Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taxonomy

: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The result was Speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). While much of this discussion was less than helpful — indeed, sometimes hardly coherent — I can appreciate the arguments made by {{u|Andrewa}} (even if we initially did not see eye-to-eye), {{u|Peter coxhead}}, and {{u|PrinceTortoise}}. The article still needs massive restructuring, but these users have convinced me that there is indeed an encyclopedic topic to be found within taxonomy that extends beyond any specific usage.‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__

=[[:Taxonomy]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Taxonomy}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Taxonomy}})

Egregious WP:DICDEF/WP:SYNTH. It was previously nominated for deletion over a decade ago, which led to strong backlash (note that this was a time when notability guidelines were less consistently followed and enforced than they are now). As of right now, the article is a mix of a malformed DAB/SIA page and somebody's personal essay. While the author seems convinced otherwise, sources fail to indicate that taxonomy/classification exists as an independent field of study separate from a specific discipline. What little viable and potentially useful content exists here is essentially a content fork of Classification. I think this title rightfully belongs to Taxonomy (biology), by far the most familiar and common use of the term. A proper DAB/SIA can be created for the various other uses that find themselves jumbled up in here. — Anonymous 03:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

::These are separate enough disciplines for distinct articles. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 18:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Comment: The previous nomination mentioned earlier was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taxonomy (general). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • … and there is an awful lot of prior discussion of why taxonomy and taxonomy (biology)/biological classification are different and how the latter is not the primary subject at Talk:Taxonomy (biology)/Archive 1. It looks like we need to wake up JonRichfield, Andrewa and others. Uncle G (talk) 08:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • : Keep Uncle G, Quidditch''
    Just here in response to the ping. I was not aware that there was a proposal for deletion or lumping of the articles, and I regard such a proposal as uninformed, to put it politely. All I would vote for would be for the separate articles to link to each other appropriately.
    As someone has correctly pointed out, the fact that some people regard Classification, Systematics, and Taxonomy as synonyms, need not imply that there are no functional and significant different usages as well, nor that such distinctions are insufficient to justify separate articles instead of lumped discussions plus redirections.
    For one thing, in any encyclopaedia to err on the side of lumping of articles together is a greater disservice to the user than splitting terms that are distinct in certain fields. At worst such articles can be served by "See also" links.
    "Classification" can refer to any form of pigeonholing, however unstructured or arbitrary. In this sense it (generally unhelpfully) could comprehend other semantic disciplines, but at the cost of the point of the distinction, IOW, sacrificing the value of the vocabulary or terminology. To regard neglect of such distinctions as a justification for lumping the articles together would demand either an unedifyingly inadequate, or frustratingly bulky article that deals with all the distinctions in their respective contexts. More of a monograph than an article.
    Modest-sized articles with links are a flexible, comprehensive, and efficient medium that avoids frustration and confusion of any user.
    In this sense "taxonomy" is semantically richer, and accordingly more constraining, than "classification": it deals not only with categorisation, but with usually hierarchical relationships between taxa, though other graph-theoretic structures may be equally significant in various disciplines.
    In fact, before the establishment of neoDarwinism, systematic taxonomy in biology was highly arbitrary, hardly better than "classification", and books arranged organisms largely according to arbitrary individual impressions of "higher" and "lower" status on the "ladder of life" or great chain of being. Evolutionary insights replaced such naive classification with biological taxonomy, but even after the first advances, there were drastic upheavals in taxonomy within half a century when cladistics became established as a discipline. And even now, there is more to taxonomy than cladistics. But those upheavals were irrelevant to arbitrary categorization.
    And in disciplines other than biology, there are taxonomic and systematic principles beyond naive categorization, though they are not identical to the principles under the same names. Examples of such disciplines include cosmology and astrophysics, and formal disciplines such as mathematics. The associated classifications are not simple pigeonholing.
