Talk:Model

Picture

Shouldn't the picture really be at the bottom of the page. After all, this is a physical model, and the article is mainly about conceptual models in science. CSTAR 19:39, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm a bit biased, because I took the pic, but physical models are fully mentioned at the start of the article so I see no reason to move the pic. Here are the mentions of a physical model in just the first two paragraphs....... (I've added the italics)

PARAGRAPH 1

The word model is used in various contexts meaning an abstract or physical representation of some thing. That thing may be a single item or object (for example, a bolt), a large system (for example, the Solar System), or even a time series such as that corresponding to stock market prices. In general, a model has no intrinsic interest, but rather it allows us to simulate or to infer something about the thing it represents.

PARAGRAPH 2

In many cases a model is a theoretical construct that represents social or physical processes by a set of variables and a set of logical and quantitative relationships between them. Models in this sense are constructed to reason within a idealized logical framework about these processes. In other cases a model is a physical object such as an architectural model of a projected building or an existing one. In the case of a projected building, one possible purpose of the model is to facilitate visualization of internal relationships within the structure or external relationships of the structure to the environment. For the model of an existing building, possible purposes of the model might be visualization of renovation plans for a contractor or determination of placement of explosives for a demolition team planning on blowing it up.

All of the italicised stuff is talking about a physical model so why would you want to move the pic?

Adrian Pingstone 21:03, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Granted, but there is no corresponding graphical representation of a conceptual model that I can think of (how would one even represent such a conceptual model). The placement of the graphic at the top of the article seems to give the wrong impression of the point of the article. BTW a model of a bolt doesn't have to be a physical model. Perhaps the article should be split up.CSTAR 21:11, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

NLP disambiguation

Do we really need two very long sentences describing NLP in a disambiguation page? CSTAR 23:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Revision 20:41, 25 September 2005 by 130.123.128.114

The addition of this pre-prepared block of text by anon 130.123.128.114 should be taken with care. Currently the page is a disambiguation page, which suggests that this addition take its own page with its own article.

One approach might be to subsume the addition to the talk page until its provenance can be established. Ancheta Wis 09:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It's surely either a copyright violation or original research, although I'm not sure which. In any case, it's certainly not suitable in the middle of a disambiguation page, so I'm just going to be bold and remove it. Someone can clean it up and make it into a new page if they want. Stephen Turner 08:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Clean up

I have given the dab a bit of a clean, and listed the entries I removed below:

• The Models, an Australian rock band
• Model-based computing
• MoML
• Ptolemy Project
• CoSMIC
• a particular version of a series of vehicles produced by an automobile manufacturer is known as a model (dicdef)
• role model — person who acts as a behavioural or moral example to others.

--Commander Keane 04:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Some background: I revised CK's clean, CK absolutely reverted and left comments on my talk page about that. My explanation for my subsequent absolute reversion follows. Some thoughts on the piping: I note the MOS on piping, but think this tiny section on a style page may be subordinate to higher level policy, such as that we're not dealing with paper here (and has there been any discussion on the purported MOS status of the piping "rules", when the reality is significant non-compliance across WP?). Regarding the descriptions, I agree that these should be kept as simple as possible – but no simpler. Clearly, descriptions do not need to be pared down to the absolute minimum as an objective in itself. But let's not overlook that my revision did tighten down the definitions, and trimmed down excess fat (eg. the irrelevant piping of Walther Model's full name). Lastly, on the arbitrary deletion of actual content (the band and role model), what gives? Obey 02:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If you want to discuss changes to the MoS, do that there. It is well established that piping and excess wikilinks don't go on disambiguation pages. Your explanations were much longer than they needed to be, the explanation exists to point a reader to the correct article, any more is not needed and obtrusive. The reason why the above entries were removed is that people looking for The Models or role model will search for these things, not model. If someone wikilinks to model from an article, they should not mean The Models, and they should not mean role model. Disambiguation pages are here to clear up disambiguation, not to list every possible use a word. I'll have a closer look at your explanations, and work them into the MoS compliant version.Commander Keane

People will look for model as a variant of not only automobiles, but many other manufactured products. Just look at the "What links here" (for example, Porta-bote. There needs to be something along the lines of what there was for automobiles, but more general. There's another name for it in connection with automobiles, something which I think has a wikipedia article, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Gene Nygaard 14:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Good idea for an article. Is there already one for automobiles or are you saying we need to create an article for that, including boats etc?--Commander Keane 14:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• We can leave aside the piping and MOS issues for now. There remains a real problem with the substantive content that has been arbitrarily removed, and the reasoning that has now been offered in support of this. In the case of role model and the band, your approach deliberately limits the useability and relevance of the article. We cannot assume users are 100% certain about what is that they are looking for. I therefore ask that you please reconsider and reinstate these entries. Also, please delete conceptual model after you see where it leads. Obey 23:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• • The way I have addressed the cleanup of this page is correct, apart from that reversion at the start (for which I am sorry for, but have now adjusted). Nothing was arbitrarily removed (experience in dabs, and various consensus about what a dab is went into my descisions) and I even dumped the removed stuff on the talk page. I'd just like to mention that disambiguation pages are not articles, they are pages, just to keep things clear. I'll put back in role model, I can vaguely see why you want that back in, but not The Models. I can't possilby see how someone would go to Model expecting to find an article about The Models. If you think my changes were extreme, I rather mild when it comes to removing entries. You can always go to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation if you'd like some questions answered about dabs.--Commander Keane 05:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

