Jump to content

Category talk:Philosophy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This Article was the WikiProject Philosophy Collaboration of the Month for September 2005 - Vote for next month's collaboration

Guidelines

[edit]

These guidelines are intended to help editors in categorising philosophy articles. See Wikipedia:Categorization for more general information. the aim of these guidelines is to make the philosophy categories both specific and broad. Categories are there to make it easy for people to find information, and do not need to form a tree, so it is quite accepttable to have an article classified into several categories.

General guidelines

[edit]

Guidelines for including an article in a category

[edit]

Attention tag

[edit]

There are too many articles in the top-level category; most should be moved to subcategories. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Hierarchy Draft and Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Hierarchy Draft 2 for ideas. -- Beland 04:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

in this whole section the philosophy of existentialism is poorly represented and hard to find...

Sounds fine to me... Banno 22:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to move

[edit]

The {{move|Portal:Philosophy}} tag has not been "noted in Wikipedia:Requested moves".

I think such a merge would be a mistake. The portal and the main article have different, distinct and important roles. Banno 22:19, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

So I removed it... Banno 03:45, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I put the note on the page originally, but inadvertently didn't list it on WP:RM. I'm not sure why you've got portal content on a category page, and I think it would make much more sense to have a Portal:Philosophy in the correct namespace. Worldtraveller 11:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the Portal and the main article, this is about the Portal and the main Category. The Portal and the main category indeed have very different distinct and important roles, and therefore shouldn't be counfounded as they are here. Unless you give some new argument, I will put the Requested for move back on. Jules LT 23:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw the banner as it used to be... it implied that it was the Philosophy article that had to be moved to Portal:Philosophy, but that was obviously a typo: what's wrong here is that Portal material is on a Category page. I'll put up a Split banner. Jules LT 23:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the split template is meant for those articles that are to be replaced with a disambiguation page and the move template doesn't see the "Category" Namespace, hence the confusion. I don't think Portals merged with main Categories make any sense, and all of the Portals in Template:Eight portals links are like that, so I encourage you to join me in the discussion on that topic at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Jules LT 23:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

[edit]

In Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/readability I suggested classifying philosophy articles as:

  • General and introductory articles
  • Biographical articles
  • Publications
  • Arguments

I think this sort of classification would go a long way to sorting out the difficulties with the present arrangement.

Both Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Hierarchy Draft and Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Hierarchy Draft 2 fail in not allowing a place for cataloguing specific arguments and Publications.

Subcategories

[edit]

I propose using these as the root categories:

  • Arguments
  • Branches of philosophy
    • Epistemology
    • Ethics
    • Logic (to replace Laws of thought)
    • Philosophy of...
    • Causality
  • Philosophical theories
    • Integral theory
    • Modernism
    • Objectivism
  • Philosophers
  • Philosophical terminology
    • Latin philosophical phrases
  • Philosophy by Era
  • Philosophy by region
    • Eastern
    • Western
    • nationalities
      • German
    • ethnic philosophies
      • Jewish
  • Philosophy books
  • Philosophy articles

Banno 22:15, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "arguments" deserves its own section; it can fit in other sections. Otherwise, looks good to me. Lucidish 00:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The idea would be to have prominent arguments listed in two places - in the categoryarguments as well as in the appropriate branch, or in philosophers according to their proponents. So Open Question argument would be under Argument, ethics and G.E.Moore. The reason for listing them in argument is simply to provide a convenient place to group them - so, for instance, if someone came across the Open Question argument in a context outside of ethics, they could locate is easily in the argument section. Banno 02:01, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why does "Eastern/Western" repeat itself?
Oops. it doesn't - now. Banno
  • Wouldn't "German" go under "Western", rather than under "nationalities"?
No. The distinction between Eastern and Western philosophical "traditions" is a construction of the West; a theory aboutregional differentiation rather than a category. influences transcend such simplistic boundaries. So I'd leave these two as articles, rather than categories, under the heading "Philosophies by region". Banno 08:21, September 9, 2005 (UTC)*Schools of thought, like Marxism, Empiricism, etc....they go under "theories"?--goethean ॐ 22:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Banno
Maybe. Banno 01:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History, schools and Traditions

