Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Logic/Archive 1

Logic project box
Is there an agreement between WikiProject:Philosophy and its offshoots, e.g. WikiProject:Logic and WikiProject:MoralPhilosophy that settles which project box should be on an article's talk page? Imagine 'Deontic logic', or something like it, with a philosophy box, logic box and moral philosophy box! Anarchia 06:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as project page labels (for the talk page) go, there is no conflict. There is a collapsible form that make it possible to have them all. I have a draft at my sandbox. I also have the first such one at the logic talk page


 * Now as far as any agreement between the projects beyond that, no.


 * Gregbard 10:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine a situation when the various projects would be in conflict, so I'm not sure that we need a proactive agreement. Better to make it up as we go, I think. Banno 10:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is much conflict on the project box issue. I've seen pages with as many as five (collapsed). Gregbard 11:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The solution in your sandbox is elegant. Can you provide the code, on the relevant project pages? Banno 11:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Even better. There is a bot that will do it for us. Gregbard 03:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your collapsing box system is great - The idea is brilliant and when I first struck it on a talk page I found it very appealing too. Having a bot that will do it is even better. Thank you! Anarchia 05:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Too many logic project boxes

 * original request


 * Further discussion was held at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, but was asked to move here. Gregbard

Satyrbot has recently added WikiProject Logic project infoboxes to a HUGE number of talk pages, including many, like these in psychology (some of which probably do discuss "rationality") that seem inappropriate. I would think it wise for Satyrbot's scope to be limited. Jeremy Tobacman 09:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In the interest of tagging as much appropriate material as possible, the initial sweep may seem over inclusive. Gregbard 09:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I join in the concern that too many articles are being tagged as part of this project. For instance, IEEE 754r, an article about floating-point arithmetic in which the word 'logic' does not occur. Traditionally, articles are assigned to categories on the basis of documentation supplied within the article itself. It's not clear there is any evidence to put this one in the logic category. Where is the decision-making taking place on what to include in Category:Unassessed Logic articles, and where is the Talk page for discussing the criteria? EdJohnston 16:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The discussion was announced in at least three places. Logic, Portal:Logic, Template:LogicTasks.


 * Exponential time and quantum computer were recently tagged. These, in my opinion, stray a little far from what would be considered logic articles. Skippydo 18:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

While I'm generally pretty skeptical of Gregbard's expansive project for what should be considered logic in WP, I can't really see the harm in a WikiProject notice. Any project that's interested in improving an article should be welcomed. It's like I told WikiProject Big Ten when they tagged Harvey Friedman, that in spite of Friedman's recent touchdown drought, if they had useful contributions to make, there could hardly be an objection to it. --Trovatore 21:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The tagging is more over inclusive than I thought it would be. However, I knew it would be somewhat over-inclusive. This way we are sure to tag everything that is appropriate without missing anything. I fully expect to remove, and see others remove many of them. The question is do we get 5000 pages in the sweep, and take out 1000 or do we get 9000 and take out 200? That would be acceptable.


 * Consider another thing. There is a bot that the 1.0 assessment team has that tells what are the most bluelinked articles in a category. I think with an over inclusive base, we will discover more pages that are not currently slated to be in the tagging.


 * Let's see what we have. Gregbard 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying this - some odd things are being tagged, and I wasn't sure it was okay for me to remove such tags. Anarchia 23:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By all means. If it is obviously not going to make sense under any interpretation then remove it. However please don't be TOO judgemental at this early stage. Concievably, we could remove a bunch early on, and never realize that a pattern would have developed if we just left them in. Be well, Gregbard 23:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Question on moving forward
Shall we tell SatyrBot to continue?


 * Yes - With all the same categories submitted. They have had their due process. We can pare it down after we look at what we have. Gregbard 02:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No - 5000 articles?!? For the 18 members of this project?  C'mon.  I'm sure you're all prolific, but please be logical.  If you want to add expansively to Category:Logic or some subcat, fine, but please don't clutter the top of talk pages with infoboxes. Jeremy Tobacman 06:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Clutter is not really a very high priority. I think you are overreacting. Furthermore, there isn't any hurry getting around to these so like I said, lets see what we have. Gregbard 06:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Guys, get real. You will never be able to handle all the articles that have been tagged, and you are creating a horrendous amount of work for people who have no relation to your project. This is not a matter of an irrelevant article here or there. Entire categories which have nothing to do with logic have been added (take a look at Category:Mathematical theorems which contains almost 1000 articles on theorems in all fields of mathematics). Please think not only of your own project but of the people, like me, who have no interest in logic and now have to suddenly go over dozens of pages on their watchlist and remove your tags from them one by one. In fact, I think SatyrBot should be asked to undo the edits of most of the unrelated categories. As for "due process": what you should have done, Greg, is given due notice in the pages of projects related to the categories you are talking about, not in your own project (which obviously is not watched by too many people). --Zvika 06:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when do projects ask other projects if they can make a page part of their project too? That's just being territorial, which has no place here. There are ways to collapse the banner so that it is tiny. So clutter isn't an issue. As for the size of the project. What do you care? Is there some kind of rush? Gregbard 07:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously claiming that all articles related to a theorem -- any theorem -- should be part of WikiProject Logic? It's like creating a WikiProject English Language and then adding every article in Wikipedia to that project. Territoriality has nothing to do with it, it's just waste of time and resources for everybody. --Zvika 07:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The categories "biological theorems" and "economic theorems" are not included. But then, for every single mathematical theorem there is a logical theorem that corresponds to it. That is not necessarily true of the others. There is obviously a close relationship. However, that is besides the point. The Wikiproject includes mathematical logic in its scope. Gregbard 07:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But most of the theorems in Category:Mathematical theorems are not mathematical logic. For instance, the first three theorems of the list are 15 and 290 theorems, Abel's curve theorem, and Abel's theorem. They all belong to mathematical fields different from mathematical logic. I agree with Trovatore that if the participants think they can help with these articles, adding the tag is fine to me. But tagging the whole category when almost none of the articles belong in the field of (mathematical) logic is just silly. I would also remove Category:Computer arithmetic, Category:Game theory, Category:Lemmas, Category:Mathematical relations and Category:Probability theory. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would object to excluding Category:Game theory and Category:Probability theory, whereas the others may contain some articles, but may not be worth a complete tagging if (why I ask myself?) it upsets people too much. Gregbard


