Untill this moment, no decision has been made by the Wikipedia administration regarding the renaming. I wonder if we can do something more here. I'm afraid we have been to busy with the Category:Systems to give this more consideration. - Mdd19:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I've seen that this Category:Systems stubs is put up for deletion. I've had I similair problem at the Dutch Wikipedia. The way to go here was, that you had to make a proposal first. And in a parent directory there should be a least twenty stubs to begin with. The situations in Holland is even more complicated. They don't like stubs at all and try to reduce them all the time. I hope this will help you a little - Mdd11:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I have asked if a post hoc proposal can be initiated or if we have to wait now. A learning process on the procedure I guess! — Jonathan Bowen17:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quit clear what this means. Does this mean, that we have a own type of stubs now? If that's the case I gratulate you Jonathan for geting this on the road. - Mdd19:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I was not aware of that possibility. Am I right that you are the editor, who initiated this. The hole article Wikipedia:Deletion review gave me some more information about what this is about. I wonder who can contribute here? and has I any change of succes?
In Holland I had a larger discussion with LimoWreck, who contacted User:Radiant! see [3], who unfortunately didn't react. I still wonder who this Radiant is, and what kind of hidden agenda he had making that decision.
Getting the Category:Systems back is not a top priority for me at this moment. I prefer to work around it. Explore new possibility. It's maybe a good thing you go straight ahead here. Last but not least... I rapported the category missing [4] - Good luck - Mdd22:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the info. Do add you comment/vote under Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_April_20#Category:Systems anyway. I believe any Wikipedia editor can vote, and it is worth adding a comment if you believe that Wikipedia guidelines were not followed properly (as I do now having actually read the WP:OC overcategorization guidelines. See especially WP:OC#Unrelated_subjects_with_shared_names which I think is what has been applied (although this was not made explicit in the Call for Deletion). It seems that it was a fine judgement because "keep" votes (actually the majority) concentrated on "usefulness" rather than Wikipedia guidelines/policy. — Jonathan Bowen02:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I suppose that this argument should be brought forward at the Deletion Review talk. Greetings - Mdd22:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The appeal is closed
Sorry Jonathan. I guess we lost the appeal against the decision of the Wikipedia Administration to decide to delete the Category:Systems. It's becoming quiet a bureaucracy, with it's own bureaucratical lanquage: The deletion is endorsed, they say. I looked it up. In Holland this means bekrachtigd. Now I understand. I'm further under the impression that this admistration is aware of our discussion here. Maybe even watching over our shoulders, given their explaination by the decision [5]:
Category:Systems – Deletion endorsed. (Of course, discussion of any different recreations is free to continue elsewhere.) – Xoloz 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I personaly don't regret this outcome. Like I said before [6] I am not so sure this a bad thing. Several people where under the impression that the last state of the :Category:Systems (before deletion) was a mess. I liked it a lot, but I also like the solution we are working on now. - Mdd19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like this talk about an alternative Category:Systems starts with an intention. (from [7]):
People in real life called objects systems, and still name objects a ...system because they have someting in common: some unkown quality sometimes called complexity. By putting the articles called ...systems in one category, we group articles about objects, that have that one quality in common... The category was intented to let people find about objects with that one same quality.
A & B and their intersection
There are however difference kind of systems:
You have all the objects in the world, that people in society call systems, say A.
... and you have the objects (systems) scientists talk about, say B.
And those two don't match. The object people talk about are meanly material things, with some complexity. Scientists speak about more general formal concepts. The objects they talk about are meanly idea's, or inmaterial sytems.