[edit]
Oops! I think I was hasty and started recategorizing before reading your ideas here. I added two subcategories - Category:Philosophical schools and Category:History of philosophy. Maybe this was unconsiderate of me, after all I am a physicist, not philosopher or historian, so go ahead and delete them if needed. Karol 01:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Karol, I was wondering about a "Schools" cat myself, although it cuts across Categories:Philosophy by tradition. Which do we keep? But hadn't considered a "history" cat, which is a good addition. Banno 01:42, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
I would keep both, but I'm no expert. Just seems to me that there are quite general traditions in philosophy, like stoicism, and specific schools, such as the Cynics. I would hesitate to call the first a school and the second a tradition. Thsi is actually the example that had me create the category. Karol 07:49, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

So how would you word the distinction in the guidelines? Banno 21:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

What's the difference between them? Lucidish

It's a moot question now; I've eliminated "showcase" and "special topics" sections. Lucidish 23:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Banno 01:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in top-levl Category:Philosophy

[edit]

I picked through alot of articles and recategorized many into subcategories. In the process I created some new categories I think were lacking, including (if I remember right) Category:Realism, Category:Monism, Category:Reductionism, and many others. Now there are less articles and Iremoved the TOC tag. Karol 16:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent job, Karol. Now I think it is time to take a look at guidelines for what should be in which category. Banno 20:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the ones left in the top level, ot the ones in the subcategories? Karol 07:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I can say my job is done... there are now 24 artcles in Category:Philosophy. Now I am going for a walk :) Karol 11:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A job well done. Thanks. Banno 20:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

}

[edit]

I don't know why the following pages are showing up under the top-level Philosophy category (they're at the end). I'm sure it has something to do with my Integral theory templates, but I've looked at the code and can't find the cause. I'd appreciate any help you guys can offer in correcting this. If youre an admin, my subpage can be nuked.

  • User:Goethean/ITP
  • Integralwiki
  • Stanislav Grof

--goethean ॐ 21:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I puzzled over this, but could not see what was happening. how to we get more technical support? Banno 21:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I asked at the village pump. You can add to my query if you want. --goethean ॐ 15:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schools and traditions

[edit]

I can't see a way of differentiating these with sufficient clarity. I think there are two courses of action:

  1. Merge them into one category
  2. Someone else might be able to provide a succinct guideline for determining if an article belongs in Schools or in traditions.

In the absence of such a guideline, I move that we merge the two. Banno 21:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't answer before to your question about guidelines and wording the differences between schools and traditions, because I have no clear answer. Like I mentioned before, I created Category:Philosophical schools because I felt Cynics didn't belong in Category:Philosophy by tradition, as opposed to Stoicism. When categorising other articles, this additional category sometimes helped me out, and sometimes I had problems deciding between the two. This was a naive reason for making a new category, and it may well be that it was unnecessary - more so that both categories have about 10-20 elements each right now (although there are many articles missing still) - so a merger would be fine by me. Nonetheless, it was useful to me when categorizing, and if it were to depend on me, I would keep both categories. I guess Category:Philosophy by tradition should have pages concerning major trends in philosophy that have been revived many times in the history of philosophy or at least have influenced many other philosophies (example: Platonism) - this is really broad, of course. And Category:Philosophical schools, on the other hand, would have pages on particular movements or groups of philosophers in history (counter-example: Cambridge Platonists. All in all, I'm neither a historian nor a philosopher, so You good people should decide and I will obide. If merging would be the consensus, maybe Category:Philosophical schools and traditions would be good idea to put everything into? Karol 22:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think merging is a good idea. Also, I've generated an imperfect list at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy, which I'm copying and pasting here (also adding the Cynics):

