Talk:Index of philosophy articles (A–C)

message: Some philosophy articles, including purpose and objectivity, have remained stubby while stitting there for a LONG time, while seemingly sophisticated lengthy accounts on some others have been written.  Understandable if a topic is obscure or unimportant, but are purpose and objectivity obscure and unimportant?  Or are they perhaps unduly neglected by the current community of philosophy-mavens? Michael Hardy 22:37, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What are the philosophers on Wikipedia doing?

message: I have the following humble suggestions for Wikipedia and the Wiki Think Tank.
*Allow the Wikipedians to make entries about anything and everything as their firsthand knowledge or field of speciality. This will collect a great wealth of data at first and the evolutionary process (addition and editing) will make a crude material worth a reference. 
::That is already done and has always been done since the founding of Wikipedia. Michael Hardy 21:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The Wiki-philosophy:Some Suggestions

message: I'll leave the other pages as they are for a day or two to wait for any recommended changes to my new introduction to this list.  When I add the new introduction to the other pages, I may also parse the list up into a few more pages.  Each of the pages is rather exceedingly long. KSchutte 17:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Introduction 

message: We need to tag the self references as self references in some way.  Template:Selfref encapsulates but doesn't seem to work for the A-C, etc. pages where numbered lists are used... and Template:Self reference is very obtrusive.... but, there needs to be some note that the pages use self references in case this is ever in printed form. gren グレン ? 06:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  self references 

message: What is needed is a table of contents, along the lines of the SEP. Here people are just randomly throwing or deleting terms, people and words . Or how about this idea:  an artcile should be listed only AFTER it has been created.  The way it is now, it is still impossible to tell which artciles are needed and which are not. It's impossible to find anything. Or how about a list or priorities: which artciles are needed by the number of links to them or some such considreations. You tell ME what needs to be written or improved and then I don't end up wasting my time on artciles that no one will even look at. Yes, the list of stubs is useful, but how about a list of artciles that need attention more comrehensive than the list with  two or three articles on the "task list". --Lacatosias 09:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is the nature of wikipedia that fosters this problem.  There is an index available of all articles on wikipedia, but that won't be of use.  The category system is supposed to serve some part of the function you're looking for, but it doesn't do it well.  This list was sort of the best thing I could come up with to solve the very problem you're talking about.  It's not a perfect answer, but it might be the best we've got.  If you're really concerned about how to help, I suggest just looking at the large-scope articles like Philosophy, Empiricism, Ethical intuitionism, and so forth (the ones which people definitely will look at).  These are commonly in pretty bad shape and could always use some attention. KSchutte 19:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Giusto. I didn't really mean that this list itself was a mess. In fact, I admire the hard work and time that you must have put into it. The category system is also somwhat useful. Probably, besides the inherent difficulties of an evelving and spontanous creation such as Wikipedia,  philosophy itslef is simply too broad a topic. It needs to be subdivided as much as possible, I suspect. Wikiproject Philosophy of Mind, Aesthetics,etc. are all good ideas. In philopophy of mind, we were really on a roll for a while there: findinf artciles that needed attention or new artciles foe creation. I think that the idea of creating this mini-projects in itself helps to focus attention. I'll probably develop a philosphy of science and philsophy of language section and see if that is beneficial. It is true that the major artciles also need attention, on the other hand. I'm just throwing ideas around and trying to get some input. The only thing I can think of right now is: if the job is too big, break it into manageble pieces.--Lacatosias 19:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This place is a mess.. 

message: If you click on one of the letters that are susposed to link to the alphabetical list of topics, you get linked to a page of people who live in Detroit.  I'm not sure how to fix it, otherwise I'd do it myself.  Thought I'd bring it up.--Williamlear 3:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of people that live in detroit?

message: There's a discussion on what the reference requirements for lists like this one.  The Transhumanist (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Should there be an exception for indexes?]]