Now the former category [8] was about A and B. One alternative solution can be:
In this situation the Category systems is back for categories and articles about systems in theory and practice. This looks like a theoretical solution. - Mdd14:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
From a practical point of view - a category for "A" is trivial and not at all encyclopedic ("stuff that people call systems" is not an interesting field). The topic of "B" is not at all trivial and certainly encyclopedic as a scientific field. However, a category for "B" will almost certainly be used for "A" as well by well-meaning but misunderstanding editors. Note that people tend not to read description sections on cat pages. Thus, we either need a better name for it that is not as easily misunderstood, if possible, or we need a list article instead. >Radiant<15:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This proposal seems too abstract. It's really difficult to distinguish between A and B, and the average Wikipedia user would get confused. Besides, as a scientist, I tend to think of systems in the same sense that I would as a layperson. (Maybe I'm not the right kind of scientist.) I also think that this is just going to lead to the creation of a category with things named "system". It just does not look like it is going to work. Dr. Submillimeter15:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
On these high level categories, there needs to be an objective way to convey the membership criteria as well as an objective way to create subcategories. Expecting the title of the category to convey the membership criteria is not reasonable. The membership criteria for Category:Systems can be set out in the lead paragraph to Category:Systems. As for that lead paragraph category membership criteria, it needs to be objective. Stating that the Category:Systems should meet your expert, personal understanding of systems is subjective and not the Wikipedia way. Wikipedia process does not really address making categories objective as well as it addresses making articles objective. Category:Newspapers was a mess before we tied it to the information in the Newspaper article as the objective membership criteria. It still might be a mess, but the Newspaper article provides definitions and framework from which points of agreement can be reached and objective criteria can arise. As the newspaper article changes per Wikipedia process, so will the category. Category:Systems should be tied to the systems article as the objective membership criteria. That way, those interested in this matter can discuss formulating Category:Systems by revising the systems article per the numerous Wikipedia processes governing articles. Consensus already established the structure and definitions in the systems article so I don't believe that there needs to be additional consensus on creating a Category:Systems based on that systems article since the consensus already is there. -- Jreferee17:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to see this issue as one of Wikipedia:Naming conventions. System has multiple meanings.[9] Is there one meaning of system that dominates over other meanings? If yes, then Category:Systems can be named "Category:Systems" and use that meaning as the membership criteria. If no, then having a "Category:Systems" name may cause too much confusion and there should only be "Category:Systems (xxxxx)" names. -- Jreferee17:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
First of all. I made a first draft of the three possible categories:
As you can see in the first category, the alternative of Jonathan Bowen is put into this solution. The three categories are not meant as the only solution but as opening for more alternative views. - Mdd20:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Comment to Radiant: Thanks, in your lines I read two statements:
... (You think that) a category for "A" ..."Stuff that people call systems" is not an interesting field...
... a category for "B" ... need a better name...
And with A out of the way, there is no category for "A&B". Your right about the first thing. But this argument is truth for 99% of all the articles. Does any person finds from all the 1 Million articles more then 10.000 articles interesting.
There is a general misunderstanding, that a gathering of systems are interesting for lots of people. How many articles in the category:science are interesting? Should we skip that? Two reasons for the creation of category A are:
There a lot of things in life people call systems and Wikipedians may highlight this phenomenon: in articles, list and categories.
If you don't wikipedians will put them in category B and in a year or so we have the same problem as today.
Comment to Dr. Submillimeter: Thanks, the abstract proposal is now realized in a first draft. Would this work? Like all abstract categories, for example Category:Science, these things need maintenance with a WikiProject Systems could provide. - Mdd21:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment to Jonathan Bowen: Thanks, the creation of high-level categories in the fields of systems, can only be based on generally accepted point of views. And this is as we know a mayor problem in the system science community. From the beginning in the 1950s there have been a jungle of systems-terms. A theortical problem in the Wikipedia is how to create a space, where different terms and point of views for the field, can be represented in an logical comprehesive way.
I think that the solution, you're working on with a higher-level category Physical systems and Conceptual Systems, can exist within the solution of three categorie, and be part of it. The fact remains, that the set of systems can be divided by different criteria.
I just stated in your talk page:
In terms of the discussion in the WikiProject Systems Talk: Your solution looks like a category B called Category:Conceptual systems, who is a parent of category A, here called Category:Physical systems. Instead of my alternative with three categories... This looks like an alternative solution with two categories B (father) and A (child).
Comment to Jreferee: Thanks, you mention that an article Systems should explain the intention of a category Systems, and the term Systems has multiple meaning... the 37 definitions the Google source mentioned are, I'm affraid, only the beginning. In the Dutch wikipedia [10] we looked at the meaning of systems in different fields: in music, philosophy, general science, systems theory and thermodynamics.
