Camigliano

Computer science

The recent move of the entire computer-science portion of the list from "mathematics and computer science" to "professions and applied sciences" seems totally unjustified to me, and the edit comments don't really help me understand why it was done. It is true that software engineering and related practical fields are sometimes taught as subdisciplines of engineering or applied CS, but there is a huge amount of academic research in CS which does not seem to fit very well under "applied sciences" at all, let alone "professions." I want to see a lot more justification (documented with sources, please, not just opinion) for this move before we do it. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As an addendum, note that UNESCO's classification places computer science (48) under "science" alongside life sciences, physical sciences, and mathematics. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Asterisk

None of the disciplines are labeled with an asterisk (*), suggesting that there is no field whose status is debated. If that's actually the case, the sentence discussing the asterisk should be removed. If that's not the case, someone may want to go around with an asterisk pen. Antelan ^talk 21:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Concept of disciplines?

There doesn't seem to be much commentary on the concept of disciplines in this article. I added a couple lines at the beginning. I hope, at some point, to add something from Discipline and Punish. Any suggestions? Fokion 18:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I think that Science Studies should go somewhere. But where? It's interdisciplinary, but also a part of science, history, anthro, critical theory, philosophy... any suggestions? Fokion 18:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"personal service professions"

User:Catdude added a section of "personal service professions" including things like cosmetology and nannying. It seems to me patently ridiculous to call these "academic disciplines," and I think the section should be removed immediately, but I'd like to solicit other opinions and evidence first. Can Catdude or soemone else give some serious sources for including them? I don't see how it will be possible to provide documentation showing these to be academic disciplines or fields of serious research. Perhaps some vocational colleges instruct students in some of these areas, but I can't imagine what research or study in something like nannying would even mean. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the aforementioned concern on the Talk page, RBellin. I perfectly understand your concern. For the "personal service professions" area, I was careful to only list fields that, from my observations, do receive attention in four-year college/university programs as opposed to just Associate/Foundation degree (two-year) programs or just certificate programs. Some of these fields (such as nannying) do have some overlap, or outgrowth, from Home Economics (aka Consumer and Family Sciences or Human Ecology). (Many professional nannies have four-year degrees in Home Economics or an allied area; the specific degree is oftentimes in, or closely related to, Early Childhood Development.) Others personal-service fields in question (such as mortuary science; travel, tourism and concierge services; and secretarial science) do not generally have such an overlap, but can be found taught in four-year institutions. (You can Google these terms and find evidence of four-year programs for them.) I was careful to leave out fields that seem to be, at this time, purely fields that would be just taught in two-year or certificate programs. (Such omitted fields would include areas such as carpentry, welding, and plumbing.) I was just trying to make the total list as "holistic" as possible, and again, do see how some people could be (in good faith) surprised or disagreeing with my inclusion of the aforementioned "personal service professions" area. Further comments, if any, are very welcome :) —Respectfully, Catdude 18:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide some credible evidence that there exist a significant number of university departments, scholarly journals or publications, and/or learned societies in these fields, then? As the article's lead sentence states, these are some reasonable indicators of whether a subject is an academic field -- which (n.b.) implies something more than that a course is occasionally taught about the subject. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair and scholarly question, Rbellin; please allow me just a few days to get back to this question. At that time, I'll provide a substantive answer to your question (URLs, journals, etc.). —Respectfully, Catdude 22:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm just a normal reader, but I agree with Rbellin. It's absurd to put biology and life coaching together. When I saw the additions I laughed--they're just silly! Nothing personal Catdude, but I hope it gets cut soon. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.25.25 (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have taken a small interest in this matter and have found that, while some primarily four-year colleges do offer degrees in cosmetology and mortuary science, none of them are four-year. Also, I found that no four-year schools offer degrees in life coaching, but there is an academic journal dealing with: The International Journal of Coaching in Organizations. I hope this helps. Zrallo (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Rename to reflect content

Since my attempt to cull the content of this page to what the title suggests it is about was quickly reverted I propose that this page be moved to List of fields of employment or suchlike. -- Alan Liefting talk 22:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to this edit -- which was a massive deletion not justified by any prior discussion, with an edit summary that didn't explain why you proposed to delete such a large portion of the current list. Can you please explain what you want to happen, and why, in more detail, and provide some justification for your proposal? -- Rbellin|Talk 23:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to discuss what are good faith and appropriate edits on a talk page As editors we can be bold. Why I deleted info should be obvious - the links I deleted are way beyond the bounds of acedemia.

