Category talk:Fundamental

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is for fundamental knowledge from a general point of view. For maximum stability, the category should be independent of fashion, politics and subjective point of view. It should contain fundamental categories from other knowledge subsets to provide full coverage and good orientation in all other categories. [unsigned comment Brian Jason Drake 07:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)]

Moved from category page: This should be a short list. It is currently Communication, Knowledge, Nature, Systems, Thought. Brian Jason Drake 04:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Refining number and wording of the "fundamental" categories

This section has been refactored by Brianjd. Some of it was originally on Talk:Main page.

User:Robin Patterson: "... I agree with one contributor that we could benefit by looking at what other sites (Yahoo was mentioned; and Zeal should not be overlooked) have done in devising exactly this sort of carve-up of the whole of human knowledge. I have some alternative spreads from other sites listed at http://mi.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Category. A look at their 2nd-level and 3rd-level subcategories is instructive too, because that leads to ideas about smaller categories that belong in two or more major threads (eg Scottish Schools is part of Education but is also part of Scotland)."

Beland: "Discussion of other ontologies has taken place before in Wikipedia talk:Categorization; in particular: Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 3 and Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 1."

Here is the current state of the ontology for the Browse bar on the Main Page. It seems to have happened bottom-up with no oversight by anyone interested in categories. The major driver was the poor performance of the rendering of the main page. So the Wikipediatoc was replaced by 7 "fundamental" categories, followed by "Browse by category" which deliberately mirrored Wikipediatoc:

Browse: Culture | Geography | History | Life | Mathematics | Science | Society | Technology

Browse Wikipedia - Article overviews - Alphabetical index - Other category schemes

For a category with no introduction, there is a default introduction: [[{{PAGENAME}}|See the overview article about {{PAGENAME}}]] (appears as See the overview article about Fundamental)

The major subject categories form a nice progression from concrete to abstract, and some articles are almost ready to be portals if they were to be transplanted to the category pages:

Ancheta Wis 09:59, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Categorization is a science of its own. On the Main Page, we should stick to presenting the fundamental categories as well as a link to a portal for other ways to access Wikipedia articles. Template:Wikipediatoc is really not very useful, since it links to articles, not categories. Many of these articles are not good ways to find other related topics in that specific field.

That's the whole point of the category system. Wikipedia:Browse by category is better, but is too verbose for the Main Page, in my opinion. Instead, I suggest we limit ourselves to 7 categories on the Main Page . This also enforces some amount of self-discipline, in that we have to choose which are the really important ones, and structure things more systematically. --Eloquence*

[edit] Links to articles vs. links to categories

This [if they see category pages, they may give up and stop browsing] is a very dubious argument. The Main Page is chock-full of links to articles. The purpose of the categories is not to showcase articles, that's what the article of the day, anniversaries etc. are for. The purpose of the categories is to help our visitors find articles related to specific topics. This is quite obvious from the way they are presented. "They may just give up and stop browsing" is much more applicable to the old "Browse by topic" box, which was very misleading because it did not actually help in browsing by topic; it showed certain articles, some of which were quite poor and most of which were not particularly useful in finding other articles in that field. That is frustrating and confusing and likely to turn away newcomers.--Eloquence*

