User talk:Phlsph7

old archive: User_talk:Phlsph7/Archive_1

Archives (Index)

2025/June 2025/July 2025/August 2025/September 2025/October

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Bicameral mentality Semiotics

I know it's much smaller (shallower?) game than what you're used to taking on on here, but I'm curious if you'd ever be interested in working on this article? The topic seems quite aligned with your interests, though of course there're good reasons many such people pay it no mind at all. I'm one of those folks that thinks it's really a interesting theory even if it's wrong, and I think it'd make a really cool GA or FA. Thanks again for all the highest-quality work you do here for us. Remsense 🌈 论 18:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Remsense, thanks for the suggestion! That sounds like an interesting and controversial topic to get into. I'm currently occupied with Cognition and I might go for Proposition next, so it's unlikely that I would get to it anytime soon. By the way, kudos for getting Chinese characters to FA status earlier this year! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I realize I didn't make it at all obvious or even detectable above, but if you do ever find yourself able I'd definitely want to collaborate on that.

And thank you! I've very, very slowly been chipping away at Writing and a cluster of related/sub-articles (History of writing, Writing system etc.) Maybe I'll be able to submit it for GA this month. Remsense 🌈 论 10:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to do a collaboration sometime. I've been eyeing Semiotics for a while. It might interest you because of its close relation to linguistics. The challenge would probably be the scope of the topic. We could also try it on Proposition, which would also cover the areas of logic and philosophy of mind but could be more technical. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be really excited to do either—I've been meaning to really grapple with semiotics in the context of its own field for a bit now anyway! Remsense 🌈 论 12:38, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, we could see what we can do about semiotics. After a superficial look, our current article has an odd structure: individual theorists are first discussed in the history section and then again in the section "Notable semioticians" with a lot of overlap. The article Cognition will probably take me a few more days to finish. Then I could start looking more deeply into the semiotics literature and our article. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This will likewise (hopefully) encourage me to pick up the pace on the writing articles, for which the discussion on Talk:History of writing has already netted me some semiotics literature I'm becominng familiar with. Remsense 🌈 论 15:25, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a good time since you were planning to finish the writing articles first, I could focus on something else for now and we could get started when it fits better. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, quite the contrary, I'm pumped for the possibility of getting into it soon! Remsense 🌈 论 16:48, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, great. An important step would probably be to figure out the basic structure of the article. It could be similar to the one used for Semantics (Definition, Basic concepts,...). I was thinking about making a rough overall outline after getting familiar with the sources. We could then workshop the outline and use it to coordinate who focuses on which sections so we don't end up writing the same sections twice. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the Oxford Bibliography^[1] and identified a subset of broad overviews plus a few subtopical publications from it, preferring slightly more recent ones. I'm going to see if I can identify suggestions in their own structures that could inform a better outline for the article.

Remsense 🌈 论 05:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good place to get started! It seems there are two versions of this article in the Oxford Bibliographies, one for philosophy and one for communication. I also found https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/language-linguistics-and-literary-terms/language-and-linguistics/semiotics , which has mostly short overview articles on semiotics from various encyclopedias directly available. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've also circled back around, and am pretty sure the structure you went with for Semantics is a perfectly suitable template to start with and adapt – that makes sense of course, given semantics is often considered a subfield within semiotics or at least a field with comparably major overlap.

Here's my first rough outline, working mostly from Semantics and Chandler (2022) [1994]:^[2]

1. Definitions and related fields
   • Philosophy and logic [e.g. after Peirce]
   • Linguistics [e.g. after Saussure]
     • Structuralism

   (It seems possible we might want to do the barest bit of acknowledgement that two streams were fused into one here historically rather than saving it for the § History section, but if there's enough confidence in shared terminology we would be happy not to.)

2. Basic concepts
   • Mediation
   • Sense and reference
   • Sign relations and arbitrariness
   • Sign systems, functions and tropes
3. Branches
   • Semantics
   • Pragmatics
   • Syntactics
4. Methods of analysis
   • Paradigmatic analysis
   • Syntagmatic analysis
5. Models of signs
   • Saussure
   • Pierce
   • Jakobson
   • Hjelmslev
   • Lotman?
6. History?

   (Maybe this should form one section with the above, where each model is discussed in a historically anchored manner?)

7. Applications
   • Hermeneutics and literary analysis [e.g. Barthes, Eco]
   • Psychoanalysis [e.g. Lacan, Deleuze]
   • Biology [e.g. Sebeok]
   • Neurology and cognition
   • Anthropology
   • Music?