I have seen other lists that have a similar slow creep of irrelevant links. For example:

• List of conservation topics - I have culled this one
• List of environment topics - this is good example since it is very bad i.e.. a huge number of extremely tenuously linked articles.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environmental protection and restoration topics - deleted
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of environment-theme lists of topics - deleted

The article is heading towards what is contained in List of occupations and there is no need for the overlap that is happening. A list is only useful if it has a tight focus. -- Alan Liefting talk 23:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As a look through the previous discussions on this Talk page will amply demonstrate, opinions on what is "obviously" academic or non-academic vary widely. I do agree that creeping overexpansion is a danger that Wikipedia lists face in general, but I don't see the links you mass-deleted as necessarily examples of that -- many seem to me like they are rather obviously academic fields. So, again, can you please explain what particular things you think do not belong in the list, and give some justification or cite sources that support your opinion? -- Rbellin|Talk 04:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI

To all concerned, I've been doing some library research to try to be as fair-minded as possible about what constitutes an applied-art-and-science-type profession; I should have the substantive response I promised posted by Mon., 9/10/2007 (or early Tues., depending on your time zone). I appreciate the recent dialogue on the Talk page to help clarify what should or shouldn't "count" as a profession. I think the debate is healthy, as it will collaboratively help us produce the best possible product. Thanks for your patience. —Respectfully, Catdude 02:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As a courtesy update, I've fielded questions related to this discussion area to a couple of university research librarians and also to a couple of academic deans in university environments. It appears they do need 2-3 more days to come up with some research results, so please kindly bear with me while I await them. However, I can say that, at this point, in retrospect to my own research, the fields in dispute could probably all be listed as "craft-professions" as well as "emerging professions." There does seem to be plenty of evidence that there are people employed in all the disputed professions who do have a bachelor's degree or perhaps higher, with the bachelor's degree earned in the field of dispute or something closely allied to it. However, there is also that broader philosophical debate on what should/can count as an "academic discipline." I'll post something late Thursday (perhaps early Friday in your time zone) to put some finality to my research on this subject. My inclination (POV?) is that it would still make sense to recognize "personal service professions" in some way as an emerging academic discipline, albeit with a few asterisks as an editor has already provided (and maybe even a footnote as well). Relatedly, the Wikipedia community as a whole will have the ultimate chance to edit things and make changes as desired. Thanks again for your continued patience. —Respectfully, Catdude 23:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Some folks who are aiding my research are still putting just a few finishing touches on helping me; I hope to complete my findings in about a day or so. However, I do have some things to kindly share at this time:

1) In the fields that I listed in "personal service professions," a majority of the fields listed do not appear to have dedicated academic journals, although articles about the subjects can be found about them in other sources. For example, with concierge, the Cornell Hospitality Quarterly contains significant articles pertaining to concierge. However, a notable exception is with mortuary science; many journals in the field exist. (Please see http://www.kckcc.cc.ks.us/college-support-services/information-services/library/morgue/journals ). In the life-coaching area, there is the journal International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring (please see http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/education/ijebcm/vol2-no1-bookreview.html ).

2) Mortuary science has strong evidence of bachelor's degrees offered in the field. Travel and tourism has relatively strong evidence of this. The other fields I listed in "personal service professions" have strong evidence of many degree holders having closely-allied four-year or higher degrees (e.g., a professional working in nannying/butlery sometimes having a bachelor's degree in home economics; a life-coaching specialist frequently having a bachelor's or higher degree in psychology; a wardrobe-coordination specialist sometimes having a four-year degree in Fashion Merchandising or Textile Design).

3) There does appear to be strong evidence of professional associations for most of the aforementioned personal-service-profession fields. For example, for Concierge, there is the Clef D'Or assocation in several countries (see the Concierge article for links); for nannies, there is the International Nanny Association ( http://www.nanny.org ). For the fields that I intentionally left out of the "personal services professions" list (such as welding, plumbing, and truck/lorry driving), there mostly don't seem to be the same types of professional associations which have an important "education emphasis" as a subcomponent, as found in the fields that I did include in the list.