 * No. I agree with the points made by Zvika. Derek farn 11:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No. This is the wrong way to go about adding articles to this prolect. This is casting our net much too broadly, and is simply causing a lot of extra work for everyone, and annoying lots of editors. Paul August &#9742; 15:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak no. It doesn't hurt much, but it doesn't help much either, and it does cause a few little annoyances (for example my watchlist yesterday was jammed with SatyrBot's changes; I might have missed something important). Probably better to take a more focused approach. (That doesn't mean the project should not interest itself in mathematical logic, but if it does, then I think mathematical logic should be added explicitly to the charter, since it really is not logic in the sense of "the science of making valid inferences" or "the study of analytic propositions".) --Trovatore 17:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutral I would recommend that perhaps Satyrbot is not a good bot, worth blocking, and do tagging manually. Thoughts? LaleenaTalk to me Contributions to Wikipedia 12:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Due Diligence"
I would have encouraged you to notify of the plans for tagging on the talk pages of the categories you planned to included. Jeremy Tobacman 06:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? What does the tag bother anything? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of having a bot do a lot of work for us? I think the several notices, and time frame more than suffice for due diligence and due process. Gregbard 06:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whenever I go to a talk page for a mis-tagged article, I either have to scroll down to get to the meaningful content, or I have to take the time to delete the irrelevant tag. I resent that, particularly because I don't expect members of your project to actually contribute much to most of these articles.  If your objective is to put these articles on the radar screen of members of WikiProject Logic, you can do that just as easily by adding all the categories in your list as subcats of Category:Logic. This is an issue about respect for the contributions of others in these categories, and realism about what your project will contribute.  Jeremy Tobacman 09:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will respectfully take that under advisement. You resent scrolling down. You have no confidence in the project. Great. Lots of respect to go around. Right now a small number of people not associated with the project are holding the whole thing up. I hope we can live up to your expectations if we are graciously allowed to continue. Gregbard 09:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand you're doing this in good faith, and genuinely hope you exceed all expectations, whether or not the tagging continues. Jeremy Tobacman 10:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well what would it take for you to change your vote above? (Not that you can hold this hostage by yourself or anything). Please remember mathematical logic is part of the scope of this project. Gregbard 11:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You'd have to persuade that this is good for the encyclopedia. (What else?) Jeremy Tobacman 12:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is a bad faith remark. The presumption is that a WikiProject will be good for the encyclopedia. So I will ask again. If nothing will, then that's bad faith too. Right now the whole thing is on hold. Gregbard 22:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * /me tips his hat, and disappears. Jeremy Tobacman 00:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Gregbard that remark was completely uncalled for. Paul August &#9742; 02:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * When it get down to 'well, you'll have to persuade me.' That isn't constructive. That's being held hostage to a whim at that point. I sure didn't get an answer. I am understandably peeved at all this. Gregbard 05:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy, I'm afraid I think your idea about throwing a bunch of categories into category:logic is exactly the wrong way to go. Let's be very clear on this: WikiProjects are for editors, categories are for readers. If talk pages are labeled with irrelevant WikiProjects the negative consequences are mild, and mostly affect the WikiProject itself (it's harder for project members to find articles appropriate for them to improve). The scrolling thing I find pretty unconvincing, by the way -- new discussion generally happens at the bottom of a talkpage, so just hit the "end" button.

However if article pages are labeled with irrelevant categories, that's much, much worse. That affects readers, and it can be used to make POV claims in a way that there's no way to balance with opposing viewpoints. --Trovatore 17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Trovatore, comments about categories. But there is more to the issue of talk page clutter than inconvenience. For example consider this opinion of an editor whose opinions I respect:


 * "Right now, the projects are all claiming space on article talk pages. This can be annoying from a practical point of view, but annoyance isn't a very compelling reason for changing things. However, this default land grab on talk pages means that talk pages are getting long (very long, in some cases) without any article talk. Projects got to that default position because of the objections that happened when projects tried to place markers on article main pages. Most authors and editors shrugged at the talk page getting a spot. However, discussion of article contents, which is the proper content of article talk pages, is now getting shoved farther and farther down. That's more than annoying. It keeps readers from thinking they have a blank slate on which to talk. It may make new users think that the pages are only for templates and stuff and not realize that it's a sandbox for the article."
 * Paul August &#9742; 18:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a comment from someone that's only peripherally involved in this project. The issue of "claiming space on talk pages" is somewhat a non-issue.  As can be seen from articles like Talk:Alan Turing, there are methods available and being used for reducing "clutter". -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  20:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes this helps, but it doesn't completely solve the problem, someone has to actually add the combining template and there are lots of other templates besides project tags that end up on talk pages. Paul August &#9742; 22:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe a TOCLEFT at the top? --Trovatore 01:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea, but while WikiMedia supports it doesn't seem to recognize __TOCLEFT__. Paul August &#9742; 06:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The following works though. Paul August &#9742; 06:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot and Logic
Hi, All! I've been asked by Gregbard what categories SatyrBot had added the project banner to. These are:
 * Category:Algebraic logic
 * Category:American logicians
 * Category:Appeals to emotion
 * Category:Argument maps
 * Category:Arguments against the existence of God
 * Category:Arguments for the existence of God
 * Category:Arguments
 * Category:Austrian logicians
 * Category:Automata theory
 * Category:Automated theorem proving
 * Category:Axiom of choice
 * Category:Axioms of modal logic
 * Category:Axioms of set theory
 * Category:Boolean algebra
 * Category:Brazilian logicians
 * Category:British logicians
 * Category:Bulgarian logicians
 * Category:Cardinal numbers
 * Category:Categorical logic
 * Category:Causal fallacies
 * Category:Chinese logicians
 * Category:Cognitive biases
 * Category:Combinatory logic
 * Category:Computational complexity theory
 * Category:Computational models
 * Category:Computer arithmetic
 * Category:Constructible universe
 * Category:Czech logicians
 * Category:Decision theory
 * Category:Descriptive complexity
 * Category:Descriptive set theory
 * Category:Dichotomies
 * Category:Dutch logicians
 * Category:English logicians
 * Category:Forcing
 * Category:Formal fallacies
 * Category:Formal languages

