Talk:Scheme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Disambiguation  
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
 
WikiProject Systems (Rated Disambig-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
Disambiguation page Disambig  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This page has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This page is within the field of Scientific modeling.
 

A view[edit]

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"[edit]

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)