I agree with you that if higher level categories are made, articles should also be created to explain these categories. I put that argument in my first draft, and named corresponing articles. The fact remains als Radiant already daid, names must or can be better... - Mdd22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems that systems can be broken down into scientific systems and non-scientific systems. Since only scientific systems may have a purpose on Wikipedia, perhaps the top level category should be called Category:Scientific systems. By using Category:Systems, it seems to put Wikipedia in the position of using original research to define systems and then expecting the rest of the world to conform their WP:RS information to Wikipedia's cagegorization. There a lot of things in life people call systems and Wikipedia is designed to be a follower of such actions and is not designed to lead these people into a better way. Also, if the experts disagree as to what system means and it is a major problem in the system science community, it may be improper to use Wikipedia's publication muscle in an attempt to resolve that disagreement. -- Jreferee16:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll react to the first part later. Here about your concerns what a Category:Systems could add, and about defining systems. I think a high level Category:Systems itselve doesn't need an exact definition of systems. The Category:Systems can have two objectives:
To gather articles closely associated with the concept of systems (as Jonathan Bowen says)
To be the high level category for systems in theory and practice and closely related theory.
I think Category:Physical systems and Category:Conceptual systems is best as part of the initial breakdown of categories since these are accepted terms. The idea of systems appears in engineering, mathematics, philosophy, and the social sciences as well as the more traditional natural science subjects, so I don't think it is appropriate to use the term "scientific" at the top-level (speaking as an engineer, with an interest in mathematics and philosophy!). In any case the term "scientific system" is not a well-accepted term. For example, that is no existing article on this topic (as opposed to "system", "physical system" and "conceptual system" for example). Let's try to stick to accepted terms for names where possible.
See further discussion under User talk:Jpbowen#Compromise - looking for an alternative. I would suggest a minimalist approach at the top level — e.g., with just system as an article and all other articles that appear to be diffused by members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems to one or more appropriate sub-categories. Let's try to keep the top-level uncontroversial through diffusion of articles/categories. But I think a simple top-level Category:Systems category is important as a root for the area. With members of this project keeping an eye on the top level to diffuse artcles, I don't think maintenance will be a significant problem in practice (cf. Category:Museums that I alread maintain like this). Here is a suggested (draft) introduction:
This category is for high-level categories associated with the concept of systems. Articles should be placed in sub-categories.
Thanks, here also I will react to the first and last part later. Here some things about the naming of new subcategories you proposed in your talk page [11] and the definition problem...
But maybe first I have to stipulate, that I'm a not-native English speaker. I'm not able to express myselve in much detailed English. And I'm also not able to understand to much detailed terms. Second that I'm a Dutch Wikimediaan, and a guest at the English Wikipedia. The main reason why I mix myselve in these affair is, that I see this not as the Native English Wikipedia... but as the Universal Wikipedia, the example for all countries. This is the pleace where the standards are set.
Jonathan Bowen, could you place your draft category on a temporary page and point all related discussions to that page? This would add some clarity to these discussions.
The division into physical and conceptual systems that Jonathan Bowen has developed seems to work the best. For example, it divides the galaxies (a type of gravitationally-bound system) from the astronomical coordinate systems. The previous Category:Systems would have treated these things as equivalent. Also, the terms "physical system" and "conceptual system" can probably be understood by the average (English-language) editor without needing to study the terms in depth. (I understood without much difficulty.) This means that the average Wikipedia editor will probably use these categories correctly.
Jreferee, could you explain how to proceed on this? If we all agree, do we just recreate the category from scratch? (We should also probably link all of these discussions to the talk page of the new category.)
