Talk:Morphological analysis (problem-solving)
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Futures studies||(Rated Start-class)|
- 1 The Morphology article needs an overhaul
- 2 Exceedingly Dense
- 3 Diagram Problems
- 4 Tagging for style improvements (buzzwords)
- 5 Stop pushing this article into other articles
- 6 DeBono's Lateral thinking and this "thing"
- 7 Diagrams
- 8 "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject."
- 9 Needs examples
The Morphology article needs an overhaulEdit
The article on Morphological analysis started out as a relatively simple reference to Zwicky’s ideas, a definition of the process, a few references and some external links. I did not initiate this, but whoever did referred to me and the Swedish Morphological Society. This was fine with me: I went in and added a few details which I though relevant to the subject, but more or less left things as they were.
Then, a Mr. I. Tjahyo Sarwono came along with some very complicated diagrams, rather poor English, misinterpretations and explicit errors (a parameter he mistakenly calls a value, and a value he calls a parameter). I am in despair over this, as I don’t want morphological analysis to get a bad name because of a sloppy Wikipedia article. I would like to go in and give the article a major overhaul – but I don’t know what the policy is about throwing out other contributors’ texts and diagrams. Can someone give me some council?
Tom Ritchey -- The Swedish Morphological Society.
- If bad text and diagrams weren't thrown out by someone, they would accumulate and Wikipedia would drown in garbage. Experts, in particular, should be encouraged to be bold. You seem to be an expert, and the reasons you state seem concrete and appropriate. (Besides, the material won't be thown out entirely, since it will still reside in the history.) -- Harold f 23:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an interesting, but exceedingly dense and not at all public-user-friendly article. A more public friendly rewrite is probably in order. Ask yourself if the average reader could figure out how to do even a simple Morphological analysis from this article. I think it unlikely. - Vedexent 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- I very much agree. The article should start with a simple example.
- What about a creative example, about inventing a new table, a table without legs: (German wikipedia article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphologische_Analyse_(Kreativitätstechnik)#Beispiel ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The diagram seems to (I think) make specific references to numbered sections of the article. This is poor design as
- Not all users have the auto-numbering turned on in their preferences. I am one, which is why I'm not 100% sure that these numbers in the diagram are referring to sections, but if they are not then they are meaningless and should be removed anyways.
- The structures of Wikipedia articles are fluid and evolving. There are no guarantees that the sections will remain as initially laid out.
- Vedexent 23:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Tagging for style improvements (buzzwords)Edit
I added this tag to the article. Passages like:
- MA concerns the arrangement of objects and how they conform to create a whole of Gestalt. The objects in question can constitute a physical system (e.g. anatomy), a social system (e.g. an organisation) or a logical system (e.g. a language or system of ideas).
strike me as saying very little, and saying it in a highly generalized and exceedingly abstract way. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Aside from "Gestalt" (a good candidate for classification as a buzzword), I find the level of abstraction of this statement to be acceptable. The concept of morphological analysis is itself highly abstract, and noting its applicability to a set of less (but still highly) abstract areas is a move toward concrete grounding, not a move toward fuzziness. Harold f (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Stop pushing this article into other articlesEdit
This article is of little quality yet, but recently all kinds of links have been made in other articles to here and to the The Swedish Morphological Society.
Please stop this. Please first create an descent article here that has something more to tell. - Mdd 22:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
DeBono's Lateral thinking and this "thing"Edit
perhaps a contrast is in order. Lateral thinking is famous and approachable and by showing me some similarities and differences (between them)I will finally understand this "tool". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject."Edit
Errata! T. Ritchey has no connection with my father, Fritz Zwicky.
Right now, having read the article, I have no idea how one proceeds to do morphological analysis. The article says what it does not do, and it says what it accomplishes in general terms, but does not say how to employ it. A couple of detailed examples would probably help. Loraof (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is not intended to explain how GMA is completed, it describes what it is. Detailed explanations are available to the reader in the example published works. Any further information on how a novice may undertake GMA would get very messy and not very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bailey4Whiley (talk • contribs) 08:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)