Category talk:Nature

Untitled

These category pages have popped everywhere but I cannot see where we can discuss if they are a good idea. Is there a talk category somewhere?--BozMo|talk 13:24, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Categorization. Angela.

Including articles on the category page

I've included the Nature article using {{:Nature}}, which makes the category page itself more useful. Is this a good idea? Angela. 14:37, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

I think this sets a bad precedent. We should have some sort of overview of the category topic, but not actually quote the corresponding article (but link to it, certainly). See, for example, Category:Mathematics and Category:Philosophy. Besides, including the whole article pushes the actual "Category" content way too far down the page. And it obscures the actual purpose of having Category pages in the first place. In other words, I'm against it. <g> - dcljr 10:27, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with dcljr. Fredrik | talk 12:06, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The category pages should only include a brief summary so you don't have to scroll to see the contents of the category. They could also include links to requested articles in that category, but for that I think we should have a feature that allows us to place such links below the main category content.--Eloquence*

Category

I moved it from Category:Fundamental to Category:Structure as the article on structure states that nature is considered a part of "structure", which is a very encompassing concept. Esnaz (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Are the Phenomena part of Nature or vice versa?

Main discussion here: Talk:Nature#Are the Phenomena part of Nature or vice versa? Regards, --W like wiki ^{good to know} 06:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)