Talk:A Taxonomy of Office Chairs

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Centripetal Spring office chair, c. 1849

• ... that A Taxonomy of Office Chairs applies Linnaean classification to furniture?

• Source: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/all-hail-the-chairmen-jonathan-olivaress-taxonomy-of-office-chairs/ https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/arts/25iht-design25.html

• • ALT1: ... that the book A Taxonomy of Office Chairs applies scientific classification methods devised by Carl Linnaeus to furniture typologies? Source: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/all-hail-the-chairmen-jonathan-olivaress-taxonomy-of-office-chairs/ https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/arts/25iht-design25.html
  • ALT2: ... that the book A Taxonomy of Office Chairs applies Linnaean scientific classification to furniture design? Source: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/all-hail-the-chairmen-jonathan-olivaress-taxonomy-of-office-chairs/ https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/25/arts/25iht-design25.html
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/College Park (Oxnard)

Moved to mainspace by Cl3phact0 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 9 past nominations.

Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough, well sourced, neutral and plagiarism free - Earwig just picks up a quote and titles. Hooks are cited and interesting, and variations on a single theme. Image is free, used in article and clear. QPQ is done. Lajmmoore (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Cl3phact0 and Lajmmoore: looks like the article doesn't comply with WP:DYKHFC; as for verifying to the source, maybe i'm missing something, but "post-Linnaean" sounds like not Linnaean? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
  • I thought post-Linnaean was used ironically, in a postmodern kind of way? Lajmmoore (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

    @Theleekycauldron and Lajmmoore: The full sentence might be more instructive for our understanding of the terminology (emphasis added to correspond with the syntax you are querying): "It is, as the post-Linnaean title suggests, a serious attempt to visualize the evolutionary breakthroughs and mutations often taken for granted when considering the various industrialized objects that 'make up our predominant reality'." In this case, the meaning is essentially "after Linnaeus" (i.e., the book is named after the Linnaean taxonomic system it utilises). The second source explains the terminology and concepts in slightly more detail: "Deriving from the Ancient Greek words 'taxis' and 'nomia,' which translate as 'arrangement' and 'method' respectively, a 'taxonomy' is a system of classification." The book is indeed a "serious attempt" to apply Linnaean classification to furniture! Hope this helps. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

    PS: @Lajmmoore: Your postmodern interpretation could also be correct, though either way, I don't think it's really an issue. Both work for our purposes. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

    • iii think that cements my worry that describing it as Linnaean isn't accurate. "post-" really only means "after" in its sense of "temporally subsequent"; it pretty much never means "after" in its use in "named after", which is really more euphemistic for "named for". As for the second source, there are evolutionary taxonomies that aren't Linnaean; Darwinian classification is the system most widely used today in biology and is temporally subsequent to Linnaean classification, i.e. post-Linnaean. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

    @Theleekycauldron: Feel free to add "post-" to the hook if you prefer (... that A Taxonomy of Office Chairs applies post-Linnaean classification to furniture?). That works for me too. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

    works for me :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:58, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

In praise of DYK

@Theleekycauldron and Lajmmoore, the discussion above resulted in a subtle but meaningful improvement to the article. Thanks! Putting the article together, I hadn’t really taken the enough time to reflect on the difference between “Linnaean” and “post-Linnaean” (and may have also somewhat glossed-over the syntactical nuance from the LARB source in deference to style). This kind of sharp-eyed proofreading is actually quite a good example of the DYK project at its best. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I enjoyed the different readings we each brought to it, and I quite agree @Cl3phact0 Lajmmoore (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

That is so sweet, thank you both!! :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:50, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Patent drawings (multiple images)

Patent drawings for an Eames Aluminum Group chair designed by Charles and Ray Eames, and Don Albinson (1958)

We have all three drawing "sheets" from the Eames/Albinson patents (just uploaded them to Commons; pre-CAD, late 1950s examples of the best-of-the-best of this kind of technical illustration). These could be included in the article using a multiple image layout (per example – or employing some other layout magic trick that's beyond my knowledge). My inclination is "yes", let's include all three in that it gives a good sense of the technological progress that transpired between the 1875 Henry S. Hale patent shown in the book (and in our Gallery section), and the mid-century modern design of the Eames chairs. This might also give the article a more nuanced sense of the minutiae in extremis covered in the book (and critiqued by the Prospect reference; e.g., "the kind of repetitive, extravagantly pointless task with which the corporate world has made us all familiar"), though I'm also mindful to avoid tipping into WP:EXCESSDETAIL or {{Overly detailed}} territory (or even WP:OR, though as it's all readily available, PD, we're probably ok here). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

PS: Depending on one's point of view, the Hale to Eames "progress" also foreshadows the ever-evolving and increasing complexity that ultimately reaches the Brazil-like absurdity of internet connected office chairs with embedded data-gathering sensors and mobile app configuration shown in the most recent "Live OS" Aeron chair example (see Gallery).. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Added this to the main Eames Aluminum Group article instead (which, in hindsight, seems obvious). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:45, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

References