    "Systematics" takes the principle further still. It necessarily is largely dependent on taxonomy, but it deals with the underlying nature of the taxa and the mechanisms and realities that lead to, or justify, taxonomic distinctions. Even in biology alone, taxonomy, for example, does not usually refer to say, ecological or physiological considerations, as opposed to descriptive aspects, whereas systematics would deal largely with the significance of such factors in causing the distinctions. JonRichfield (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • :Would it be appropriate to ping contributors from the previous nomination who are still active? PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 08:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • ::@PrinceTortoise, @Uncle G, for what its worth, this nomination already seems to have drawn a lot of attention. — Anonymous 19:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Such a nomination must be a month early, should’ve been saved for April 1. historically distinct from classification. Soldiers and disorders can have classifications without falling into a taxonomy. Needs work? Obviously. Most of Wikipedia does. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • :@Hyperbolick, yes, taxonomies exist in many fields. However, reliable sources don't appear to discuss it without connecting it to a specific one. The basic premise of this article's existence is that taxonomy is an independent field of study, which it isn't. — Anonymous 14:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • :Agree. Andrewa (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. At very least on counts of WP:DICDEF/WP:SYNTH because the article does contain way too much material that seems to be organised in a (somewhat) coherent way. If anything, we should extend it to emphasise the broader uses (outside of biology), such as the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pragmatic Puffin (talk • contribs) 10:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • :@Pragmatic Puffin, your argument seems to be that we should... add more SYNTH? I feel your understanding of the guideline is insufficient. — Anonymous 14:44, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • ::And I think that they understand the guideline perfectly. Suggest you reread it. Andrewa (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Taxonomy is certainly a discipline, distinct from systematics and classification, although these topics overlap. We've been over all this before, nothing has changed. (Which is not to say that the article can't be improved.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • :@Peter coxhead, everyone replying is missing the point of this nomination. Yes, taxonomies have been created for multiple fields, but there's no such thing as "pure" taxonomy that isn't to specific to biology or computer science or what have you. Can you present a source arguing otherwise? — Anonymous 14:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • ::{{ping|An anonymous username, not my real name}} from a personal point of view, I spent some of my academic life involved with numerical/computational taxonomy. The methods used to find groups and determine their relationships can be applied to many different fields; I recall working on aspects of adolescent behaviour – educational psychology; minerals and rocks – geology; and for a short time on smells – a colleague was interested in automated analysis of food cooking in a microwave. The [https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/classificationsandstandards/taxonomybestpracticeframework UK Taxonomy Best Practice Framework] says in "A taxonomy is the result of naming and classifying items into groups within a larger system according to their similarities and differences." As their materials note, there are principles underlying the production, use and evaluation of a taxonomy that are independent of what is being named and classified – although there are also, of course, things which do depend on the field, e.g. in biological taxonomy, the "naming" part has to respect the various codes of nomenclature. So, sure, there's no such thing as a "pure" taxonomy if that means a result entirely abstracted from what is being named and classified, but there are methods and principles that can be applied to taxonomy in many areas. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • :::Your argument is then one in favor of deletion. The article is describing taxonomy as an independent field of study, which you agree it is not. We already have articles to discuss specific uses of taxonomy and we have Wiktionary to tell readers what the word itself means. As it stands, you seem to agree that there exists no content (or content that could be added) that would not be forked from other articles. — Anonymous 17:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • ::::That is a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote. I said, and I can only repeat, that there are methods and principles that apply to a taxonomy regardless of the areas to which it is applied. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • :::::Agree. Andrewa (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. The topic taxonomy should not be a red link. The article can doubtless be improved. Thincat (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • :You have not even acknowledged the purpose of this nomination. — Anonymous 17:42, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • ::The stated purpose seems to be a mixture of redirection and recreation of the article along different lines. This is not an appropriate purpose for AFD. The nomination is of poor quality. Thincat (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • :::@Thincat, I'm afraid you've misunderstood a few things, then. For one, community consensus has established that AfD is the appropriate venue for potentially controversial BLARs. Secondly, the point of my nomination is that the content that currently exists does not match any encyclopedic topic, something you have not disputed. Rather than "recreating the article along different lines", I merely tossed out a proposal for some kind of SIA to perhaps disambiguate the topic (or maybe even a List of taxonomies type page). However, all of these potential solutions would involve purging essentially everything currently on this page (which ideally would be the new title of Taxonomy (biology)), for which a deletion discussion seems an appropriate venue. — Anonymous 18:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • ::That may be because, like me, they find the purpose of this nomination to be enigmatic. My best guess is that it is forum shopping in order to attract improvements to the article. As I say elsewhere, there are no tags on the article seeking improvement, and no evidence that alternatives to deletion have been investigated as required by deletion policy. Andrewa (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as major branch of science. And WP:TROUT whoever suggested deletion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • :Once again, another reply from someone who has entirely ignored the purpose of the nomination. Perhaps it's time to trout those who keep voting without acknowledging the point of discussion. — Anonymous 19:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • ::{{ping|An anonymous username, not my real name}} You’ve made your point as clearly as you can. It may be time to let the rest of the community weigh our arguments with those of Peter and the others, even if the consensus is to keep the article. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 19:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • :::Well said. Andrewa (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the article needs improvement, tag it with the specific templates indicating the problems, and explain them on the talk page. I note that there are currently no such tags at all. See Wikipedia:Alternatives to deletion and note that this is a policy. Taxonomy will always be a controversial subject at several levels, including our own categorization efforts. I'll comment above on other aspects of this of this AfD... I'm not impressed. I'd say speedy keep except that I think that this needs to be discussed. Even if the result of the discussion is in no doubt the discussion is still valuable, and even if possibly painful. Andrewa (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • :@Andrewa, what would you suggest be done? You are not assuming good faith here, and it seems you still fail to understand why I have brought this article to AfD ({{tq|My best guess is that it is forum shopping in order to attract improvements to the article}}; terrible guess, my friend). I want deletion, not improvement. My argument can be simplified in a few points:
  • :1. Taxonomy is not an independent field of study. It seems everyone, even those favoring keeping, can agree with that.