I'll stop by shortly again to add anything else that is revealed to me which is significant. Thanks again for your patience. —Catdude 18:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort you're putting into this research, but I have to say that a lot of the things you're citing seem borderline irrelevant to me. Neither the existence of professional associations for various jobs, nor the presence in those jobs of people who studied somehow related topics while they were in college, supports the argument that these jobs are properly described as academic disciplines. The granting of bachelor's degrees is relevant, but seems to me to fall short of justification, as there are certainly some bachelor's degrees best described as vocational. And the absence of academic journals (alongside the fact that you haven't addressed the existence of learned societies, research, or university departments) in these fields, all seem like conclusive evidence on the side of removing these fields to me. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Rbellin, for the educated feedback in regards to this issue. To cut to the chase in a way I think you'll like, I wouldn't be opposed to taking out the area of dispute, and tasking myself to seeing how it could form the genesis of a new list. (I know that Wikipedia can tend to also suffer from list overexpansion in regards to the number of lists out there, but I think that such a new list can evolve quickly into something appropriate and encyclopedic.) I will mention that mortuary science does seem to have an abundance of professional journals out there, and there is even a department of mortuary science in the University of Minnesota's medical college. Travel and tourism management arguably has some of the accoutrements of an applied academic discipline as well, as measured by professional associations, journal articles, and some other elements. The other fields I listed don't meet such standards as well. I'll likely leave it to other Wikipedians, such as you, to judge whether those two fields have merit as part of the list of academic disciplines. In the meantime, I'll work on the aforementioned new list, and will try to add "meat" to it to illustrate how the fields in the new list perhaps are "emerging professions" based on key elements, but may not meet the standards, among many people, of "academic disciplines" at this time. Thanks again for all the feedback and for trying to make this as relevant of a list as possible. —Regards, Catdude 01:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

the correct term is Indology, not dharmic religions

First of all the term dharmic religions is a very unusual term when compared to the alternative term Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion". So if we are to choose between the two then it should be Indian religions. Secondly the correct term of the academic field is Indology, not Indian religions, let alone the obscure neologism dharmic religions. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to Indian religions because it clearly is the better term in the context. I don't know enough about Indology to justify making that change myself. --Mrwojo 01:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Drawing

Is drawing not an academic disciplines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tramp (talk • contribs) 22:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Computer & Video Games

I believe that Computer & Video games should be listed as a recognized academic discipline (as, for example, film and radio are included). There are now several dedicated degree-level courses covering various facets of the discipline (e.g. tools & technology, software engineering, 3D art & animation, design, production management) and a growing body of academic literature and journals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.23.39 (talk) 26 December 2007

Philosophy of Mind

Shouldn't the philosophy of mind be listed under metaphysics, rather than applied philosophy? Descartes was hardly doing applied philosophy. The closest applied thing I can think of is maybe Cognitive Science or Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science, maybe? Llamabr (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, and absolutely, and with support from the Stanford Enclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/#ProAboMenPhy) --Palaeovia^talk 08:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion/spirituality/divinity; Hum/SocEc

I made a good-faith restoration of the subsection "Religious and spiritual leadership / Divinity" due to my feeling that this area represents a bona fide "application" of religion/spirituality, but I wasn't sure that it belonged where the "pure arts and sciences" are pretty much listed in the article. Additionally, Divinity/Applied Theology is taught at many prominent universities such as Harvard and Oxford, which is why I respectfully felt it had a place as a sub-list in the article. However, I do notice that some "applied arts/humanities" such as Architecture and Studio Art are listed in the Humanities section, when they are in fact more of an "application thing". Perhaps a new section for "Applied Arts" or some such thing could be used to house Architecture, Studio Art, Divinity, etc. (I know that you then have the challenge of deciding if, say, Art History should be "separated" from Studio Art, etc., but we all can probably find a "good way" to deal with this issue later on :) ).

After I got done making the addition of the new "Human ecology and allied social ecology" subsection (which was good-faith-removed by another editor), I admit that the section did seem to contain, well, "a lot" in it, and admittedly after all the work I did on that subsection, I was too tired to start wikification on it right away :) That Hum/SocEc subsection was honestly the very last field that I could think of which, IMHO, I felt was an "academic field" that would be good to slip into the article list. However, I will not restore the sub-list at this time, and I will "put on my thinking cap" as to how this sub-list, or some sort of "re-processing" of it, could better "mesh" with the article and thus contribute better to it.

Thanks, all, who have made positive suggestions/critiques to me (and others) in the quest to improve this article! —Best regards, Catdude (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected this List for 24 hours, to put a halt to a potential edit war. Bearian (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Military sciences

I have reverted the removal for several reasons.

Firstly what I have done is to change what was a seemingly random collection of existing and non-existent military articles into a list. This list is organised, and explains what each of the list items represent.

The deletion of my edits based on them being "expository" and therefore not appropriate, is somewhat hard to understand. A list is not supposed to be an accumulation of wikilinks alone! In a reference work it is supposed to also inform.

The particular problem with military sciences is that they are not a part of the more widely known spheres of research, development and study, and do not easily fall into the "ologies" that the other disciplines represent. A different taxonomic grouping was required.

I would really appreciate if editors discussed reverts of what was a substantial bit of time invested on my part as a matter of courtesy if not actual policy--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This page is a bit of an exception to normal practices, because it is originally part of the set of Contents pages, and is linked right at the top of Portal:Contents (which is the second link in the site's sidebar).

