Talk:Classification

message: Classifications, is the act of sorting objects/items, etc. according to one or more characteristics of the latter into groups or sets. It  was highly desireable that the members of the resulting class shall be selected by using normally one criterion and consistently all the way through, otherwise your class will not be homogenous or fully sorted(another desireable feature). It is also often required that on classifying a given set the criteria to be used for clasifying things should allow for a full allocation of the input set to appropriate classes. The list of classified objects arranged accordingly will comprise a classification or nomenclature that play an important role in distributing/sharing knowledge about products, trade marks, and thousands of other whatnots in the world.
apogr
:Oh. Actually I was hoping to find some explanation here on the talk page. As I see it, classification is an everyday activity and not just something for librarians, biologists and machine learners. For example, there are hotel classification schemes such as the one to five stars. Shouldn't we add this somehow here? <KF> 05:19, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with the current treatment of articles as examplified in the above case too for the following reasons:
the introduction of a subject is done by introducing sometimes two or three different and usually unknown, or two wide subjects to garsp as a result of which one cannot focus, but must progress on a wide mental horizon. Then by partially giving account of the uses/senses of the word or by quasi disambiguation, again a similar reasult/depth is likely. What I miss here is connecting the unknown to the known and exposig the point why the article may be of interest to the general reader. If you vet the current article against my comments above, I hope you will see the point I am trying to make.
Many wikipedia articles are just the names of boxes without specifying knowledge/content, except for the labels of smaller or bigger boxes inside, nested just one or two levels. IMHO such a beautiful venture to become a hit for the reader too, should have 
a feature like highlighting the current problems/prospects/controversies of the subject covered in the article so that the reader can have something to nible on.
You will have remembered that information is specific and not general and you shuld visibly and aptly move along the specific-generic continuum to become educative/informative.
Apogr 06:31, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I think that security classification is a special kind of taxonomic classification and shut be put as an additinal  examle there: "Taxonomy may refer to either a hierarchical classification of things ...". In daily life we have a lot of classifications of such kind: 
hotel (see above), credit rating ... --Udo Altmann 08:30, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security classification 

message: Hi, why is it that we classify classification like that? The method, process, and result of a statistical classification, as defined in the article, is an instance of taxonomical classification, or is it not? If not, why not? :-) --Glimz ­, 04:08, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, once you train up a statistical classifier, if it is accurate, it can replace a human and place objects in a taxonomy automatically. I think we group the two different classifications differently, because some people really just want to look up taxonomies, while other people are interested in automatic classification algorithms. This started out as a disambiguation page --- it just sort of grew into a stubby article. -- hike395 06:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  taxonomic vs. statistical classification 

message: classification of mushroom is should be ask to amol sir - 9321712857  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.161.209 (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  classification of mushroom - by mohit 

message: WP DEPENDS ON INDUCTION & DEDUCTION. THEIR MEANING SHOULD BE FIRM.
This encyclopedia accepts the premise of enumerative induction that the more editors who agree on the content of an article, the more accurate and useful that content. Induction is practiced on every TALK page. Editors generalize from a few observations, and deduce concrete conclusions from their generalizations.
WP contains 4 repetitive and fragmentary articles on induction: [Inductive reasoning], [The problem of induction]; [New riddle of induction],[Inductivism]. I would like to rectify this chaotic situation by rewriting and merging these 4 articles, retaining only the reasoning title. I ask you—a participant in relevant TALK pages—to judge my rewrite/merge project: SHOULD I PROCEED? Below is the current proposed outline:
Definitions. Induction generalizes conceptually; deduction concludes empirically.
[David Hume], philosopher condemner.
[Pierre Duhem], physicist user.
[John Dewey], philosopher explainer.
[Bertrand Russell], philosopher condemner.
[Karl Popper], philosopher condemner.
Steven Sloman, psychologist explainer.
Lyle E. Bourne, Jr., psychologist user.
[Daniel Kahneman], psychologist user.
[Richard H. Thaler] economist user.
Please respond at Talk:Inductive reasoning. TBR-qed (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Induction & deduction