Remsense 🌈 论 09:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion covers many essential topics. In the definition section, it would probably be useful to explain that semiotics is an interdisciplinary field shaped by areas like philosophy and linguistics. For the semantics article, it was important to give a short explanation of the related linguistic fields to help readers understand what semantics is and isn't. This may not be as important for this article, so the definition section here may have less emphasis on the "related fields" part. A major division for models of signs is between dyadic and triadic models. Not sure if we should use that division or go by the names of the different theorists.

To add to the complexity, I'll throw some more pieces on the board. I don't know yet whether to integrate them into the article as separate (sub-)sections or in the discussion of something else.

• For the branches, there are also subfields like bio-/zoosemiotics and cognitive semiotics to consider. There is some overlap with the application section, so we would have to see how to resolve that tension. Maybe we could distinguish core branches from applied semiotics.
• Some theorists distinguish different types of signs, like Peirce's icon-index-symbol division.
• We also need to cover the discussion of structure and codes somewhere

Phlsph7 (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much so far, I don't know how you enjoy working collaboratively, but I've started a drafting page in my userspace at User:Remsense/semiotics that you're equally free to make edits to. Remsense 🌈 论 20:08, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I think it is most coherent at present to distinguish branches which relate roughly to the different scopes in which signs can be studied—and applications, each intersecting with other fields, which are defined by which signs are being studied. Remsense 🌈 论 00:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I added a few more sources. My workflow is usually something like the following:

1. Get an overview of the sources and figure out the overall structure of the article (section titles, subsection titles, rough length and content of each (sub)section).

   That's what I'm currently doing (at least when I'm not busy responding to GA and FA reviews).

2. Explain on the article talk page what my plans are and how the article should be changed.
3. Work on one section at a time and change the article section by section.

   This has the advantage that I don't have to do everything at once and that I get feedback from other editors as I make changes.

If we wanted to adapt this approach for a collaboration, we could try to figure out steps 1 & 2 together. For step 3, I see several options. One approach is that each one picks a section on which they can work independently. We could also try to work on the same section simultaneously, but there is the danger of writing the same text twice. Yet another approach would be that one person writes a rough draft of a section while the other gives feedback, copyedits, adds references/images, etc. There could be some form of combination of those approaches, and I'm sure there are many other ways to proceed, so I'm also open to other ideas. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry for my sudden disappearance without proper communication. I'm back and this article is my first priority, assuming you still feel it more conducive to work on it together given you've meanwhile been doing a lot of fantastic work yourself as you always manage. I'm going over the changes and communications of the past two weeks now, if you have anything specific to orient me plunging back into the effort in this particular moment don't hesitate to jot it down for me. Again, I'm really sorry about that. Remsense 🌈 论 06:01, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great to have you back! The section "Core branches" is almost ready so I would be interested in your thoughts. I'm about to get started with the "Methods" section. My aim is to have both sections relatively short since the article is already getting long and we have more ground to cover in other areas.

If you feel like adding some images, there would be a lot to do. The section "Signs" currently has no images. We could have an image on Saussure's model (e.g. Chandler 2022 p. 16 without the French translations), one on Peirce's model (e.g. Chandler 2022 p. 32), and one image for each of the main sign types. There are many options: it could be a portrait or a map as icon, a footprint as index, and a Chinese or Japanese character (avoiding the quasi-iconic ones) as symbol. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:50, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of File:Triadic model of a symbolic sign relation in semiotics.svg as a first pass? Remsense 🌈 论 19:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good way to present the relations for the triadic model. One potential difficult could be that the object or referent of a stop sign is not a concrete thing but a command, which makes it a little more abstract. For example, a traffic warning sign of an animal crossing the road (e.g File:UK traffic sign 548.svg) would be more concrete by linking sign to animal, but I don't know if that can be recognized for a small thumb image. The diagram on Chandler 2022 p. 32 is simple a triangle with the texts "representamen" left, "interpretant" top, and "object" right, which could also work. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look through several of the sources from our overview. I found Nöth 1990, Danesi 2004 & 2020, Chandler 2022, and Sebeok 2001 particularly helpful for different aspects of the article. Based on the emphasis many of our sources give to ideas related to sign systems, I was considering a modification to your proposed outline. We could replace the sections "Basic concepts" and "Models of signs" with the sections "Signs" and "Sign systems". The contents could probably also be included while keeping those two sections if you prefer, but I find the new headings more intuitive.

The signs section would deal with a lot of information in the earlier two sections. It should define what signs are, how they differ from other things, how they relate to meaning, sense, and reference, and what models and types of signs there are. Sign relation could be covered when discussing types of signs, since the icon-index-symbol categorization is based on differences in the sign's relation to its object. The signs section would probably be the longest section of the article with several subsections.

The sign-systems section would discuss how sign systems provide non-sign building blocks for signs (e.g. letters/phonemes for words in language), how signs form codes characterized by paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations between the signs, how texts are large signs composed of smaller ones, and how associative mechanisms like metaphors affect meaning. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I prepared an explanation of our plans for the article talk page. What are your thoughts?

