Changes

:::::I'll take a stab at it if I have time; it's just that I've never edited anything this major before (and by major I mean this is a huge umbrella with potential for high traffic. I've only done dead-end articles - or "leaf" articles, in computer terminology =P). The section on scientific method could go then. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 12:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::I'll take a stab at it if I have time; it's just that I've never edited anything this major before (and by major I mean this is a huge umbrella with potential for high traffic. I've only done dead-end articles - or "leaf" articles, in computer terminology =P). The section on scientific method could go then. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 12:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: The article was simply "science", but Ed Poor changed it, as the content didn't cover things like social science.  I would have been happy for it to stay as 'science', but otherwise, I've been thinking that a better name would be 'natural science'.  It would then cover biology as well.  It could certainly do with being expanded, but the operational/origins science part is important and definitely should stay.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: The article was simply "science", but Ed Poor changed it, as the content didn't cover things like social science.  I would have been happy for it to stay as 'science', but otherwise, I've been thinking that a better name would be 'natural science'.  It would then cover biology as well.  It could certainly do with being expanded, but the operational/origins science part is important and definitely should stay.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)