Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taxonomy (general)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. The keeps have it, for good arguments see Carrite's comment. Not a DICDEF; content and sources, it seems agreed upon, carry this over that threshold. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Taxonomy (general)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Violation of WP:NOT, which says that "articles rarely, if ever, contain more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title", which is all this page does. The word "taxonomy" is just a common word. There is nothing to bridge biological and military taxonomy except the act of classifying, which they both have in common with almost every other human activity. I note that the current article is missing a taxonomy of ontological arguments. —Srnec (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment we have an general article on diving things into groups and grouping them (classification), at categorization. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Categorization (and classification (general) should also redirect there) -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I could live with that. It would be an improvement on the status quo. Srnec (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose (at this stage) This proposed deletion is part of a larger restructure that is presently under discussion here. That discussion should be completed first. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I would have done it in stages if I thought one move depended on the other. I believe this page ought to be deleted regardless of what happens to the other page, and I believe that page ought to be moved regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Srnec (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The rationale is muddled. The existing entry is not a dictionary definition.  Pointing out that the article is missing something that it should have is hardly a rationale for deletion. aprock (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the existing entry was not a dictionary definition. I said that it violated the policy described at WP:NOT, because it "contain[s] more than one distinct definition or usage of the article's title." I was not "[p]ointing out that the article is missing something", I was pointing out that the article is a random collection of ways in which the word taxonomy has been used. Such instances could be multiplied ad nauseum. There's a disambiguation page for that. Srnec (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose at this stage. Agree with above opposition to the deletion: the article is missing something and has a plethora of other matter, but just deleting it would be premature. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose; with all due respect, the original rationale for deletion amounts to a fussy, pedantic (mis-)use of WP:NOT. this article is USEFUL; that matters. it's a kind of article-length disambiguation page, & that's NOT A BAD THING.  as for the arguement about taxonomy = classification so merge & be done, i'd suggest that i) it is still useful to have the various "taxonomies" disambiguated, & ii) the useage of "taxonomy" has specificities within the larger topic of "classification"; in that the 2 words are not always & exactly interchangeable in english use. how we should handle that, i do not know. in deciding to operate wiktionary as a completely separate wikiproject, we left certain questions of how to handle "the science of words" in a messy limbo.  Lx 121 (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yeeesh, I haven't smelled this many socks since I was in Junior High gym class... What the hell is "Oppose" supposed to mean? Carrite (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All the "Oppose" voters seem to be spillover from the RfC linked to above, where "Oppose" would be a reasonable vote. I think feelings are running high and they just didn't remember that one doesn't vote "Oppose" at AfD.  It's clear from their contributions that they're not socks.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What RFC? Srnec (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. I meant your requested move at Talk:Taxonomy_(biology).&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - While we need to guard against trying to make WP into a dictionary, which it is not, this provides a breadth of in-links and encyclopedic information. Worth keeping around, for sure, "the force" would be lessened by its deletion... Carrite (talk) 01:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The information belongs elsewhere. The article as it stands misleadingly implies that there is a general sense of "taxonomy" apart from its dictionary definition. Srnec (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments – (1) Some of the information might belong elsewhere, but deleting this would be a major mistake. This material is extremely difficult philosophy that requires tiny iterative improvements. (2) Although the sock-accusation above is too abominable to deserve a response, this much I will say, that "Oppose" means that I oppose the set of proposals put forward by Srnec of which this is just one; another is that Taxonomy (biology) should be renamed. These broad-stroke suggestions would seriously damage the information that has so far been built, careful consensus-building is required here. Abusive behaviours such as sock-puppet allegations against those who built the previous consensus are deplorable. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "This material is extremely difficult philosophy that requires tiny iterative improvements"? What does that mean? How is this philosophy? And what makes it difficult? It seems really basic to me: "taxonomy" is a synonym for "system of classification" and has been widely used that way. Srnec (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - this ain't Mudkip, folks. &rarr;  Stani Stani  05:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Should we next delete bibliography or concept? Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I answer this objection below. Srnec (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, if this is a dicdef, then half the articles in Wikipedia are dicdefs. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC).
 * I didn't say it's a dicdef, I said violates a part of the guideline called DICDEF. I quoted that part. Try again. Srnec (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - No valid reason has been given for deletion. So what if the article violates NOT#DICTDEF in some tangential way?  It's not a reason for deletion. At best it's a case for renaming to "List of general types of taxonomy" or something, but how would that clarify or improve anything about this encyclopedia?  The nomination is clearly motivated by some internal subtlety of the above-linked-to-RfC which I can't be bothered to disentangle.  It's ludricrous on its face.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It would improve the encyclopedia by removing a piece of misleading OR and SYNTH. There are no "general types of taxonomy", there's just the word and its uses, most importantly its primary one (biological). When Graham Oppy used it to refer to his naming of types of ontological arguments in the external link I provided in the nomination, was he employting a general type or scheme of taxonomy? No, he was just classifying arguments by form and premises and calling it a "taxonomy", probably to indicate that he was attempting to be both rigorous and exhaustive, like biological taxonomy. Srnec (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I had no idea this would be so hard to explain. The article currently reads: "Almost anything—animate objects, inanimate objects, places, concepts, events, properties, and relationships—may then be classified according to some taxonomic scheme." Why almost anything? Can't anything be classified? And the word "some" is a weasel: there is no such thing as "a taxonomic scheme", because there are as many taxonomic schemes as people come up with. There is nothing distinctly "taxonomic" about one scheme for classifying over against another. "Taxonomy" is just a fancy word for classification and nomenclature, often used to indicate an attempt at rigor. There is no such thing as "general taxonomy" and the word has no technical sense outside of its appropriation by distinct disciplines for entirely distinct classification schemes. This is different from bibliography, which is a both a discipline unto itself, the same across multiple disciplines, and concept, which is a technical term in philosophy (that is the sense the article is about). Srnec (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you can find sources for your position, you could cite them in the article. FWIW I completely disagree with every one of your statements in the paragraph. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof does not lie on me. According to Oxford Reference, taxonomy is "The formal classification of organisms, soils, or any other entities, based on degrees of relatedness among the items being considered." This is the closest I can find to something like a general non-biological sense of taxonomy, but it is not at all like the sense used in the article. But then,"degree of relatedness" could describe anything. The current article is a grab-bag of instances of usage of the word, but there is no source in the article that talks about "taxonomy" as a general term of art or distinguishes "general taxonomy" from the dictionary definition. Where are your sources? Srnec (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof does lie on you, because you proposed the deletion. The Oxford Reference you have found completely ignores phylogenetic taxonomy; I'd call that a not-very-good definition. So you are saying that because we haven't yet summarized Wittgenstein's work in this article (a famously difficult thing to do accurately) that it should be deleted. Deletionism is not helpful to wikipedia's future. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly you are not suggesting that family resemblance has nothing to do with relatedness? Not that I was defending the Oxford definition, quite the opposite. Srnec (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even if "general taxonomy" is not an independent discipline but one that is only appropriated for distinct classification schemes, I still see value in having a parent article.  The Blue Canoe  00:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Taxidermy, a much more exciting topic, which even has a picture of a tiger in it. Volunteer Marek 01:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.