User talk:Phlsph7

Archives (Index)

1 s/ 1 s/1

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Idea for collab - History

Hey Phlsph! I'm a big fan of your broad concept articles — I'm real excited whenever a new one gets to GA or FA. I know you and Cerebellum got Human history to GA about a month ago, and it made me think that History itself might be a fun one to collaborate with you on. I've been looking at that article for a while; it's a bit messy at the moment and I think it could benefit a lot from a top-down rewrite. This is a big task though, and I thought it'd be fun to do it alongside someone who's seasons with writing to that level of breadth and summary. I know that you probably have a lot of articles on your to-do list at the moment though, so no pressure for anything immediate. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Generalissima, that sounds like a really exciting proposal and it would be an honor to work alongside someone as experienced as yourself. It would be a big project indeed and we would probably have to figure out what needs to be done and whether our visions for the article roughly align.

I'm currently occupied with reworking the article Hedonism. Most of the main changes have already been implemented but it will probably still take another week or two, depending on how much time I have available. After that, I could get started with going through the literature to get a rough overview and figure out what changes to the article History may be needed. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, that's a fun one! And yeah, it'd require finding a structure that makes sense. I'll also search through academic literature on history as a field (I'm bet there's good stuff from Cambridge on that) and see if I can take a leaf from how it's divided into subconcepts. I'm imagining something similar to how you structured Philosophy, starting with its evolution as a field over time in different contexts, and then detailing subbranches and methods of historical inquiry. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Using this structure sounds like a solid approach to get started. There is probably a wealth of sources on specific history topics, like sources on particular branches of history. Let's hope there are also some good overview sources focusing on the topic of history in general. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: I've mostly finished my other project so I have some time now for the article History. It's probably best if we focus first on the body of the article and concentrate on the lead once we are happy with the body.

I've had a look at the article and several overview sources. Some of them are on history specifically while others belong more to historiography or philosophy of history. I don't think we can directly read off the structure of our article from any of them but they could come in handy for questions about scope and what should or shouldn't be included. A few overview sources that might be helpful are:

• Arnold, John (2000). History: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-285352-3.
• Bentley, Michael (2006). Companion to Historiography. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-97023-0.
• Jenkins, Keith (1995). On 'what is History?': From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-09725-3.
• Little, Daniel (2020). "Philosophy of History". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 6 November 2024.
• Tosh, John (2002). The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Directions in the Study of Modern History. Pearson Education. ISBN 978-0-582-77254-0.
• Tucker, Aviezer (2011). A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4443-5152-1.

I have something to say on most sections of the article. Focusing on the points you have raised so far, I agree that having sections on the evolution of the field, its main branches, and methods makes sense. We currently don't really have a section on the evolution. Our current section on the branches has too many subsections. Maybe we can reduce them by using the major subdivisions "By period" (e.g. ancient history), "By geographic location" (e.g. history of Africa), "By theme" (e.g. economic history), and possibly a section called "Others" for branches that don't fit this division.

Our current section "Methods" is a little odd: it starts with universal history in the early modern period and then gives historical reflections on methodology and a criticism of history. Some of these ideas might fit better elsewhere in the article. My initial impression is that it might be better to talk more directly about the methods, like source evaluation, different types of sources, interpretative approaches, and interdisciplinary considerations, to provide a clearer understanding of how historians conduct their research and write history.

I'm not sure if you agree with these points and I'm curious to hear what your thoughts are. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Those look like good sources - I also compiled some other sources which seem useful here. (Will expand on rest later.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Woolf's 2011 A Global History of History and The Oxford History of Historical Writing from your source list look like great sources for the section on the evolution of the field. I have access to Woolf's 2019 A Concise History of History, which is a revised and abridged version of his 2011 book. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

As for workflow, it seems like it'd make the most sense for us to each take different sections of the article and write those, and then we can look at it as a whole and make edits from there. I'd be interested in writing about the evolution of the field - would you want to start on methods and branches? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good approach, I'll see what I can do about the methods and branches. I was considering a few more changes and I would be interested in your thoughts. I think it would be good to have a "Definition" section to discuss the different meanings of the word, like the contrast between history as a series of events and history as the study or representation of these events, which is often mentioned in overview sources. This section could also cover history's classification as a science or part of the humanities and questions about its scope, like whether prehistory is included. For an early draft of what some of this could look like, see User:Phlsph7/History.

