Template talk:Philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Template This article has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale.
NA This article has been rated as NA-importance on the importance scale.

The tone of this banner is just plain wrong. See my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Banno (talk • contribs) 08:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Assessment

Could someone who knows how to write the script add a "List" category please? Also, the categorizing doesn't seem to be working perfectly (articles marked 'stub' end up in the 'unassessed' category, for example). Thanks! KSchutte 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

there's a thousand-year discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index to see wheter the editorial team will add an equation exclusive for list pages.--Andersmusician VOTE 00:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:-Class philosophy articles

Is now a wanted category with 634 members. -- Prove It (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an error on one of the templates to me. Banno 03:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I fixed it. However, it would be good if someone else looked at the code. You can test all the options on it at this test page. Those are all now in Category:Unassessed Philosophy articles. Greg Bard 23:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New version with seperate Anarchism task force importance rating

Greetings from the Anarchism task force, fellow philosophers. There has been a problem since the task force's inception regarding the importance ratings used to rank articles using this template: should the article be rated for its importance to philosophy, or to anarchism? This has led to confusion and inconsistency in rating. For example, Max Stirner is an interesting aberration in the history of philosophy, an obscure Young Hegelian occupying an extreme and unpopular position in ethical theory. He probably merits a low importance rating for philosophy "Few readers outside the philosophy field or that are not philosophy students may be familiar with the subject matter." But in anarchism, he is the founding figure of one of the most important strains, individualist anarchism, and highly influential among other (insurrectionary anarchism, post-left anarchy, anarcho-capitalism, illegalism, post anarchism etc.). He probably merits a Top or High rating for anarchism. The problem is confounded when you take into account that many anarchism articles, such as those on specific events and organisations, are only tangentially related to philosophy.

To address this difficulty, I have developed a version of the template that incorporates both importance ratings, where "importance=" denotes importance to philosophy, and "anarchism-importance" importance for anarchism. It also incorporates a link to the {{Anarchism portal}} when "anarchism=yes" is set. For example, {{philosophy|class=stub|importance=low|anarchism=yes|nested=yes|aesthetics=yes|analytic=yes|portal1-name=Philosophy of science|literature=yes|anarchism-importance=top}} yields

I don't believe these changes detract in any way from the existing template, and they can be extended for the other task force if desired. I would ask that interested editors would check the code of my proposed version (available here) for any errors. If there are no problems, I propose implementing this version within a week. All thoughts, comments, suggestions and criticisms appreciated. Skomorokh 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking about the organizational evolution of this thing for a while now. I think a better way to handle it is to tell the script to put the Anarchism task force articles under the social and political philosophy categories, but not under the philosophy categories. This way it informs the statistics under soc+pol but not under philosophy in general. You should have no problem assigning importance ratings under such a scheme even if it expands to include others such as totalitarianism, and democratic socialism, etc. This is what I had in mind for the next stage. There could eventually be an oligarchy, fascism, communism, and liberalism task force as well all under soc+pol. I still think your importance ratings would work fine.
I have always taken the interpretation that if it has x-importance to subproject y, then it should also have x-importance to the parent project. You shouldn't feel bashful about assigning a high importance rating within a subproject because it's not as important to the greater project. I think the greater project needs to be informed from the "grassroots" so to speak. If the scheme doesn't work, then that means a reorganization is in order. That is the same type of situation that has motivated your proposal, I believe.
I don't want anyone to get the idea that my proposal relegates the anarchism t.f. to a lower level in the scheme or anything. It is certainly a wonderful, active, productive task force which quite frankly makes wp:philo look good by association. I just think the statistics would work better with this type of scheme under soc+pol, but not under phil, and provide for growth of other task forces. Everything else about it should be as full-fledged as any other task force. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 10:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Request this template renamed "WikiProject Philosophy", (1) to follow similar "Template:WikiProject X" templates, (2) so current "Template:Philosophy navgiation" may be renamed "Template:Philosophy". Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a good idea? currently I have to type {{philosophy.... Am I going to have to type the whole thing now?? Won't a redirect suffice? What is easier on the server? Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think you'd need to type "{{WikiProject Philosophy..." as a shortcut could be set up, e.g. how about "{{WPPhil..."? Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The vast vast majority of the 8000 or so articles refer to {{philosophy.... Won't the current redirect suffice? Don't much feel like changing up terms at this point. It could result in more work later.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I guess the current redirect suffices, but why not sort out the name now rather than later, with the help of a bot or bots, so there isn't more to do later? Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)