Talk:Lumpers and splitters

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. For the time being, I have altered the lede to reflect the status quo; as this is a content consideration and not part of the close, please feel free to continue to discuss or alter it as necessary. Dekimasuよ! 04:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Lumpers and splitters → Lumping and splitting – "Lumping" and "splitting" are the actual actions, whereas "lumpers" and "splitters" are merely colloquial names for people conducting the actions. To define "lumpers" and "splitters", we must first define "lumping" and "splitting". The lede section of the article already does exactly that, which is why "lumping" and "splitting" are boldface. I suggest moving the article to emphasize "lumping" and "splitting" as the main terms being defined, and let the article continue to explain "lumpers" and "splitters" as an afterthought of sorts. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 00:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Seems straightforward enough.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• How does Lump and split compare? In a general Google search "Lump and split" got more results but when I checked with books "Lumping and splitting" got more results. Gregkaye ✍♪ 14:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, almost all of the results when searching "lump and split" has to do with the turn-of-phrase, rather than about this specific phenomenon in classification systems. The first result for instance is about budgeting for a trip. Same with Google book results. So it's not a valid alternative name, I would think.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support: We prefer gerund titles here at Wikipedia. Red Slash 00:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose All the classic definitional quotes appear to use the "lumpers" and "splitters" phrasing... AnonMoos (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose and rewrite the lead to follow Darwin's original. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lumpers and splitters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810014839/http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(137)ruhlen12.pdf to http://www.nostratic.ru/books/(137)ruhlen12.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

A couple examples in the biology section would help

Obviously, I should provide such examples myself, but can't get to that right now and I didn't want to let the thought go that it really could use some examples. Thanks! Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Lumpers and splitters in mathematics

Mathematicians like Tim Gowers and Freeman Dyson have written about a distinction in mathematicians between those who prefer to build overarching theories that apply far and wide, vs. those who prefer to attack individual problems, using any fine details available[1][2]. In Dyson's eloquent words,

Some mathematicians are birds, others are frogs. Birds fly high in the air and survey broad vistas of mathematics out to the far horizon. They delight in concepts that unify our thinking and bring together diverse problems from different parts of the landscape. Frogs live in the mud below and see only the flowers that grow nearby. They delight in the details of particular objects, and they solve problems one at a time. I happen to be a frog, but many of my best friends are birds. The main theme of my talk tonight is this. Mathematics needs both birds and frogs. Mathematics is rich and beautiful because birds give it broad visions and frogs give it intricate details. Mathematics is both great art and important science, because it combines generality of concepts with depth of structures. It is stupid to claim that birds are better than frogs because they see farther, or that frogs are better than birds because they see deeper. The world of mathematics is both broad and deep, and we need birds and frogs working together to explore it.

This seems to have a place in Lumpers and splitters#Usage in various fields.

A Lesbian (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)