Template talk:WikiProject Philosophy

Comments
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).

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)

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)

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, 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)

Requested move (2008)
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)

{{discussion-bottom}}

C-class support
Editprotected Please add C-Class support for this template. To do this, simply check wherever the template refers to B-class and add a reference to C-class after it. Muchas gracias, the skomorokh  21:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems all done now - Peripitus (Talk) 11:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:C-Class Anarchism articles is empty, even though I tagged an article for anarchism and C-class on September 15th. Although it works for C-Class Philosophy articles, the template still does not recognize C-Class task force (e.g. Analytic philosophy, Philosophical literature) articles. the skomorokh  14:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Should work now. --- RockMFR 16:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Thanks for the help. the skomorokh  16:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

MetaBanner
I suggest that it might be a good idea to convert this to banner to use WPBannerMeta someone could tell me which parameters shown in the documentation are actually used? (If it's all, that's fine!) Martin 15:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:PHIL has no A-Class review, so that parameter ought to be disabled to prevent misleading pseudo-assessments. The portalx-name parameters are rarely used, but there's no compelling reason to disable them. Regards, Skomorokh  12:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that there are currently 6 A-class philosophy articles so I'm not sure what's going on there. In any case I would suggest that A-class not be disabled as it is a core 1.0 assessment classes. However if the project really doesn't need it, can you tell me how you want the banner to behave if class=A is used? I.e. should it be classified as B-class or Unassessed? Martin 16:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're probably right that the parameter ought not to be disabled. I think that the articles be degraded to the highest informal assessment, that is B-class, as they have not had a formal review by WP:PHIL and so are mis-tagged. I'll go ahead and demote them now, and you can leave class=A result in A-class. Skomorokh  17:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am working on this, but it's going to take me a while to get the taskforce functionality working properly. It seems that philosophy is quite an unusual template in the number of taskforces routinely used. My initial efforts are at Template:Philosophy/sandbox but it's not finished yet. Martin 23:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts; there is no hurry for now. Regards, Skomorokh  23:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The template has been converted and seems to be working fine. There are a few slight differences:
 * As you were using template and category classes, it seemed to make sense to implement all of the extended 'quality' classes. Therefore Portal, Project, Redirect and Image classes are now available. However a lot of these extra categories have not been created for each task force, so I would like to know whether that would be useful (and worth all the work in creating the categories) or if the standard quality classes will suffice for the taskforces. At the moment Portal talk:Anarchism is in the redlinked Category:Portal-Class Anarchism articles.
 * The task forces are still collapsed but do not display in groups (e.g. Major traditions, periods, etc.) If this is seen as important then I can look into coding that.
 * I have deactivated the portal parameters because there were no articles that were using them.
 * I have left the support for A-class reviews, but if the project doesn't even use A-class this seems a bit weird. Shall I take out that function?
 * Martin 12:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Task force non-articles
I'm wondering why Portal talk:Anarchism is categorised in but. Can someone fix the template such that non-article task force pages can be tagged as such and do not appear in the Unassessed categories? Gracias, Skomorokh  12:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be in Portal-Class for both. If/when the banner is converted, this would be fixed. Martin 16:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Skomorokh  17:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit Req
Could template be changed to use  & new QUALITY_SCALE settings as per the edits in the sandbox. Thanks -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Please update the documentation if necessary. Cheers, Skomorokh  23:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Book-class
Could all the instances of extended be changed to subpage? This will accommodate the book-class per WT:PHILO. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks, Peter Symonds ( talk ) 01:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (2010)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Note the following sub pages were moved automatically as well  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The page Template:Philosophy/Class has been moved to Template:WikiProject Philosophy/Class.
 * The page Template:Philosophy/Importance has been moved to Template:WikiProject Philosophy/Importance.
 * The page Template:Philosophy/Importance categories has been moved to Template:WikiProject Philosophy/Importance categories.
 * The page Template:Philosophy/Nav has been moved to Template:WikiProject Philosophy/Nav.
 * The page Template:Philosophy/Nav/template has been moved to Template:WikiProject Philosophy/Nav/template.
 * The page Template:Philosophy/Task force categories has been moved to Template:WikiProject Philosophy/Task force categories.
 * The page Template:Philosophy/announce has been moved to Template:WikiProject Philosophy/announce.
 * The page Template:Philosophy/class has been moved to Template:WikiProject Philosophy/class.
 * The page Template:Philosophy/doc has been moved to Template:WikiProject Philosophy/doc.
 * The page Template:Philosophy/header has been moved to Template:WikiProject Philosophy/header.
 * The page Template:Philosophy/sandbox has been moved to Template:WikiProject Philosophy/sandbox.
 * The page Template:Philosophy/test has been moved to Template:WikiProject Philosophy/test.
 * The page Template talk:Philosophy has been moved to Template talk:WikiProject Philosophy.
 * The page Template talk:Philosophy/Class has been moved to Template talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Class.
 * The page Template talk:Philosophy/Importance has been moved to Template talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Importance.
 * The page Template talk:Philosophy/Importance categories has been moved to Template talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Importance categories.
 * The page Template talk:Philosophy/Nav has been moved to Template talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Nav.
 * The page Template talk:Philosophy/Task force categories has been moved to Template talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Task force categories.
 * The page Template talk:Philosophy/doc has been moved to Template talk:WikiProject Philosophy/doc.