I do agree with your latter comments, but as the categories had been, I don't think it had been a good alternative. But with the recent fix of having the category pages include some basic information and pictures (which I didn't realize was going on), I think this was a very good solution.
However, as much as I think it is a clever fix, I think I should bring up a few disadvantages for which perhaps people here could think of workarounds:
1) the category pages are only sorted alphabetically, which makes it difficult to get a bird's eye view of what kind of pages exist as subcategories (while the main article page usually categorizes pages within the discipline by subject). Could the system be designed to allow the user to either see the page alphabetically or by subject, whichever way the user prefers?
2) By coming to the slightly elaborated category introductions, people may not realize that there IS a more elaborate article page for that category (even though there is a link to one on the page, they may think it is just a dummy link, for example), or even if they do, people may try to expand the category introduction, creating thereby two long versions which need every once in a while to be reconciled, with the category page being reduced.
3) Having the category introduction at the top, as much as I prefer it to nothing, does make it take a little while longer to find a subcategory if you are just browsing categories, since you have to scroll down...
One alternative solution might be to have something like (art/cat) following each item to allow people to jump to either the article or category (e.g., "Mathematics (art/cat)").
Also, I'd like to say I still think we could fit more categories onto the main page, just as Yahoo does, for example by including some small subcategories beneath (while linking to more)--When I first saw the changes, I felt like someone had come into a library and thrown out the card catalog computers (or moved them to the top floor), saying that we needed more room for newspapers! What good is a library, anyways, if it won't help a person know what's in it? (I'm also working on putting together a video tutorial right now, and having the main page shifting around doesn't help!)  :) [[User:Brettz9|Brettz9 (talk)]] 06:02, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1) Categorization should be atomic. That means that you can't subcategorize any further. Whether the categories are listed alphabetically or not, you can't usefully list them by subject any deeper than they are already categorized. If you can, then you should think about your categorization scheme.
What do you mean by this? Categories can be divided and subdivided as narrowly as needed. If there are articles about each of the Olympic events, then put them in a category. If they write artices about each of the Olympic track and field events, then articles about each of the races for each medal, then make more specific categories to organize them. The top level categories on the Main Page should contain as many categories as possible -- but only as broad as will allow people to recognize which category contains the information they're looking for. GUllman 21:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2) This is a reasonable point (even though the argument about dummy links seems somewhat spurious). I suppose that it could be made clearer that there is a separate article on the category pages themselves; for example, the mathematics category could have a bold link at the bottom of the introduction "Read the Wikipedia article about mathematics".
3) That's why category intros should be no longer than one or two paragraphs. Please shorten any which go above that limit.
You can only fit so much information on the Main Page. There's really no substantial difference from a user perspective between clicking on a category page and clicking/scrolling to the category/article list at the bottom of the Main Page. In fact, now that we have direct category links at the top, in many cases you will get to your goal much faster. Whether the category bar should take more room can be debated, however, to be useful, that must always happen at the expense of the other dynamic content on the page - which, to be frank, is what keeps me and many others loading it every day, so we should be careful about substantial changes here.--Eloquence* 07:42, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
I've created Template:Catmore per your suggestion, it looks like this:
The main article for this category is Fundamental.
(i.e. it automatically inserts the page name). This could be put on the fundamental category pages. What do you think?--Eloquence*
Yes, each category should have a prominent link to the corresponding article in the main namespace. I was planning to do something similar, except my template would have been intended for use at the top, rather than the bottom, of the Category:Foo page, and would have said something like "This is an introduction to the [[Category]] '''Foo'''. There is also a more detailed [[article about Foo]]." Perhaps this part of the discussion should move to Wikipedia_talk:Browse by category? —AlanBarrett 17:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, admins rule wikipedia so they can toy around with the sanctioned Main Page. The best thing you should do is stay away from places where you are not given freedom of editing. -- Taku 19:50, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

The Main Page is split into 7 templates exactly for the purpose of making it editable to non-sysops while minimizing the risk of vandalism. All the templates are editable and the category bar will be, too, if we agree to use it. The change I made was announced on the talk page. If you feel that it is a bad change, you are free to participate in the discussion and give feedback. Consensus on matters like that is virtually impossible. That's why it is essential that all sides explain their points of view in rational arguments.--Eloquence*

The seven Browse topics at the top of the Main Page were obviously selected by a computer scientist/mathematician who believes the universe revolves around their field. Look at the choices that are given top billing: Mathematics, Physics and Philosophy (and Technology). These seven Browse topics should lead you to any subject a user would be searching for. Instead, the Physics link only leads to subtopics within Physics (not topics that are related to Physics), the Mathematics to subtopics within Math (not all the topics that use Math), etc. Only a tiny percentage of knowledge links from here. I suggest placing the "More..." category system back on the Main Page again. GUllman 21:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. The notion that we can provide a balanced set of seven links that covers all of Wikipedia is extremely optimistic, given the current lack of a balanced article-ontology anywhere on wikipedia; the novelty of categories for most users; the lack of agreement on what categories are for, and which articles should be included in high-level categories; and the general sparsity of said high-level categories. +sj+ 21:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The main page category browse bar is now a template: Template:Categorybrowsebar. Please suggest a better list of fundamental categories... -- The Anome 10:06, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that template should be inserted into the top screen-inch of Main while we hash this out.
We could start a discussion with the dmoz categories, a suitable ISO ontology, a discussion of what kind of 'fundamental' qualities we expect of this list (fundamental in the context of current WP content? of current high-quality content? of everything WPans know of in the universe? everything humans know of? in the context of the actual universe, despite variance in how much humans know about facets of that grand scheme? should these fundamental categories be 'maximally' distinct for some measure of distinction? parallel in structure? sufficiently diverse to ensure that every topic can be categorized under at least one of them? selected so as to minimize the number of topics/concepts belonging to more than one category?). +sj+ 21:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Here is a proposal for the browsebar: the progression Category:Nature|Category:Human|Category:Technology|Category:Communication| Category:Reference|Category:Abstraction|Category:Wikipedia tells a story - beginning with Man's origins in Nature, Humans eventually gained the right to survive with Technology, starting with upright motion, tools, agriculture, writing, and other Communication, consolidating their knowledge under references such as Myth, Magic and Religion, eventually progressing to Science and more abstract views of the world. Ancheta Wis 21:50, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Why do we need this category? What will it provide that an autogenerated list of categories with no parents will not? Heck, what will it provide that the list in Wikipedia:Categorization doesn't? grendel|khan 15:38, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)

