Portal talk:Philosophy/Archives

Intro issue

Also, why bother with the introduction? It's OK in a topic like Geography, but any intro in philosophy will of necessity be POV. Banno

One word: newbs. But it is best to start with some point of reference, to test further material against. Besides, that intro is pretty good, and not particularly inaccurate. Go for it! 06:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

So that it is factually inaccurate and downright simplistic is OK? Banno 09:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't say I think much of the introduction - the first paragraph has a slightly awkward style. What exactly is the protocal on editting the page? Are we just supposed to post our comments here? If not, I can try my hand at some rewriting... there are a few redundant/misleading clauses (like "(or values, or institutions)", which breaks the flow of the description of ethics) I'd like to edit... Thomas Ash

Just jump in and edit the intro. If someone doesn't like it, then they will edit your edit. But I think the intro is superfluous here, and should simply be left out - anyone accessing this page will already have an idea of what philosophy is, and introductions to philosophical articles are notorious for edit wars. Banno 19:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

And any improvements to the intro we come up with here we can port back to the Wikibook. Go for it! 22:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Table layout

On my screen, the columns are not adjacent - that is, "General topics" appears under the left-hand column instead of beside it. Banno 19:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The old cat/portal used a table layout which guaranteed a side-by-side presentation. The proposed Temporary layout has the usual problems with side-by-side for a Portal. My experience has been that Firefox is a little more cooperative with a side-by-side layout; Internet Explorer will be pickier and usually does not display side-by-side without a 1024x768 screen or larger. But I think that a Table layout in a Portal is possible. For example, Portal:Cricket has a Table layout. I will check my statement now against an 800x600 under Internet Explorer (not my usual setup (Firefox)) --Ancheta Wis 00:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the cricket layout fit on this talk page with no problem even under IE 800x600. So in principle, we would not have to use the standard Wikiportal layout, but could stick with the side-by-side IF the cricket layout is reused with Philosophy topics. I will be travelling back home tomorrow so you will not hear from me for a day. --Ancheta Wis 00:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this, Ancheta. Sounds like a table layout is preferable. Banno 00:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The table has gone skew again - possibly something to do with St Thomas? Banno 05:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll check out Cricket. Thanks. Go for it! 06:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment on table layout: I took a look at Portal:Cricket, and I'm quite familiar with the type of source code. It looks just like the philosophy template and the old philosophy portal page. It's a bitch to work with, but we had luck using subpage transclusion to insert the template, so we may be able to streamline the concept almost as much as the proposed portal. I'll have to mess with it a bit to get it to look like the new portal page though. Go for it! 06:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Colour scheme

This should match in with the styles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/style guide; I had a quick look at this, but it is a bit beyond my coding skill. Banno 01:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't having any coding skill either. The instructions on Wikihelp and the obvious nature of the tag names made it very simple. Go for it! 04:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The style guide was posted 3 hours after Portal:Temporary. What gives? It doesn't appear to have been ratified by anyone, and is still in the proposal stage. And I have to say, the color scheme looks a bit too bland, even for philosophy. And there are some colors missing from the scheme, such as borders, foreground, etc. And the guide doesn't mention anything about portals or categories. Try the color scheme out on the original portal and see if it bites. Go for it! 04:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The colors are pretty insignificant to the overall format of the new portal. They can always be tinkered with later. Most of them can be changed from a single location. The important issues are the layout and the content. If there isn't any major opposition, I'd like to hook the thing into Wikipedia to start getting users' feedback. Go for it! 04:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a guideline, and it is a draft - but what better opportunity to see how it looks than to place it in the portal? Seth had been working it up on another page, and I requested that he place it on the Project page to encourage comment. Hey, you could go the other way and resort your colours and put them into the style guide if you like - there is no conspiracy, just a search for consistency. Banno

Just crossing the t's and dotting the i's. No conspiracy suspected. I like your base colors better anyhow. Go for it! 06:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

By all means, put up your new portal if it is ready for wider comment. Banno 05:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments on the colours welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/style guide Banno

Hey Banno, Is there any way to get a listing of subpages for a page?

