Template talk:Geophysics-stub

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Stub sorting This template is maintained by WikiProject Stub sorting, an attempt to bring some sort of order to Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to improve/expand the articles containing this stub notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Physics This template is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Geology This template is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

Always physics and geology is not accurate

Why does this template cause an article to be listed both as a geophysics article and as a physics stub? Arguably anything in the sciences belongs in physics, from botany to zoology of marine mammals, but that doesn't mean it works well as a categorizing scheme. My paleontology articles are definitely geophysics stubs, but they're not necessarily physics stubs. --KP Botany (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KP - I feel that paleontology generally isn't geophysics (unless it involves some kind of geophysical surveying), because geophysics isn't simply geology when physics is used. Could you give some of the articles you mentioned so that I could look at their classification?

But to your main point, thankfully someone (User:Sv1xv) finally changed this from cross-listing as geology and physics, to geophysics and physics. I'm going to be bold, remove this from "physics", and add Category:Geophysics stubs to physics, so it shows up as a subcategory of both. Awickert (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]