Agnosticism, African philosophy, Alexandrian school, Analytic philosophy, Anarchism, Atheism, Cambridge Platonists, Coherentism, Contextualism, Continental philosophy, Continental rationalism, Communism, Critical theory, Cynics, Deconstructionism, Deism, Eastern philosophy, Egotism, Empiricism, Epicureanism, Ethical egoism, Existentialism, Frankfurt School, Hermeneutics, Humanism, Integral theory (philosophy), Kyoto School, Marxist philosophy, Modernism, Neoplatonism, Mysticism, Objectivism, Phenomenalism, Postmodernism, Pragmatism, psychological egoism, Rationalism, Relativism, Reliabilism, Religious philosophy and doctrine, Scholasticism, School of Brentano, Scotism, Situated ethics, Situational ethics, Skepticism, Solipsism, Sophism, Stoicism, Transcendentalism, Young Hegelians, Vienna Circle, Western philosophy FranksValli 22:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then. The relevant policy seems to be Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies. Let's have at it. Banno 03:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good consensus. If only everything in Wikipedia were this easy :) Karol 20:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Typo somewhere in this page

[edit]

Notice this talk page is categorized into Category:Philosophy, which means someone made a typo somewhere above by leaving the ":" out (writing simply [[Category:Philosophy]]). I can't seem to find that place... Karol 17:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy Anniversaries!

[edit]

I've created two new pages to deal with philosophy anniversaries:

List of philosophy anniversaries

Once the raw data is compiled into the above page, it is cleaned up for display at the following page:

Selected philosophy anniversaries

This page uses its subpages (on its separate Template page) as each day of the year, for example:

Template:Selected philosophy anniversaries/November 11

You can automatically add this template to pages with this code:

{{Selected philosophy anniversaries/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}}_{{CURRENTDAY}}}}

As long as I can, I'll try my best to make sure the next day's template is ready to go, with a picture and everything, but help would be much appreciated!

Please go through the List of philosophers and see if you can add info for a philosopher or two - it would be much appreciated!

Also, if you see a philosopher listed who isn't actually a philosopher, remove them. It was quite confusing because I included many people who primarily aren't philosophers, but are described as philosophers.

--FranksValli 08:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

QuickTopic list

[edit]

I think it should be removed:

  • Given that this is the category page for philosophy the quick list is redundant
  • It presents an ambiguity and is potentially confusing to readers
  • It takes up a lot of space
  • It is not as complete as the category list.
  • It is very unwieldy to edit!