If so, what is it? Go for it! 04:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

None that I am aware of... Banno 19:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Soliciting feedback

I changed the link in the philosophy portal template to this portal page, and relabeled the template temporarily to New Philosophy Portal! in order to draw some attention and get some feedback here. Go for it! 06:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Branches

Maybe "Political Philosophy" should be taken out, or else all the other branches, like Social Phil, Phil of Science, etc, have to be added. Infinity0 11:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It's already listed in the "Fields of Philosophy" section, which could be expanded to include descriptions, if desired. The editor probably didn't see it (it's in the right-hand column). I'll transfer the edit to the field subpage as a comment for possible use later. Thanks for catching that edit, by the way. Go for it! 12:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I re-arranged the Fields of Philosophy section. See what you think of it. Infinity0 12:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice. I was wondering who did that. I like it. Go for it! 15:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Political Philosophy, philosophy of language and aesthetics must be taken out. The major branches are exclusively ethics, metaphysics, epistemelogy and logic. Further, Political Philosophy would typically fall under ethics and aesthetics and philosophy of language would both fall under epistemology

I do not think that Political Philosophy, Philosophy of Language, or other branches should be taken out. Adding them all, with proper organization would be helpful and inclusive - since this is the Philosophy Portal shouldn't it deal with, on at least some level, all areas, forms, fields and realms of philosophy? --Sam 20:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Portal/Category

Why are there now two separate Portal and Categories? There's no need for that. ATM there's extra information on both pages which should be combined. Infinity0 11:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It's just hasn't been done yet, aside from the nav template, everything from the Cat page appears on the Portal page. And most of the material from the nav template has been folded into the new Portal, blended into the Portal's columnar format. As for duplication, see the Big Eight portals and how they are mirrored onto their corresponding cat pages. To keep the various sections sychronized, they can be transcluded from the Portal:Philosophy subpages. Go for it! 11:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Philosophy should emphasize the cats, and probably doesn't need the complete portal, which forces the cats way down below. Go for it! 11:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The discussion as to what to transclude to the cat page should probably take place on the discussion page for the cat. Go for it! 12:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Portal:Philosophy complete

The portal has been converted over to the table format used in Portal:Cricket as requested, with some enhancements (varied columning, subpage transclusion, Seth's color scheme, etc). All its components have been copied or moved to subpages of Portal:Philosophy, and all transclusions changed to access those. The portal pointer template (Template:Philosophy portal has been updated to point to Portal:Philosophy. Go for it! 11:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I lost the edit buttons in the translation, so somebody familiar with setting those up can put them back in if needed. Though, on retrospect, I think the portal looks better without them. Go for it! 11:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Blank space

There's some blank space at the bottom of the left-hand column that needs fillin'. Go for it! 15:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Infinity, nice touch

Infinity, your color scheme is more pleasing to the eye. I like it. Go for it! 18:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ty :) I didn't like having a dark-background in contrast with the wikipedia light-background. Infinity0 ( talk | contribs ) 18:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Archive buttons installed

Though the code is rather cludgy/cumbersome, I managed to add archive buttons to those sections that could support them, and display the button on the same line as "Read more...". I've set up a subpage name for each archive, but haven't put anything into them yet. There's some stuff in the history of Category:Philosophy that could go in these. Follow the subpage list link under miscellaneous to access the various subpages to see the source code. Go for it! 05:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There's a much easier way to code it :P Infinity0 ^talk 18:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipédia française

Just looking through some portals on the French Wikipedia and noticed their portail de la philosophie was quite good. Editors might find some ideas there.--cj | talk 10:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That does look good, well laid out, organized and neat, not to busy with details and verbige. I'd prefer the philosopher pics be removed. Other than that I like it. I don't know french so I can't comment on the language. --Jim 23:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

just some ideas that may help...or not

This is just my first impression of the Portal and some possible questions that might occur to someone on their first visit. I'm not personally looking for answers to these, but just wanted to know if anyone else had some of these questions and should they be addressed?

What is a Portal? Why does WP need a Philosophy Portal? What's it good for? How can I benefit from using the Portal? Do I have to or should I sign up, register or somehow make myself known?

Where is the table of contents or directory, should it be closer to the top? Why is all the stuff I need seem to be at the bottom?

The first thing I see is an article on philosophy, thats nice, but where's the intro blurb telling me what this portal is and what its about? Where's the overview of what this place is and what it can do for me and how I can be involved?

Is there a Philosophy at WP or P.P. FAQ here somewhere so I can find out what's basically going on and how things operate? What are the rules here? are they different from WP rules? Why are there so many rules and why do we need more?

Is this 'Portal' the 'front door' to philosophy on WP or is the philosophy category? There are so many entry points, lists and ways to look something up, it seems kind of confusing. Maybe that's just a WP thing.