Also, for sheer length considerations, it would become necessary to split it into subarticles if each section was transformed into exposition.

For those reasons, I would strongly recommend that we leave it in pure list format. Some more sourcing for the lede wouldn't hurt though...

[Tangentially/contextually: There have been many prior discussions about moving it (alone or as part of the whole Content's group) into Wikipedia or Portal namespace.]

I Hope that helps explain the situation here :) See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for the preferred method of dispute resolution. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. What I'll do is try to reduce the current instalment I made into something more linkish to look like the rest of the list. I would appreciate if it was left in place for now while I do a bit more figuring out, because Military Science as I explained above is a bit unusual as a subject--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

Were you planning on something other than a basic hierarchical-list? The whole page has a fairly consistent structure throughout, except for the block of prose you've added..

Maybe you could work on your proposed replacement in a sandbox? (Not that I want to contribute to your sandbox addictioncollection!)

Maybe you could add the prose component at Military science instead? and then copy a concise list-summary-version to here and Topic outline of military science and technology (formerly "list of basic topics in ...").

Thanks. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually I thought that the current list is a sandbox :) I think lists should not be bare wikilinks, but actually offer at least a rudimentary description of each entry, and a section introduction.

What happened with my sandboxes is that as I begun what was going to be primarily Eastern Front (WW2) period articles, I discovered that many peripheral articles were just not there. If you look at the Military science article introduction I wrote, you will see lots of redlinks, and you will see many in my to do list. The problem is that it is pointless to author and edit article that use terminology the reader will not understand, so I have had to expand the range of foundational articles I have had to write. Military science is one of them since it impacts on how one understands the behaviour of the belligerents.

Yes, I will copy the prose for the most part to the Military science article, but need to work on that article a bit more also. The other thing I need to incorporate is the Military art (Military science) article--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

See also the other pages in Template:Contents pages (footer box), particularly List of Dewey Decimal classes. They've been this way for years, and don't change much (glance through some random diffs from the years of history!). As Palaeovia explains below, they're meant more as a browsing instrument (hence the recurrent namespace-pagemove arguments, that I mentioned earlier (lists of lists are a thorny issue, but there are good reasons for keeping them in mainspace)).

I'm going to revert to the last by Palaeovia, and copy a link for you to easily get your text out (old diff of section #Military sciences).

This is actually a fairly high traffic page, being permanently 2 clicks away from anywhere. Feel free to update the actual sublist that you were editing, but please keep it in the same simple format as the rest of the page. Let us know if we can be of anymore help. Thanks again. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In support of Quiddity's suggestion above and the current orientation of this page as a simple list of wikilinks, I give here my view of the purposes of this list:

Firstly, the list presents a coherent and elegant overview of the world of academia, and its coverage by Wikipedia. ("Browse" function)

Secondly, the list directs the user efficiently to a Wikipedia article on an academic discipline, or sub-discipline, for further exposition. ("Index" function)

The proper place for exposition is the relevant articles (where any controversial issues can be critically examined), and not here.--Palaeovia^talk 02:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe eliminate indenting in categorizing engineering disciplines

Maybe it would be better not to suggest here that one type of engineering in a branch of any other.

I rearranged some of the items in the engineering categories. For sure, Automobile Engineering isn't a branch of Naval Engineering, as indicated by this page as I found it. I thought Automotive Engineering was a branch of Mechanical Engineering, but the Automobile Engineering article says that it is a branch of Vehicle Engineering.

I moved the mention of Software Engineering to be a branch of Computer Engineering. The article on Computer Engineering says that software engineering is one of the "core knowledge areas of computer engineering".

Someone within a particular field may take exception to the notion that their profession is a "branch" of any other. I suggest putting the list of disciplines in alphabetical order and eliminating the indentation to avoid disputes over whose discipline is a branch of someone else's. - Ac44ck (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer a hierarchical organization, however tentative, of an academic discipline, to an alphabetical list, since organizing human knowledge helps us to grasp the scope and depth (and gaps) of the current state of human kwowledge. It is a natural intellectual pursuit. And I would like to know how scholars in a field of knowledge view its structure.

There is no single correct way to organize any field, and we should all acknowledge that, and seek reasonable compromise. However, a structured view is always preferable to a surrender to chaos.--Palaeovia^talk 07:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Top level grouping of academic disciplines

The breaking up of "Professions and Applied sciences" in this version into the current form is messy. I propose two options:

1. Break up "Professions and Applied sciences" into "Professions", consisting of the well-established, credentialed professions (medicine, engineering, law, education(?), religious ministry(?)), and "Vocations" (such as beauty therapy).