  • :2. There are reliable sources that discuss taxonomy, but all appear either A) provide simple dictionary definitions or B) discuss its applications in specific fields.
  • :3. We are WP:NOTADICTIONARY, meaning we can rule out the viability of sources in category A.
  • :4. We have articles discussing the various uses of taxonomy, meaning that any mentions of taxonomy by sources falling into category B can be incorporated into said articles.
  • :5. Anything left here after such actions would become wholly redundant, because it would exist in other articles, creating a redundant content fork.
  • :Unless you can offer a rebuttal to any of those statements, then I will continue to support deletion. — Anonymous 21:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • ::As I said, it was a guess. And yes, it could be seen as questioning your good faith, which I did not intend to do. I apologise for giving that impression, it was careless of me.
  • ::Feel free to support deletion. Just respect that others such as myself think that it's a really, really bad idea. Consensus does not mean we need to be unanimous.
  • ::I'm not inclined to attempt to answer these arguments. I've formed the opinion that it would serve no purpose.
  • ::But as for what would you suggest be done?, I thought I had answered that. Tag the article with templates referring to the specific problems that you see, and then start a talk page section for each of these issues (rather than just hit-and-run tagging). Andrewa (talk) 22:01, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • :::For the last time (really), my reason for bringing the article here is that I perceive its scope to be flawed in ways that mere cleanup cannot solve. Anyone is welcome to dispute this premise (that is, after all, the point of AfD), but comments that do not attempt to do so are of no help. With this final comment, I am content to let this nomination die. — Anonymous 23:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • ::::We are all learners here, and consensus can change, but I think you are correct that this nomination is most unlikely to succeed. You might consider withdrawing it in order to save the closer some time. Andrewa (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • :::::I suggested an outcome besides keep. That should prevent withdrawing the nomination, but I don't mind ignoring that rule if Anonymous wants the nomination to die early. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 08:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • ::::::That rule reads While the nominator may withdraw their nomination at any time, if subsequent editors have suggested an outcome besides keep or added substantive comments unrelated to deletion, the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it.
  • ::::::So no, that doesn't prevent the nominator withdrawing the nomination. I don't see how it can possibly be read that way.
  • ::::::It does contain some instructions for the closer in responding to the withdrawal, but that's up to them. Don't worry, I'm sure they will read and consider your input too. Since your suggestion is in part First merge (or restore) the content to Classification, then start a move request to move Taxonomy (biology) to this title there are many options open to them to suggest, and even of they don't, there are still many options open to you. Let us first see what the closer does, and whether they give any advice on further action. Andrewa (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • ::You claim that "Taxonomy is not an independent field of study"? Well GEEE! Hardly anything is an fully independent field of study, least of all in scientific disciplines. That is not an argument; it is a niggle. One does not need full independence to justify separate articles, just reasonable justification for separation as being appropriate for serving the interests of the user. The fact that you cannot see the relevant distinctions is not cogent.
    "...reliable sources that discuss taxonomy, but ... provide simple dictionary definitions... All the more reason for articles that describe the topics in proper perspective
  • ::...discuss its applications in specific fields... "Its" is the wrong pronoun: it begs the question of whether there is a single topic or concept, or several, as the case happens to be.
    ...We have articles discussing the various uses of taxonomy, meaning that any mentions of taxonomy by sources falling into category B can be incorporated into said articles... It means nothing of the kind: that would be logically equivalent to eliminating articles on maths or grammar because they respectively are discussed in various articles on topics in which they are applied.
    ...Anything left here after such actions would become wholly redundant... Redundant, and none the less invalid for the reasons given. Come back when you have studied the topics at a level that enables you to support such assertions materially.
  • ::I have not, to my memory, had anything to do with those articles, and am fairly snowed under with Real Life, but if there is sufficiently strong demand for editing those articles into a more widely acceptable form, I am willing to cooperate with such a proposal. JonRichfield (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.