"Physical system" is a well accepted term (1,110,000 Google hits for example) and mainly applies to systems in natural science and engineering. "Conceptual system" is also a standard term, if less used (181,000 Google hits for comparison), and applies more to systems in the social sciences, philosophy, mathematics, etc. (essentially non-physical systems). I think this is a major initial split that gets around a lot of the problems noted by Dr. Submillimeter. From my point of view, I would rather avoid controversy, at least at the higher levels of the hierarchy, so feel it is best to diffuse articles to lower levels to help with this. Dr. Submillimeter seems to be happy with the suggested categories at the top level, which I hope demonstrates a reasonable level of acceptability. I would much prefer to stick with accepted nomenclature where possible, rather than inventing Wikipedia-specific terms. Just my tuppennyworth!
My preference would be to recreate the category with just the categories I suggested, a brief introduction to indicate that articles should not be at the top-level, and just the system article itself at the top-level. I think it important that there is a top-level for the overall systems concept, but that things are categorised at a lower level in general. I will create a draft category as suggested. — Jonathan Bowen22:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. One of my specialities is categorization of science. And now I understand that you want to make a split in systems & sciences. With a little interpretation I get:
Shouldn't a split in two kind of systems & sciences be at least based on a normal split in sciences. - Mdd23:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Summary: Four alternatives
From the former discussion I can destilate four alternatives:
One category about the systems scientists talk about. And stuff that people call systems is not an interesting field, so no high level category for them.
Sorry. It took a weeks to delete the Category:Systems. We shouldn't want to try to fix this in a minute. I for example have some serious questions about it. I think we should take some time (days(?) to think this over. There are some reasons for this. If we recreate this category and someone nominates it again for deletion... we must show we considered all option. I also would like to get response from Dr. Submillimeter, Jreferee, Radiant and maybe others. - Mdd23:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I think categories for stuff scientists talk about are generally useful. "Conceptual" and "Physical" systems would be better terms for that than "Systems (in practice)" and so forth. I wonder about the supercategory, though. If it just serves as placeholder for the conceptual and physical cats, it really isn't needed; the cats can just link to one another. I'm afraid that if we recreate it, it will once again become a cat for anything that has "system" in its name. Note that we already have Category:Systems theory, perhaps that can be used instead? >Radiant<10:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I think the next comparising will takes away some part of your concerns. For the renaming argument I will create a new section - Mdd11:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
(In response to Radiant!) I actually think that the category tree that Jonathan Bowen has derived would, to some degree, prevent Category:Systems from becoming a list of things called systems, especially since most other systems categories and articles are already located in subcategories. A diffuse tag may also help with preventing the category from being cluttered. I do share some concerns about this category in the long term, but I will assume on good faith that Jonathan Bowen will be able to maintain this category. Dr. Submillimeter20:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
A comparising of alternatives
A & B and their intersection
Now (the next day) I'm beginning to understand that the third alternative (of Jonathan Bowen) is more logical, than the second alternative (I suggested). They are based on different contrasts:
There is a second different concerning the new high levelCategory: Systems. The 2th draft [14] puts categories and articles about the theory of systems with the formal systems in B. The 3th draft [15] puts categories and articles about the theory of systems in the high level category A&B itselve. - Mdd11:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
This question of renaming is brought up by Radiant and I hereby made this a new point of discussion. In this talk three names have been suggested now. Reactions (also from newcomers) are welcome here.- Mdd11:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, except that it would be nice to give it a better title. Regardless of an explanation on the top of the cat page, a cat with an unclear title will me misused. >Radiant<08:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
We should at least make a list of arguments, why we think both option are out of the question. And ... I don't have the impression Radiant allready agrees. And ... last. This is not a democracy, where the mayority rules. We ... or I want to reach a concensus here. A situation where nowbody has mayor problems with the new situation - Mdd20:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I like Category:Systems as a name because it is simple and high-level. I think there is enough momentum behind this with the launch is a Systems project to ensure that the high-level contents remain simple. And I think other names are likely to be more controversial because they will have some sort of bias. In any case, if we restart with a new slimmed down systems category and there do prove to be problems in the future, it is still possible to propose a rename, but I do think we should give it is a little time first. The problem before was that the Category:Systems was just drifting rudderless. I don't think that is the case now! Is it possible to just recreate the category with the proposed sub-categories? What is the procedure in the case of recently removed categories that have had a makeover? I don't want to treat on anyone's toes! — Jonathan Bowen14:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This audit started 27 April 2007, and its targets are:
not merely investigate the proposal for a new Category:Systems but also
to evaluate the most important circumstances, moves and motives with let to this proposal,
to investigate underlaying problems, and
to come up with an final advice or plan of action.
