Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems/Archive 2

message: Shouldn't it be :Category:WikiProject Systems rather than :Category:WikiProjects Systems? Perhaps we should change this now if so. — Jonathan Bowen 02:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good thinking, my mistake. I've tried to put the old category up for deletion - Mdd 11:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:WikiProject Systems]] - rename: 

message: For information, please note the attempt now to change the name of :Category:Complex systems to :Category:Complex systems (science). Do vote under Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 19#Category:Complex systems if you wish! — Jonathan Bowen 02:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The renaming to :Category:Complex systems science seemed like a reasonable alternative - Mdd 11:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This discussion had continued, here  - Mdd 22:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Complex systems]] - attempted rename: 

message: 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. - Mdd 19:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No decision yet 

message: A decision is at last made to rename the :Category:Complex systems to :Category:Complex systems theory. Should we do anything about this yet? If you (Jonathan) think it has a high priority, then we should do something about it this week? - Mdd 21:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A decision is made 

message: I have added a :Category:Systems stubs category associated with . — Jonathan Bowen 02:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 - Mdd 11:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 Bowen 17:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The new template and cat are  and . ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Systems stubs]] - for deletion: 

message: Copy from the Category talk:WikiProject Systems:
:The new template and cat are  and . ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 16:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new categorie Systems stubs ?? 

message: 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 :     
* Category:Systems – Deletion endorsed. (Of course, discussion of any different recreations is free to continue elsewhere.) – Xoloz 14:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The appeal is closed 

message: 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. 
# High level Category Systems (draft) with subcategories Category Systems (in practice) (draft) and Category Systems (in theory) (draft)
# High level Category:Systems (draft) with subcategories :Category:Conceptual systems (real) and :Category:Physical systems (real)
# High level :Category:Scientific systems and one subcategory  :Category:Non-scientific systems
Please correct the above if I'm wrong. How do we go from here? - Mdd 22:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As requested by Dr. Submillimeter, I have put my suggested new :Category:Systems category under User:Jpbowen/Draft - Category Systems. I guess this is #3 with additional categories from the four alternatives above. Comments welcome. — Jonathan Bowen 23:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Glad this is helpful. Since Dr. Submillimeter seems to be agreeable to this, it may be a way forward. If so, we can start working on lower-level systems categorization. — Jonathan Bowen 23:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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. Submillimeter 20:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary: Four alternatives

message: 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:
* The 2th takes empirircal systems A and formal systems B as contrast
* The 3th takes physical systems A and conceptual systems B as constrast
There is a second different concerning the new high level :Category: Systems. The 2th draft   puts categories and articles about the theory of systems with the formal systems in B. The 3th draft  puts categories and articles about the theory of systems  in the high level category A&B itselve. - Mdd 11:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A comparising of alternatives

message: 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.- Mdd 11:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we just work with User:Jpbowen/Draft - Category Systems?  Everyone else likes this proposal.  Dr. Submillimeter 20:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: OK.  Could you show a draft of what you are proposing?  Dr. Submillimeter 08:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Bowen 14:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm quite willing to give it a try provided somebody is willing to look at :Category:Systems with some regularity to make sure its content matches with its purpose. >Radiant< 07:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A high level Category [[:Category:Systems|Systems]], [[:Category:Scientific systems|Scientific systems]] or [[:Category:Systems theory|Systems theory]]

message: 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? - Mdd 13:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 Bowen 18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why did the old [[:Category:Systems]] grew so large?

message: 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. - Mdd 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is still important in my opinion! We should modify the system article if necessary. — Jonathan Bowen 18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is the [[systems]] concept still that important?

message: I think, that developing a more specific list of things called a system, we can bring new light to this question. - Mdd 14:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Bowen 18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we want to group everything called a system?

message: 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: 
* Complexity in the study field of Complex Systems  
* Adaptivity in the study field of Complex adaptive systems
* Distribution in recent research aroud distributed systems 
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. - Mdd 14:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is the least contentious name. All others have some sort of bias. — Jonathan Bowen 18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should we name the highest category systems?

message: 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? - Mdd 14:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As above, I think others will show some bias or other. — Jonathan Bowen 18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there a better name for the category?

message: 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? - Mdd 14:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope we can be an exemplar! — Jonathan Bowen 18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can the new form be an example for other countries?

message: 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.- Mdd 12:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all your input. I think getting the systems category back in a new form would act as a good focus anyway. — Jonathan Bowen 18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remaining items:

message: ::This talk item is a result of the past discussions:
::* An alternative Category:Systems 
::* Audit of a new Category:Systems, 
::* A go ahead for the new Category:Systems, 
::which are now archived in The WikiProject Systems Archive.
The new category lead to an (indirect) critical note, see  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 .   
Last edited - Mdd 21:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of the new [[:Category:Systems]] 

message: In the last discussion an alternative soultions has grown for the initial problem: Instead of just renaming, first a top category will be created.  
# A new :Category:Systems scientists in the :Category:Systems
# And renaming the current :Category:systems theory researchers to a new :Category:General systems scientists. 
This looks like a good alternative - Mdd 21:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An alternative: A [[:Category:Systems scientists]] and a [[:Category:General systems scientists]] 