Banno 22:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the discussion what to do with this thing is on the TfD page, with a number of suggestions and votes to merge it with and display it on the Philosophy Portal. You seem to be disregarding that entire discussion, and the opinions of all those folks. And since the voting isn't even done yet, I think it's premature to be removing it. Besides, didn't you see my edit and comment in the history? Blank Verse from the TfD suggested how to make the page less cumbersome by transcluding the template from a subpage, which is what I did. Then you immediately removed it. My edit was an indication of support, and you totally disregarded that too.
In answer to your points:
  • It may be redundant, but it takes fewer clicks and almost no scrolling.
  • It isn't ambiguous because it is "quick". Its name clarifies it quite well as a seperate aid. It is faster and easier to use than the category list. And it is in a box, which makes it look distinctly different than a category list, and therefore not confusing. Besides, it is fairly well organized, though I never could tell the difference between an idea and a concept, but oh well, Infinity0 is working on those sections, and he will no doubt improve them over time. And if the users are familiar with categories, they know exactly where to find the cat listings: at the bottom of the page.
  • We have plenty of space, with more to spare. This is cyberspace! There's no lack of real estate here.
It crowds the page.
  • It's not supposed to be complete, it is supposed to be a quick summary of useful topics, to help (beginners) navigate. Particularly the major articles, lists, and upper levels of the Philosophy hierarchy (Branches, sub-disciplines, schools). If the selection is lacking, then we can improve the selection. And the category list may be more complete, but it takes much longer to navigate.
  • As for editing, Infinity0 and I have been editing it for weeks, and it's pretty easy once you get the hang of it. Besides, since the thing is already complete, it doesn't take much to change a topic here or there. And in comparison to opening articles to change their category tags, it is much easier to edit than the category lists.
Some points that you missed:
  • The portal is a centralized location, which makes the Quick Topic Guide easy to find. Just click any of the philosophy portal buttons, and blam! You're there. I doubt it is of much use to advanced philosophers (and neither is the portal, for that matter, excluding the category list), but beginners seem to like it. And I thought the portal catered to beginners primarily.
  • Infinity0 has kind of adopted the project, and I'm sure he would be at your disposal if you needed any help changing it.
  • If the Guide has a presence on Wikipedia, then users can copy it to the top of their user or talk page, which gives them instant access to it (that's how I use it, and it's great, especially for getting back to the portal or project, and to the lists). But if it is entirely purged off the 'pedia, then no one will get a chance to even try it.
  • The Guide can be altered to include whatever projects WikiProject Philosophy is working on, to provide hot buttons to get there fast.
  • The Guide provides the easiest access to the Philosophy Lists, which are rapidly becoming more useful than the category list.
By the way, this talk page doesn't get much traffic. This is the first time I've checked it in 5 days, and most of my posts have never received answers here and they've been sitting here for weeks. So to post here for a mere five days and assume there are no objections is rather dubious logic, which is surprising coming from a Philosophy buff such as yourself. Even AfDs and TfDs provide a week to reach a consensus, which is pretty much the standard on Wikipedia for consensus building.
My vote is to....
KeepGo for it! 10:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Good, I have your attention. Firstly, congratulations and thanks for your enthusiastic editing of the project pages. Good to have your company.

This is the place to discuss edits to this page, not TfD. The discussion there is to do with whether the template should be kept at all; the discussion here is about if it is appropriate on this particular page. Do you check your watchlist regularly? It is a good idea to do so, and to keep an eye out for comments in the talk pages.

The core problem I have with locating the template here is that it is seen before the cats list, giving it too great a prominence. A user might well mistakenly think that it is the cats list - and that therefore the Wiki has a dearth of philosophy articles. Furthermore the portal will have the Quicklist, the feature articles, the main headings, and the cats - "meaning of life" appears four times on the page - surly this is overkill?

The structure of the list is irrelevant - although I find it far from readable, since it uses a very small font size, and of necessity misses much while including things that are trivial.

And finally, this issue is unlikely to be decided by a vote. Few things on the Wiki are. Banno

misses much while including things that are trivial - well, help edit it then? Infinity0 21:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite, I do appreciate your work on this, but unfortunately the very idea is prone to this problem. There have been other attempts to do similar things in the past, resulting in unending edit wars or uneasy and unsuccessful truces; see of instance the hierarchy drafts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Hierarchy Draft. In Philosophy, one person's triviality is another's essential. Cats get around this by simply including everything; but I hope that you would not propose this as a solution for the template? Banno 04:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. Well, in that case, keep it as a draft to work on... Infinity0 18:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Template: Philosophy topics aka "Philosophy Quick Topic Guide": TfD results

[edit]