In contrast to earlier discussion, this audit will go in different directions at the same time. Herefore a lay out of the entire audit structure is made at one's. After this, every participant can add new items, comments on these discussion-items, correct the final advice... and comment under the remaining items (again in chronological order). Good luck..!?
What (major) events led to this proposal?
There are some more or less important stages lead to this proposal:
Sept 2005: The old Category:Systems started and grew uncensored to its latest form, see (back up) [16]
11 April 2007: The category was nominated for deletion, and an discussion about this started, see [17]
20 April 2007: This WikiProject Systems is initiated to better organize the information about systems on the Wikipedia
20 April 2007: An appeal against the decision to delete the category: systems started a new discussion, see [18]
21 April 2007: A search for a copromise and alternative solution started here [19] and continued here [20]
26-27 April 2007: The participants of the latest discussion agreed to created a new Category:Systems. This audit started as experiment to think this over one's more.
A thing I still wonder is, why the old Category:Systems grew so large in articles, while there where so many subcategories to put these articles in? Was it just a lack of control? Could we learn from an answer here? And could we do a little experiment just cleaning the articles in that category? - Mdd13:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
In general that is because many editors use a category as its title indicates, rather than as the category is meant. To layman, anything that has "system" in the name is arguably a system. >Radiant<14:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe, besides maintaince a template can be made (like the cybernetic template) which gives editors a little more direction with the categorisation. But this is of cause not an answer to the question. - Mdd14:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I think this was partly because there was not an obvious hierarchy for diffusion of articles. I hope the Category:Physical systems and Category:Conceptual systems categories (and others) are a start for this. It was also partly because nobody was keeping a particular eye on it. I believe these problems can be solved with the Systems project underway and a start for a hierarchy. — Jonathan Bowen18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You might wonder, why we should ask this question at all? I brought this in with the following prelimanary (jump to) conclusions:
In practice the term systems is immens populair. Lot's of things are called a system.
In practice this term has multiple meaning, which are not represented in the lastest article systems. An extra article System (disambiguation) is an option.
In the field of systems theories the systems concept is important, but other concepts are important as well like: complexity, adaptivity, distribution... The systems term remains more the common term.
Thinking this hole history over, I came to the suspicion, that the problems we are dealing with here are larger than just reïnstating a Category:Systems. It's my impression that the article system isn't completely accurate. This could undermine all discussion, about what the category stystems could mean and collect. - Mdd14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Should we want to group everything called a system?
I think, that developing a more specific list of things called a system, we can bring new light to this question. - Mdd14:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Only things that are semantically "systems" (as considered by some field of study) should be included somewhere in the hierarchy. For example, if a pop group used the word "system" in their name, it would not be appropriate. — Jonathan Bowen18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Should we name the highest category systems?
In science the discussion in the fields around systems theory about systems have been going on for mare that 50 years now. In the field of systems theories the systems concept is important, but other concepts are important as well like:
It's my impression that the systems term remains more the common term, while much research is in fact aroudn complexity, adaptation, distribution etc... The quetsion is, if it's suitable to put all these related reseach under the one term systems. - Mdd14:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
PS. Shouldn't we create an other article instead of the article systems right now?
Under this item I like to ask >Radiant<'s question again, if we can't give the category a better title? We should a least make a list of titles possible? - Mdd14:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Can the new form be an example for other countries?
I've been looking at the category:systems in the other European countries and found some differences... and strange things, that the category doesn't exist in Germany and seems to be deleted in Spain... but nowhere such a wild grow? Of cause I can speak best for the Dutch situation. I'll bring forward some details later? - Mdd14:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
How is the procedure to recreate a recent deleted category?
This question was brought up by Jonathan Bowen. As far a I know:
There are no special procedure to recreate a recent deleted category (please correct me if I'm wrong). Everybody can restart it any minute.