So just where do you think you'd end up if you put "Models" in the search box? Normal, conventional style not just in Wikipedia:Naming conventions but elsewhere is to omit leading articles (in the grammar sense: a, an, the, and foreign equivalents) from the article name. Gene Nygaard 10:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Having actually visted The Models for the first time, it turns out that The Models should be moved to Models (band). I'm sorry I didn't visit it earlier, and of course it should have been included anyway - as "Models" is at the very least their alternative name. I got a bit cuaght up in the other style issues of the dab, thanks digging me out of the hole.--Commander Keane 11:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

WP:MoS

My previous changes started from a version in telegraphic dictionary style and constructed sentences from them. It appears that the WP:MoS actually condones a dictionary style which contradicts the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" guideline. How did this come to be? A dab page appears to be useful when there are only a few items but there appear to efforts to actually control the number of dab entries as well. In light of this I am putting a number of fundamental articles on my watch list to ensure that this telegraphic style does not go too far. Ancheta Wis 05:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I refer you to Jerzy's guideline, from the dab project:"_ _ Don't get hung up wanting order for its own sake, where the information we are representing is just not that orderly. --Jerzy·t 08:25, 2005 July 21 (UTC) "

It just surprises me that coherent sentences should ever take second place in the encyclopedia.

One of the functions of a dab page is to unify concepts onto a single page, where similarities are actually accepted and discussed, rather than shipped off to separate articles.

If this is not the case, then this is motivation to remove the dab notice to protect an article from the dab project.

The above comment was hidden. I am not sure why, but I'll respond anyway.

From Wikipedia:Disambiguation:

"A disambiguation page contains no article content, but refers users to other Wikipedia pages"

"Disambiguation serves a single purpose: to let the reader choose among different pages that closely relate to various meanings of a particular term"

This guideline rejects your idea that "One of the functions of a dab page is to unify concepts onto a single page". The MoS is an application of this policy. Model exists to get readers to their desired article. If you want to have an article (with prose etc) discussing "Model", create Model (word).--Commander Keane 09:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Modelling vs Modeling

We cant use both! we should use the british version--GrWikiMan 14:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

fixing vandalism

This is just to clarify what I did earlier. I reverted to an earlier version of the vandalism and then fixed it on my second edit. If I did something wrong or you want to tell me how I should have done it that would be appreciated. Thanks! --Victoria h 06:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Modeling - a concept in psychology

I was searching for information on modeling as defined in psychology as the learning of a novel behavior by observing that behavior performed by another individual. I didn't edit the page to add it because I was not sure if a page like this existed already and I just could not find it. If anybody can confirm/deny with reasonable certainty the existence of a page describing the psychological concept of modeling, please let me know. Gatita84 06:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Model number?

I don't see any articles referring to model numbers for different items. Are there no articles about that? Ogdens (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really deserve a Wikipedia article, and instead falls within the area of Wiktionary. See the entry at wiktionary:model#Noun, particularly item 4 --Redrose64 (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

what the fuck wrong with you idiots!!!!!if you hav the nfo and cannot locate it on the internet then you should fucking post it so that it would be up here!!!dumbasses..............trix and cherry piece out homos!!!referring to modelin-concepts in psychology.yea those idiots gatita 84 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.58.129.250 (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2009

organizing the non-physical

I organized the large number of non-physical pages by level of abstraction (can refer to any model, can refer to any model within category, refers to processes that construct/use models), but it could conceivably be organized by category instead (math/logic, engineering, psychology, real-world modeling, other) with conceptual model uncategorized. A third alternative organization would add economic models and remove real-world modeling. Related issue: I was undecided if 3D modeling really belonged in physical or not (since a 3d model is not "real", it is about a real thing.). :) 68.144.80.168 (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

model (concept)

Although it may seem hard to believe, that topic as whole has been address by some sources, e.g. [1], and it's quite interesting by itself, so a more general article is possible. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Old discussions from Talk:Modeling

3d modeling

This page needs to be an article about the type of Modeling that has to do with 3d modeling. I'd start one, but that's the whole reason I'm here, I don't know anything about it, heh.