As I mentioned on a couple people's talk pages, I'd be glad to help un-tag any categories that are needed. The bot can only untag the whole category (not a selection), but if y'all come up with a list of cats that need it, let me know. Very sorry for any trouble I may have caused. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're forgiven ;-) Paul August &#9742; 22:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * SatyrTH doesn't owe anyone an apology. He has taken the time and effort to put this service out there. He got a request from myself to do this. It appeared to both of us that we had done what needed to be done beforehand. Furthermore it is reasonable to believe that WE DID do what we needed to do beforehard. I resent all this unnecessary drama. Gregbard 22:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody owes anyone an apology. It is obvious that everyone here is acting in good faith and doing what they think is best for WP. I think Paul was being humorous. Anyway, moving on, I think there are two things to be done now:
 * Decide which of the tagged categories should be un-tagged.
 * Decide which of the categories in Greg's list which have not yet been tagged are related to logic and should be tagged.
 * I suggest we start with the former. Following are my suggestions for categories for un-tagging. I am trying to go by Satyr's guideline: a category should be at least 80% related to Logic in order to be included. Any comments are welcome. --Zvika 06:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A question for the untagging bot — my guess as to how it would work is that it would untag articles in the category to be untagged, even if there was another reason for inclusion. If that's correct, what we need to do is untag everything, then retag according to the trimmed category list.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be impractical for the good of tagging correct articles. Besides, all of the categories fit the bill. However, I am happy that you are following WP:FAITH, as I have seen elsewhere that some people are not so civil. LaleenaTalk to me Contributions to Wikipedia 12:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories for un-tagging
Following are my suggestions for categories for un-tagging. Feel free to modify and/or comment. I suggest we go by Satyr's guideline: a category should be at least 80% related to Logic in order to be included. --Zvika 06:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Category:Axioms of set theory
 * Category:Cardinal numbers
 * Category:Cognitive biases
 * Category:Computational complexity theory
 * Category:Computational models
 * Category:Computer arithmetic
 * Category:Decision theory
 * Category:Descriptive complexity
 * Category:Descriptive set theory
 * Category:Dichotomies


 * Category:Forcing; I'm just not sure. I'm willing to remove the tag from the one-or-two articles listed in the category which shouldn't be in this WikiProject.  Forcing, itself, is clearly in the wikiproject, but some of the technical articles really reside in equational theory of complete Boolean algebras, and some of the applications of forcing may not be in the project.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories for inclusion and exclusion
This is the original list of categories proposed to be included WikiProject Logic/Categories. I suggest we list all the ones that people want to leave out here and after Saturday 11 August noon (UTC) submit the original list minus these ones and the ones above in 'categories for untagging'. As per number two above. Gregbard 23:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I have gone over the list of cats and my preliminary suggestion is below. To whoever may be watching this: please take a few minutes to go over the list so it won't be the result of the work of just one or two people, who naturally can have oversights. It's a lot more productive to participate in the discussion in advance than to criticize after the deed is done. --Zvika 08:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

To be removed from original list

 * Category:Formal methods
 * Category:Formal theories of arithmetic
 * Category:Game theory
 * Category:Lemmas
 * Category:Mathematical axioms
 * Category:Mathematical theorems
 * Category:Mathematics paradoxes (note 1)
 * Category:Paradoxes (note 3)
 * Category:Paradoxes of naive set theory (note 1)
 * Category:Philosophy of mathematics
 * Category:Probability theory
 * Category:Probability theory paradoxes (note 1)
 * Category:Proofs (note 2)
 * Category:Set theory
 * Category:Set-theoretic universes
 * Category:Set theorists
 * Category:Supertasks (note 1)
 * Category:Systems of set theory
 * Category:Theorems
 * Category:Theory of computation
 * Category:Urelements
 * Category:Wellfoundedness
 * Category:Lambda calculus (note 4)
 * Category:Z notation (note 4)

Note 1: From Category:Mathematics paradoxes: "This category contains paradoxes in mathematics, but excluding those concerning logic." Thus I think that this category and its subcats should be excluded. --Zvika 08:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Note 2: The ~30 articles in the top-level Category:Proofs seem appropriate, as they are mostly about proof techniques, but this category contains the enormous subcategory Category:Articles_containing_proofs, which I think would best be excluded. Jeremy Tobacman 12:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The bot only tags by the category, not any subcategories Gregbard 13:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct - only the cat, not any subcats. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well then, I removed Category:Proofs from the list above. --Zvika 20:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Note 3: I think most of Category:Paradoxes really are logical paradoxes. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Note 4: I place Category:Lambda calculus and Category:Z notation as particular notations used in logic, but not necessarily part of logic. There seem to be few enough articles in those categories to be added by hand. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of these are of interest to the project -- note that the project explicitly lists "mathematical logic". In some sense the project is about those things that are called logic, even if they're not about the science of making valid inferences. (We should probably discuss at some point whether "logic" as the term is used by electrical engineers, is or should be part of our charter or not.)

