Talk:Scheme

A view
To create an entry, "scheme," just in order to give a brief definition seems unproductive to me. On my view, articles that simply give a brief, mediocre definition of a word are best left uncreated; the notion of a conceptual scheme is much-studied by philosophy. That deserves an encyclopedia entry--not a definition, but a discussion of what has been said about conceptual schemes. --LMS

''Larry, what are you trying to tell me here? Try to be constructive. An entry for "Scheme" already existed, describing the programming language. I wanted to point out that the word Scheme also has a more general meaning. Anybody is free to add pointers to conceptual schemes or whatever they find relevant. Anybody arriving at the entry for "scheme" (by search, link, or otherwise) should be interested in finding a roadmap of different meanings of the word, or at least I would. -- Should we be silent about the non-programming language meaning of the word? Should I go on to write about conceptual schemes? (Sorry, I hardly have the knowledge.) Or should I simply go away?'' --LA2

I thought I was being constructive. No, I don't want you to go away! I'd just like you to concentrate your energies on your areas of expertise. What irritated me (I admit it, I was irritated) was that you created a link to an article, called "scheme," on a topic on which there is expert "knowledge" (i.e., what philosophers theorize about conceptual schemes), and yet what you wrote did little more than give a rather mediocre definition of a term that any reasonably well-educated person understands. I don't see what value there is in doing that, other than to create a node in a web of mediocre dictionary definitions. This inspired me to write Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

Sorry for being so harsh; this is an issue that has been bubbling away in the back of my mind for a few months now, and finally various recent contributions have crystallized my distaste for these dictionary-definition type entries. --LMS

"in the future"
I have removed the words "in the future" from the first sentence of the article as they are inappropriate in the context of classification schemes. Looking at the other examples listed, it seems to me that those words are also inappropriate in most of their contexts. Misha Wolf (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The article now lists URI scheme twice, once under Computing and once under See also
Hi @Mathglot, as a result of your edit, the article now lists "URI scheme" twice, once under "Computing" and once under "See also". Misha Wolf (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks; will fix. Mathglot (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. Mathglot (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)