I don't think we should have separate main sections for "Etymology", "Judgement", "Pseudohistory", and "Historians" since these topics don't seem to be important enough. The part on etymology is rather long. It could be integrated into the new section "Definition" in a condensed form. The contrast with pseudohistory would also fit in there. The section "Historians" only explains what the word "historian" means. This part could also be covered in the section "Definition".

The section "Teaching" should be more global and less focused on conflicts and biases. It could instead concentrate on things like curriculum and pedagogical approaches.

I was thinking about having a section to discuss the relation between history and other fields. This section could have subsections like historiography (which is currently a separate main section), philosophy of history (which is currently only covered indirectly ), teaching/education (which is currently a separate main section), and possibly some of history's interdisciplinary connections (like archaeology, anthropology, and linguistics).

The topic of the section "Description" seems to be rather vague as it covers bits and pieces of philosophy of history, discussion of sources, methods, the classification of history as a discipline, and its internal organization into branches. Its contents could be moved around to be covered in other sections with a more well-defined scope. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

What do you think about informing other editors on the history talk page of our plans? It could be something along the following lines:

Generalissima and I were thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. It currently has 6 unreferenced paragraphs and 2 unreferenced subsections. As first steps, we were planning to add a section on how history as a discipline evolved and to rework the sections "Areas of study" and "Methods". We currently don't really have a section on the evolution.

Our current section "Areas of study" has 15 subsections with several subsubsections, which is too many. Maybe we can reduce them by using the major subdivisions "By period" (e.g. ancient history), "By geographic location" (e.g. history of Africa), "By theme" (e.g. economic history), and possibly a section called "Others" for branches that don't fit this division. The current section is also repetitive in several locations. For example, it explains two times what military history is. I also don't think we need repetitive explanations like History of North America is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation on the continent in the Earth's Northern and Western Hemispheres., History of Central America is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation on the continent in the Earth's Western Hemisphere., and History of South America is the study of the past passed down from generation to generation on the continent in the Earth's Southern and Western Hemispheres.

Our current section "Methods" is a little odd. For some reason, it starts with universal history in the early modern period and then discusses methodological considerations in the ancient period and the following periods. I think the section should focus on the methods themselves rather than how they developed in the past. This could include discussions of the different types of sources, source analysis & criticism, how different sources are synthesized to arrive at a coherent narrative, and possibly what interpretative tools and approaches there are. This is also roughly how overview sources on the topic proceed, like [1], [2], and [3]. Maybe the discussion of how the methods developed in the past can be discussed in a paragraph or two, but this should not be the main focus of the section.

We were hoping to get some feedback on these and possibly other changes. For a discussion with more details and improvement ideas, see User_talk:Phlsph7#Idea_for_collab_-_History.

Phlsph7 (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

This looks good to me! Sorry I haven't had as much time for wiki stuff last few days, hope to get back to this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I made a few slight changes to the text and posted it at Talk:History#Changes_to_the_article. Apologies if I'm too eager. This is not a sprint but a marathon after all, so feel free to go at your own pace. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: I'm wanting to get back to this now, would you still want me to get back to the evolution of the field? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good. My initial idea would be to proceed chronologically from ancient to modern, maybe around 8 paragraphs in total. However, I haven't done much research on this topic and I'm sure there are other ways to write the section as well. I'm currently working on a draft of the section "Areas of study", which will keep me busy for some more time. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: I've implemented most of the main changes I had planned and I'm now considering what to do about the section on the evolution of the field. I had a look at Woolf's 2019 A Concise History of History as well as [4] and [5] for how this section could look. I was thinking about getting started on a basic draft but I wanted to check with you first since I'm not sure whether you have already started something or what your plans for the section are. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I apologize again for my tardiness with this; I have been reading sources and taking notes, but I am just now starting to formulate this into an actual section. I'll draft up the section over the next couple days and we can go over it together then, if that works for you! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Given the breadth of the field, keeping the section concise will probably be one of the main challenges. Thanks for your comments to the article. I added a short passage on genetics. I also started a talk page discussion about the English variant at Talk:History#English_variant.

