Category talk:Plasma physics

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Plasma physics category.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Plasma physics categorization

Hi. Re your revert of my taking Category:Plasma physics out of Category:Physics. Plasma physics is not a general subfield of physics on equal grounds with thermodynamics or mechanics. Therefore its category should also not be placed directly in the physics category, I think, especially since the physics category has a tendency to get crowded very quickly. We've made a major effort two months ago to depopulate it (there were over 500 items in the category). There are many pages that just like plasma physics are directly related to physics, but if all of them were placed in Category:Physics, we'd be back at square on again. Karol 17:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back atcha. I appreciate the need to keep the number of subcategories manageable, but why is plasma physics less a general subfield than condensed matter physics? I could live with it if there were a category for, say, physics of fluids or maybe hydrodynamics between physics and plasma physics, but there has to be a path from one to the other. The other supercategories of plasma physics, namely phases of matter and astrophysics, are not subcategories of physics. Do you have a suggestion we can both live happily with? --Art Carlson 20:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, cateogrization is always arbitrary, but Condensed matter physics is claimed by most physicists to be a "general" field - see Physics#Major_fields_of_physics. Actually, I categorized Plasma (physics) and Category:Plasma physics abotu a week ago. I only put them in the two categories, becuase I wasn't sure where else to place them, as I'm not too knowledgeable in the field, but more because I just plain forgot to get interested more. It would be great if we could categorize them in some subcategory of Category:Physics; maybe Category:Particle physics? Karol 17:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not too easy. I don't like having plasma physics under astrophysics because fusion research and plasma technology are equally important but have nothing to do with astronomical phenomena. I don't much like calling astrophysics a major category anyway. It seems a different type of category than atomic, particle, and condensed matter physics. What do you think of a major category for continuum mechanics, with solid state physics, fluid dynamics, aerodynamics, and plasma physics underneath? --Art Carlson 19:11, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a healthy notion. Maybe astrophysics isn't your best example of a physics field, but it's an even worse example of an interdisciplinary field, I guess that's why it's in there.

And should we be having this discussion in Category_talk:Physics? --Art Carlson 19:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, in Category talk:Plasma physics. Karol 06:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So can't you find a more specific category for Category:Plasma physics? What about Category:Particle physics?Karol 06:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thatsa no good, too. Particle physics deals with the properties and interactions of individual subatomic particles. Plasma physics deals with collective phenomena. Very different fields. --Art Carlson 20:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thatsa good point. Why do you want a third category anyway? Plasma is a phase of matter above all, isn't that worth stressing by keeping the categorization minimal? It can be related to just about any part of physics if one tries hard enough, but that's not the point of categories. Also, the things that are in Category:Plasma physics can be and are cateogrized in other categories also (eg. Category:Nuclear fusion is also in Category:Nuclear technology). A propos your previous question, the other subcats of Category:Physics are more general in the sense that they do not fit into any of the other subcats there; Category:Plasma physics is in Category:Phases of matter, making its inclusion in Category:Physics somewhat redundant (see guidline). Karol 08:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But only "somewhat" redundant. Category:Phases of matter is only a sub-sub-sub-category of Category:Physics (through Category:Matter and Category:Fundamental physics concepts). And Category:Condensed matter physics is also a direct sub-category of both Category:Phases of matter and Category:Physics. What's the diff? --Art Carlson 15:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are one stubborn dude ;) Karol 08:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Put Plasma physics in all relevants subcategories. So, you put it in category condensed matter, astrophysics, mathematical physics etc. Count Iblis 12:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Count Iblis. I just looked at Category:Physics and decided that I don't like the way it is organized at all. Off-hand, I don't see any reason why plasma physics couldn't be a direct subcat of physics, for now. The point being that cat physics needs a major overhaul. Sigh I though I just did that not too long ago :(. linas 22:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the organization of Category:Physics?Karol 12:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]