So I have no particular problem with tagging some articles in the list above as being of interest to the project. I think the real issue is whether mass tagging is useful to the project at all. I note that when someone started a bot to do mass tagging on math articles for the math WikiProject, the reaction was largely negative and it was stopped. --Trovatore 06:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That is the sense I had based on the list of categories above - they include most subjects with the word logic in the title, which is a much larger collection than those subjects that are actually logic simpliciter.
 * Personally, I don't object to the tagging of talk pages by the logic project. I also don't see any point in tagging category talk pages, since the main use of the tags is for article assessement. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Which of these categories are we talking about? Except for Category:Paradoxes and maybe Category:Formal methods, I don't see too much relation to logic in any of them. I also don't object to tagging articles related to logic, we're just trying to avoid tagging thousands of unrelated articles. --Zvika 14:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait, is the bot tagging category talk pages, or tagging article talk pages? The problem with tagging article talk pages is that the point of the project banner is for article assessment, but bots can't do assessment, so you would end up with useless assessment statistics. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The bot will tag article talk pages (see discussion above). The idea is that the articles will first be tagged, and then WikiProject Logic members will rate them. This is why we want to avoid tagging a large number of articles, as it will overwhelm the capacity of the WikiProject. --Zvika 16:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Trovatore that "mass" tagging is problematic. Paul August &#9742; 13:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think all categories should be untagged? --Zvika 17:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should be conservative in our approach. If we end up tagging thousands of articles many of which are not properly within the scope of our project, unnecessarily cluttering talk pages, antagonizing many editors along the way, and unable to deal with all but a tiny fraction of the articles we tag &mdash; that will not be good for our project or the encyclopedia. I don't know the best way to get our project off the ground, but this isn't it. What a successful project needs is not lots of tagged articles, but lots of committed editors. Aggressive tagging will alienate many good editors. I would prefer that this project focus on creating and improving content, rather than tagging and assessing. Paul August &#9742; 15:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I thought we had cleared this issue. Since apparently we haven't, I have started another straw poll (see bottom of page). --Zvika 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Have I missed something? Where is the original list where these were to be removed from?  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did miss something. My mistake.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Axiomatic system and Formal system ??
At the moment there is a proposal to merge the articles Axiomatic system and Formal system, which I don't think is a good idea. I have noticed that the term formal system is listed in the logic-template as key-concept... and the term axiomatic system is not. Now I wonder if any of you can take a look at this discussion at the Talk:Formal system and give your point of view on this subject. Thanks - Mdd 19:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(ps. I started the WikiProject Systems three months ago and I wish you good luck with all the preparations. If I can be of any assistence, pleace let me know)


 * A formal system isn't necessarily an axiomatic one. The deductive apparatus of a system may consist of either transformation rules (also called rules of inference), axioms, or both. There is no need to do a complete merge in which one article completely disappears. However, the two may be integrated. This usually involves a paragraph that touches on the topic, with a link to the main article using  . I think if you look at how they organize big city articles with a section on "History of Denver" (for instance), but with a link to a whole article on "History of Denver." Some form of integration might work. Gregbard 21:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this (quick) response. I have copied your comment to the Talk:Formal system page and I will respond over there. - Mdd 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. This discussion is closed and the merger is off. - Mdd 12:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Automatic tagging of articles
Background: Some members of WikiProject Logic have previously suggested a list of categories (WikiProject Logic/Categories) which they believe are relevant to the project. A bot has started tagging the talk pages of all articles in these categories, but was stopped midway after complaints were received from some editors from other projects. In a recent straw poll it seemed there was consensus against continued execution of the bot, but it was not clear whether running the bot on a smaller set of categories was deemed appropriate. An example of the modifications suggested for the original set can be found in the preceding sections of this talk page. Do you support automatic tagging of the revised set of categories is?