message: In the last discussion an alternative soultions has grown for the initial problem: Instead of just renaming, first a top category will be created.  
# A new :Category:Systems scientists in the :Category:Systems
# And renaming the current :Category:systems theory researchers to a new :Category:General systems scientists. 
This looks like a good alternative - Mdd 21:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An alternative: A [[:Category:Systems scientists]] and a [[:Category:General systems scientists]] 

message: In the past month I have made three new kind of categories:
# :Category:Systems scientists, with the existing :Category:Systems theory researchers and  :Category:Cyberneticists and the new :Category:Chaos theorists, :Category:Systems engineers and :Category:Complex systems scientists.
# :Category:Systems science literature with the existing :Category:Systems theory books and the new :Category:Systems journals 
# :Category:Systems science organisations
These three categories where placed under the :Category:systems... For me this was a good solution for the moment and the near further. - Mdd 18:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the :Category:Systems science literature category still serves a useful purpose allowing expansion for the future, so I would leave it. — Jonathan Bowen 11:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks this feedback and for putting the :Category:Systems science literature in the :Category:Scientific literature. I have now seen there that such a category is a sort of wikipedia standaard: All kinds of disciplines have such a category nowadays. - Mdd 12:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: This dialogue is copied here from User talk:Jpbowen#New systems categories 
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 - Mdd 10:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have responded under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems#A new Category:Systems science. I think the :Category:Systems science literature category still serves a useful purpose allowing expansion for the future, so I would leave it. Thanks for the further updates. — Jonathan Bowen 11:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This further update leaves the :Category:Systems rather useless. I wonder want you are thinking of that? - Mdd 12:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I would leave :Category:Systems engineering and :Category:Systems theory at the top level. As an engineer, there is more to engineering that just science. I certainly don't think the top level is useless, it is a good high-level container for all aspects of systems. — Jonathan Bowen 13:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The :Category:Systems engineering and :Category:Systems theory also in the :Category:systems is acceptable. By creating a :Category:Systems I personally think you have created a new top level category beside the :category:systems. A loop between the two categories is necessary. - Mdd 14:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 Bowen 14:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree more and less that categories with  "science" added should limits the area to scientific aspects and to the subjects the sciences are about. After creating an :Category:Systems science the most logical place for the :Category:Systems engineering and :Category:Systems theory is in that category. This categories shouldn't also be in the parent and child category because of Wikipedia rules. And easy solution here seems to me to put the :category:systems under the :category:systems science or even easier to delete it. - Mdd 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 Bowen 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past three months I made about 3000 edits just in this field, so I think I know something about this. - Mdd 15:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 Bowen 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Marcel, I just checked and cycles are discouraged but allowed in certain circumstances — see Wikipedia:Categorization#Cycles should usually be avoided. It could be argued that this is one of those circumstances — so do re-add "systems" under "systems science" if you feel strongly about this! — Jonathan Bowen 15:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 Bowen 16:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New systems science categories 

message: 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. - Mdd 19:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the :Category:Systems science literature category still serves a useful purpose allowing expansion for the future, so I would leave it. — Jonathan Bowen 11:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks this feedback and for putting the :Category:Systems science literature in the :Category:Scientific literature. I have now seen there that such a category is a sort of wikipedia standaard: All kinds of disciplines have such a category nowadays. - Mdd 12:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new Category:Systems science 

message: :This dialogue is copied here from User talk:Jpbowen#New systems categories 
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 - Mdd 10:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have responded under Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Systems#A new Category:Systems science. I think the :Category:Systems science literature category still serves a useful purpose allowing expansion for the future, so I would leave it. Thanks for the further updates. — Jonathan Bowen 11:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This further update leaves the :Category:Systems rather useless. I wonder want you are thinking of that? - Mdd 12:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I would leave :Category:Systems engineering and :Category:Systems theory at the top level. As an engineer, there is more to engineering that just science. I certainly don't think the top level is useless, it is a good high-level container for all aspects of systems. — Jonathan Bowen 13:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The :Category:Systems engineering and :Category:Systems theory also in the :Category:systems is acceptable. By creating a :Category:Systems I personally think you have created a new top level category beside the :category:systems. A loop between the two categories is necessary. - Mdd 14:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 Bowen 14:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree more and less that categories with  "science" added should limits the area to scientific aspects and to the subjects the sciences are about. After creating an :Category:Systems science the most logical place for the :Category:Systems engineering and :Category:Systems theory is in that category. This categories shouldn't also be in the parent and child category because of Wikipedia rules. And easy solution here seems to me to put the :category:systems under the :category:systems science or even easier to delete it. - Mdd 14:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 Bowen 14:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past three months I made about 3000 edits just in this field, so I think I know something about this. - Mdd 15:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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 Bowen 15:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Marcel, I just checked and cycles are discouraged but allowed in certain circumstances — see Wikipedia:Categorization#Cycles should usually be avoided. It could be argued that this is one of those circumstances — so do re-add "systems" under "systems science" if you feel strongly about this! — Jonathan Bowen 15:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New systems categories - II 

message: 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? - Mdd 13:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Bowen 16:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Re)organizing Wikipedia's coverage on Systems and Systems science