Talk:Glossary of philosophical isms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Glossary of philosophical isms is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
January 20, 2008 Featured list candidate Not promoted

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
List	This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Re: Transwiki 2 The purpose of glossaries on Wikipedia 3 It's now about 2/3rds complete! 4 2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message 5 Removed tags from article 6 AfD 7 I think I did it. 8 FLC Nom 9 Should it be in two columns? 10 Move

[edit] Re: Transwiki

This article has been copied to Wiktionary and converted to a dictionary-linkified version. See Wiktionary:Transwiki:Glossary of philosophical isms.

[edit] The purpose of glossaries on Wikipedia

Note that while the glossary entries on Wiktionary are linked to Wiktionary definition articles, the glossary entries in Wikipedia glossaries are linked to Wikipedia articles, which afford greater coverage of each topic. That is one of the main purposes of glossaries on Wikipedia: they are a specialized form of list. Lists are used as both identification and navigation aids, while annotations on such lists assist readers in selecting articles which they would like to investigate further. So this article, a glossary, serves multiple purposes:

1. it is a list of philosophical isms, which constitute a large proportion of the schools, doctrines, and theories of philosophy. Studying this list will help students of philosophy become more familiar with the subject of philosophy as a whole as well as its terminology.
2. as a table of contents, this specialized list serves to identify Wikipedia's coverage of philosophical isms, gathering them into one place, to provide a selection from which to choose from, as well as to make it easier to find a particular ism a reader is looking for even when he or she can't quite remember the precise term. Glossaries like this one help combat memory difficulties such as the commonly experienced tip of the tongue phenomenon.
3. this article used to be a plain list, with just the terms themselves, which served as links to the articles. When using the list I found that it was very time consuming to follow each link to see if the topic was the one I was looking for. Therefore, I copied and refined definitions from each article to this list, to help speed up this process. Reading down the list is much much faster than following each link, which can entail a several second delay (even longer for modems), which is often longer than what it takes to read a definition. Having brief summaries all in one place saves the reader a lot of time, whether he wants to study the whole list or is looking for a specific ism (for which he remembers the definition but not the term).

For these reasons, this article should be retained as a Wikipedia glossary. Please help expand this useful article. Thank you.  The Transhumanist   07:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, this article is the most useful ones among all "suffix" articles. `'mikka 19:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's now about 2/3rds complete!

About 2/3rds of the entries have definitions. Please help fill in the remaining 1/3rd. If 5 people filled in one definition per day, this page would be done in just 22 days! If one person (me) has to do it all alone, it'll take over one hundred days. Please help. --The Transhumanist   19:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC) 08:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.

The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 16:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This standard message is worded in such a way that it implies that there are proceedings or something underway for the removal of the page. But on closer analysis there aren't any such proceeding. The template is very misleading. The Transhumanist   19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed tags from article

I removed the citation and expert tags. They're just clutter. And considering that this page was constructed (and is maintained) by cutting and pasting the definitions from the articles of the same name, when the citation/expert issues are applied to the base articles they should in turn be applied here. The Transhumanist   19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

This article should absolutely be at AfD. It's a "glossary," and "glossary" means "dictionary," and "dictionary" means Wiktionary, where the terminology is already represented. I.e. this is duplicated material, and that's a no-no for Wikipedia. I'm surprised (or I was) that the article exists, much less that it's being fought for. If one is passionate about it, why not edit at Wiktionary, where people will actually go to look for the material, instead of here, where the only attention will be negative? Makes no sense. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm, no. It's a list and lists are all over Wikipedia. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.}☆ 21:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I think I did it.

I think, I could be wrong, but I think it's finished... :D I added some entries for you, that makes...twelve, I think... _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{we need to talk.}☆ 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No certianly not finished yet, plenty of stuff to add. I'll work on it.--TrueWikimedian (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FLC Nom

I've put this list up for Featured list status, it's a great list and good luck everyone. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.}☆ 20:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I left some comments regarding the nomination on the FLC page (I don't think that this article is ready). --Sharkface217 04:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should it be in two columns?

I find that the two columns detract from reading the article. Anyone else feel the same? -- Alan Liefting-talk- 08:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Does reading a book with double-columned pages detract you from reading the book? I've never encountered anyone with such a problem and would be interested in what way it detracts you, or how it detracts you, etc. Just curious. The Transhumanist    06:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No I disagree, I think having two columns makes it easier to read.--TrueWikimedian (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Move

I think "Glossary of philosophical terms" would be a better title, because there are plenty of...er...philosophical terms that don't end in -ism. Those are worthy of inclusion here. What do you guys think?--TrueWikimedian (talk) 10:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)