Remsense and I are thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. Large parts of the current article lack references. There are also the maintenance tags 13x citation needed, 1x Only primary sources, and 1x permanent dead link. At some points, the article is incoherent. For example, the discussion in the subsubsection "Peirce's list of categories" does not state what those categories are but jumps instead to the topics of Umwelt and animals without clarifying the relation.

The article has an odd structure in some places. Individual theorists are first discussed in the history section and then again in the section "Notable semioticians" with a lot of overlap and without a principle of what goes where. I think it would be better to have a unified history section that covers all notable semioticians in a concise manner. The article would also benefit from new sections dedicated to core topics of semiotics as a whole, such as a section on the nature, types, and models of signs. Another section could be added for sign systems and their underlying structures (like paradigmatic and syntagmatic axes), codes, and texts. Some of these points are currently spread around the discussion of individual theorists while others are not mentioned at all.

The sections "Formulations and subfields" and "Current applications" could be reorganized to have one section focusing on the core branches (syntactics, semantics, pragmatics) and another on the applications in particular fields, such as biology, anthropology, and literature. Since this is an article and not a list, it would be better to explain the topics in prose rather than lengthy lists. Another improvement could be having sections dedicated to the definition and methods of semiotics.

There are more things to consider, but they can be addressed later since the ones mentioned so far will already involve a lot of work to implement. We were hoping to get some feedback on these ideas and possibly other suggestions. For a more detailed discussion, see User_talk:Phlsph7#Semiotics.

Phlsph7 (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My one structural wrinkle at the moment, now that you've further clarified all this for me, is how to keep a historical throughline that isn't overly redundant with other material—i.e. one that broaches Aristotle → Galen → Augustine → Ockham → Locke so we can introduce historically Saussure and Peirce. It feels that we have to do this in some manner because our sources often seem to—seemingly because the historical umwelts were so particular for what would be the later character of the multipolar discipline. Remsense 🌈 论 13:50, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I usually try to leave the intellectual history of how ideas developed to the history section to the extent that it is possible. Usually there is a lot of ground to cover so a concise history section often has only one or two sentences per main theorist. With this approach, the other sections deal with the ideas themselves rather than their development and typically go more into detail. The main redundancy-challenge for this topic may be between "History" and "Models of signs". It could help to present the models as distinct options rather than a historical progression. Some redundancy is probably inevitable, but I hope we can keep it at bay. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the explanation to the talk page at Talk:Semiotics#Changes_to_the_article and I implemented some of the outline changes discussed above. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few more changes to the definition section. Do you think we can use it like this? I also added some image suggestions regarding signs and models. We probably also need some images of famous semioticians, in case you encounter some during your other Wikipedia activities. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a sidenote: for drafting, I usually work with the sfn template since they are easier to move around. Typically, I only bundle them when I'm mostly finished with the text. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly finished with the draft of the section "Signs". I would be interested in your thoughts if you have the time. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Remsense, I'm mostly finished with the changes to the article. Should we try a GA nomination? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I started the nomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. Champagne, Marc (2014). "Semiotics". Oxford Bibliographies. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0179.

2. Chandler, Daniel (2022) [1994]. Semiotics: The Basics (4th ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-56294-1.

On Truth

Hello, @Phlsph7. A while ago you mentioned putting Truth on your to-do list of articles for improvement to GA. Right now, I see that you are working on Aesthetics. Do you plan on taking up Truth after finishing with Aesthetics? The topic of truth seems especially important in philosophy and you are the best person active on Wikipedia for improving philisophical articles. 196.133.109.116 (talk) 08:19, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for the reminder! The article is still on my todo list, but that list is long and keeps growing. I haven't decided yet which article to tackle next. You are right that truth is an important topic. However, despite the issues of the article discussed at User_talk:Phlsph7/Archive_1#Suggestion for a GA improvement, there are also other essential philosophy articles that may need more urgent attention. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of needing attention, Formal logic currently has no article at all, and just links back to the general Logic article. Just mentioning... – Farkle Griffen (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a new article on formal logic would also be an interesting project. The term logic is often used as a synonym of formal logic so there is justification for having only one article that covers mostly but not exclusively formal logic. For a separate article on formal logic, a key difficulty would be to avoid all the overlap. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the usage is similar to how mathematicians refer to Abstract algebra as just "Algebra", which you handled well. In my head, the article would sit somewhere between Logic and Mathematical logic. The concept is pretty important in terms of foundations of math, but could also serve as a general map of other important areas of logic outside the scope of Logic, like Categorical logic, Typed logic, the role of Formal language, Semantics of logic, Logical syntax etc. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the article does already exist under the title Formal system. I'm thinking it would make sense to direct Formal logic and Symbolic logic there. Thoughts? – Farkle Griffen (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, formal/symbol logic is a field of inquiry while a formal system is just one structure or system studied in this field. The term logic is sometimes used a countable noun, such as "a logic". In this form, it usually refers to a formal system, but not when used as an uncountable noun. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does formal logic study structures other than formal systems? As far as I know, "Formal logic" is the study of logic through formal systems, and formal systems are (roughly) any symbolic system that mimics logical arguments.