Pleace somebody correct me if I'm wrong. There is however a moral obligation bring some improvements. Mdd14:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I would like to know this too. Is there a Wikipedia procedure or can we just go ahead? Pointers by seasoned Wikipedians welcome! — Jonathan Bowen18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
From the points discusted (...with some jump to conclusion) we can come up with:
In practice the term systems is immens populair. Lot's of things are called a system.
In practice this term has multiple meaning, which are not represented in the lastest article systems. An extra article System (disambiguation) is an option.
In the field of systems theories the systems concept is important, but other concepts are important as well like: complexity, adaptivity, distribution... The systems term remains more the common term.
A template can be made like the cybernetic template to give a model of the new solution
It's not to be expected, that the new outcome here is automatically an example for other countries.
There are no special procedure to recreate a recent deleted category (please correct me if I'm wrong). Everybody can restart it any minute.
Last but not least, we should thank each for each effort to bring this to a good ending. This final advice can be signed by everybody who agrees or hasn't got insurmountable problems with this:
-
-
Remaining items:
The above audit proposal can look like a lot of talking about a thing we already agree about. Creating this form however brought me the idea, that this for could be used in the future to investigate other bigger problems in the field of systems. For example the growing systems theory article... or the returning initiative to merge systems theory with cybernetics. The above form... even with the preliminary jump to conclusion... is the draft I have come up with. I hope it's going to be a workable form.- Mdd12:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see, have I said enough for the moment. I hope this will get this common audit started. Good luck - Mdd14:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to fear that I've been to ambiguous with my (top-down) approach of this audit. The idea of an audit is maybe a good idea. But auditing a situation which isn't even in pleace yet... I guess that's just to complicated.
Getting the category back right now seems like a good idea to me. Then we can also start working bottum-up... and solve the problems on the way. Maybe we just skipp this audit, and get some real work done. There is also lot's to be done to get the project organization and technique running.
I still believe all of the questions I've asked above are worth looking at and solving. But maybe we could solve them one at a time. Thanks for the efforts - Mdd19:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I have recreated the restructured Category:Systems category as discussed here (thank you for the honour Mdd!) and I too promise to keep an eye on the new systems category as part of this project. Currently I have just put the new category just under Category:Structure since most of the other categories previously included are now more appropriate for sub-categories. — Jonathan Bowen00:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Good work. As you can see I've already put some templates on these categories. We can discused these details later. I'll call a day, today. Good night. - Mdd00:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
which are now archived in The WikiProject Systems Archive.
The new category lead to an (indirect) critical note, see [22] and this made me thinking... I realized, that the new solution we came up with here is still hidden in the past discussions. Maybe we should explain this solution in short. So this is what I'm going to do.
I'll edit the lastest announcement, and put some words in it about this
I'll give a short reaction on the WikiProject Physics talk, because I was the one pointing Paddy Leahy in this direction. There I'll like to explain the new situation to come from my perspective.
... But a more structural solution is on the way, with the design of a Template:Systems. I'll make this a new discussion item here, see [23].