This category thing is new to me, but as a programmer I understand the appeal of having a 'root node'. For one thing, it's a good place to talk about what nodes should be direct children of the root. -- Crag 21:51, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
I can see the appeal, but there already exists an implicit root category that can be automatically generated (what categories have no parents?); until then, the list on Wikipedia:Categorization should suffice. Besides, very, very few categories should be parentless. An autogenerated list would aid in culling them. grendel|khan 03:02, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)
I propose IMPLICIT root category, selected MANUALLY, not automatically. This root (one of the roots) should be independed from point of view (like main page), independed from where topic is learned (like academic disciplines), is it knowledge kind of science or kind of how-to. Actually it should be very short list of subcategories (up to ten), and moderate list of articles (from fundamental constants to fundamental religions). Kenny 08:28, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)
I agree that it would be handy to have a generated list of parentless categories. I still think an explicit list would be worthwhile. As a static page it costs much less to generate than an automated list. Then the automated list would consist of Fundamental and a set of categories which need to be evaluated for adoption under some category. The cost of maintaining the static list will be extremely low since it will have so few children. So to answer the original question, the purpose of an explicit root node is documenting that its children really are fundamental categories. I don't understand what Kenny is proposing. -- Crag 23:06, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)
I just realized that my point about generation cost is moot since the children of the Fundamental node cost just as much to find as the categories with no children. I still maintain that an explicit node has the value of documenting that the relationship between the root and fundamental categories is by design and not accidental. -- Crag 23:10, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)

Sumamrizing and clarifying the reasons above:

  1. Clearly a top level category organizing it all is needed.
  2. Wikipedia:Categorization is to collect category projects and people working on them, and is not meant (right now) as a top level for knowlege.
  3. The contents of Category:Orphaned categories clearly shows that automatically picking unparented categories would be nearly useless. Not only are not all unparented categories suited for a top level, but also many that are suitable are members of cycles of categories.

I sort of like the yahoo like summary including the top level categories and a few from the next level down. This can only be done as an article, really, with the category system underneath to complete it where there are too many to comfortably list. --ssd 13:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this is needed. If the fundamental categories have this as a parent, then all the categories appearing on Category:Orphaned categories are true orphans that need attention. Without this, the fundamentals would be comingled with the true orphans. older≠wiser 14:00, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposals

Please help decide what the user-friendly content of this page should look like, if any. Below are some proposals. (Is this redundant with Category:Main page and/or the Main Page?)

No, this is not redundant. The schemes may overlap, but they can co-exist, and as descussed below and elsewhere, there may be multiple ways of splitting up the world that are all valid and useful. There's no good reason to not support more than one of them here. --ssd 17:33, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Minimalist Proposal

[edit] Imported discussion from Wikipedia:Categorization

I think there should be a top level category from which all other categories should be reached. Before someone goes and edits all the current orphaned categories, there should be some kind of consensus on what that top level category should be called. Any ideas?

Here are some current attempts at a top level category:

These categories should probably all go in a top level category. Most of these currently have no parent, or are the best top article in a cycle or something like that:

Or, perhaps rather than a top category, there should be a category article listing significant "top" categories in some kind of tree structure? (png? ascii art? java?)
I think there should be multiple "starting place" categories, since different people like to slice up the world into categories in different ways. They should all me members of Category:Starting_places or somesuch. --Beland 20:38, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree!! Would you care to enumerate a few such ways to slice up the world? --ssd 02:40, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comprehensive Proposal

Wikipedia needs a useful TOC, and as said above (Ed: See Wikipedia_talk:Categorization), I consider categories to be a TOC building tool. To make the TOC useful, the top-level TOC categories should provide links to TOC subcategories and/or list-of categories and/or important articles in the category. I tried to make a TOC tree, and came up with the following. Note that top-level TOC categories are bound to be somewhat arbitrary and this is just one of possible approaches. OTOH, the second- and any third-level TOC categories should strive for perfection.