 * No one is able to answer this question in good faith. We have not designated the categories. This poll needs to wait until after th e11th. Gregbard 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Please post your comments below. --Zvika 19:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Point of order - Currently there is question being considered for which selection of categories for tagging (for the second time) will occur. It is being asked which categories shall be excluded. This RFC question seems to be a direct attempt to undermine an already working process. Furthermore, there is a bot that will accomplish the task of editing perhaps thousands of articles. This poll would seem to be a discussion about whether or not to shut it down completely. This is obviously not acceptable. This bot had saved an enormous amount of work for many wikiprojects without controversy. If you have an opinion as to which categories shall not be included please make it known in the appropriate place above under categories for inclusion and exclusion. After Saturday 11 August noon (UTC), some form of list will move forward. If you just spend all of your efforts trying to shut the whole thing down, you will have no moral basis for criticizing the list later. Gregbard 20:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As you know, Gregbard, I'm the one who started the above list of categories for exclusion, so I don't know why you are again accusing me of acting in bad faith. I had thought there was an agreement on continued tagging of a large amount of articles if they can be shown to be (mostly) relevant to the project. However, following Paul August's comments above I realize that consensus has not been reached in this matter, which I think is more fundamental than whether a particular category is excluded or not. Hence this straw poll. You will notice that I have not expressed an opinion in this matter, for the simple reason that I have not yet decided what my opinion is, so please don't automatically assume that I am against you. --Zvika 20:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with Zvika (after an edit conflict where I didn't say it anywhere near as well). The question of whether any automatic tagging is to be done still requires consensus of some sort.  Whether it just requires consensus of the WikiProject, or of Wikipedia as a whole, is unclear.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly it is acceptable, as it has worked for several other projects. Let's work on putting an acceptable proposal together. These efforts to shut the whole thing down will result in more work for the whole project. Gregbard 20:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It still requires consensus of some sort. As I am uncertain as to whether of the categories (other than the logician categories) is appropriate for automatic tagging, we need to determine what we're doing.  (And, we need a centralized WikiProject location for the discussion of the categories to be automatically tagged, if we're going ahead.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't accused anyone of bad faith at this point. However, Zvika, you agreed (see above under categories for inclusion and exclusion "Sounds good") to create a list of categories to be-detagged, and for exclusion. Now you are proposing this question to stop the bot altogether. We have already been moving forward on the agreement. When one party agrees in to something, and then later the agreed upon terms are not accepted as a basis of moving forward that's exactly what diplomats call negotiating in bad faith. Let's move forward with a list that the vast majority of people will not complain about. Then when there are a few complaints, we can say that we did what we needed to do to ensure that complaints would be minimal. We might even at that point consider that some complaints are just invalid complaints, and should be ignored. Gregbard 22:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Having reconsidered, I think that automatic tagging of some of the categories is reasonable. However, we need to reach a final consensus that the tagging is acceptable after the final list is established.  Also, because of the way the untagging will probably work — that is, removing the tag from articles in those categories, whether or not the tag was added because of manual addition or membership in another category, I think we need to just removal all the tags and re-add them by the modified category list.  (In other words, I think we should go forward provided that the list is properly trimmed first.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I will reluctantly agree. However, you need to understand that some tagged articles are not there because of the bot, but rather because someone took the time to put it there. If we untag all of them and then tag a new list, that will be a lot of time and effort wasted. (It's mine, and satyrbot's time so I guess nobody cares). Let's be smart and just untag those categories that are added to the list above "categories for untagging," and tag those categories originally proposed minus the ones that people are complaining about. This will require that those of you who wish to have their complaints heard in the future, take the time now to add to "categories for exclusion." Gregbard 01:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Greg, any editor may civilly voice any concerns they have, at any time they wish, and expect to be "heard". You are not in a position to be able to place restrictions on this expectation. "Speak now or forever hold your peace" is not part of our culture. Paul August &#9742; 02:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. At anytime anyone may edit anything. That is all the more reason that there should not be any objection to moving forward. Eventually, things will straighten themselves out just fine. Gregbard 03:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I find I'm fairly neutral on this entire issue, just in case anyone was waiting around to find out :-). If the tagging is going to happen, I don't see any reason not to include the math logic articles -- math logic is part of the charter, and I support it being there, because it makes this project more interesting to me. That doesn't in any way imply that math logic is logic in the classical sense, just that it's of interest to this WikiProject.

As far as whether the tagging should happen, I'm neutral about that too. "The cow kicked Nellie in the belly in the barn; didn't do her any good, didn't do her any harm." --Trovatore 02:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think what I and everyone else wants to know is what categories would you exclude that you don't think would help the category or the wikiproject at all. I would like to know your opinion at least on what might annoy people. Gregbard 03:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Manual tagging of philosophical logic articles: a proposal
Please look at the findings from my quick look at Category:Unassessed Logic articles (small print below). My conclusion is that the Logic WikiProject should FIRST pass through all the articles in Category:WikiProject Philosophy and see which ones should be classified as Logic articles, i.e. philosophical logic. In my quick study of the letter 'A' from Category:Unassessed Logic articles I found that nearly all the articles which seemed to me to belong to philosophical logic were those that were already DOUBLE-TAGGED, i.e. both for philosophy and logic. The ones that I found tagged for just WikiProject Logic were not (in my view) much to do with philosophy.

Here are items from the letter 'A', in the first page of Category:Unassessed Logic articles. These must be part of the 'haul' from the robot, since they are already tagged for the logic project. You are welcome to dispute my assessments, or add your own:
 * 1) AD+ This is hard-core set theory (continuum hypothesis). I don't see why the philosophers would want this.
 * 2) Abductive reasoning Correctly tagged as relevant for philosophers, but currently is double-tagged for BOTH the Philosophy project and the Logic project, in my opinion. [MY PROPOSAL WORKS FOR THIS ONE].
 * 3) Absolute infinite This is about Cantor's work. I see that Cantor is tagged as a logician. [MY PROPOSAL WORKS]
 * 4) Absorption law This is bona fide philosophical logic. Single-tagged. [MY PROPOSAL FAILS HERE, because it wasn't already tagged for Philosophy].
 * 5) Abstract algebraic logic Wow, this is hard-core math. Philosophers should stay away, unless they want everything with the word 'logic' in it. Single-tagged for Logic.
 * 6) Accessibility relation Has to do with modal logic, so I think the philosophers should be interested. Double-tagged for both Philosophy and Logic projects. [PROPOSAL WORKS]
 * 7) Accounting method Seems to be included because it is correctly assigned to Category:Computational complexity theory. No earthly use to philosophers that I can see. This is theoretical computer science. Are philosophers going to begin sorting linked lists in sub-quadratic time?
 * 8) Actor-observer bias Appears to be social psychology. I don't see any connection to logic. Single-tagged i.e. only tagged for Logic, not Philosophy. [Can't score my proposal; I don't think this is logic but others could disagree].
 * 9) Ad captandum Since it concerns fallacious arguments, it's fine to be under philosophical logic. Currently double-tagged for both Philosophy and Logic. [PROPOSAL WORKS]

RESULT: My proposal misses out on one article out of the ten listed (i.e. #4) that *should* be in philosophical logic, but would not be captured. This assumes you buy my argument that nos. 1, 5, 7 and 8 are really not philosophical.