Template:Philosophy → — To standardize. – xeno talk 23:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support this move to be in line with other wikiproject banner templates. The redirect can be kept to save people having to type the whole thing. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 03:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Has WikiProject Philosophy been informed? 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Now they have. Thanks, – xeno talk 13:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- as long as all of the thousands of tags that begin "{{philosophy..." still work it doesn't matter. However, I don't see the need for it.Greg Bard 06:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment- having tried to co-ordinate a cross-project task, of generating lists of unreferenced BLPs, and being told by the Bot coder that I needed to use the actual template name, not a redirect, the WikiProject template naming system is a mess. Look at the range of names that are in use. The sooner we get all the projects aligned, the sooner maintenance tasks can be setup automatically, and not with a lot of effort.The-Pope (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - seems like a fine idea, with the advantages outweighing the disadvantages.    A rbitrarily 0    {{sup|( talk )}} 16:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template-protected edit request on 26 March 2016
Could the 'Locator_Dot.svg' bullet points in the 'Additional information' section please be changed to ordinary bullet points, because it is an image file, and clicking on it will direct the user to the image? Thank you.

LL221W (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 14:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 16:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The way the template for all WikiProjects is designed, each task force is preceded by an icon that represents that task force. The template doesn't allow for that icon to be specified without a link to the image file (although legally it would be okay in this case since the dot is public domain and doesn't have an attribution requirement, many images used with WikiProject templates legally need a link back to their info page). The only option would be to remove the dots altogether, as there's no way to make it a regular bulleted list. Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * The project page uses File:Greek letter uppercase Phi.svg as a generic icon for the topic. At least it doesn't have the disadvantage of looking like an overblown bullet point. As a replacement, would that work better for you ? Bazj (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * - I was also just looking at this and wonder if WPBannerMeta/taskforce should provide a normal bullet when there's a lack of request for ?
 * Would using the public domain File:Socrates.png used by all the philosophy task forces be acceptable? It would at least look nicer and make more sense than big red clicky dots. (edit conflicted) fredgandt 14:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good suggestion. I already started a discussion at Template talk:WPBannerMeta about adding a nolink parameter for public domain images, but using a bulleted list is a good idea as well. I mocked it up in the sandbox here if you wanted to propose it. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|'''TALK
 * I've joined that discussion (thanks), but am reaching the end of my usefulness today (brain melt ... dribble dribble) and all the pretty braces hurt. fred</i>g<i style='font-size:.7em;color:#0bb;'>andt</i></b> 16:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * No. I intended to point out this section:

<pre style="max-height:10em;overflow:auto;">

should be changed to this: <pre style="max-height:10em;overflow:auto;">

LL221W (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Other contemporary schools of thought
I would like to propose the addition of a few other schools of thought to the Schools of thought>Contemporary>Other category. Namely, Deep ecology and Epistemological anarchism. Both of these are movements that have been important in philosophy (undoubtedly more so than the obscure Russian cosmism, for instance) and aren't easily classifiable as either analytic or Continental. Thanks. Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Nested task force titles
I've just updated the sandbox with a version that adds nested task force titles. If you like it, copy it over (or I can copy it over with if people agree). Dpleibovitz (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

original
&rarr;

sandbox
&rarr;


 * go for it! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Enjoy! BTW, I did not remove the extra (collapsed) "Additional information" that is shown within the banner, though they seem superfluous now.