The majority of the vote was to merge the template into the Portal:Philosophy, but delete the template's tag from the rest of Wikipedia. Note that there were two identical templates, each with the same title, differing mainly in the tag name (though the contents did fluctuate also). For the vote on the duplicate template "Philosophy Quick Topic Guide" (an exact duplicate), see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005#Two duplicate Philosophy Templates: Conflict over which tag name to keep Go for it! 03:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I analyse these results below[[2]] - there is no "majority", and certainly no consensus. The vote was a confused, ill-planned muddle. Banno 16:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and use it on the portal in addition - (BTW, I withdraw my nomination to delete). Infinity0 and I have worked on this thing for weeks! Go for it! 06:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would be absurd; since the portal contains the cats list, this template is overkill, and simply confuse users. Delete this template and stick to the cats list. Banno 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why include a list of philosophical links on a page that contains a list of philosophical links? Can someone explain the appeal of this doubling-up to me? Banno 20:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete per Pjacobi. This template is far too large to be useful as a navigational aid and belongs rather in a portal. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-26 00:58:49Z
  • Delete. Not useful, and isn't a quick guide to overview articles. —thames 05:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete There are already several navigation features built in to the Wiki. The most obvious one is the "See also" section of each article. Combined with the Cats page, these two should be sufficient, provided they are done properly. So it is incumbent on editors that they ensure the cats and "see also" are correct and usable. In that regard this template is a distraction. It is also almost unreadable, and biased in a way that the cats will not be. And it is too large - on some philosophy articles, half the page will consist of this template. Banno 09:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until a Merge can be arranged. User:Go for it! and User:Infinity0 brought this on themselves by their inability to compromise, but a philosophy template is clearly useful. It should be named "Template:Philosophy", and the existing templates should Merge. Rick Norwood 14:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The template is not that useful. The "See also" for each article would be far preferable. Banno
Part of the discussion now archived at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/December 2005#Two duplicate Philosophy Templates: Conflict over which tag name to keep. -Splashtalk 02
06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Please comment on the Philosophy Quick Topic Guide template merge below:

[edit]

As you can see, the consensus was to merge the template into the Philosophy Portal. Go for it! 03:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Banno seems to think he can single-handedly override the consensus of the TfD forum. Go for it! 03:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GFI, although you have done much work on the template, if the community decides that it is inappropriate and removes it, that's just the way the Wiki works. This is after all a fairly minor issue.
I thought it obvious, but just to be clear, there are at least two distinct issues here. The first is if the template should be kept as a navigation tool on each philosophy page, as it was originally intended. Your failure to talk with Infinity bought on a rather odd TfD vote on this issue. The second, and separate issue, is if the template should be placed on the portal page. The portal page is a navigation tool in itself; and so it is important to get it right. Even if the TfD vote was to keep the template, it does not follow that it should be placed on the portal page.
The vote was quite confused, and should really never have occurred. The issue should have been discussed on one of the talk pages rather than going to TfD. The lesson is to talk before you edit.
The vote itself is quite ambiguous. The Three possibilities offered are:
    • to keep as a nav tool merged with the other template (5 votes, Izehar, Rick, Pjacobi & Moosh88, horsepunch)
    • to delete altogether (4 clear votes, JIY, Thames, goethean, Banno),
    • to merge into the portal (3 votes, GFI, Infinity, blankverse)
Obviously, no consensus was reached - indeed, there is not even a clear majority!. Certainly the vote provided no reason to suppose there is a mandate for including the template here.
So, the inclusion or no of the template on this page is up for discussion still. I am interested to hear the views of others who have worked on this page; I maintain that placing the Quick Guide at the start of the template is entirely redundant and confusing, as I argued above. Banno 16:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Banno that the vote was a confused mess, also due to the fact that the templates (as I recall) were changing pretty constantly throughout the vote. I say we give Infinity0 and Go for it! exactly two weeks to work out their differences, and bring forth to the Wiki community a template that they jointly support, and a plan for where exactly to place it. If they can't do that, it should just be nuked rather than having this continous edit war that clutters up the Talk pages and detracts from working on the articles themselves. Or, even better, both should agree to step back and let the community decide if, where, and how to use it. (You should never have to argue for something's usefulness -- if it is useful, it will be self-apparent). They have put in many hours on those templates, but it is not theirs. Anyone who writes on Wikipedia must understand that their work will be edited mercilessly, or even deleted. Just my 2c. --Michael (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an excellent idea. Banno 18:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be at the top of the portal either. As for appearance on articles, I'm removing the template from all articles which it links to at the moment, so it can be deleted without causing any broken links. Infinity0 17:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Pjacobi and horsepunch voted to merge with the portal, then delete. Pjacobi maintained his position from the previous TfD, which together makes his stance crystal clear. That shifts the vote count to:

  • Keep/merge the templates = 3 votes (Izehar, Rick, & Moosh)
  • delete altogether = 4 votes (JIY, Thames, goethean, Banno)
  • to merge into the portal = 5 votes (GFI, Ininity, blankverse, pjacobi, horsepunch)

However, on retrospect just plopping the template into the portal is pretty ugly and detracting compared to the other portals.

So I worked up a new portal, to see what it would look like integrated into the content of the portal. It's missing just a couple components (the aniversaries, for example) which I haven't had time to put in yet. Take a look at it at Portal:Temporary, and let me know what you think.

That's amazing. But the category listings will still be there, right? What I think we should do is have each of those boxes, "Branches of Philosophy", "Featured Western philosophy articles", etc... into subbranches of this page, ie. "Category:Philosophy/Featured Western philosophy article", and then embed that into the page. That will be a lot easier to edit, too. Infinity0 17:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but get rid of the nasty greenish-blue bgcolor, have it a normal white. ATM it's hurting my eyes. Infinity0 17:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Don't worry about the categories. Take a close look at the source code. The new portal uses the skeleton method, and already has subpages for easy editing, and edit buttons for every section. It is the same method used to place selected boxes on categories. That is, the main categories have much of their corresponding portals transcluded onto them. We can transclude the parts Banno doesn't have a problem with onto the Category from the Portal page, while keeping everything on the portal (including the template's content which has been integrated, to blend more compatibly with the rest of it). Take a look at the Portal:Geography and Category:Geography to see an example of a category transcluding from a portal. The nice thing is that you can pick and choose components to be transcluded, it's not all or nothing. As for the colors, I'm not overly attached to them -- a color chart is displayed at click here for colors, for anyone who wants to play around with them. Go for it! 18:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Split category from portal

[edit]

Historically, the philosophy portal was created here amongst the categories, rather than in the correct namespace. This is not standard practice, but I had thought it a rather good idea - apparently in agreement with most of the editors. Hence, I redirected Portal:Philosophy to here. I am not aware of any other major subject area that does this.

But this has led to a conflict in purposes. The cats are intended to be a complete list of philosophy articles, whilst the portal is intended to be a main page for the philosophy project, and to "promote content and encourage contribution" Wikipedia:Portal. That is, the portal is selective whilst the cats are inclusive.

Unfortunately, the time may have come to separate the portal from the categories. Banno 17:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Banno, Splitting portal/cat presents no problem on my end. I am happy to "go with the flow". But I have to admit I have not yet looked at the new layout below. --Ancheta Wis 00:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the Portal Talk:Temporary I document an experiment which shows that it is possible to simply cut the material above the
Horizontal Rule (----) and paste it into Portal:Philosophy until the Temporary portal stabilizes. --Ancheta Wis 02:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Portal Almost Ready, See Portal:Temporary

[edit]

What a coincidence, Banno, I was thinking precisely the same thing!

Take a look at the new portal proposal at Portal:Temporary. It still needs the aniversaries section put in, but is nearly complete.

We can finish it up there, and then I can transfer it pretty easily to Portal:Philosophy.

Go for it! 17:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you have learned to talk about issues before you commit. Please do not implement your new portal yet. Banno 18:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Except when I see a "Be Bold" sign.  ;) Besides, it still needs some finishing touches. And even if I had implemented it, it would still have been subject to editing. But it is operational where it sits, and can be refined there until it's ready. Go for it! 18:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To see how the new portal was constructed, check out Wikipedia:Portal Go for it! 18:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please Discuss New Portal Below

[edit]

Please list the things that need to be changed, and those that need to be added.