I welcome all reactions to this list of assignments, and the proposal for a manual judgment of the philosophical logic articles. The robot sweep is making unnecessary work for the philosophers doing the assessments, besides annoying the mathematicians. EdJohnston 05:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This looks like a good process to perform after the automatic tagging has occurred. Gregbard 22:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the result of the discussion.
The following is a list that is the product of the above discussion. It is the most conservative list that can be designated as such. There are categories that obviously belong included which are not (Paradoxes). There are none included which have raised any communicated concern AT ALL. It has been over three weeks since my original request to tag these articles, a task that would be large and tedious otherwise. I have made numerous attempts to publicize, and otherwise solicit input from the stake holding parties. It is my proposal now to move forward on the untagging list (repeated below as list B), and then begin tagging the new list (list D below). In the event of future complaints, It is my proposal to finish the tagging before addressing further concerns, including possible bot untagging. This proposal is not to be misconstrued as to diminish (or augment) any individual's right to tag or untag any article they wish on an individual basis. I am going to humbly request that SatyrBot begin as soon as it is convenient for him to do so with my apologies for all the drama on behalf of myself and the project. Gregbard 22:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have made the request. Gregbard 00:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Original list to be included (A)

 * Category:Algebraic logic
 * Category:American logicians
 * Category:Appeals to emotion
 * Category:Argument maps
 * Category:Arguments
 * Category:Arguments against the existence of God
 * Category:Arguments for the existence of God
 * Category:Austrian logicians
 * Category:Automata theory
 * Category:Automated theorem proving
 * Category:Axiom of choice
 * Category:Axioms of modal logic
 * Category:Axioms of set theory
 * Category:Boolean algebra
 * Category:Brazilian logicians
 * Category:British logicians
 * Category:Bulgarian logicians
 * Category:Cardinal numbers
 * Category:Categorical logic
 * Category:Causal fallacies
 * Category:Chinese logicians
 * Category:Cognitive biases
 * Category:Combinatory logic
 * Category:Computational complexity theory
 * Category:Computational models
 * Category:Computer arithmetic
 * Category:Constructible universe
 * Category:Czech logicians
 * Category:Decision theory
 * Category:Descriptive complexity
 * Category:Descriptive set theory
 * Category:Dichotomies
 * Category:Dutch logicians
 * Category:English logicians
 * Category:Forcing
 * Category:Formal fallacies
 * Category:Formal languages
 * Category:Formal methods
 * Category:Formal theories of arithmetic
 * Category:Fuzzy logic
 * Category:Game theory
 * Category:Genetic fallacies
 * Category:German logicians
 * Category:Greek logicians
 * Category:History of logic
 * Category:Icelandic logicians
 * Category:Independence results
 * Category:Indian logicians
 * Category:Inductive fallacies
 * Category:Informal arguments
 * Category:Informal fallacies
 * Category:Japanese logicians
 * Category:Lambda calculus
 * Category:Latin logical phrases
 * Category:Laws of thought
 * Category:Lemmas
 * Category:Logic
 * Category:Logic books
 * Category:Logic conferences
 * Category:Logic families
 * Category:Logic gates
 * Category:Logic in computer science
 * Category:Logic Portal
 * Category:Logic programming
 * Category:Logic puzzles
 * Category:Logic stubs
 * Category:Logical calculi
 * Category:Logical fallacies
 * Category:Logical languages
 * Category:Logicians
 * Category:Logicians by nationality
 * Category:Mathematical axioms
 * Category:Mathematical logic
 * Category:Mathematical logicians
 * Category:Mathematical logic hierarchies
 * Category:Mathematical logic stubs
 * Category:Mathematical theorems
 * Category:Mathematics paradoxes
 * Category:Mathematical relations
 * Category:Modal logic
 * Category:Model theory
 * Category:Paradoxes
 * Category:Paradoxes of naive set theory
 * Category:Philosophical arguments
 * Category:Philosophical logic
 * Category:Philosophy of mathematics
 * Category:Polish logicians
 * Category:Probability theory
 * Category:Probability theory paradoxes
 * Category:Proofs
 * Category:Quantification
 * Category:Recursion theory
 * Category:Relevance fallacies
 * Category:Rhetorical techniques
 * Category:Rules of inference
 * Category:Russian logicians
 * Category:Sentential logic
 * Category:Set theory
 * Category:Set-theoretic universes
 * Category:Set theorists
 * Category:Substructural logic
 * Category:Supertasks
 * Category:Systems of formal logic
 * Category:Systems of set theory
 * Category:Theorem provers
 * Category:Theorems
 * Category:Theory of computation
 * Category:Type theory
 * Category:Types of scientific fallacy
 * Category:Urelements
 * Category:Verbal fallacies
 * Category:Wellfoundedness
 * Category:Wikipedian logicians
 * Category:WikiProject Logic
 * Category:Z notation

To be untagged (B)

 * Category:Axioms of set theory
 * Category:Cardinal numbers
 * Category:Cognitive biases
 * Category:Computational complexity theory
 * Category:Computational models
 * Category:Computer arithmetic
 * Category:Decision theory
 * Category:Descriptive complexity
 * Category:Descriptive set theory
 * Category:Dichotomies
 * Category:Forcing

to be removed from original list (C)

 * Category:Formal methods
 * Category:Formal theories of arithmetic
 * Category:Game theory
 * Category:Lemmas
 * Category:Mathematical axioms
 * Category:Mathematical theorems
 * Category:Mathematics paradoxes
 * Category:Paradoxes
 * Category:Paradoxes of naive set theory
 * Category:Philosophy of mathematics
 * Category:Probability theory
 * Category:Probability theory paradoxes
 * Category:Proofs (note 2)
 * Category:Set theory
 * Category:Set-theoretic universes
 * Category:Set theorists
 * Category:Supertasks (note 1)
 * Category:Systems of set theory
 * Category:Theorems
 * Category:Theory of computation
 * Category:Urelements
 * Category:Wellfoundedness
 * Category:Lambda calculus
 * Category:Z notation

Some more categories to remove

 * Category:Argument maps
 * Category:Automata theory
 * Category:Constructible universe
 * Category:Independence results
 * Category:Recursion theory
 * Category:Type theory

Paul August &#9742; 03:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

New list to be tagged (list A) minus (list B) minus (list C)=(list D)