Is there one person in charge of the Philosophy category on WP, a certain group, everyone or no one? Who oversees and makes decision about the Philosophy Portal and category? Who are the administrators? Is there a place for profiles and photos of administrators and/or members?

Where is the news or 'whats new' section of the portal? is there one? should there be? should it be more up front?

The Portal's front page seems a little busy, as in information overload. This is too much, I'll just use the category list.

If this is the wikipedia why does the first article I see, top, front and center of the portal page, send me to wikibooks? Is this a portal for wikibooks or WP? or everything philosophy related in the wikiuniverse?

--Jim 22:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this way too much tilted towards western phiosophy

Under Eastern Philosophy religions have been put not caring for the fact that eastern Religions don't tend to have a single philosphy like the religions originating in west asia. Also plenty of philosphies which have been listed under Western were being propagated separately at contemporary times (if not earlier) in the east.

• I would like to point out the phrases "philosopher's stone", or "Doctrate in Philosophy (PhD)", or "Natural Philosopher" or... just because the word "philosophy" is a part of something's name, doesn't mean it is a philosophy. Heck, all of science was known as "natural philosophy" (as opposed to "science") just 100 years ago. So when placing "Eastern Philosophy" up on our entries we need to be ultra careful it is actually a philosophy rather than a religon, meditation system, folklore, mysticism, etc. -Atfyfe

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question, but I have been wanting to find that page for over six months. I found a page here on wiki which dealt with the differences and similarities between different traditions of philosophy, from different parts of the world. I can't remember what it was called, but it has been bugging me ever since I found it. I figured maybe someone who does a lot of maintenance here on wiki might know what I'm talking about. I really hope someone does!

Thanks (maybe if there is someone out there who knows - either post the link here, or email me on djurpark@NOSPAMspray.se (remove the nospam etc) /Samuel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.226.88 (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Portal Corners

Square corners or Rounded corners?

Square

• Infinity0 ^talk 18:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Boneheadmx 00:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
• David Levy 21:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Rounded

Other

• Wikipedia is not a democracy Banno 20:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The rounded corners are tacky and look unprofessional. It's non-standard, bloated markup and nobody uses it for a proper, formal website like wikipedia. I think they should be taken out. Infinity0 ^talk 23:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

philosopher infoboxes

User:Silence is talking about removing the philosopher infoboxes from articles. Please give your opinion on the matter there. — goethean ॐ 16:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Too much...

This portal is too wide on the screen and way too much is here for the eye to take in. My HTML skills are probaly not adequate to the task of fixing the problem though. Also, no one is updating the Portal every month or so. I'm taking care of some of this laziness.--Lacatosias 10:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive page

Should I just move all the old artciles to the same archive page or create a page for each article archived???--Lacatosias 15:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Maintenance

In all seriousness, who's maintaining this portal? I'll go ahead and replace these featured artciles manually, but note that this is some sort of automtated process on most of the really good portals. I'm not just bashing here. I'm trying to help. Never mind: The only person I get a response from around here is Kripkenstein. The rest of you continue to act as if I don't exist. Take a look at my background (not bad considering that I've spent 3/4 of my life in hospitals or in bed) and d my contribs please, and then let me know whether my assistance is appreciated around here or not. --Lacatosias 17:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I've certainly noticed the work you've been doing, and appreciate your efforts. I'd be more outspokenly supportive, but I'm a philosopher. Sorry. KSchutte 03:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, man. I think I'm probably the only one left who actually watches the Portal, but only for vandalism. You could try asking in Talk:Philosophy. I have no idea about an automated process, but that would be very good. Infinity0 ^talk 18:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologize. It's all voluntary work after all. It's good that somebody actually replied for once though!! I have no idea how these other portals work, but I looked at some of them and noticed that they use some kind Subst:portalbox templates or something. I couldn't figure it out and justing copying the code was unsuccessful. Actually I think you might be interested and talented in this kind of thing, based on your userpage. But I was reading the featured portals discusion this morning and they kept referring to automating changes between selected articles and such things. That's all I can tell you for now. --Lacatosias 18:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

