The first draft of this template is made on 29 april 2007 as part of the WikiProjectSystems. And the following questions have been rased afterwards. - Mdd 22:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The design of the Template:Systems is a finishing touch for the new WikiProject Systems. This template can give major directions in the field of systems articles... It gives a global view of the field of systems in theory and practice. The first version is made 23:35, 29 April 2007 by Mdd. A first update is made the day after.
Now I made this point an item on it's own, because I would like to have some feed back and further discussion about how to proceed? - Mdd 22:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There are lot's of examples to compare this template with. For example the Template:Cybernetics and the Template:Sociology. What can we learn from these two examples? - Mdd 11:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Fixed the "Systems" link, where it linked to some German whatnot.
- Thanks very much - Mdd 11:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
This was a redirect to Agent based model - Mdd 11 July 2007, 14:38 (UTC)
This article is just a beginning, maybe improtant for cybernetics by hardly a key concept in systems, systems science and systems theory. - Mdd 11:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
This name has already been pushed in the systems theory, which is questionable because there are many fields of systems theory and even more succesors in these fields. Now the growth of systems theory started since the 1950s and Alexander Bogdanov played no part in that as far as I know.
I did however placed the article in the category:systems scientists and listed him in the List of systems scientists. But presenting him in the Systems template as a key figure in teh systems movement is unacceptable. - Mdd 11:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Stafford Beerd made significant contributions to the field of cybernetics so I moved him to the Template:Cybernetics - Mdd 15 August 2007, 17:53 (UTC)
The relation between Catastrophe theory and systems science is far from clear to me. It looks like it, that this theory is not that crucial in the field of systems science. - Mdd 18 August 2007, 23:02 (UTC)
In the field of ecology already one field is mentioned: the Systems ecology. A second field could be Ecosystem ecology... Industrial ecology seems to be an spinoff here... and not that crusial to systems thinking. - Mdd 17:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This is more a cybernetic expert - Mdd 21:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
The field of Multi-agent systems can hardly be called a main theoretical field of systems science. I think the article itselve should first be improved. In July last year this article was even made a redirect to the Agent based model article. I personly recreated the article again. But since then nobody really improved that article yet.
So if Multi-agent systems should be named in this template, please first severly improve that article itselve. -- Mdd (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- The article had been improved. I reentered this item but in the list of systems and not in the list of studies. The article explains this kind of system but doesn't show that this is a complete field of study. -- Mdd (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The systems listed
I dunno much about the subject, but I have the impression that the systems are too different to be listed in one template. Andries (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- The offers thousands of articles about systems, see for example the Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems/List of systems list. The about 20 systems mentioned in the template here are only a selection, a set of the most representative articles. The general idea of this list is also to give an impression of the differences in the systems which are defined in science. Off cause there are large differences. But there also a structure of category, which brings all these systems together. -- Mdd (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
What are the criteria for considering adding individuals to the template? I would like to propose adding Béla H. Bánáthy. -- btphelps (talk) 16:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Done. The template is for all subjects, that are central in the systems sciences and the persons, who played te most important role in the initiation of the different fields of systems science. I think Béla H. Bánáthy played a central role in the further developement of systems science, but I am not so sure he initiated a field of it own. I think we can keep in the template for a while. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Over 2500 articles about systems in
I removed three new systems listed in the template. There are over 2500 artciels about systems in, see
And those can't be listed all in this template. That is why choices have to be made here. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- So what is your excuses for removing the following
- you bias on Computing Science topics?
- Each of the systems itself is not just a software, they have a set define of concepts developed by the Open Source community such as length of lifecycle (ALM / PLM), approach method (agile, Raid application developement, UML model), orientation programming (aspect, object-orientated, event-driven), Toools implanmentations, licensing (foundations, types of consortium specification is best fit to prevent "viral" legal propietary issues...etc.
- Just because you are the creator of the template, doesn't mean you can choose not follow consensu. I don't get in the beginning what you remove Industrial Ecology, they are system science, it includes the following cycle. All of these cycle are system science
- --Ramu50 (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I already explained in the edit summary that this template should only list: "Only more general systems". There are over 2500 articles about systems in. Among them there are a few more general or exceptionally good articles about systems, and the three you want to add are neither. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Do you even care to read the list yourself. Most of them are even system science at all, they only claim to be.
The first 3 three in A section are ALL not system science.
- Acorn System 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (are enterprise product).
I will find time to organize them and we can probably make subtitles.
- Traffic Engineering
Mobile and 3G Networks
Credit Card / Security
Irrelevant System Science
It took me 10 minutes to categorize 14 lines of topics, so stop whining. --Ramu50 (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
You were asking:
- Do you even care to read the list yourself. Most of them are even system science at all, they only claim to be.
I created that list which took me about a week to judge all systems articles listed. By the way I also created the WikiProject Systems, the Systems science Portal, and I wikified over 1000 to 2000 articles in the field of systems science and beyond .
Next: I never claimed all these 2500 systems listed are all about systems science. I did once make a difference in "systems" and "systems (abstract)", see here. Those "systems" are part of the empircal sciences, and unrelated to systems science, just as most of the more then 2500 systems articles in. These "systems (abstract)" I determined could be considered related to systems science. But then again this is my own interpretation.
Now you started making a thematical list. In fact this list is already present in in the category structure created in starting at Category:Systems. I started a similair list myself, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Systems/List of systems (thematically). If you want to start a new list on your own, feel free. Leave the current lists as they are. They are in fact part of the WikiProject Systems and not in main space. In the realm of the WikiProjects there are other rules.
If you don't trust me, ask any more experiencedn to verify. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't get it
I don't see the point of this. It seems like a list of unconnected topics that just happen to contain the word "system". 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC).
Complexity vs Complex Systems
In this template complex systems is covered twice. Once under the 'Systems' heading and again under the 'theoretical fields' heading. It would be better if Complex systems remains under the 'Systems' heading and under the 'theoretical fields' heading include Complexity instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amcnamee (talk • contribs) 07:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)