelike Curves
1482:22:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
1468:16:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
1452:06:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
1437:06:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
1406:06:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
1392:06:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
1378:21:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
1361:19:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
1336:19:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
1319:18:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
1304:17:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
1188:this version from before
889:14:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
432:18:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
1227:. However, the article
529:I would agree, but see
525:18:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
1555:Closed Limelike Curves
70:avoid personal attacks
1518:scientific revolution
1219:Law and jurisprudence
750:scientific revolution
569:== Sacred Science ==:
302:at the bottom of the
1419:avoid template creep
708:great chain of being
1343:Branches of science
1002:Branches of physics
991:of that major topic
535:the free dictionary
172:WikiProject Science
1347:Outline of science
959:Outline of science
918:Outline of science
754:history of science
703:(practice) parts.
629:natural philosophy
111:content assessment
81:dispute resolution
42:
1033:Physical sciences
898:According to the
873:Molecular physics
851:
801:
729:
214:Unfixed vandalism
211:
210:
207:
206:
203:
202:
91:
90:
61:Assume good faith
38:
1638:
1558:
1546:
1466:
1435:
1416:
1359:
1334:
1203:
1197:
1185:
1161:
1149:
1141:
1134:
1104:
1089:
1081:
1074:
1016:
1010:
1006:
1000:
920:. Any thoughts?
911:
905:
850:
848:
837:
800:
798:
787:
745:Two New Sciences
728:
726:
715:
689:
683:
681:Canon Law Junkie
637:natural theology
596:
590:
588:Canon Law Junkie
581:
575:
550:"Sacred science"
406:
336:
291:
261:
197:
196:
195:science articles
193:
190:
187:
166:
161:
160:
150:
143:
142:
132:
125:
102:
101:
100:
93:
16:
1646:
1645:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1616:
1615:
1552:
1540:
1536:
1506:
1457:
1426:
1410:
1350:
1325:
1288:
1251:rather than to
1221:
1201:
1195:
1167:
1152:
1143:
1136:
1129:
1095:
1083:
1076:
1069:
1014:
1012:Natural science
1008:
1004:
998:
995:closely related
909:
903:
896:
894:Science sidebar
865:
840:
838:
833:
790:
788:
718:
716:
700:
697:Formal sciences
685:
679:
633:William Whewell
592:
586:
579:
573:
552:
439:
416:
404:
395:
375:to the list of
369:
334:
325:
300:already existed
289:
280:
259:
250:
239:
216:
194:
191:
188:
185:
184:
162:
155:
87:
86:
56:
12:
11:
5:
1644:
1642:
1634:
1633:
1628:
1618:
1617:
1614:
1613:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1569:Biogeographist
1550:
1538:
1505:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1338:
1287:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1220:
1217:
1206:Biogeographist
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1064:
1063:
1049:Earth Sciences
1022:
983:
975:
974:
973:
914:template creep
895:
892:
869:Atomic physics
864:
861:
832:
829:
828:
827:
812:
811:
810:
783:
779:
699:
694:
676:
675:
672:
669:
666:
660:Dictionary.com
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
584:
583:
570:
551:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
486:
485:
480:
475:
470:
465:
460:
455:
438:
435:
415:
412:
411:
410:
400:
377:Earth sciences
368:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
330:
285:
255:
238:
235:
218:What happened
215:
212:
209:
208:
205:
204:
201:
200:
198:
181:the discussion
168:
167:
164:Science portal
151:
139:
138:
133:
121:
120:
114:
103:
89:
88:
85:
84:
77:
72:
63:
57:
55:
54:
43:
34:
33:
30:
29:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1643:
1632:
1629:
1627:
1624:
1623:
1621:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1599:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1561:walled garden
1556:
1551:
1549:
1545:
1542:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1503:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1464:
1460:
1459:RockMagnetist
1455:
1454:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1433:
1429:
1428:RockMagnetist
1424:
1420:
1414:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1357:
1353:
1352:RockMagnetist
1348:
1344:
1339:
1337:
1332:
1328:
1327:RockMagnetist
1322:
1321:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1292:RockMagnetist
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1249:Jurisprudence
1246:
1242:
1241:Jurisprudence
1238:
1234:
1233:Jurisprudence
1230:
1226:
1218:
1216:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1204:also exists?