They work by a queue system which automatically rotates depending on which date is invoked. So instead of updating a single subpage, a series of subpages are created to correspond with the dates invoked. The Main Page, for example, uses the following {{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}}. This means that a subpage for each day in each month in each year is created. Today is Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 3, 2006. What you could do for this portal is {{Portal:Philosophy/Featured western articles/{{CURRENTWEEK}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}}} to rotate weekly.--cj | talk 07:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks CJ. The idea is simple enough, in fact. It's still a bit of a pain in the tail to implement though. I've started setting up a queue for selected Western articles. But we also have selected Eatern article, selected Western philosoher, etc.. There are about 48 weeks in the year: so wer'e talking about copyoing and pasting close to 200 pages if we want to automate the change for all four categories. I think I'll keep it to articles at the most. I've also cut down the articles from two to one, otherwise forget the whole damned thing. --Lacatosias 15:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

is there a process for nominating featured articles for the portal: philosophy ? in any case i nominate James Burnett, Lord Monboddo, a somewhat overlooked but i think important figure in 18th century Scotland. the article has been around for a while, i recently tripled its size and organized it better Anlace 07:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, at least not yet anyway. If it's not difficult to implement, I can just copy the code from one of the other portals. Otherwise, the HTML experts will have to handle it such as Infinity0 might want to handle it. I will can easily put your proposed philosopher on the queue though. Good job in expanding the article.--Lacatosias 08:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Philosophy portal

Template:Philosophy portal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

Why four??

Why are there four featured artciles?? I've created queues for automatically running up to weeks 21 or 22 for the Westerm and Eastern features artciles. It is an extremely tiresome and laborious pain in the ...- I'm not going to do the same for the featured philosophers of both East and West. If anyone wants to help out: all you have to do is create the pages (e.g. Selected Article/23,2006, Selected Artcile/24,2006, etc.) and copy and paste in few paragraphs from some randomly chosen artciles from Western or Eastren philosophy,etc.. Of course, I will get no response on this as usual. --Lacatosias 14:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Lol. Sorry man, User:Go for it! designed the set-up of the portal, I just coded the structure so it works :P -- infinity0 14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, could you try expanding the list of Philosophasters? :P -- infinity0 14:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, how about combining the eastern and western ones together? So just have "select philosopher" and "selected philosophy article". -- infinity0 14:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's fine with me. I was thinking of doing that myself, but I don't want to step on anybody's turf here and I'm not great at layout and design matters. It would definitely make things easier in terms of creating only two queues instead of four. Iìve added a few names on the list of 'Phasters, but mostly ancient Greek sophists. The intelligent design folks are also to be included without much controversy I hope. --Lacatosias 14:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I support merging them together. The split isn't good anyway - uniting both is better. But then you'll have to move all the articles you just created into the correct names, etc. Since you have to move all the articles anyway, I'd suggesting using YEAR-WEEKNUMBER instead of WEEKNUMBER,YEAR. If you can't be bothered right now, just list all the articles here and I'll do it at a later date. -- infinity0 14:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Right now at this moment, I can't do it. But I can handle it tommorow or the day after.--Lacatosias 17:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Code

What is the code for the format Year-Week Number?--Lacatosias 17:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no template for that format. I'm going back to 2024,49 since they are separate templates. --Lacatosias 17:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Er... well, yuo're using {{CURRENTWEEK}}, {{CURRENTYEAR}}, so what's wrong with using {{CURRENTYEAR}}-{{CURRENTWEEK}} ? -- infinity0 19:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I just moved all the pages to the correct format, and marked all the redundant pages for deletion. Where are all the future article pages? -- infinity0 19:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, NOBODY TOUCH ANYTHING!!!!! I am going in dinner, will be back in 20 MINUTES to sort the messy code out. -- infinity0 19:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

D :D :D :D :D Right, have a look at Portal:Philosophy/subpage list - I've sorted everything out now. -- infinity0 21:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Rotation system

Does this portal have any type of article rotation so that the articles shown on the front page change, say, every month or week or so? gelo 06:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we just recently implemented a system with queues that allows for weekly rotation of Featrured Philosopher and Featrured Article. --Lacatosias 07:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats good. Thanks! gelo 07:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure.--Lacatosias 08:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

i wud liek to dsay tha twe as pihilosophers have nmade a tgrwazt succes in the bringing of ta feature article to the main page on wiikedia i thnak uyou all and keep p thes good swork

Objectivist

I'm looking for people with knowlege in Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivisim to contribute to the Objectivist Wiki This project is just getting off the ground, and needs lots of love :). Crazynas 20:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

western schools of thought

what is the purpose of this? should it contain the ones whose articles are the most popular, the historically most influental ones, the ones currently most popular, or just as many as possible? do we need bot vienna circle and logical positivism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danny lost (talk • contribs) 15:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC).

