Talk:Index of philosophy articles (A–C)

comment

NB: This page was split into 4 pages. I am on a 768K DSL connection and it was taking more than 15 seconds to load. I can imagine how long someone with a modem would have to wait. I've tried to split the page to about 2-3 screens max.

---

Now that we've made this huge list of philosophical topics, it might be a good idea to get it completely right: the titles should be correctly spelled and capitalized and disambiguated per Wikipedia's naming conventions. Getting this stuff right, particularly spelling and disambiguation, will make Wikipedia more attractive to philosophers who are considering joining us. --LMS

I agree. I started this list on my personal page, and then moved it to a real page only after thinking it could be use to others. I am working on cleaning it up. I've been typing in topics as I think of them, and have not always been on a machine with a spell checker. I plan to finish entering stuff for all the letters, and then go ahead and copy edit the whole thing. Once that is done, I'll: A) start filling in stubs for as many entries as I can, and B) start trying to find people willing to work on specific entries. MRC

OK, so I am trying to clean some of these up. We can't yet disambiguate with (), but I think I'll put them in that way for now, so they will be right when the software is updated. Also, is there some better way of doing possesives than just leaving out the apostrophe? MRC

Just leave the apostrophes and parentheses out for now...or maybe it would be better to put them in, on the theory that by the time we want to write articles on those topics, the links will work. Actually, I like that theory. I'd suggest working with the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (a one volume dictionary-encyclopedia, really excellent, if you haven't seen it before) to check spellings and other such matters. --LMS

OK, I never got around to adding T-Z pages the first time, so everything is already copied to this page now. If we want to test using a manually edited page as a recent changes subject filter, here's a candidate. I'll get out my dictionary of philosophy, and type in a few more topic names this evening.

However, we are now maintaining these links both on this page, and on the "sub pages" -- should those pages be deleted? I'm for it, but the edit histories will be lost...

Also, by looking at pages which link to philosophy, I can see that there are a number of topics with existing articles not yet linked from this page. I'll try to correct that over the next couple of days as well.

Just redirect them to the main page. That will keep the history, and the links will still work in case someone bookmarked them.--Magnus Manske 19:57 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)

OK, sounds good to me. Mark Christensen 20:00 Sep 23, 2002 (UTC)

What are the philosophers on Wikipedia doing?

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)

Bernard Williams

I'm a new Wikipedian with an interest in philosophy, so hello to all philosophy Wikipedians! I've written an article on Bernard Williams, which I've nominated for featured article status. If anyone has time, I'd appreciate any feedback, good or bad, as it's been a long time since I read Williams, and I'm worried I've got something wrong, or have missed out something important. If anyone has time to read it, that would be much appreciated. Slim 22:18, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

The Wiki-philosophy:Some Suggestions

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)

• The continuously editing and changing status of articles has both its pros and cons. There should be certain point that only necessary editing must be allowed and that should be only for those who are licensed (from the Wikipedia) and well reputed editors. The talk pages should be open for suggestions.

• Some people (with an Wiki ID or anonymously or with changing IDs) have taken control of certain articles/topics and they are acting as Wiki Loards. They are editing articles to project their own points of view in a clandestine way and only professional people can detect such a behavior. Due to this behavior a large number of scholars, intellectuals and researchers are yet not taking Wikipedia seriously. This is against the evolutionary philosphy of Wikipedia. To nip this undemocratic behavior from the bud some thing must be done properly.

For more details please see page Talk:Habib R. Sulemani 203.82.48.55 14:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Item "AC"

This item links to the disambiguation page AC and it is not clear what philosophical concept is being referred to. Could you help by making this clear? Thanks. Courtland 22:32, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

New Introduction

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)

self references

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)

This place is a mess..

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)

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)

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)

List of people that live in detroit?

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)

Wrong namespace?

IF this list is an editing tool, it should be in the Wikipedia namespace. Otherwise the intro should be removed, changed or put into HTML comments. Rich Farmbrough, 08:57 19 April 2007 (GMT).

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Should there be an exception for indexes?

There's a discussion on what the reference requirements for lists like this one. The Transhumanist (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)