Should we (meaning me) do this? Will anybody help? If so, this should get its own page. Of course, before actually doing any of this, the TOC categories must be defined brilliantly - moving things will be a major pain. So, please comment and try to improve. Zocky

Not bad...there have been several attempts to create a top level category. A TOC article might also be a good alternative. --ssd 17:22, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This proposal is not logical, too overloaded and not practical. Kenny 08:06, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

I started linking these and I'm starting to think that Kenny may be right in that this isn't logical. I like the format, but the topics you have picked do not all align well with existing categories. --ssd 14:03, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Please don't link these until there's some kind of consensus on them. I realize that they don't conform with the existing categories, but that is because they have a different purpose (that's why I call them TOC categories). They are supposed to provide a way to browse the encyclopedia by related articles, i.e. those that do/could/should have a "see-also" relationship. That's why they are called things like "Chemistry and Physics": if you are interested in the broad subject of physics, you will find the general articles on chemistry interesting, and vice versa. If you're looking for a specific star, you will also be interested in other articles on space.
Of course, I also realize that some of these probably are not logical. That's why we need discussion on this, and I think it should concentrate both on which TOC categories we want and what do we want in them. Zocky 03:37, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think that in general, the idea of a TOC category is an excellent proposal. The proposed categories are a good starting point for discussion. I'd like to suggest that Wikipedians do what they do best, improve on this proposal. WVhybrid 21:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

World and Space
Countries and Regions | Cities and Towns | Peoples and Languages
Continents | Atmosphere and Weather | Seas and Oceans | Mountains and Rivers
Earth and Moon | Sun and Planets | Stars and Space | more...

Humans and Nature
Men, Women and Children | Body and Mind | Health and Sickness
Home and Family | Food and Drink | Love and Sex
Nature and Life | Plants and Animals | Ecozones and Habitats | more...

Politics and History
 State and Government | Law and Order | Military | Parties and Ideologies | People in Politics
History | Ages and Years | War and Piece | Exploration and Conquest
Peoples, Countries and Cities in History | People in History | more...

Education, Work and Business
Education | Schools and Universities | Professions and Occupations | Work and Employment
Business and Commerce | Economy and Finances | Companies | People in Business | more...

Mathematics, Science and Technology
Mathematics | Information Science | Computer Science
Physics and Chemistry | Earth Science | Biology and Ecology | Anthropology and Medicine
Agriculture and Biotechnology | Communication and Transport | Power and Energy
Engineering and Construction | Manufacturing | Military technology | more...

Philosophy and Religion
Philosophy | Philosophies | Philosophers
Gods and Religions | Theology | People in Religion | more...

Arts and Culture
Literature | Music | Visual arts | Theatre and Film
Art History | Art Theory | People in Arts and Culture | more...

Fun and Games
Free time and Hobbies | Holidays and Travelling | Festivals and Festivities
Games and Recreation | Sports and Sportists | Entertainment and Celebrities | more...

I completely back this, although "Fun and Games" should be changed to "Recreation" to be more encyclopedic. It kicks the shite out of my proposal! ~ Flameviper 16:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

See replies down at #Science. --Quiddity 19:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There should be a top-level category for all "Wikipedia" related categories (articles for deletion, articles needing an expert, articles needing expansion, uncategorized articles, etc.) Not sure what you could call this, maybe "Meta" or "Internal Housekeeping" or something. No good with names, but perhaps this should be included as a top level category with all of the above... --Jayron32 02:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It's one over, Category:Wikipedia administration :) --Quiddity 06:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Let there be links

>>Why do we need this category? What will it provide that an autogenerated list of categories with no parents will not? Heck, what will it provide that the list in Wikipedia:Categorization doesn't?<<

An autogenerated list will not distinguish between genuinely fundamental categories and orphaned categories.. The list in Wikipedia:Categorization is getting very messy, as is the page itself. It would be very nice to have a clean page that would be easy for curious readers to use (as opposed to editors participating in the categorization projects). -- Beland 02:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

>> They should all me members of Category:Starting_places or somesuch.<<

Where somesuch might equal Wikipedia:Category_schemes. -- Beland 02:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

>> I agree!! Would you care to enumerate a few such ways to slice up the world? <<

Wikipedia:Category_schemes actually does a good job of that. -- Beland 02:39, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to fork a TOC page

This page seems to be settling down...