Philosophy on Wikiversity

Want to pat self on back, encourage others to participate I like philosophy, so I started the Department of Philosophy in the School of Humanities. Join in! -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems with this Portal

It's a shame this portal doesn't seem to be maintained much, because it looks very informative. The main problem seems to be with the Selected Philosophy article... shouldn't there be some kind of selection process? It seems at the moment that anyone who stumbles across this portal - and a major one at that, being linked to in {{browsebar}} - can choose an article. Shouldn't there be at least a proposal system for each month? I hope this portal can be improved, because it has great potential. Madder 19:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was a bit disappointed that no one had really been maintaining the portal in the last few months. I've already selected new FP and FPA for this week, and I will surely keep doing this week in and week out. I hope that I can help bring up this portal to tip-top shape. --Nishkid64 00:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have set up the selected article and selected philosopher up as a new topic rotating on a yearly basis. I see no reason for the original set up that had new articles successive years. Alan Liefting 10:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Reality AfD

Please visit the article and vote on its deletion discussion page. As User:Lacatosias put it, "This [article] makes everyone look like an idiot." -Shaggorama 08:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

standards of inclusion for portal related lists

we need to standardize our lists. we have many lists of philosophers, etc. and they all vary along every line possible. specifically, most of them are full of cruft, pop philosophy, and people who are not usually considered philosophy. i suggest we come up with a common criteria for all portal related lists of philosophers. it should not be overly inclusive, or exclusive. one problem we have is that the Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge; 2000 seems to be overly inclusive, it has bourdieu in it, and while trained as a philosopher, he published anthropology and sociology. there are other issues with that text. so I'd encourage us to drop it and come up with a standard for all lists, one for contemporary philosophy post 1900 and one for classics in philosophy. the list should be based on recognized, cross-cultural publications in philosophy, which are highly cited. --Buridan

Suggestions for improvements – Portal peer review

This section is being used to help test the portal peer review process. Please edit the section below to add your comments. —sd31415 (sign here) 19:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

Put suggestions for the portal to achieve featured portal status here. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid this needs a lot of work before become it becomes a featured portal. Here are my suggestions:
  • Intro should be shortened in at least one paragraph, I suggest removing the details on philosophy approaches.
  • Image at the intro should be bigger, and I prefer showing an image of a famous philosopher or such.
    • As a possible example, I added a randomly rotated "pholisopher of science" at Portal:Philosophy of science/Intro. Rfrisbie^talk 22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Exactly, this would be excellent here as well. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Related portals at the intro?
  • As seen in Internet Explorer, there are hardly any spaces between the sections.
    • This is a design feature of the tables used, not an artifact of any particular browser. Rfrisbie^talk 15:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Philosophy should not be capitalised at the titles.
  • No question marks on the three first DYK's.
  • No image on DYK section.
  • The image of Isaac Newton should not be inside a frame, same in the "Things you can do" section.
  • "Things you can do" section is not formatted properly, and lists only a few articles.
  • "Western philosophical schools of thought"/"Eastern philosophical schools of thought" - Very boring sections. Why do we need to go in such details anyway?
  • Remove explanation on lists from the "Lists of philosophical topics" section, and remove the category link from there.
  • Remove "Reference links", this is not a WikiProject. A similar section was already removed from Portal:Fish.
• I have a lot more, but I'm going to leave it for the other reviewers. Michaelas10 (Talk) 22:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Fairly nice laylout.I thought there might be to many boxes at first, but I do like the way things are separated.

• The related portals in the intro is a neat idea, tho I would like to see some pics with them for illustration purposes.
• The archives sections should link to the displayed content, not the actual article.
• And I would like to see a few more pics on the whole page where able, maybe in the selected article box and DYK box.

Other than those, looking good.Joe I 22:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am not a portal expert but why is there no FP or selected picture. Also on Internet explorer there is hardly any whitespaces and it looks like it's all connected. Other than that (and what has already been said) This is a fine portal. — Seadog^Talk 23:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• The portal has a very nice color choice. Most of my comments have already been brought up. However, the reference links do not look good with bullets and centered text. They should be displayed differently. This portal needs work but has potential (to be featured)!

s d 3 1 4 1 5 final exams! 01:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• The Selected article and Selected philosopher could benefit from using a layout page to format the content, rather than substituting as is suggested at Portal:Philosophy/Selected article. See an example at Philosophy of science - Layout. Rfrisbie^talk 12:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Transcluding the selected pages, in addition to linking them, makes it easier for a reader to browse the archive page. See the above example. Rfrisbie^talk 13:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
• Add a nominations process for any selected content. Rfrisbie^talk 13:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Branches and Fields

What is the difference between Branches and Fields of Philosophy, and why are some of the topics in the fields section reffered to as "a branch" of philosophy. If it is a branch then why is it in the fields section?  — [Unsigned comment added by Dinkiedie (talk • contribs).]