Concerning archaeology in the subsection "Related fields#Others", what do you think about expanding it to a full paragraph and discussing the other disciplines in the second paragraph?

Another change to be done is to rewrite the lead. But this is usually best done as the last step to merely provide a summary of the body of the article so we should probably wait until the evolution-section is finished. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Generalissima, I wrote a draft of the section on the evolution of history as an academic discipline at User:Phlsph7/History - Evolution. I took some ideas from your draft at User:Generalissima/History history while trying to get them into a more condensed form, I hope you don't mind. The draft is mostly finished so I would be curious to hear your thoughts. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I added the section and nominated the article History for GA status. I wasn't sure whether to include you as a co-nominator since you have been occupied with various other things in the last months. If would like to be part of the review process, I would be happy to add you. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Howdy, Phlsph7 I would love to be part of the review if that is possible - I'm so sorry I haven't been as active the past few months (life stuff has gotten in the way), but I have more really want to contribute as much as I can to help bring this to FAC. I'm going to look things over and see if there's any areas I can tweak up. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

That's great to hear, I adjusted the GA template to include you. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Great work guys, if you’re interested Historiography is in quite poor shape but no worries if you’re too busy Kowal2701 (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kowal2701: I agree, there would be a lot to do for this article. I'll keep it in mind, but I'm currently occupied with various other things. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we're still quite a bit under the ideal prose size max of 9000 words, and I think there's a bit more we can add to certain spots. I think I might work on the "Evolution of the discipline" (perhaps just 'Evolution' to be more brief and conform better to MOS:SECTIONSTYLE?) section a bit, and perhaps break it up into subsections. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

My impression is that reviewers often consider shorter articles to be better as long as they manage to cover all the essential points. For example, Philosophy has a readable prose size of 6259 words and I don't remember any complaints during the FA review about it being too short.

If we keep the section "Evolution of the discipline" concise enough, we don't need to subdivide it. If we subdivide it, it might be good to use a chronological approach rather than a regional approach, following Woolf 2019 and Wright 2006. One practical disadvantage of a regional approach is that some regions had little to no traditions while others had major ones. Not all editors know this and it won't take long for them to add sections for the "missing" regions, which then get detailed treatments based on narrow sources even though overview sources barely mention them. For GA and FA, this could lead to challenges regarding WP:PROPORTION.

The current version has a few issues. Islamic historiography is usually considered a separate tradition rather than a subfield of Western historiography. Having contrasting sections for "Western historiography" and "Modern historiography" is odd. As far as I'm aware, modern historiography starts already with the Enlightenment (see Bentley's 2005 book Modern Historiography: An Introduction), i.e., well before the 19th century. I moved the current version to your earlier user draft to give us some time to fix these issues and polish the contribution, I hope you don't mind. This way, we avoid turning a level 2 vital article into a long-term draft space.

I was considering the title "Evolution" as well. One concern I had was that this term is primarily associated with biological evolution and may therefore confuse readers about the content of the section. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey Generalissima, I'm happy that it worked out with our GA nomination! We can now nominate the article for WP:DYK. I brainstormed a few possible questions:

• Did you know that history has a history?
• Did you know that it is controversial whether history is a social science or belongs to the humanities?
• Did you know that various historians challenge the idea of objective historical knowledge?
• Did you know that some historians argue that history is more about the present than the past?

The first one is my favorite. I'm not sure if we could use the last one since it is not directly in article in this form. I'm open to more suggestions. What are your thoughts? Phlsph7 (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The first one is very nice - I agree that it's probably the best to use. #2 is interesting enough too though, so we could have it as an alt. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Great, I started the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/History. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Generalissima: Would you be interested in attempting an FA nomination? I'm currently not planning any bigger changes, but to prepare the article, there are various smaller things to take care of. For example, it might be good to ensure that all the image captions have references. Another boring thing to do would be to add page numbers to all cite templates that refer to a specific chapter. For example, the template {{cite book |last1=Bentley |first1=Michael |editor1-last=Bentley |editor1-first=Michael |title=Companion to Historiography |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-134-97023-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kWmIAgAAQBAJ |language=en |chapter=General Introduction: The Project of Historiography |date=2006 }} needs a parameter |pages= to indicate where the chapter starts and ends. I would also read the article one more time from start to end for copyediting and to see whether something else catches my eye. In addition to that, a peer review might help to get more feedback. This would be my first FAC of an article in the field of history so we would have to see how it goes. What do you think? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd love to help there! I'll add page numbers and try to reference image captions. With how thorough UC's reviews are, I'd feel comfortable enough nominating this without a peer review - but I won't stop you if you wanna be sure. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

