Category talk:Philosophy

message: The  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposal to move

message: :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)
thread_title: History, schools and Traditions

message: 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)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Banno 01:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured vs. showcase articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You mean the ones left in the top level, ot the ones in the subcategories? Karol 07:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: A job well done. Thanks. Banno 20:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles in top-levl [[:Category:Philosophy]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I asked at the village pump. You can add to my query if you want.  --goethean ॐ 15:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  } 

message: I can't see a way of differentiating these with sufficient clarity. I think there are two courses of action:
# Merge them into one category
# 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Schools and traditions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Typo somewhere in this page 

message: 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:

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)
thread_title:  Philosophy Anniversaries! 

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

text: The template is not that useful. The "See also" for each article would be far preferable. Banno
** Comment: "Template:Philosophy" is already taken.  That's the first name I tried when I titled it.
*Keep Izehar 00:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template: Philosophy topics]] aka "Philosophy Quick Topic Guide": TfD results 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  New Portal Almost Ready, See [[Portal:Temporary]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Why not discuss it at Portal talk:Temporary? Pages should be discussed  on their own talk page Banno 19:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Discuss New Portal Below 

message: I moved Template:Philosophy (navigation) to Template:Philosophy navigation and now there are quite a lot of redirects. Please help me to fix them.
*Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Philosophy Quick Topic Guide - change to  from the "Quick Topic Guide" to so it can be safely deleted.
*Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Philosophy topics - remove the brackets in those articles so it links to  instead of the old 
Infinity0 19:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philsophy navigation Template Tags 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Color scheme / Style-guide feedback needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Redundant material 

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

message: Any particular reason why this category is in :Category:Science? Ziggurat 22:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For science! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  removal of top-level categories 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  links to philosophers' useless faculty pages 

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  templates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Embarassing admission and new categories suggestion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Eponymous categories 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Category:Philosophy and society 

message: 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)
thread_title:  On what questions are philosophers beginning to gain a consensus? What are the key open questions? 

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

message: 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  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 09:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:CAT:PHIL]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]