Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:PHILO)

Signups open for The Core Contest

[edit]

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—will take place this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

Discussion of relationship between The arts, Art and Visual arts

[edit]

There is a discussion on the relationship between The arts, Art and Visual arts at Talk:Art#Art vs The arts vs Visual arts merges that may interest members of this WikiProject. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Stoicism

[edit]

Stoicism has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAC of Metaphysics

[edit]

The article Metaphysics is currently a candidate for featured article status. So far, there has been little response, so I was wondering whether some of the editors here are inclined to review the article or comment on it. The nomination page can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metaphysics/archive1. For a short FAQ of the FA reviewing process, see here. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of link to Colin Murray Turbayne to the article Truth

[edit]

Ciao fellow editors in the Philosophy Project! I have initiated a discussion on a proposed addition of text referring to the work of the modern philosopher Colin Murray Turbayne within the article Truth --specifically in reference to his contributions to the field of epistemology and the search for objective truth through the use and misuse of metaphor. Several reliable and credible sources have been provided from various international journals, Google Books, Google Scholar and JSTOR=-- all of which review his work in considerable technical detail within a specialized philosophical niche. Perhaps a participant in the Philosophy Project could participate in the discussion to delete the proposed text since it references several technical Epistemological themes which might require the insights of an expert.

You can add your contribution to the discussion on the talk page Talk:Truth Thanks in advance for your help. Respectfully 160.72.81.86 (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)GCL[reply]
O.K. Thanks for the tip.68.129.171.69 (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)PWL[reply]

Good article reassessment for Consciousness

[edit]

Consciousness has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for epistemiologist Mioara Mugur-Schächter

[edit]

The notability of Mioara Mugur-Schächter is being discussed in its talk page. If somebody has some evidence of the notability of her work in philosophy (epistemiology) please consider joining the conservation. ReyHahn (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review of Mind

[edit]

I was hoping to get some feedback on the article Mind to prepare it for a featured article candidacy. The peer review can found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Mind/archive1. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking for a consensus regarding the "philosophical pessimism" template

[edit]

Greetings, all.

The user "Paranakyaa" has recently argued against me in these edits (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Philosophical_pessimism&action=history) that many of the links to the template "philosophical pessimism" should be in red merely because they do not have a Wikipedia article still existing for them.

I, on the other hand, tried to argue against them by stating that such red links are unnecessary and make the template look aesthetically unpleasant.

After that, he appealed to the supposed fact there is a "consensus" that such links should be red (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates#Navigation_templates).

I still maintain my original position, but have no further intent nor energy to engage in any kind of "edit war" with them. If there is still no Wikipedia article existing for these works, the fact that they are not dyed in the color blue already indicates this; there is no need to make so many works in the template dyed in the color red.

I am curious as to other users think about this. Please do share your opinion so that we might, in fact, reach a "consensus". Alice793 (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]