Talk:Taxonomy (general)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Military taxonomy[edit]

The first paragraph of Military taxonomy seems a bit orotund. Kaldari (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Good faith and cooperation[edit]

While we are in difficulties with trying to establish our approach to everyone's satisfaction is a poor time to delete everything one wishes to challenge. Please try for a bit of support instead. JonRichfield (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Examples of Taxonomies[edit]

I was trying to find out if the Dublin Schema is a Taxonomy or Ontology (or both) in order to list it as an example ( for meta-tagging web pages is another). Anyone know which it is? MaryEFreeman (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Taxonomy (general)Taxonomy – The descriptor (general) suggests that this is the most general sense of the word. It should therefore be the main topic, with Taxonomy moved to Taxonomy (disambiguation). Note that a recent proposal to merge Taxonomy (general) with Categorization received no support. Cnilep (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Support – Per proposer's rationale and WP:TITLE. Kind regards, (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – the main use of "taxonomy" is the biological one; the application of the term outside biology, i.e. "generally", is secondary. A more accurate descriptor would be "(other than biology)", but this is clumsy and "(general)" is better. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Agree that Taxonomy (general) is about the overall science of classification; however, I disagree that Taxonomy (biology) is the main use of the term. That was true in the past, however at present both of these have come to vie with each other to define "taxonomy", and both therefore fail wp:Primary topic. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 19:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The page should be deleted. There is no such thing as general taxonomy. Srnec (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the general conception is not necessarily the primary topic or common conception. There are many instances where a more specific form is known by the general moniker more widely than the general form. -- (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I also doubt that Taxonomy (biology) is necessarily the main sense of the word. APerson241 (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Historically "taxonomy" was very closely aligned with the biological sense. The last few decades have seen the claiming of old terms in new areas. New areas sometimes use a differing sense as the division of taxonomies and ontologies becomes blured. It's doubtful that the biological sense is dominant much less a majority given its pervasive use for organization of concepts, processes, and tools in education, STEM outside biology, information and computer science, and business and economics as listed at Taxonomy. A majority or dominant area seems to be the threshold for WP:Primary topic.
    SBaker43 (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment – 1. Websters and the Britannica both give a general meaning as the first meaning, and a biological meaning as the second. The general use of the term is not secondary to its biological use. 2. If there would be no such thing as general taxonomy, the page should neither be deleted, but renamed. 3. I don't think the proposer wants to push that this sense is the most general, hence the proposed removal of "(general)". 4. Any doubts concerning the biological sense don't directly matter here. 5. I think that a neutrally named article should comply with the idea that there is no primary general meaning. Kind regards (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
    And yet, if the "(general)" is simply removed, then the contents of that article will become the "primary topic" listed at the TOP of the disambiguation page, isn't that so? While the "general" sense of taxonomy is listed first in other references, that does not make it the primary topic, especially since the biological sense of taxonomy still effectively vies for that distinction. Just saying. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 20:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The article could include a respective section. Kind regards, (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Right; there is no reason in principle that an article on sundry types of taxonomies couldn't start with a section noting biological taxonomies are a common, typical sort, with a {{main}} tag linking to Taxonomy (biology). (By the way, I have no personal opinion on whether there is a prototypical kind of taxonomy.) Cnilep (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tools for Recording, Representing, Refining, and Reporting Taxonomies[edit]

Are there well-accepted tools used to record, modify, expand, refine, and report on a taxonomy? Simple taxonomies can be illustrated using general tools such as graphics programs (PowerPoint), spreadsheets, word processors, etc. What I am asking about (and seeking) is a general taxonomy representation tool. (Genealogy tools are a specific example, but not flexible or general enough.) Perhaps XML fills this need, but is not a "Desktop Taxonomy Workbench" solution that is readily useful to a casual user. Are there other solutions? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

With a bit of research, I located the Smartlogic tool "Semaphore." This seems to be a heavyweight version of what I have in mind. What alternatives are there? Is there, or should we create, a list of such tools? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
A starting point for creating such a list may be: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbeaumont (talkcontribs) 21:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)