It still needs the aniversaries, but my eyelids are starting to close involuntarily, so I guess that will have to wait until tomorrow. Go for it! 18:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not discuss it at Portal talk:Temporary? Pages should be discussed on their own talk page Banno 19:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philsophy navigation Template Tags

[edit]

I moved Template:Philosophy (navigation) to Template:Philosophy navigation and now there are quite a lot of redirects. Please help me to fix them.

Infinity0 19:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed all the Quick Topic Guide tags to the old PhilNav Tags. Now there is only the problem of redirection in Philosophy (navigation) to Philosophy navigation. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Philosophy topics. Infinity0 20:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Color scheme / Style-guide feedback needed

[edit]

Discuss the colors and the guide at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/style guide.

But see the colors in place on the new portal at Portal:Temporary.

Go for it! 05:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant material

[edit]

Now that the cats and portal are split, we can remove much of the redundant material from this page and return it to being just a navigation tool. Banno 19:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation Top 10

[edit]

Why did you make this category part of the Top 10 category but with an inicial space: 

[[Category:Top 10| Philosophy]]

It doesn't look so good to me, mainly because it isn't sorted in the P block but instead, in a no initial block. jοτομικρόν | Talk 13:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For science!

[edit]

Any particular reason why this category is in Category:Science? Ziggurat 22:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removal of top-level categories

[edit]

I've finished a bit of a clean-up, moving a large number if articles to sub-cats. The sub-cats themselves still need work. Banno 03:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

some philosophers articles, like Fred Dretske and Stephen Neale have links to their subjects' personal faculty pages, which are pretty much useless for any reader who doesn't want to send them a fax. do we need these links? trespassers william\danny lost 15:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we ought not include them - for instance, someone might wish to send them a fax... Banno 20:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the majority won't. when someone tries start a basic research at wikipedia, she might expect us to value her time, not sending her to such pages, and building an expectation to find there something more. anyway, i read on some reference/external links guide that generally there should be a link to the most formal represntation of whatever an article is about. i don't feel experienced enough to argue with those guides, but maybe we should come up with some kind of warning for this links? trespassers william 11:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

templates

[edit]

I copied this conversation to this talk page; hopefully it can get some traction and discussion here: (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_major_philosophers")

I just went through the list and added the appropriate template {{philosophy}} wherever there was none. Is there a way to modify the template so that it automatically adds the page to a category - several other WikiProject Banner templates do this already, and it might be a good idea here... - Sam 07:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be difficult to set up a suitable cat. The cats for philosophy are rather complex - see Category talk:Philosophy for guidelines as to how to use them. This conversation might be a good one for that page or Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy. Banno 07:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

- Sam 14:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Embarassing admission and new categories suggestion

[edit]

Someone (I suspect from Wikiproject books) started a new category Category:Books about the philosophy science. The name seemed unnecessarily cumbersome to me, and too restrictive - wouldn't someone interested in notable philosophy books also be interested in notable philosophy articles? Anyway, with this in mind, and in my usual BEBOLD way, I shifted everything into a new cat 'Philosophy of science literature'. It then occurred to me that this was stupid, as 'History and philosophy of science literature' would better fit the material likely to be included, and would fairly represent current thinking about these fields - namely that you can't do phil of science without doing hist of science. I now know that there is a system for renaming cats - stupid of me not to realise this when there is a system for everything else! So, questions:

  • Does it make sense to have cats for different types of phil literature? Please tell me if you think this is a stupid idea.
  • If so, just cats for books or cats for literature in the area?
  • Should any such cats be called, for exsmple, 'Philosophy of art works' or 'Philosophy of art literature'? Anarchia 09:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been bold and gone with 'literature' - I don't see any need for philosophy to distinguish between books and articles, if wikibooks want to draw finer grained distinctions, that is fine. Anarchia 00:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your move is consistent with other existing ones. I would just recommend that we restrict it to the task force areas. There should be one place for all written material (articles, books, etc). I don't care what it's called, but 'literature' makes most sense. We are at a level of organization that we can put these specific categories like this if we want. We just need to keep them connected to other areas so people can find what they want. The Philosophical literature area has an attempt at a comprehensive list of phil lit. Greg Bard 01:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eponymous categories