2. Revert to this version.

To avoid potential debates concerning the distinction between professions and vocations, I favor reverting. Any dissenting views?--Palaeovia^talk 08:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is a place to make a distinction between professions and vocations, I believe it is elsewhere. Using labels is necessary when making a hierarchical list for the purpose of structure. Assigning a caste would not seem to be necessary when compiling a list of "academic disciplines".

The page is too large for me to sort out, in a reasonable time frame, a preferred way to "fix" it from where it is now. Someone has done a lot of editing since the version proposed for reversion. They did it anonymously and without discussion. I am not going to take the time to figure out whether part of what they did is worth keeping. You apparently have.

Your proposed reversion would erase some of the work I did, but I'm not necessarily opposed to that. If you think reverting it is best and the anonymous editor doesn't object here, have at it.

Changing the overall structure of the "Academic disciplines" page is complicated by its size. If it was just a collection of major headings, I would find its structure to be more discernable and manageable.

I favor breaking this page into several others and using this page as a launching point, with "see also" links in those pages, for example:

• Academic disciplines

• Applied sciences (academic disciplines)
• Engineering (academic disciplines)
• remainder of major headings

• Applied sciences (academic disciplines)

• list of applied science disciplines
• See also: Engineering (academic disciplines)

• Engineering (academic disciplines)

• list of engineering disciplines
• See also: Applied sciences (academic disciplines)

The parenthetical part of the page title is like that found in disambiguation pages. -Ac44ck (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

To avoid piling up of new edits, I've reverted to the version given above, and then replaced the subsequently edited sections with the latest versions. Your latest edits are preserved.

I've not found this page slow in loading, so do not favor breaking it up, as it then slows my access to the sections that I want.

Best regards--Palaeovia^talk 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd oppose breaking the page up, too. It's intended purpose (historically, anyway) is as a browsing mechanism, similar to the other pages in Template:Contents pages (footer box).

As a path for improvements, it would be nice to have everything sourced (confirmed as a course of study at an accredited institution, type thing). Perhaps working on that in a sandbox would be simplest? And more precisely defining our inclusion-criteria would help. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion of an academic discipline

[Partial copy of a previous post:] As a path for improvements, it would be nice to have everything sourced (confirmed as a course of study at an accredited institution, type thing). Perhaps working on that in a sandbox would be simplest? And more precisely defining our inclusion-criteria would help. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

An inclusion criterion is partially defined at the start of the article: "An academic discipline, or field of study, is a branch of knowledge which is taught or researched at the college or university level."

It links to the article on academia, which says of an academic: "He or she is nearly always an advanced degree holder who does research."

The title of this article says that it is a list of "academic disciplines" -- not a list of "available areas of instruction" nor "existing job titles". Nor is the article intended to provide an exhaustive list of _all_ academic disciplines, which the intro of the article suggests is impossible because there may be "no end to the amount of academic disciplines one could have."

I suggest that, for the purposes of this article, an "academic discipline" be restricted to those areas of study in which a masters degree is available from at least five universities, each with a total enrollment in excess of 10,000 students. This should exclude most nontraditional studies from appearing in the list of more generally-recognized academic disciplines.

This criterion would also allow removing the asterisks from the list, which according to the intro denote "a field whose academic status is debated." If one can point to five large universities which offer masters degrees in an academic discipline, then the debate is settled. -Ac44ck (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A preliminary thought worth pondering: "Christian Theology" or "Divinity" (as an intellectual discipline found in medieval European universities) probably qualifies under your proposed criterion. However, "Christian Ministry" (as a vocational training) would probably not, since most religious seminaries and Bible colleges are small. The relation of "Christian Ministry" to "Christian Theology" can be compared with that of "Pharmacy" to "Pharmacology", or "Clinical Psychology" to "Psychology".--Palaeovia^talk 00:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

California Institute of Technology is an example of small, world-class universities. Just a thought.--Palaeovia^talk 00:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be a victim of my own discrimination on a few fronts. I don't qualify as an "academic" if it requires having an advanced degree. The college where I went has a student body smaller than 10,000 students. My specialty, "thermal engineering", wouldn't qualify as an "academic discipline".

But the weeding which would result from raising the bar on what qualifies here as an "academic discipline" would bring some coherence to this page.

There are more-specialized lists for those who want to dig deeper in a particular discipline, such as List of engineering topics, List of basic philosophy topics, etc.

True: "most religious seminaries and Bible colleges are small". But are there not five large universities worldwide that award masters degrees in the field of interest? Whether the degree program is liberal or conservative is not included in my proposed criterion.