 * Category:Algebraic logic
 * Category:American logicians
 * Category:Appeals to emotion
 * Category:Arguments
 * Category:Arguments against the existence of God
 * Category:Arguments for the existence of God
 * Category:Austrian logicians
 * Category:Automated theorem proving
 * Category:Axiom of choice
 * Category:Axioms of modal logic
 * Category:Boolean algebra
 * Category:Brazilian logicians
 * Category:British logicians
 * Category:Bulgarian logicians
 * Category:Categorical logic
 * Category:Causal fallacies
 * Category:Chinese logicians
 * Category:Combinatory logic
 * Category:Czech logicians
 * Category:Dutch logicians
 * Category:English logicians
 * Category:Formal fallacies
 * Category:Formal languages
 * Category:Fuzzy logic
 * Category:Genetic fallacies
 * Category:German logicians
 * Category:Greek logicians
 * Category:History of logic
 * Category:Icelandic logicians
 * Category:Indian logicians
 * Category:Inductive fallacies
 * Category:Informal arguments
 * Category:Informal fallacies
 * Category:Japanese logicians
 * Category:Latin logical phrases
 * Category:Laws of thought
 * Category:Logic
 * Category:Logic books
 * Category:Logic conferences
 * Category:Logic families
 * Category:Logic gates
 * Category:Logic in computer science
 * Category:Logic Portal
 * Category:Logic programming
 * Category:Logic puzzles
 * Category:Logic stubs
 * Category:Logical calculi
 * Category:Logical fallacies
 * Category:Logical languages
 * Category:Logicians
 * Category:Logicians by nationality
 * Category:Mathematical logic
 * Category:Mathematical logicians
 * Category:Mathematical logic hierarchies
 * Category:Mathematical logic stubs
 * Category:Mathematical relations
 * Category:Modal logic
 * Category:Model theory
 * Category:Philosophical arguments
 * Category:Philosophical logic
 * Category:Polish logicians
 * Category:Quantification
 * Category:Relevance fallacies
 * Category:Rhetorical techniques
 * Category:Rules of inference
 * Category:Russian logicians
 * Category:Sentential logic
 * Category:Substructural logic
 * Category:Systems of formal logic
 * Category:Theorem provers
 * Category:Types of scientific fallacy
 * Category:Verbal fallacies
 * Category:Wikipedian logicians
 * Category:WikiProject Logic

Rationale software
I'm putting this comment here because I don't know where else to put it. There is a piece of commercial software called Rationale which purports to allow diagramming of logical arguments. It is cropping up in several wikipedia articles in category:logic, for example in ad hominem. I find it confusing and unhelpful. I tried removing it from one article, but it was back the next day, and I don't want to get into a revert war. I think the logic group, that's us, should consider this software and vote on whether or not its inclusion in wikipedia is appropriate. Rick Norwood 13:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good list. I'll try to work on some of these.  Meanwhile, I'd really like someone to sound off on my question at the top of this page.  I can hear the crickets chirping. Rick Norwood 12:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I hear a motion for a vote. Perhaps I'll make a page for this issue and publicize a vote. Gregbard 03:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Gregbard. Rick Norwood 12:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was distracted. Go for it!  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Logic Banner/WikiProject Philosophy Banner
How did the WikiProject Logic banners get changed into WikiProject Philosphy banners. I think we need to revert those NOW, or perhaps the Project should just be deleted as absorbed into WikiProject Philosphy. There's no way to tell which articles are considered within the scope, with the present banners and templates. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to fold up the contents to a directory under WP:PHIL. However, there should still be an interdiscipliary presence. There should be one place for phil, math, computer science, linguistics, etc. We just need to coordinate to make the overlap small, and make sure to cover everything under one or the other (math or phil). Gregbard 23:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have put this issue on the top of the WikiProject Task List and I have been discussing it with Gregbard on my user talk page User talk:Philogo under "banner".

In my view if we are to have a WikiProject Logic then Logic articles should be tagged under its banner. (I would not be concered if they are tagged under WikiProject Philosphy and/or WikiProject Maths or whatever as well but not instead of WikiProject Logic.)

Before I began my dicussion with Gregbard I assumed  had become corrupted. So I resurrected the previous version and saved it as.

--Philogo 20:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * After so much negative input about these banners, I decided to work in the opposite direction. I have been working on strengthening the philosophy project, and it's fields etc. I think we should just have two banners (not three) the math people should be responsible for their categories, the philosophy people will be responsible for theirs. We can sort out the common area, and anything neglected by both under wikiproject logic.


 * Mathematical logic worklist
 * Philosophical logic worklist

Gregbard 00:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am not persuaded and remain of the opinion that Logic articles should continue to come under the Wikiproject Logic banner (now {[[logic3}} ) - as they were until yesterday. I think the views of other project members should be awaited before the WikiProject Logic banners get changed into WikiProject Philosophy banners.

--Philogo 00:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The tags are used for the assessment of articles. It's better to have fewer. In fact, it's better to have one. However, the math project already has a foundations field and they don't want philosophical articles in their math field. Right now there are three types coving logic. We may need a project, but not necessarily the tag. We can use the project to sort it out between us. We can keep having two of everything so as to be a comprehensive project. Gregbard 23:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I lean towards a logic banner. Logic, to me, seems a nice distinct field. To take part of it and declare it philosphy, and part mathematics, seems unclean. I could imagine an alternate relality where mathematics articles had to be put under Engineering or Astronomy, whichever was appropriate... because that was where the literature was usually seen. Nahaj 13:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree Logic is a nice distinct field and it needs and has its own WikiProject. It makes little sense to say parts of Logic are Philosophy and other parts are Mathematics. There are seperate fields of Philosophy of Logic, and Philosophical Logic. It would make more sense to say that Logic is part of Mathematics (as Russell claimed) or Mathematics is part of Logic but I do not see that as relevant or worthy of debate (sorry Betrand). I think we should aim to attract Wikipedians who share an interest in logic and who wish to improve the general quality of Wikipedia logic articles, and how they are accessed and coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about logic. no matter what their other interests are.