On a related note, would it make sense to make Category:Cellular automatists into a subcategory of whichever of these two names ends up being used? However, not all people in that category are systems theory researchers (it includes e.g. some artists). —David Eppstein16:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
... and a broad definition is people related to all different forms of systems theory
The theory and practice will give us little to hold on to. We have to make our own choice here. Maybe this choice is also related to whole category structure. For example there is the option for:
Well, they're not all even scientists — the category includes also some artists who use cellular automata in their art. But, if you interpret "systems scientist" as someone who does systems science, and cellular automata as a part of systems science, then it makes sense. —David Eppstein15:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, would it make sense to make Category:Cellular automatists into a subcategory of whichever of these two names ends up being used? However, not all people in that category are systems theory researchers (it includes e.g. some artists). —David Eppstein16:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
... and a broad definition is people related to all different forms of systems theory
The theory and practice will give us little to hold on to. We have to make our own choice here. Maybe this choice is also related to whole category structure. For example there is the option for:
Well, they're not all even scientists — the category includes also some artists who use cellular automata in their art. But, if you interpret "systems scientist" as someone who does systems science, and cellular automata as a part of systems science, then it makes sense. —David Eppstein15:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Now Jonathan Bowen has today created a new top category Category:Systems science, and has gathered here all the categories about the theory of systems. Now I have further removed some categorization in the categories systems engineering, systems biology, systems theory etc. to avoid that categories are placed in parent and child categories. - Mdd19:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for creating the systems science category. Maybe you can give a short response on the question I have asked about this on the WikiProject Systems talkpage - Mdd10:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Category loops are not allowed on Wikipedia. (It will get deleted by someone eventually if created.) Of course the ordering of categories is open to debate. But I think the Category:Systems category is the best high-level contain for all things to do with systems because of the simplicity of the name. Adding "science" (for instance) limits the area to scientific aspects (which is fine as a particular category under systems). I hope this is helpful (and convincing!). Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen14:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with this since I think the Category:Systems should include non-(hard) scientific aspects (e.g., economics, law, philosophy, politics, sociology, etc., as under Category:Conceptual systems) and also fits well under the Category:Structure category. Would you include also these under (just) systems science - I don't think it would be appropriate. If we had to delete one I would delete Category:Systems science but I don't see a good reason to delete either. (Indeed I can see good reasons to have it with the additional categories that you have created.) Systems in general are interdisciplinary, not just scientific. I hope this convinces you that there is more to systems than systems science. Best wishes, Jonathan Bowen14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
In the past three months I made about 3000 edits just in this field, so I think I know something about this. - Mdd15:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
There is not doubt of that. I personally see this a bit like "museums" vs. "science museums", "literature" vs. "scientific literature", etc. You can have a category in one category and a parent category if the circumstances warrant it. For example, engineering is largely scientific, but includes other aspects, so I think warrants being under "systems" and "systems science" (for example). Do shoot down the argument above if you disagree! I am assuming you see it differently, but do say more explicitly why if this is the case and where you think the non-scientific aspects should live without an overall systems category. — Jonathan Bowen15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
(Re)organizing Wikipedia's coverage on Systems and Systems science
Like I said in the past three months I made about a lot of edits in this field, and these edits mainly concerned:
Getting this WikiProject started
Setting an example with cooperation around Systems engineering (with a lot of help)
Setting examples; creating new lists, uploading pictures, writing a new type of articles (Debora Hammond, Ralph Gerard)
Wikifying some articles here and there
Initiating some reorganization: creating new categories, renaming articles, proposing new article structure systems theory, enlarging the scope of this WikiProject (from "systems" to "systems and systems science").
Of all these activities the reorganization can be the most controversial. Hereby it's inevitable that I project some of my own ideals. Now this ideal is that the coverage of systems and systems science is open to students and scholars of most levels... and that this coverage fits the own Wikipedia standards.
Now I have the strong idea the the current Category:Systems doesn't fit these standards. In a way this category is the heart of all the coverage on systems. But in the current state it doesn't work: It's a poor beginning (little subcategories and articles) and a dead end (no higher level categories). I think there are no WikiProjects that have such a poor category to work with. In this top I think more reorganization is necessary to make the category a beating heart of all the coverage. If people agree or not agree, please say so? - Mdd13:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Personally I wouldn't take quite such a pessimistic view. I think some of the categories at the top-level could be re-added (e.g., Category:Systems biology). There is Category:Structure as a parent category and there are similar high-level parent categories for other high-level system categories. For a better systems entry, I think setting up a Systems Portal would be a better route. Alternatively (or as well), perhaps you should develop the Category:Systems science category further along the lines you are considering and leave the existing Category:Systems category as a high-level category. What do you think? — Jonathan Bowen16:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Based on this analysis I restructured the systems categories. Now the category:systems gives at once an overview of most important existing types of systems. Hereby the categories conceptual, physical and social systems are reduced to a more realistic size.
I think that this new situation is more realistic and avoids some of the overcategorization. Now a Systems Portal is for me still far away. There is still a lot to clearify, there are many articles that need attention, and most of the other articles are just a start. I personaly would like to put my effort in improving the articles first. I hope you like the changes I made. If not pleace let me know? - Mdd23:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