[edit]

I suggest that the categories for major philosophers be listed independently in category:philosophers rather than in a sub-category. SO for example, category:Bertrand Russell should be placed under category:philosophers -Banno 21:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - category:philosophers, and its subcats, are for biographies only. Eponymous categories include books, people, concepts etc. Johnbod 22:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear to me that Johnbod has a good overview of the category situation in general. However, that which Johnbod understands clearly, I just don't agree is working for eponymous cats in philosophy. The people who have discussed these things already, never discussed them with anyone teaching in a philosophy department. Many classes consist solely of "philosopher of the week" curriculum. THERE JUST ISN'T ANY OTHER COMMON SENSE WAY TO ORGANIZE THIS CONTENT. Just biographies? That is not really very close to how things are being done around here. How about we extend that interpretation to written works in response to the eponyms' works at least? Well that's the camel's nose under the tent. The tent is breached. Time for a new tent. Johnbod, I just don't see the philosophy department living under that narrow a view. The policy needs to be reconsidered en toto. Be well, Greg Bard 22:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay for me to start a new category for CS Peirce? Article relating to him are currently scattered all over the place, but nowhere (that I have found) linked to each other. Anarchia 01:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philosophical concepts

[edit]

When I first started putting things in categories I found this category and cat: philosophical terminology useful because I could put almost anything that I couldn't find a place for in one or both of these two. But, this now seems to me to be a disadvantage of these two categories. Cat: phil concepts has a lot of things in it that are already in much more useful categories. Do you think that articles like Type physicalism need to be in cat:phil concepts as well as phil of mind? The original purpose of this category at Category talk:Fundamental (half way down the page - sorry, haven't worked out how to link to sections) doesn't fit with this categories current contents. Anarchia 09:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your observation to be a facsinating understanding of these categories from one who uses them most. I'm I very "organizational" type of person. I have thousands of index cards, in categories. My desk has files, etc. In my personal organizing of things I always find it useful to have a catch-all catgeory which builds up over time. Most people call this "miscellaneous." I call it "unassimilated" (ala Pirsig's MOQ) This type of space gets filled up, and then patterns develop. Suddenly it becomes clear that we need a certain category because a bunch of them have piled up there. I also keep a "junk" file for the sake of preserving intellectual values.
So I see it as advantage as long as we understand what it is. Now that I see it the way you do, I will use these categories similarly. The natural progression of things will have articles move out of these type of categories as more appropriate categories develop to house them.
Be well, Greg Bard 11:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philosophy and society

[edit]

Just want to note that I have created a new subcat, Category:Philosophy and society, which incorporates all of Category:Philosophy and culture along with (at least) 2 other sub-cats which had been improperly parented. Cgingold (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On what questions are philosophers beginning to gain a consensus? What are the key open questions?

[edit]

In most fields of study, questions are raised, studied, debated, and a consensus on the answer emerges from the experts. This seems to take much longer in philosophy. But I have to believe there are questions that are moving toward a consensus answer. See, for example: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/04/29/what-do-philosophers-believe/ Ideally I would like to see an inventory of important philosophical questions that have been studied over the millennia along with the status of their answers. For example, it seems settled that the earth moves around the sun, but there is still debate on the nature of truth. What are the key philosophical questions that have been settled, and what are the most important open questions that are important topics of ongoing research? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove humans science category

[edit]

I remove humans science category for prevent the loops between philosophy and science sociales.Zipodu (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"CAT:PHIL" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect CAT:PHIL has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 19 § CAT:PHIL until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 09:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Philosophy&oldid=1234885883"