My only outstanding concern is that I think some of the sources we use could be a little superfluous. There's a fair number of college textbooks; and while these aren't bad sources by any means, they're quite tertiary sources, and for some of them it might be better to cite what they're citing directly (although others, especially from higher-quality academic publishers, seem fine to leave in). I'd also like to incorporate my citing style of indenting the cites for particular chapters beneath the cite of the main book when we're citing multiple of a book's chapters. What do you think? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for getting started with the page numbers. I'll look into the possibility of pruning some of the sources. This can be a bit tricky at times to ensure that all the relevant information is already covered in the remaining sources. I'm fine with indenting chapters that belong to the same book. I started a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/History/archive1 to be on the safe side. We already got a lot of feedback on the talk page and through UC's indepth review, so it should be fine even if we don't get much feedback from the peer review. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The page numbers for chapters are nice to have, but I don't think it's an issue if we can't find them for all sources. Especially for sources available online, this shouldn't be a problem. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Generalissima: I think we have addressed all the main points. Should we start the nomination? Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a good time to. Seems like there isn't really much being raised on the peer review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright, I started it at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History/archive1. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Generalissima: it's great it worked out with the FA nomination! I prepared a short TFA draft, what do you think of the following:

History is the systematic study of the past with its main focus on the human past. Historians analyse and interpret primary and secondary sources to construct narratives about what happened and explain why it happened. They engage in source criticism to assess the authenticity, content, and reliability of these sources. It is controversial whether the resulting historical narratives can be truly objective and whether history is a social science rather than a discipline of the humanities. Influential schools of thought include positivism, the Annales school, Marxism, and postmodernism. Some branches of history focus on specific time periods, such as ancient history, particular geographic regions, such as the history of Africa, or distinct themes, such as political, social, and economic history. History emerged as a field of inquiry in antiquity to replace myth-infused narratives, with influential early traditions originating in Greece, China, and later in the Islamic world.

Phlsph7 (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Epistemology

The article Epistemology you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Epistemology for comments about the article, and Talk:Epistemology/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of It is a wonderful world -- It is a wonderful world (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Promotion of Mind

Congratulations, Phlsph7! The article you nominated, Mind, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History

The article History you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History for comments about the article, and Talk:History/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of UndercoverClassicist -- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Value theory

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Value theory you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Acer-the-Protogen -- Acer-the-Protogen (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello! 198.163.195.14 (talk) 09:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Value theory

The article Value theory you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Value theory for comments about the article, and Talk:Value theory/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Acer-the-Protogen -- Acer-the-Protogen (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Mind scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/April 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! SchroCat (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Well-being

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Well-being you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Urchincrawler -- Urchincrawler (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Nice job!

Tesla and trade unions is now a featured article! 08:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FalloutInfinity2 (talk • contribs)

Tesla and trade unions Nice job!

08:51, 10 March 2025 Phlsph7 talk contribs thanked FalloutInfinity2 talk contribs

Thank you for thanking me for thanking you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FalloutInfinity2 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

FA nomination needs review

Hi. If you have some time, there is a FA nomination that needs an additional review or two. It is at WP:Featured_article_candidates/Margaret_Sanger/archive1. Any help would be appreciated. Noleander (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

DYK for History

On 15 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article History, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Use and Abuse of History: Or How the Past Is Taught explores how school textbooks across the world distort history to serve political interests? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/History. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, History), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Promotion of Epistemology

Congratulations, Phlsph7! The article you nominated, Epistemology, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Value theory

On 19 March 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Value theory, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that according to some value theorists, nothing is good or bad? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Value theory. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Value theory), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rule of inference, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Material implication.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Well-being

The article Well-being you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Well-being for comments about the article, and Talk:Well-being/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Urchincrawler -- Urchincrawler (talk) 00:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hedonism

The article Hedonism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Hedonism for comments about the article, and Talk:Hedonism/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Brent Silby -- Brent Silby (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Epistemology scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 1 May 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rule of inference

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rule of inference you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Brent Silby -- Brent Silby (talk) 09:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Rule of inference

The article Rule of inference you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rule of inference for comments about the article, and Talk:Rule of inference/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Brent Silby -- Brent Silby (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion for a GA improvement

Hi, @Phlsph7! I loved reviewing articles that you nominated. They are always very through and contain clear prose.

