 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Some colleague may have hijacked the metadata-oriented article to use the 'pedia to substitute for a dictdef or article about the role of
wikt:subordination in linguistics, and nobody seems to have previously done anything about it. My edit here, and the related ones among my edits today, do more to call attention to the atrocity than to fix it. My excuse is that it is more likely to lead to it getting fixed than doing nothing, and that i've stopped without doing any real harm.
--
Jerzy•
t
17:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I've added "classification scheme" as a further meaning of "scheme" on page Scheme. Comments are most welcome! Misha Wolf ( talk) 22:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Here's the edit comment from Jerzy's rename from 2016.
Jerzy moved page Classification scheme to Comparison and contrast of classification schemes in linguistics and metadata: Bastard article with a double lead has been created and needs an expert (or two cooperating) to split in two, and ...
Four years on, Jerzy's hopeful hypothesis that conjoined benefactors will come along to fix this page with a horrible page title has proven unfounded.
For myself, I can't make any sense of whether this page should exist, other than the large number of inbound links to the classification scheme redirect.
I would suggest a careful comparison with semantic spectrum as there seems to be unreasonable overlap and much of the current content could perhaps be pushed there, leaving this page to take on the subject from a higher perspective befitting information science (ideally without then overlapping classification (general theory).
Is there a sweet spot in between? I have no idea; not my dog, really, so I've done what I could. — MaxEnt 00:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Some colleague may have hijacked the metadata-oriented article to use the 'pedia to substitute for a dictdef or article about the role of
wikt:subordination in linguistics, and nobody seems to have previously done anything about it. My edit here, and the related ones among my edits today, do more to call attention to the atrocity than to fix it. My excuse is that it is more likely to lead to it getting fixed than doing nothing, and that i've stopped without doing any real harm.
--
Jerzy•
t
17:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I've added "classification scheme" as a further meaning of "scheme" on page Scheme. Comments are most welcome! Misha Wolf ( talk) 22:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Here's the edit comment from Jerzy's rename from 2016.
Jerzy moved page Classification scheme to Comparison and contrast of classification schemes in linguistics and metadata: Bastard article with a double lead has been created and needs an expert (or two cooperating) to split in two, and ...
Four years on, Jerzy's hopeful hypothesis that conjoined benefactors will come along to fix this page with a horrible page title has proven unfounded.
For myself, I can't make any sense of whether this page should exist, other than the large number of inbound links to the classification scheme redirect.
I would suggest a careful comparison with semantic spectrum as there seems to be unreasonable overlap and much of the current content could perhaps be pushed there, leaving this page to take on the subject from a higher perspective befitting information science (ideally without then overlapping classification (general theory).
Is there a sweet spot in between? I have no idea; not my dog, really, so I've done what I could. — MaxEnt 00:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)