From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have.
High traffic

On 24 May 2011, Philosophy was mentioned in the mouseover text on xkcd, a high-traffic website. (See visitor traffic)

Merge question concerning the Philosopher article[edit]

Should the article Philosopher, which is currently "top importance" but "start class" be merged into this article? Please have a look here: SPECIFICO talk 18:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No: the Philosopher article is of little merit.
That's the point. The Philosopher article needs vast improvement or else it should be merged or redirect. SPECIFICO talk 22:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not see the point in having an article "Philosopher" as well as an article "Philosophy" any more than "Chemist" and "Chemistry" (and I am surprised to note that there are such as well as Biologist/Biology and Musician/Music.!) On the grounds that Philosopher a) superfluous and b) devoid of useful content I would support emptying the article and redirecting to this article, — Philogos (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Why not DELETE the article Philosopher? --— Philogos (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, merge and delete.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Just DELETE (but do not merge) Philosopher replacing it with a redirection to Philosophy. The article Philosopher, has no content worth incorporting into Philosophy. --— Philogos (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2014[edit]

Lpcardoso (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC) In the second sentence of the first paragraph maybe it will help to add examples of other ways of addressing the problems that philosophy tackles. Ie: the sentence would read: "Philosophy is distinguished from other ways (ex: mythology, religion, scientific research) of addressing such problems by..."

My suggestion comes after reading the article in another language (Portuguese) link. tks.

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 01:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

disambiguation link[edit]

word 4 of paragraph 1 of article header, study, links to disambiguation page. I suggest Education as the destination for this link as it pertains to a "field of study" or "branch of education" (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2014[edit]

I am developing a page as දර්ශනය (philosophy) in sinhala language. I like to copy or study the structure of this page.

my user pageපරිශීලක:රාජු

and the page i currently editing isදර්ශනය

Thank you. රාජු (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015[edit]

BoazBarak (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You would need consensus before adding such a link, which you are unlikely to get; but as the site is deemed suspicious/risky by McAfee, it won't be added in any case. - Arjayay (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)