Or at least it should be one of them "disambiguation" pages that could link to all the different uses of "modeling." Like the 3d kind, the science kind, the fashion kind, ect... User:67.185.148.52, 0:32, 3 July 2008‎

Merge proposal

I just restored the text of the article before the merge proposal. I don't see any discussion about this, and the text in this disambig-page wasn't merged into the model dismabig-page. Now I don't see any argument, why this disambig-page can stay the way it was/is? -- Mdd (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The content of Modeling was duplicative of content at Model. I have merged them. bd2412 T 13:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Non ambiguity of model

I know there is a reference to the wiki dictionary, but I feel like there should be a wikipedia article about "model", not only about how model can be interpreted. A miniature train and a climate simulation both are models while many people think it is coincidental that both those things are called "model".It is not, every non-ambiguous form of a model is always a scaled or reduced descriptor of reality in all its dimensions, contrary to a clone of reality, which is not a model. I do not think Wikipedia currently reflect this. Do people agree with me and if so, how should we improve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.132.203.199 (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Your suggestion is now partly implemented in this disambiguation page, which will hopefully serve as a model for a future full Wikipedia article. 2A00:23C6:54A4:8901:ECEF:62D6:F10F:E216 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 September 2020

Please replace the French-language link to the French article "Model" with a link to the French article "Modèle (homonymie)". Please replace the German-language link to the German article "Model" with a link to the German article "Modell". Please also check the other language links for similar linking mistakes.

Reason: the French and German articles "Model" refer only to the narrow sense of a fashion model. "Model" is originally neither a German nor a French word but a loanword from English to describe this narrow sense. In contrast, in English the word "model" has a broad sense (aeroplane model, model father, climate model, artist's model, etc) which corresponds exactly to the French "Modèle" and the German "Modell". Please also check the other language links for this error because I am not fluent in Greek etc. 2A00:23C6:54A4:8901:247C:36D4:EE80:7707 (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a disambiguation page with several items named literally "Model", so having these interlanguage links seems fine. For dictionary definitions there is Wiktionary. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the request, or you do not understand French and German. The Russian and Greek language links are correct, whereas the French and German language links are wrong. Please carry out the edit reguest, or please pass it on to someone who understands German and/or French. 2A00:23C6:54A4:8901:8C59:3668:556A:1A2A (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with linking this page to the German article which lists Else Model and Model Motor Company. This page is not about the concept of models. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

You are not expressing yourself clearly ("This page" - what page? Talk page? Model page? Modell page? Else Model page?) Please desist from confusing this simple matter and please appoint an arbitrator who speaks French and/or German.2A00:23C6:54A4:8901:EC96:F929:B09B:A0DF (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I have now italicised the non-English words above. Perhaps you were confusing English, German and French words?

 Not done: the French and German links are to appropriate disambiguation pages that have the same Wikidata page link as this English disambiguation page. There is no need for change unless I'm missing something. Feel free to explain it to me like I'm four years old. I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 01:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in, PI Ellsworth. Yes, you are wrong. Let us start with French. The translation of English "model" is French "modèle" not French "model". Both words exist in French, but only the first covers the English range of meanings (mathematical model, artist's model, etc). The second French word "model" is used only in the narrow sense of fashion model, and is in fact a loanword from English; it is true that the French Wikipedia page for "model" lists some other meanings, but these are simply non-French names (of people, places, games) like Walther Model, the German general. Please read the French disambiguation page Modèle (homonymie) and you will see that it corresponds precisely to the English Wikipedia disambiguation page model. By the way, the Wikidata page is odd - why is "model" stated to be the same as "modelling"? 2A00:23C6:54A4:8901:34AC:D16E:40E9:71B1 (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I still think this edit is not necessary, linking to the French disambiguation page that lists things literally named "Model" is fine. However, such links are not managed here at Wikipedia but at Wikidata, where you can yourself update them. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps you have not understood that there are TWO French disambiguation pages for "model". Perhaps that is because you do not know that homonymie means "disambiguation" on the French Wikipedia. At present, the link is to the wrong (narrow) French disambiguation page Model, rather than to the correct (broad-range) French disambiguation page Modèle (homonymie). Please implement. 2A00:23C6:54A4:8901:D17B:3585:20B3:E5C5 (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I understand about the two French dab pages. The problem is that while I can make the changes in Wikidata, the results are disappointing. For example, I checked the German page you want to link to, but it's not a disambiguation (Begriffsklärung) page on the German Wikipedia. I changed to the page you wanted on the French Wikipedia, but that meant that all the other language links that link to "Model" on Wikidata disappeared from this page. Can't have that. So if you want these changes it would require a consensus and administrative input NOT here, but at Wikidata, where all the language Wikipedia's are controlled in this manner. Wikidata is the hub of the language wheel. You want two spokes of that wheel changed. I don't think that's going to happen easily. Truly I do understand the predicament you describe, but I don't know how to fix it. So that's where the experts at Wikidata come in. You should try beginning at Wikidata:Help:Sitelinks and go from there. Sorry we couldn't help you. You might also find something useful at Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ellsworth, I appreciate it. I have used up my time budget arguing against a brick wall here (see above), so I will give up at this stage. 2A00:23C6:54A4:8901:20FB:C342:AFD4:B792 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I made a mistake, folks, where the German page is concerned, my apologies. Ellsworth, you are right that my proposed German link was not to the appropriate German page Modell (Begriffsklärung). Therefore, my amended request is as follows: Please replace the German-language link to the German article de:Model with a link to the German article de:Modell (Begriffsklärung). Thank you.2A00:23C6:54A4:8901:BC68:517D:2B1D:BF27 (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