I suspect that the field of "Clinical Psychology" is less stable than that of "Psychology". Technology fields are more subject to the whim du jour. Was learning the intricacies of Windows 98 an "academic discipline"? My current use of Windows 98 is scoffed at by those who use what is lauded — today, but probably not in two years — as the "latest and greatest" version of Windows.

An interesting perspective on knowledge as opposed to temporary technical competence is presented in Asimov's story, _Profession_.

Large universities probably offer the same degrees as "small, world-class universities" if the subject is a generally-recognized "academic discipline". It may a huge accomplishment to obtain a "boutique degree" at a small, world-class university, but the field may not — yet — be a generally-recognized "academic discipline". -Ac44ck (talk) 02:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed a few universities with enrollment of over 10,000 in the US that offer Master of Divinity, Doctor of Ministry, and similar advanced degrees. I've found Liberty University (enrollment 14438) and the George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University (enrollment 13,886) so far.

I think that, nevertheless, the existence of the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada, its Commission on accrediting, and its "Degree Program Standards" (pdf document) serve perfectly well as the authority for including "Christian Ministry" as an academic discipline. This should be accepted as an alternative inclusion criterion.--Palaeovia^talk 05:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My proposal was arbitrary, and I didn't intend to limit the scope to universities in the US. But I don't think that it is overly restrictive. I imagine that this page could become quite long if we found and included every discipline for which masters degrees are offered by five major universities worldwide.

At what point does a blend of disciplines qualify as a discipline itself?

Arguably, mechanical engineering is but one branch of applied physics with perhaps some other disciplines blended in. The discipline wasn't recognized as distinct until the 19th century according to the Wikipedia article on mechanical engineering, and then probably for utility in building a market-driven set of competencies rather than uniqueness of the subject matter. The field is so diffuse today that it has fingers in everything from micromachines to interstellar satellites. Were it not for so many universities offering degrees by that name, one might be hard pressed to call it _an_ academic discipline.

Not to put this in the same camp as the organizations that you mentioned, but the presence of an accreditation organization may or may not be sufficient to qualify a pursuit as an academic discipline:

http://canadianmetaphysics.com/paccreditation.html

So some criteria for accreditation organizations would seem to be needed if they are to be used in deciding what qualifies as an "academic discipline".

The linked pdf document seems to be about the Master of Divinity degree. I didn't find the phrase "Christian Ministry" in the document. It occurs to me that the term is imprecise in that it doesn't necessarily indicate whether one is talking about teaching, counseling, or music.

Divinity is one of the most established academic disciplines. The article on Yale says that it "was founded to train ministers." It still offers a Master of Divinity degree. According to their website, "Approximately 11,250 students attend Yale." -Ac44ck (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The suggested criteria sounds good as a starting point. It can always be adapted/improved later, as needed. Almost nothing is fixed in stone, around here :) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've used "Christian Ministry" as an all-inclusive stand-in for the vocational training for Christian clergy and workers found in seminaries and Bible colleges. It is indeed not a commonly accepted term. "Divinity" or "Christian Theology" is my term for the non-vocational intellectual study (from a believer's perspective) of Christian doctrine. "Religion" as an academic field includes the study of all aspects of Christianity from a non-believer's perspective.

"Christian Ministry" is vocationally oriented. And there are Doctors of Ministry. Likewise, there are multitudes of Doctors of Education, Doctors of Business Administration. Whether a subject qualifies as an academic discipline, in some marginal cases, depends on extrinsic, social factors, as much as intrinsic characters of the field of study. --Palaeovia^talk 00:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have applied the following, though they are not listed in the inclusion criteria:

• The item in the list must link to a relevant Wikipedia article.
• The linked Wikipedia article must contain some suggestion that the pursuit is an "academic discipline", as defined elsewhere in the inclusion criteria for this list.

That could save the effort to prove that the discipline is not listed in some external database. For me, "success" in checking to see that something _is_ where I am looking is usually more satisfying (and demonstrable) than the reverse. "Whatsit is on page 4" may be more convincing (and less subject to version tag) than "I didn't find it in 400 pages of text. If you look, you won't find it either — unless they 'upgrade' the text in the mean time."

Might we include these two additional criteria in the lead? Or maybe the lead can refer to an "inclusion criteria" section which precedes the list. That section could be a place for the inclusion criteria to grow. -Ac44ck (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of these additional criteria. Highlighting the inclusion criteria in a seperate section preceding the list also seems an excellent idea. Let's see if the notion of "academic discipline" can be saved from being dumbed down here. Thanks for pruning the list.--Palaeovia^talk 23:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does this list contain links to nonexistent articles?

Links to nonexistent articles appear in my browser as red links. The link for thermal engineering was red until I created an article for it.

