Talk:List of life sciences

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Life sciences)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon List of life sciences is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject History of Science (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Today's articles for improvement
WikiProject icon
This article was selected as Today's article for improvement on 6 May 2013 for a period of one week.
The collaboration began with this version and improved the article to this state (difference).
WikiProject icon

Life vs Applied science[edit]

Biocomputing etc are all Applied sciences that rely on Life sciences like Genetics and Molecular Biology but are not Life sciences themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

repeated items in the list[edit]

For example Botany is the same like plant sciences. -- (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Natural science" template verse article[edit]

It just occurred to me that the 4 entries in the Natural science template (Physical science, Space science, Earth science, Life sciences) dont actully match up to what's in the natural science article. It also doesn't match the Science template )seen at the top of the Life sciences page (Formal sciences, Physical sciences, Life sciences, Social sciences, Applied sciences).--Coin945 (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that template needs a few brackets, to show the hierarchy. --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
@NickPenguin: So what should we do about this?--Coin945 (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


This article is a list and should be named "List of life sciences" as per the MOS entry WP:LISTNAME. What do you say? Jytdog (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly. If so, it needs a parent, which would be an overview of the life sciences (isn't that Biology?) with a definition, summary, and link to the list. It's odd that Biology is in the list as it's the parent, BTW. It should probably be moved to the top; if indeed we can see any difference between B and the LS parent? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
yes that makes sense. i think the list article is useful. this would take up too much space in the Biology article, which has a list we may want to take out and incorporate here. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
(comment) Looks to me like the list on this page is very similar to Biology#Branches_of_biology, however there are some items that are missing from here. Is it the case that "life sciences = biology"? --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The life sciences are much more than biology and this is reflected both in name and dictionary definition. The section Nick links to may have other entries - a sign of an unfinished article - but in no way could I say that medicine medical imaging is a field of biology and keep a straight face. This would be equivalent to reducing the physical sciences to physics, and claiming that organic chemistry is a field of physics. Technically, you can draw relationships on paper, but they have very different histories (natural philosophy and alchemy, for example) and one cannot subsume the other. On the original point, social sciences appears a much better template. This article can be so much more than just a linear list. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
That seems cogent, but raises questions like why Medicine isn't in the list - guess it is both a life science and a practice, just as engineering uses physics but isn't a science. There's no reason, though, why the list should not be split off from the article if it's taking on a life of its own. What do you mean by referring to social sciences? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, faulty memory and typing combined. I suppose whether the health professions are part of the life sciences is a slightly off point matter. I meant that social science has a history section, followed by several list-like sections, and then considers methodology and education in the field. Formal science seeks to differentiate itself from other areas and provides some historical context. It's just my POV that these are more useful to the encyclopaedia than list articles. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)