These links exist at Wikidata, not here at the English Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Since Physical model is a short and little-sourced article, lets merge that in here for now as a section. BD2412 T 03:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Definition of Model

The definition of "model" in the article is "an informative representation of an object, person or system." I am wondering what is meant by "informative". Is this word essential in the definition? If so, how? It seems to me that a model can be simply a representation of an object, person or system, and the word "informative" gets to the issue of whether or not the model in question is useful. 2603:800C:2440:9DF2:79AF:1A35:DD06:CFC2 (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we would need to distinguish from some kind of abstract representation. BD2412 T 20:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

For example in several of Earnest Hemingway's stories, his mention of rain represents imminent death; this does not mean that rain is a model for death. So we need to keep "informative" in the definition.2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:3834:73C7:50CD:A2B1 (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Removing two architecture-related images and retaining only third one

I am removing these two pretty pictures because otherwise we have three architecture-related images. Both these removed pictures are aesthetic, but compared to the third picture (Bourton-on-the-Water, which I am retaining), these two do not include a scale (such as a human or a penny coin) to make it immediately obvious that they are models and not simply aerial photographs of real buldings.2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:3834:73C7:50CD:A2B1 (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• 
  Model of a burning house at Bekonscot, Beaconsfield, UK
• 
  A scale model of the Singapore City Centre

English language problem in "German" General Model Theory

The article states: "General Model Theory - According to Herbert Stachowiak, a model is a simplifying image of reality" etc. [my emphasis in bold].

This may be correct in German, but in English a model does not require simplification. For example, a male fashion model demonstrating sportswear is not a "simplified" man - he is a representative man so that other men get an idea how the sportswear would look on them. Another case is a federal model law drafted for adoption by local governments: the model law is not necessarily a simplification, it is a precise text to be adopted.

In the German language there are no model laws, and a distinct word is used for fashion models, so indeed the German word usage for Modell (model) is more restricted than in English and thus German Modell often or always can be labeled as a simplification. But in English the various types of model, whether dry mathematico-logical or legal ones, or more aesthetic female ones, derive from the fundamental meaning of "structural design or layout".

So we need a better English-language source describing General Model Theory. [Note: the German word for model would be something like Bauplan, Blaupause (blueprint), Vorbild.] 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:1910:2D71:87E1:B446 (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I suppose there is an etymological link between Model and Model (person) but they are now different concepts. There would be no point to a model if it weren't a simplified version of reality. At any rate, an attributed opinion is no problem. Johnuniq (talk) 08:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but I must disagree. If someone says Margaret Thatcher is a role model for women, that means Thatcher is not a simplification but a blueprint to be emulated. And if a mathematical logician talks of a model, then that model is not a simplification but refers to a structure within the context of set theory. And a medical researcher tests toxins on guinea pigs as animal models of humans instead of on the human directly, not because the guinea pig is a simplified human but because it has similar biological inner workings. I wonder if you are being misled by the widespread euphemistic usage of "model" for pin-up girl? Just like Americans say "bathroom" when in fact the room in question has no bath? 2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:E9CA:D318:6DD9:3F6D (talk) 13:26, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: It is not even correct in German to say that a model generally is a simplification, because German biological and medical researchers use "animal model" (Tiermodell) in exactly the same sense as English speakers. So the laboratory rat can be a Tiermodell (animal model) for the human species when testing e.g lethal radiation doses, but the laboratory rat obviously is not a "simplified" human. The assumption or hope is that the rat has the same biological mechanisms as the human (a hope that is sometimes disappointed).

So if no-one objects, we should remove the word "simplify/simplification" from the article. It is a minimal change affecting only two words I think.109.155.98.140 (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It appears that the "simplifying" model claim is a misquote, as this claim is not present in the cited source Stachowiak 1973 pp131-133, so I have now deleted this statement from the article.2A00:23C6:54D3:DA01:40AF:814B:AB4D:E46F (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)