If a topic is truly an "academic discipline" and it is generally recognized as such, wouldn't it have an article mentioning something about pursuing or practicing that discipline?

As noted by elsewhere on this talk page (September 2007), the name of this article doesn't seem indicative of its content.

The article on air safety talks about certifying aircraft (machines), not academics (people). The organizations in the "Institutions" section seem to be regulatory bodies, not academic institutions.

"Postal administration" is listed as a "transportation" discipline. It is an important profession to countless people every day, but it is linked to the general Post office article, which does not contain the word "administration".

An effort to "cull" the article in September 2007 was resisted. That effort seemed to end with a demand for proof of a negative: that the topic was _not_ an academic discipline, which may be impossible to prove; and the effort to try is likely to offend those engaged in the discipline.

The current focus on what _is_ an academic discipline places the burden of proof on those who want their field to be listed here.

The following seems preferable to "Your profession is not an academic discipline because of thus and so.":

"I didn't find an abundance of evidence confirming (insert topic here) as an academic discipline, so I removed it from this list."

If the criteria are clear, one may counter with evidence that it is adequately-recognized as such.

Can we:

1. Come to some consensus on the criteria for an "academic discipline", and
2. Remove some topics from this list?

-Ac44ck (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree. (I'm lacking time this week, and reinstalling my OS, but will try to keep an eye on this, and help out if possible). Thanks for your efforts :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree fully with your proposed improvements. We should formulate our definition of an academic discipline in the article lead, and then remove subjects that probably don't qualify.

Let's adopt your criterion and modify as needed. Do we want to explicitly justify every academic discipline in the list? (I don't see the need.) If we do, then we should include sources such as the List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago as an inclusion criterion. This would greatly reduce the effort needed to justify all the traditional disciplines.--Palaeovia^talk 00:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I added text to mention the inclusion criteria and removed most items which aren't linked to articles.

I agree that explicitly justifying every academic discipline is too onerous. Perhaps the List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States can be an inclusion criterion — if it can be safeguarded from questionable expansion, such as:

http://www.magdalene-church-institute.org/institute/index.htm

Doctor of Parapsychology (D.Psy.)

Providing some justification for deleting an item might be useful. -Ac44ck (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The following are databases of online journals found in Academic journal. Perhaps we could evaluate the quality of the journals they include (whether junk journals are found there?). We could then justify the deletion of a subject (to be restored if later shown to meet the inclusion criterion), if it is not within the scope of an academic journal found in any of these databases.

• JournalSeek - A Searchable Database of Online Scholarly Journals
• Links to the world's electronic journals
• Electronic journals available onsite at the British Library

--Palaeovia^talk 05:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A better idea: This list of academic journals from ISI Web of Knowledge should contain only bona fide academic journals, and would serve well as a deletion criterion:

• The Thomson Scientific (TS) Research Services Group Master Journal List (browse Journal List, search Journal List by title)

--Palaeovia^talk 06:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the first list: If a topic is not listed in any of the databases, it would seem to be a likely candidate for deletion — provided the scope of the database includes related disciplines. I don't know that I am qualified, nor have the time, to evaluate the quality of many journals.

Concerning the Journal list, it seems to be for scientific disciplines. It is probably a reliable guide for the scientific disciplines.

My procedure in trimming the engineering section wasn't so sophisticated. It was essentially a "smell test". I did a quick Google search using the words that I expected to see in the name of the masters degree. If the first page contained a couple hits that looked like legitimate masters degrees, I didn't delete the item. If no links stood out on the first page, I looked at a second page of hits. If it still looked unpromising, I deleted the item. Not as thorough as I might have been, but it got the first pass for the section "done" to the point that I am satisfied that it isn't overly bloated at this point.

I am less familiar with items in other sections, so I am not as quick to be deleting things there. -Ac44ck (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The Thomson Scientific (TS) Research Services Group Master Journal List (browse Journal List, search Journal List by title) includes high quality academic journals in Arts and Humanities, Science, and Social Science (and Medicine, Engineering, too). Its journal selection processes is described here. I think it is one of the best sources for finding quality academic journals.

On the other hand, Genamics Journal Search contains "Sports Illustrated" and similar magazines [1]. However it does contain a good collection of academic journals, too.

