Talk:Wikipedia philosophy phenomenon

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wikipedia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WP:GNG etc

@cheesewhisk3rs Hello, I'm replying here since we're discussing the article. On notability for this article (and I'll admit my knee-jerk reaction is that WP-articles should not in general have WP-articles, Template:Press is often sufficient for such coverage). This may actually be the the only WP-article about an existing WP-article atm.

You do, technically, have multiple sources (2), but 2 is a bit weak as "multiple" go. Journal of Computational Science is on the face of it a brilliant source. I'm not great at judging academic journals (there are iffy ones out there), but I see nothing obviously wrong with it.

The second source, though it appears WP:RS enough, is mainly an observation that the first source exists, and that isn't optimal, see the [4] note at WP:GNG.

That's my view. WP:SUBJECT touches on this, a little. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the article/stub appears to be one "fun fact", not the article itself (which almost certainly should not have a second-order article). My question is, would such a study that was not about WP itself get its own article? I believe the answer is "no". Also Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy already covers this phenomenon in more detail. If there is to be an article about this, we should probably just move that out into the mainspace. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; "Getting to Philosophy" does have more content. I'll see what content from there I can add to this page. --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 21:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address their stated concern at all. In fact, it's exactly backwards. Remsense 🌈 论 22:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason for this topic not to have coverage assuming it passes GNG. A page like Women in Red isn't stopped from existing because Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red exists. I don't see why it should be different for this topic. Am I doing the thing with the Pokémon I can't tell --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 22:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you might find a reason if you re-read what Patrick Welsh actually wrote, not inverting their last sentence and acting as if that was what they said. Remsense 🌈 论 22:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm only trying to improve this article :( --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 22:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'm fairly neutral as to whether or not we cover this. I consider the phenomenon to be pretty much trivia, but I know it interests editors (some of whom try to add it to the philosophy article itself). If it meets the notability requirements, I would just find a better title, such as the one currently in the WP space. You might, however, want to look into why that article, which has existed in some form since 2008, has been kept out of the mainspace. Editors much wonkier than me on WP policies and guidelines will almost certainly weigh in on this article when it comes to their attention. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look into the history, thank you for the suggestion :) --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 06:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking through the "Getting to Philosophy" history and I think the reason why it remained in Wikipedia space was because it was originally structured more like a game such as Word Association (example). It wasn't at all an encyclopaedic page, even though this has changed now. --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 11:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to make this article about the WP-phenomenon (and re-titling) instead of the article itself sounds like a good idea to me. The "thing" clearly has academic attention. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the retitling pages process works on here, but if you would like to do that, it seems like a sensible idea to me. --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 06:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:MOVE is simple enough, but of course the content needs re-focusing too. What title would be good? We can of course make re-directs too.

• Getting to philosophy
• Wikipedia philosophy cycle
• Paths to the Wikipedia philosophy article
• Others

Noting that the [1] source goes beyond en-WP: " For the English Wikipedia we indeed find that the vast majority of articles (97%) leads to the cycle containing the philosophy article. This finding also holds true for a large majority of articles in the German, French and Russian Wikipedias. For the Spanish and Italian Wikipedias, the dominant cycle contains the article on psychology, while for Dutch, the dominant cycle consists of the articles on knowledge and know-how. Interestingly, for the Japanese Wikipedia, the main cycle consists of the articles on person and interpersonal relationship." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth mentioning that [2] calls it a "first link network".

Another suggestion is maybe something along the lines of "Wikipedia philosophy linking". --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 08:28, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest "Wikipedia philosophy phenomenon"—or else I still like "Getting to philosophy". If the sources favor something else, however, we should go with that. Relying on @Not-cheesewhisk3rs to report on whether this is the case. @Remsense, can you execute the move without leaving behind a redirect (assuming we reach a consensus)? Even if it does wind up at AfD, it should have a title that more narrowly indicates its topic. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the options you listed, the one which I find works best is "Wikipedia philosophy phenomenon". Also, why no leaving a redirect? --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 12:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I don't think the article itself should have its own article, and WP should not suggest that that's what this is. If others disagree, however, I would be fine making the move myself and leaving the redirect to the judgment of the folks at NPP. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the redirect is useful so I'm more in favour of keeping it. (Google suggests "philosophy Wikipedia game" as a search result as well, which could be created as a redirect too) --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 16:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind that title. Leaving the old redirect seems mostly harmless, but I won't oppose it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the move and adjusted the opening of the lead to reflect the new title. Please take a look and edit further as you see fit. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I'll do some more research on sources, with the resources provided by {{Notability}}. If I find one more reliable source, would that be enough for passing the notability? --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 21:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found this --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 22:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if these pieces aggregating about the specific phenomenon are all that exist, then it's not even the article itself that could be notable, see WP:INHERITWEB.

If we're not going out of our way to publish novel articles for their own sake, it's pretty clear to me this material with these citations can and should be mentioned as one or two sentences within another article, e.g. English Wikipedia. Remsense 🌈 论 22:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to your first sentence, are you trying to say that the article itself is not notable? If yes, do you believe a page like "Wikipedia philosophy phenomenon" would be more appropriate? --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 22:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I thought that was worth being its own article, yes. But again, I stress it shouldn't be, because two sentences in another article suffice for our readers. See Wikipedia:Article size § Breaking out trivial or controversial sections. Remsense 🌈 论 22:25, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point about the section about this article not being very important and that it could be included in another article instead (the part about it being controversial or violating NPOV doesn't apply here unless I'm mistaken). However, "two sentences", while it could summarise the content, wouldn't be adequate for explaining the discovery, how xkcd popularised it, how it led to research involving first links etc. --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 22:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per the [3][4][5] sources, I think a "phenomenon" article would have a good chance in an afd. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"that article should not report this about itself." I think this is more about avoiding self references, which this article does. That statement is more about saying that the actual "Philosophy" article shouldn't talk about itself, but it doesn't mention talking about "Philosophy" on another article about it. this was talking about WP:SUBJECT by the way --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 22:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects (feedback/additions welcome)

Suggestions for new redirects to this article, as the topic is covered under several names:

• Getting to philosophy (because of Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy and The Joy of Data)
• Wikipedia philosophy game (because of the Google search suggestions)

--cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 17:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the second one and also nominated "Philosophy (Wikipedia article)" for speedy deletion. I'm holding off on the first just because I'm not sure about the best practices for having different articles with the same title in different namespaces. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the redirect does not meet speedy deletion criteria. Anyone interested can find an AdF discussion here. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's an issue: WP:Religion, WP:Facebook... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång here. Also, small detail but it wouldn't be completely identical because the Wikipedia space article has an uppercase "P", which the MoS wouldn't allow for mainspace titles. --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 16:45, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just created Getting to philosophy --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 09:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Philosophy (Wikipedia article)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Philosophy (Wikipedia article) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 1 § Philosophy (Wikipedia article) until a consensus is reached. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a known reason for this?

If so, I feel we should add it. Cooldood5555 (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is:

So while a great many [First Link Network] paths flow to "Philosophy" [...], the accumulation is not the result of many articles directly referencing "Philosophy." Instead, first links flow towards "Philosophy" as the ultimate anchor, by generalizing from specific to broad.

(underlining not in original) --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 08:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible references

[6][7] --not-cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 08:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]