1200:
1199:Pseudoscience
1193:
1189:
1183:
1182:RockMagnetist
1179:
1175:
1171:
1165:
1164:
1159:
1155:
1154:RockMagnetist
1147:
1140:
1133:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1102:
1098:
1097:RockMagnetist
1093:
1087:
1080:
1073:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1023:
1020:
1013:
1003:
996:
992:
988:
984:
981:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
951:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
933:
932:
931:
927:
923:
922:RockMagnetist
919:
915:
908:
901:
893:
891:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
870:
862:
860:
859:
855:
849:
847:
843:
830:
826:
822:
818:
813:
809:
805:
799:
797:
793:
784:
780:
777:
776:
775:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
746:
740:
739:
738:
737:
733:
727:
725:
721:
713:
709:
704:
698:
695:
693:
692:
688:
682:
673:
670:
667:
664:
663:
662:
661:
650:
647:
643:
638:
634:
630:
626:
625:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
595:
589:
578:
571:
568:
567:
566:
565:
561:
557:
549:
543:
540:
536:
532:
528:
527:
526:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
502:
501:
500:
496:
492:
491:129.13.72.197
484:
481:
479:
476:
474:
471:
469:
466:
464:
461:
459:
456:
454:
451:
450:
449:
446:
444:
436:
434:
433:
429:
425:
422:no science?--
421:
413:
409:
405:
403:
399:
393:
392:
391:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
366:
355:
354:
353:
349:
345:
341:
340:
339:
335:
333:
329:
323:
319:
318:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
296:
295:
294:
290:
288:
284:
278:
274:
270:
265:
264:
260:
258:
254:
248:
244:
236:
234:
233:
229:
225:
221:
213:
199:
182:
178:
174:
173:
165:
159:
154:
152:
149:
145:
144:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
122:
118:
112:
108:
104:
95:
94:
82:
78:
76:
73:
71:
67:
64:
62:
59:
58:
52:
48:
47:Learn to edit
44:
41:
36:
35:
32:
31:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1597:
1507:
1504:Image choice
1289:
1222:
1192:Infogiraffic
1166:
1128:
1028:
1024:
994:
990:
986:
897:
866:
845:
841:
834:
795:
791:
758:Imre Lakatos
743:
723:
719:
705:
701:
677:
657:
611:Talk:Science
607:edit summary
585:
553:
513:
509:
506:Wissenschaft
505:
487:
447:
440:
417:
396:
370:
326:
281:
272:
268:
266:
251:
240:
217:
170:
117:WikiProjects
106:
19:This is the
1174:Steve Quinn
1139:Steve Quinn
1112:Steve Quinn
1079:Steve Quinn
963:Steve Quinn
766:Ancheta Wis
539:Phil Barker
1620:Categories
1170:Harizotoh9
1132:Harizotoh9
1072:Harizotoh9
1029:easily see
941:Harizotoh9
867:I suggest
854:Discussion
804:Discussion
732:Discussion
642:dave souza
463:Literature
453:Philosophy
443:Humanities
437:Humanities
420:philosophy
418:Hello! Is
414:Philosophy
373:mineralogy
367:Mineralogy
1514:over here
1045:Astronomy
1041:Chemistry
881:IRWolfie-
846:Wolfowitz
796:Wolfowitz
724:Wolfowitz
458:Languages
237:Relevance
83:if needed
66:Be polite
27:template.
21:talk page
1598:Comment:
478:Religion
381:Lorikeet
273:specific
107:template
51:get help
1442:said.--
1423:SIDEBAR
1417:Please
1180:, and
1037:Physics
1025:However
1019:Physics
1017:on the
937:science
907:Science
615:Kenosis
577:Science
556:Kenosis
518:Rbellin
510:science
473:History
322:Science
304:Science
269:general
247:Science
186:Science
177:Science
136:Science
25:Science
1474:Cswquz
1444:Cswquz
1413:Cswquz
1398:Cswquz
1384:Cswquz
1370:Cswquz
1311:Cswquz
1296:Cswquz
1272:Marcos
1257:Marcos
1178:DMacks
1146:DMacks
1086:DMacks
1053:DMacks
1021:page).
842:Kiefer
792:Kiefer
720:Kiefer
394:Done.
344:SharkD
308:SharkD
224:Fyslee
113:scale.
1565:SLOPI
1472:OK.--
1035:with
762:Gauss
712:Plato
514:means
424:Diwas
402:Stalk
398:Hrafn
332:Stalk
328:Hrafn
287:Stalk
283:Hrafn
257:Stalk
253:Hrafn
105:This
79:Seek
1607:talk
1587:talk
1573:talk
1526:talk
1510:Zzzs
1508:Hi @
1478:talk
1463:talk
1448:talk
1432:talk
1402:talk
1388:talk
1374:talk
1356:talk
1345:and
1331:talk
1315:talk
1300:talk
1276:talk
1261:talk
1210:talk
1158:talk
1116:talk
1101:talk
1057:talk
1007:and
987:that
967:talk
945:talk
926:talk
885:talk
871:and
821:talk
770:talk
687:Talk
684:§§§
646:talk
619:talk
594:Talk
591:§§§
560:talk
537:. --
522:Talk
495:talk
483:Arts
428:talk
385:talk
348:talk
312:talk
228:talk
220:here
68:and
1253:Law
1245:Law
1237:Law
1229:Law
1225:Law
817:Leo
710:to
468:Law
1622::
1609:)
1589:)
1575:)
1567:.
1544:'S
1528:)
1480:)
1450:)
1404:)
1390:)
1376:)
1317:)
1302:)
1278:)
1263:)
1255:.
1212:)
1202:}}
1196:{{
1176:,
1172:,
1142:,
1135:,
1118:)
1082:,
1075:,
1059:)
1047:,
1043:,
1039:,
1015:}}
1009:{{
1005:}}
999:{{
969:)
947:)
928:)
910:}}
904:{{
887:)
856:)
823:)
806:)
772:)
734:)
644:,
621:)
580:}}
574:{{
562:)
497:)
489:--
430:)
387:)
350:)
314:)
279:.
230:)
49:;
1605:(
1585:(
1571:(
1557::
1553:@
1541:Z
1539:Z
1524:(
1476:(
1465:)
1461:(
1446:(
1434:)
1430:(
1415::
1411:@
1400:(
1386:(
1372:(
1358:)
1354:(
1333:)
1329:(
1313:(
1298:(
1290:@
1274:(
1259:(
1208:(
1184::
1168:@
1160:)
1156:(
1148::
1144:@
1137:@
1130:@
1114:(
1103:)
1099:(
1088::
1084:@
1077:@
1070:@
1055:(
965:(
943:(
924:(
883:(
852:(
844:.
819:(
802:(
794:.
768:(
730:(
722:.
617:(
558:(
520:|
493:(
426:(
383:(
346:(
310:(
226:(
119::
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