If you are looking for an article to improve to the GA level, then I would suggest this one: Truth. It is a level 3 vital article for philosophy and religion and it already has a very solid foundation. I tried to turn it into GA myself, but I realized that it's probably above my paygrade. Brent Silby (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Brent Silby and thanks for your reviews and your own recent nominations! The article Truth would indeed be an interesting and challenging article to bring to GA. From a short look, the section on the different theories doesn't look too bad, but other parts might take quite some work. Some topics seem to get no or too little coverage (truth relativism, truth skepticism/nihilism, non-Western views, truth in disciplines other than philosophy) while others get too much (lengthy subsections on the views of individual philosophers). I added the article to my todo list. I would ping you before starting to work on it, but that could take a while. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Phlsph7! I want to thank you for taking up my offer of improving Truth to a GA level, since it is such an important topic in philosophy. Brent Silby (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rule of inference, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antiquity.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Mind uploading image

Mind upload.svg

Do you think you could make a version of File:Mind upload.svg where instead of a lightbulb there is a brain symbol inside the silhouetted head and a pixelated version of the same brain symbol on the screen (pixelated to represent being digitized)? I think that could work nicely for the Mind uploading in fiction and Mind uploading articles, and should be an acceptable compromise to everyone involved in the image discussion. No worries if you don't feel like it, of course—I can always ask elsewhere. TompaDompa (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@TompaDompa: I'm currently a little busy, but I'll look into it when I get the time in the course of the week. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Mind upload3.svg

Mind upload4.svg

@TompaDompa: I created File:Mind upload3.svg and File:Mind upload4.svg. The first one has a finer pixelation than the second one. With very rough pixelations, it becomes difficult to recognize the brain. I'm not sure how well one can see the pixelations when it is displayed as a small thumb. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I think the pixelation works fine with File:Mind upload4.svg. I'll add the image to both articles. If others don't think the image strikes the right balance between "clearly a brain" and "clearly pixelated", I suppose the best approach would be to use a brain symbol with less detail (e.g. File:Brain - The Noun Project.svg) as the starting point and larger pixels. TompaDompa (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Commons

Hi. I've been thinking about rewriting the commons article, as it is a bit disorganized in its current state. Since you deal with high level articles, do you have any tips to give me before I start? Thanks. (Also, good job on the TFA!) — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 02:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi LunaEclipse, that sounds like an interesting project! I don't know very much about the topic itself, but I'll take a look at the article and let you know my thoughts in the next few days. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@LunaEclipse: Sorry for the wait, I've been a little busy lately.

• The article has several unreferenced paragraphs and the maintenance tags 1x citation needed, 1x permanent dead link‍, 2x bare URL PDF, 1x bare URL.
• WP:EARWIG detects copyvios with https://thecommonsjournal.org/articles/10.18352/ijc.673 . Apparently, some passages were simply copied without attribution. Not sure who copied from whom, but this is something to look into.
• The sections "Notable theorists", "Historical land commons movements", and "Contemporary commons movements" merely list links and should probably be merged into the section "See also".
• The structure of the section "Types" is odd: it has one subsection, which has 13 subsubsections. One approach would be to identify the most important types, maybe a handful, and have one subsection each. All the less important types can be included in an additional subsection called "Others".
• The selection of the types is also odd: it seems to mostly include specific examples from different countries, like beaver hunting in a specific bay in Canada. I would have expected more general categories, like natural commons and cultural commons.
• Having international comparisons would be interesting, but the types section may not be the right place for this. Also, it should be on a more general level, for example, how the commons are typically handled in North America vs Europa vs Africa vs Asia. This would only be relevant if you can track down a good source that explicitly makes these comparisons.
• Depending on the availablity of good sources, a historical overview would also be interesting: what role did the commons play in different historical periods and how did that role change?
• Another expansion could look at what political philosophy/theory has to say. For example, I presume that communism has a very different view on the commons than liberalism.
• There are probably various other issues to look into, like overexploitation of natural commons and conflicts between digital commons and copyright.