Therefore I remain of the opinion that Logic articles should continue to come under the Wikiproject Logic banner, and the views of other project members should be awaited before the WikiProject Logic banners get changed into WikiProject Philosophy banners. --Philogo 23:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

New proposal
The new proposal is to have each the Philosophy and Mathematics project be responsible for their own categories as delineated on the main page of the project. These projects on their own shall be responsible for whether or not they want to tag anything much less by bot. The goal shall be for the overlap to be as small as possible, and for the project to exist as a common area for common concerns. That is, the proposal is to remit to the two WikiProjects the proposal to bot tag. Gregbard 07:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it has been over a week with dead silence. I suppose that makes a little sense. The proposal is to do something that largely is already the case. (A vote NO would be a little puzzling). The part of this proposal, that needs some kind of head nod, is the categories. I think they are sufficiently pared down. Currently, ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, and aesthetics are slated to be tagged under philosophy with the respective field designated. That may take some time (perhaps over a week or two from what I hear). The proposal to WP:PHILO was specifically for just the philosophical logic categories to be similarly tagged. That will occur after the first round of tagging if all goes well.


 * It is not my place to say what the WP:MATH does. However, I would ask that they continue to make sure everything that they believe belongs under foundations is indeed tagged with the wp:math banner, and marked under the foundations field, so that it shows up here as a complete worklist. Some of the math logic categories as listed, I believe may contain articles which might qualify. Be well, Greg Bard 23:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the math project already tags articles. But we have decided not to automate the process, which is why not all math articles are tagged. But the most "important" ones, in some sense, are likely to be tagged. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I would agree with these sensible comments. But what about merging some of the current logic categories into math categories? Algebraic logic is one instance that some fit more as math categories then as logic categories. Happy editing, Laleena  12:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In the new scheme we are considering the algebraic logic category is the math project's responsibility. The new philosophy/math split is on the WP:LGC page under scope. Greg Bard 14:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Two opinions: And some recommendations: Does this sound like a good idea? --- Charles Stewart (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Mathematical logic and philosophical logic are quite different fields, but there are important points of contact between them, and WP has many articles that need to be looked at from both point of view. Equally, there are many mathematical logic articles of limited interest to most philosophgers, and many philosophical logic articles of little interest to mathematicians.
 * The elephant in the room: it is likely the case that most logicians are neither philosophers nor mathematicians but computer scientists (and there are very few logicians who work in logic departments). Logic in computer science (LICS) constitutes a further area that is large, has relations with both philosophical logic and mathematical logic, but should not be identified with either.
 * We keep the logic project for handling the points of contact between mathematical and philosophical logic, and perhaps also for LICS pages, while there isn't so much useful guidance coming from the CS project;
 * We create list of mathematical logic and philosophical logic, for articles that can be handled perfectly well by the appropriate wikiprojects. Possibly subprojects are useful, then they could be subprojects of two wikiprojects.

Notice of List articles
Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Contents subpages (not by me). This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * List of basic topics in logic
 * List of basic discrete mathematics topics

Deletion Review for Erdos number categories
Just a heads up for anybody who might be interested in the discussion of the recient deletion of several Erdős number categories. The deletion review now in progress is going on here: Deletion review/Log/2007 November 7

The discussion that was sparked in the aftermath of the deletion, which eventually led to the Deletion Review being initiated, can be found here: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28

The archive of the discussion, which resulted in the decision to delete, may be found here: Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 28

Two previous discussions that both resulted in keep, may be found below:

--Ramsey2006 15:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 8
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 9

Second DRV for Erdos number categories
The first DRV resulted in a decision to overturn the deletion of the Erdos number categories. However, that DRV has since itself been overturned by the closing administrator at the request of SparsityProblem.

There is a new DRV for the Erdos number categories here: Deletion review/Log/2007 November 10 --Ramsey2006 23:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nominating ampheck for deletion
Please join the discussion. Kaldari (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * jeez, I'm sorry I missed that one. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Metalogic
A somewhat famous mathematician has proposed to delete Category:Metalogic. The category is perfectly wonderful. I see this as a part of the whole math-centric culture. I think it is seen as a threat or something. Silly. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You may have a valid point, or you may not. Not being a philosopher I don't know. But considering that as a result of your actions (which apparently have not been discussed before - correct me if I am wrong) a lot of mathematical articles are now in a category that bears a name that most mathematicians including many logicians have never heard before, the language you are using here is not appropriate. For all the others who wonder, like I did, what Gregbard is referring to: He probably means this justified complaint by Arthur Rubin on Gregbard's talk page, to which he replied in an entirely inappropriate way. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Boolean algebra task force
I am looking for other editors to participate in a broad task force to organize Wikipedia's articles on Boolean algebra, propositional logic, and related topics. The current organization is quite idiosyncratic, and has been the subject of discussion before. The initial goal of the task force would be to outline the current structure of these articles (the topics covered by each and how they interconnect) and discuss improvements to this organization. If we are successful we will come out with a proposal that can be announced more widely.

Participating in the task force would not require a large time commitment. If you are interested, please look at WikiProject Logic/Boolean algebra task force and add yourself to the list of editors. The page was created under WikiProject Logic only for convenience. I hope that I will be able to gather editors with a wide range of backgrounds to participate. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

An issue in the definition of Decidability (logic)
I'd like to draw your attention to an issue in the definition of Decidability (logic), namely whether that definition should be based on the imprecise notion of "effective method", or the precise notion of "recursive computability". See Talk:Decidability (logic). --Lambiam 16:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Inference
The article on inference has fallen into disrepair; its last many revisions have been missing many of the syllogism examples, and no-one seems to have noticed. I've restored the examples from older revisions, and added one more example (valid reasoning from false premises to true conclusion). (see diff) However, I'm no expert, and this article needs a thorough revision by someone who knows the subject. -- The Anome (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics
This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist 10:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)