I propose we do the following:

  1. Keep the mission of Category:Fundamental narrow - an automatic collector of properly top-level categories.
  2. Keep the topical listing on the Main Page concise.
  3. Create Category:TOC as a comprehensive, human-friendly guide to the most important or useful categories (from a navigational perspective). Perhaps the "More..." links on the Main Page could dump people to different parts thereof.

If Zocky's proposal were aligned more closely with the Main Page and were actually linked to real categories (or categories that should exist), it would probably be a good start.

Thoughts?

--Beland 05:07, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • I agree. Create a Category for highest level categories and link to that category for folks wanting to use categories to navigate. The new "show subcategories" buttons make this very useful. Exactly what is or isn't there can then evolve over time as categories are created, merged or split. We are not locked into one scheme for ever.Filceolaire 16:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Wikipedia:Categories for deletion

Moved from CfD (no consensus to delete):

Category:Fundamental edit here

  • Redundant with Category:Main page. --Eequor 04:09, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like an opportunity for fundamentalists to argue and not much else. Nathan 05:48, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant. -- Mic 06:33, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Don't delete. As Wikipedia:Category_schemes shows, there is more than one way to split up the world. We currently have multiple competing heirarchies of categories being filled out. This page might (should, if you ask me) be used as a canonical list of their top-level members, a sort of opposite to Category:Orphaned categories. That's a very different purpose than presenting a user-friendly front page. The associated talk page is also storing all the discussion so far about Category TOCs, which I just moved in from the three different places they started up. So let's at least allow this page to stabilize and the discussion to continue a bit. If we have consensus on the talk page that anything we want to do here should be done on the main page instead, that's fine. But the category system isn't quite ready for prime time yet; it's still practically brand new. -- Beland 05:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • I like the idea, but hate the name. Seeing as nobody has come up with a better name yet, keep, at least until a better name is picked. And no, this has nothing to do with fundamentalism. --ssd 13:21, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Why, I think it does. Seems kind of silly to me to categorize what is "fundamental," whether you are talking about philosophy religion, or human knowledge. To me this catagory reads as the latter. Nathan 19:10, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • What's silly about identifying navigational nodes that have no parent? This listing doesn't elevate one type or piece of knowledge over any other; multiple overlapping heirarchies are able to form and will get equal treatment here. So I hardly can see what it has to do with religious or philosophical fundamentalism. The point is just to provide a starting place if anyone is interested in browsing through the various heirarchies from top to bottom, and also an ending place if they are browsing from bottom to top. -- Beland 03:55, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I would say the name of this category is silly, except that neither I nor anyone else has come up with a better name. If you object because of the name, COME UP WITH A BETTER ONE. --ssd 05:01, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Technology not listed here?

Category:Technology is not listed here because it is not fundamental. It is, by definition, invented by humans, and so belongs under Category:Humans. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 08:50, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Fundamental is mis-named

I think that Category:Fundamental is mis-named. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Category:Fundamental is mis-named, because fixing it seems to need wider input. —AlanBarrett 18:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Humans" a subcategory of "People"?

This section has been moved to Category talk:People#"Humans" a subcategory of "People"?. Brian Jason Drake 03:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] places

You need a category here for places. I wanted to drill down to a list of places but I couldn't figure out after staring at the subcats where to click. Category:Places should be a subcat of Fundamental. ... ok added Category:Geography ... to be bold. MPS 20:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed it. Category:Geography comes under Category:Nature, which is here; we want to keep this category as simple as possible. Brian Jason Drake 07:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging this with Category:Categories?

See discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_10#Category:Categories. Opinions are welcome on whether Category:Categories should be the top-most category, or whether it should be merged into Category:Fundamental. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated list

Why does the introduction repeat the list of subcategories? It doesn't look good - if we want such a record, we should modify the software to provide it, or put it on the talk page. Brian Jason Drake 03:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Material objects

I am creating a category:material objects because I couldn't find a place for debris (of all things!). Category:Nature doesn't work because that would exclude bottles, styrofoam &c. Category:Matter doesn't work because it's specific for forms of matter in physics. If anyone has a better idea, pls feel free to change. Common Man 05:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Concepts

I also added Category:Concepts after I found that security and harm had no category. Again, I'm open to better ideas how to categorize such articles. Common Man 07:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