Most of these content ideas are just products of my brainstorming. I haven't done a proper source research on the concept, so you would have to check whether these ideas are important topics in the sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for Mind, "that which thinks, feels, perceives, imagines, remembers, and wills, encompassing both conscious and unconscious phenomena. It is relevant to various fields of inquiry, in particular, to psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

My story is about music that Bach and Picander gave the world 300 years (and 19 days) ago, - listen (on the conductor's birthday) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

I finally managed to upload the pics I meant for Easter, see places. - Also finally, I managed a FAC, Easter Oratorio - that music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Peer review of Value theory ?

Hi. I just listed Silent Parade to find a peer reviewer, and I saw that you had an article in the peer review list. I recognized your user name from FA reviewing. Do you know if the Peer Review process permits pairing-up and doing reviews on each other's articles? I know that is prohibited at GA. If you think it is permitted for peer review, and would consider doing Silent Parade, that would be great. I'm not a philosophy person, but I can focus on prose, MOS, copyvio, citations, etc. No worries if you're not comfortable with a quid pro quo scenario. Cheers, Noleander (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello Noleander and thanks for the suggestions! It sounds good to me and I would be happy to take a look at the article Silent Parade. I think peer review is quite flexible in regard to reviewing each other's nominations since reviews don't affect the status of the article. I don't know much about the Silent Parade, so my comments would likewise be limited to only some FA-relevant aspects. I'm currently a little busy so it would take me a few days to get started. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, great, let's do it. I'll start reviewing Value theory today.

Note that a random editor made some drive-by comments a few hours ago on my article, at WP:Peer review/Silent Parade/archive1. The editor says they are not familiar with the FA criteria. You can ignore those drive-by comments. Noleander (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Phlsph7 Alright, I've finished the peer review of Value Theory, at WP:Peer review/Value theory/archive1. Great article! Noleander (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I hope to find some time to look through the comments and respond soon. In the meantime, I posted some comments of my own at WP:Peer review/Silent Parade/archive1. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Promotion of History

Congratulations, Phlsph7! The article you nominated, History, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations! Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

story · music · places

Congratulations. Seems that every time I come here to thank you for a TFA there's a new FA! Thank you today for Epistemology, "the philosophical study of knowledge. As a major branch of philosophy, it examines the nature of knowledge, distinguishing different types and components. It further explores the sources of knowledge, like perception, and its limits, addressing what people can and cannot know."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Today's main page has again memories of three people who died, for two just the name and for the third an image (great!) coupled with a little bit from her life which seems too little for my taste. What do you think? - A friend of mine sang in Verdi's Requiem at Trinity Church, - you can watch the lifestream (Verdi about 30 minutes into it). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Recommended reading today: Christfried Schmidt, a story about patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Well-being

On 5 May 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Well-being, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that although the philosophical study of well-being dates back millennia, empirical research has intensified since the second half of the 20th century? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Well-being. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Well-being), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I always appreciate your contributions to these core philosophy articles. It's a tough job but you somehow manage to do it. BorgQueen (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nihilism

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nihilism you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Patrick Welsh -- Patrick Welsh (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Metaepistemology/GA1

Talk:Metaepistemology/GA1 needs an experienced GA reviewer for the Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/May 2025. I'm reaching out to you because I know you're experienced with the philosophy field, and not many are. Your job as an experienced reviewer is pretty easy, just check over the review and provide advice as needed. Alternatively if you know anyone else who may be up for the job, please let me know! Happy editing! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 15:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello IntentionallyDense, happy to have a look at the review. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it a lot! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 17:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Hedonism

On 9 May 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hedonism, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the hedonistic pursuit of pleasure may prevent pleasure? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hedonism. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Hedonism), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cielquiparle (talk) 00:03, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Political philosophy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inequality.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2025 (UTC)