I would propose the following as a criterion for deletion: If a subject is not within the scope of an academic journal that is listed in either the TS list (15458 titles) or the Genamics database (94215 titles), then it is tentatively deleted. If it is shown to satisfy the inclusion criterion, then it is to be restored.--Palaeovia^talk 09:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely unlikely that the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago will include Creation science, Crystal healing or Astrology in the List of fields of doctoral studies in the United States in the future. I am in favor of including this list as an inclusion criterion, to forestall any frivolous challenge with regard to the traditional academic disciplines. --Palaeovia^talk 15:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Trimmed list of engineering disciplines

Tried (unquoted) three-word search string in Google of the form "masters __ engineering". Removed items for which an abundance of masters programs were not found:

• Acoustical engineering
• Food engineering
• HVAC engineering
• Combat engineering
• Design engineering
• Thermal engineering
• Naval engineering

Eliminated items which redirect or are linked elsewhere:

• Aeronautical engineering redirects to Aerospace engineering
• Production engineering redirects to Industrial engineering
• Automotive systems engineering links to Automotive engineering

Removed items which do not have 'engineering' not in the of the target article:

• Artificial intelligence
• Robotics
• Ergonomics

Removed items which link to an article which stress is mostly about something other than the engineering aspects of the topic:

• Quality assurance engineering

-Ac44ck (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Several deletions on 2008-10-09 explained

The following have been deleted because either the target article or a quick Google search suggested that the item does not meet the inclusion criteria:

• Office systems management

Target article is office, which doesn't contain the phrase, "office systems management". The link provides no indication that there is a field of study known by the name used.

• Secretarial studies

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34812196_ITM

Secretarial Science and Office Management subject has been omitted from the higher secondary-level curricula in general

• Toy and amusement design

Links to the toy article, which doesn't seem to address the academic qualifications of designers.

• Personal styling

Links to Personal stylist, which says:

Training is offered by a number of Image schools and can take up to an intense month to complete.

The availability of additional instruction is not mentioned.

• Jewellery design

The article for practitioners is Jewelry designer, which doesn't mention academic study:

Today's jewelry designers are often professionals with knowledge of Gemology, Metalsmithing and Rendering

How did they gain that knowledge?

• Perfume design

http://www.perfumeoflife.org/lofiversion/index.php/t2225.html

There is no degree in perfumery as far as I know

A profession which prefers to remain a secret art would seem to exclude itself from being considered an academic discipline.

• Professional portraiture

This is a branch of photography, which is performed by a photographer, the article for which does not mention academic study:

A professional photographer uses photography to make a living.

• Wardrobe stylist

From the linked article:

at present there are no specific requirements for the position

I would expect the target article to:

1. Contain the listed name of the discipline
2. Discuss how one may study the discipline

-Ac44ck (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Setting parameters for inclusiveness into list

First of all, I appreciate the diligent work of Ac44ck in trying to improve this article; I honestly do. As such, and given that I rarely make strongly substantive reverts (unless something is clearly vandalism), and given that I also respect efforts to make the article better and more relevant, let me explain my reasons for the change at this juncture.

While, again, I respect efforts to make the article better and more relevant (including, of course, its list-related elements), I unfortunately don't feel that there has been an adequate chance to debate the restrictive parameters lain down by a single editor (e.g., a field needing to have five major universities offering at least a master's degree in it) for a field's inclusion into the list in the article. As this article also serves a reference function via the "Content Listings" box, I feel that such debate is especially needed to come to an adequate community consensus regarding the shape that this article takes.

The various fields that I have listed and inserted in the list have all been found, to some significant extent, to have college/university-related connections; most of them even have a bachelor's degree, at least, offered at an accredited, respected university. Admittedly, I'm more of an inclusionist here, and have taken the position that fields which are "strongly emergent", despite seemingly "totally vocational", can judiciously be included (albeit perhaps with an asterisk attached). One can look at fields such as home economics (aka consumer and family sciences) and think, "Those things don't belong in college!" And still, not everything "field-related" out there is a "college field". However, fields such as professional concierge and fashion-accessories design are commonly seeking out those with at least four-year degrees with expertise in areas such as nutrition and design (much as the home economics field does today). These fields, I also feel, are emergent academic disciplines with their own research tools and body of knowledge. Now, this doesn't shield any field added to the list from debate by any means — but I very respectfully feel that there should be more community consensus and case-by-case dealings with fields to help determine appropriateness for the aforementioned list.

In conclusion, I am really seeking a sense of completeness for the list and its overall usefulness, as well as more community consensus. This, by no means, means that things can't change, however. Thank you for your hopeful understanding, and again, debate is welcome. —Regards, Catdude (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you have been active here when the current discussion started, I assumed that you had decided not to contribute to the discussion. Clearly "Personal service and related occupations" and "Human physical performance and recreation" (in which you have particular interest) are the sections most vulnerable to pruning. I was aware of your interest here, but assumed that you did not object to the changes. By all means, let's deliberate with a spirit of building consensus. I am in no hurry.--Palaeovia^talk 07:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)