We should delete this "(Courtesy of the Philosophy of Language wikipedia page)"

Is that text really needed there? Can't we put a note or something else? At least we should change text formatting, its color or size, etc. It looks awful when reading that paragraph. We expect to read a new question as those presented before it, and we see this without even a link, as we are recommended to consult that page. --daniel7^talk 02:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Metaphilosophy

Metaphilosophy is mentioned in the opening paragraph. However such a claim is clearly bogus since there is no such thing as a demarcation problem for philosophy. Gkochanowsky (talk) 02:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Jan Narveson

On Wednesday next week I'll have the chance to interview the anarcho-capitalist Jan Narveson for our student newspaper. Do you have any suggestions what I could ask him because I'm quite frankly not a philosophy expert. Of course, I'll let you know his answers. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.180.75.121 (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Spiritualism (philosophy)

There appears to a lack of any topic on the philosophical use of the term "Spiritualism", am I wrong?

I see Spiritual philosophy but this refers to "New Age" philosophies, which is not quite right, and is fairly lightweight.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

I have been working on spiritualistic topics, quite a different form of Spiritualism and started with a page on, the Difference between Spiritualism and Materialism which is fairly basic but accurate enough. Any pointers or assistance is welcome, its already been trolled fairly heavily by individuals with no interest or specialism in the subject.

Thanks. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also trying to work my way around your portal; the use of templates, tags and so on. So if anyone cares to look over the article and assist on that aspect technically, I would appreciate it too. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Timeline of ancient philosophers

Hello,

I created Template:Timeline of ancient philosophers, which I think may be useful :) Feel free to include the timeline in ancient philosophy, for example. If there are any errors, could you please contact me at Usuari_Discussió:Meldor, please? Thanks --Meldor (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Perspectivism

I think it would be a good idea to add this.

the passions

I've been doing some light poking around, and I can't seem to find an article on the philosophical uses of 'the passions'. this concept is used in any number of ethical/moral philosophies as a foil to 'proper' behavior - from the stoics and epicureans, to buddhism, hinduism and early Christian philosophy, to the enlightenment philosophers, to modern debates about the relationship of biology to cognition. I've created a stub, here - Passions_(philosophy) - and I'll work on it as I can, but this is a big article (I think) which will need the attention of multiple editors. please help out! or if this already does exist somewhere, point me to it. --Ludwigs2 21:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

moral fictionalism

Perhaps a page should be made for the meta-ethic principle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.163 (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Social and political philosophy

Just to note that this has been created. As I was uncertain about the creation and about a lot of category changes, etc, I raised it at ANI because of the speed at which a particular editor has been acting (when a large number of changes are done within just a few days, it can cause problems). The discussion is here [1] and I'm quite happy to be told I'm wrong and that there are no problems, I always tell others Wikipedia has a steep learning curve. :-) Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Doug, could you explain exactly what your concern is with the portal? Do you have some reason to believe there is some kind of problem? It seems to me that you have a concern in another area and are attempting to throw the kitchen sick at me by just questioning any old thing. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's my opinion that this sort of thing should be done as a collaborative effort, not just by one person. I note that it is mainly your categories that have upset people. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank goodness upsetting people isn't against any policy at Wikipedia. Say listen Doug, the task forces of the philosophy project have been well established and discussed in the Wikipedia namespace for a long time now. Changes consistent with the project structure such as the portals should be no surprise to anyone, and certainly not an "incident." It would be nice if everything was a homogeneous collaborative effort Doug, however the reality is that a few people do most of the contributions on WP and you should know that. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Expert help needed

A few sections in Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences have a seemingly inferior logic that perhaps affects a larger selection of subsections. Those interested who are proficient in theology, philosophy and logic, might give a helping hand by assessing relevant subsections and giving comment at the talk page HERE! Thank you for your attention, and otherwise happy editing! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 08:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)