How about making your Category:Concepts a subcategory of Category:Abstraction or Category:Philosophy? Peter S. 09:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for the good ideas. You are right that the term "concept" would fit under both. (Thank God for philosophy - it can subsume all fundamental concepts!) But maybe my category was a misnomer - I didn't really mean "concept" per se, but a generic term that can encompass fundamental categories that aren't "systems", "thoughts" or "knowledge" &c. I thought "concepts" was a term like category:Nature, which includes very fundamental articles such as time that wouldn't necessarily come to mind when one talks about nature (and are in fact not mentioned in the Nature article, which merely talks of matter and force). Articles like security wouldn't fit so well under "abstraction" (security can be pretty concrete) or "philosophy" (even animals that know no philosophy seek security). Common Man 10:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think that "Change" might stay here, but I think that "Security" is a concept that relates to humans, and "Harm" relates to living things, so it might be more appropriate there. As for "Trade" and "Novelty", I'm not sure that they fit "Concepts" really well. The problem here seems to be that "Concepts" is a term that encompasses too many different things: "Philosophical concepts", "concepts of human relations", and it's also a synonym for "ideas". I think that a good category has a clear focus, which "Concepts" lack - it's too broad. How about splitting "Concepts" into its different meanings and then place those categories as subcategories of other things? Peter S. 00:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply and for waiting patiently. Since I created the category, someone added two articles: Trade and Time travel in fiction. Neither really fits into what I had in mind, which proves your point: The category name was too vague. Since I don't have a better idea, and I may not be the best to work at this fundamental level, I would like to bow out. I trust you and the Wikipedia community to do the right thing. Please just remember that some people believe that Change, Harm, Novelty and Security have something in common on a fundamental level, and deserve to be categorized. (BTW, I'm a bit disappointed how you just ignored my point that animals seek security as well as humans do. But we don't need to discuss this now.) Common Man 06:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I moved 4 entries to Category:Philosophical concepts and removed the remainding. Peter S. 20:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geo and history

Do they need to be here? I had always thought of this cat for things that literally can't be placed elsewhere. Marskell 14:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No they don't, and neither do Culture or Technology. I'm removing them now. Brian Jason Drake 09:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Then were does culture go? Currently, Culture is in Society and Society is in Culture. What is the proper way to fit these categories into higher-level cats? Is Society "Structure" or is it "Systems" (which goes under "Information")? Is Culture "Thought"? I find the current high-level categories to be almost totally useless because of the arbitrary nature of the supposedly fundamental categories. Certainly "Thought" is no more fundamental than "History" (in the sense of Big History)--ragesoss 04:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing Thought with Behavior

Behavior is more fundamental than thought, as thought is a type of behavior. --Ooga Booga 05:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

But this created circularity. If a cat already takes three cats that lead back to Fundamental it doesn't belong in Fundamental itself. Marskell 09:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science

The "society" section is enormous. I suggest first splitting off "religion" into its own category. This would allow for a huge part of culture to be branched off, shrinking the parent category.

I also suggest making "structure" a part of science. This is because "structure" is a puny category with not much potential for expansion.

Here's how I suggest splitting the categories... or something like that. The thing is that these categories suck.

Anyway, this would be a lot less confusing. ~ Flameviper 16:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be a bunch of alternative/competing category systems, like Category:Main topic classifications and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics + /Category sets. And there's also the structure of Category:Portals to consider, as a more popularity based index. And many more former systems' remnants scattered around. Though, any attempt to overhaul these should probably get brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) too. -Quiddity 07:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'd imagine the scheme you're linking to above, was taken into consideration during the planning of the schemes I've linked to. It's 2 years old, and further discussion has happened elsewhere... --Quiddity 19:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If I were looking for Science topics, I wouldn't know whether to look in "World and Space", "Humans and Nature" or "Mathematics, Science and Technology". World usually refers to the human world (grouped with languages, politics, etc.); Earth usually refers to the physical world (grouped with geology, outer space, etc.) GUllman 19:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The name of this category reflects a geocentric bias

No fundament can exist unless it has something to stand on. In thinking fundamental = ultimate one gets trapped into a reductionistic mind-frame. Root is perhaps better although any root must of necessity be rooted in something else. Perhaps Core is the best choice of term to express what this category should represent. __meco 16:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the excessive reductionism of this category really stings. ~ Flameviper 15:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/u/n/Category_talk%7EFundamental_aa9e.html"