What about moving Formal system to a subsection of new article on Formal logic and structuring that article similar to First-order logic, but broader? I think that would help avoid most over lap. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on how you define formal logic and formal system, but that doesn't sound like a standard definition. I'm not sure which overlap you intend to reduce with your proposal. As I said above, there are reasons to think that it would increase overlap rather than decrease it. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar

Phlsph7, I wish you a happy 5th anniversary on Wikipedia! I noticed the surge of vital FAs and was left dumbfounded when I discovered it was mostly the work of one person. Motivated, I created this account to see how editing was like. And I enjoy it! I hope you can inspire others too. And make a Wikipedia accessible to all. Keep up the good work! Toukouyori Mimoto (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toukouyori Mimoto, thanks for the barnstar and the kind words! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Input

Hey there. I plan on nominating valence populism for FAC. But before that, I'd like to get some feedback. I've opened a peer review and would appreciate it if you could take a look at it. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vacant0, I'll take a look at the article and respond on the peer review page when I get the time. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Nihilism

Congratulations, Phlsph7! The article you nominated, Nihilism, 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, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Anniversary Phlsph7 🎉

Hey @Phlsph7. Your wiki edit anniversary was 8 days ago, marking 5 years of dedicated contributions to this Wikimedia project. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you all the best for the year ahead :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 07:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gnoeee: Thank you! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion on GA Review

Hello, and congrats on your featured status article yesterday! I am a first-time GA reviewer and I took on the review of Irony, but the review has kind of hit deadlock around article tone. @IAWW graciously came on for second opinion, but the nominator is requesting your input as well, as you are clearly an effective philosophy contributor on Wikipedia. I would greatly appreciate if you add your perspective so we can continue forward.

Talk:Irony/GA1

Thank you, chickenpox4dinner (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chickenpox4dinner and thanks for the info. I'll respond at the review page when I get the time. Phlsph7 (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dualism

I think Dualism has some potential to be developed into a philosophical broad-concept article — something you're especially good at. What do you think? Of course, I completely understand if you already have your hands full. BorgQueen (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BorgQueen, I agree: we have a broad-concept article on monism, so having one on dualism would make sense. I'm currently occupied with other things, but I'll keep it in mind as a possible future project. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Political philosophy

Congratulations, Phlsph7! The article you nominated, Political philosophy, 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) 11:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 16

You reverted my edit on Truth. I read the wikilinked information page and I found nothing that prohibits what I did.

Truth is a noun. So it's definition should be a noun phrase. "Being in accord with fact of reality" isn't a noun phrase; it's a verb phrase. — Python Drink (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Python Drink and thanks for bringing this to the talk page. As the linked page says, short descriptions should ideally not exceed 40 characters. Another difficulty with your suggestion could be that truth does not need to involve a statement since it can also apply to beliefs. A candidate that avoids your criticism could be "Property of being in accord with reality", which is more or less what the lead sentence says. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I like your suggestion. — Python Drink (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented it. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's so great. May the Force continue to guide you throughout your editing journey. — Python Drink (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for Hedonism, introduced as "a family of philosophical views that prioritize pleasure. This is the second nomination—the last one failed since it did not receive any reviews. As a level 5 vital article with nearly 900,000 views last year, it would be good to bring it to FA status or at least figure out what changes would be required."! - That article had a wonderful DYK, DYK? Yesterday, I had a good illustration of the pursuit of pleasure, even with philosophers depicted ;) - Thank you also for recent featured content! I have a FAC open, also again, and I while I appreciate repeated support from the first round, I'd like fresh feedback, especially regarding sources. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Aesthetics

On 29 November 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aesthetics, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that conventionalism in aesthetics can explain how a urinal (pictured) is art? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aesthetics. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Aesthetics), 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 nominate it.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff, Phlsph7! Love your work on philosophy-related articles. You're honestly a big inspiration for me. Icepinner 15:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Icepinner and thanks for the kind words! Phlsph7 (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political philosophy scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 9 January 2026. 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/January 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/January 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by those who assist the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs. 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) 09:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help with analytic philosophy article?

You have been doing impressive work on a number of topics needing something better than a cliché version too often found online. You are a regular wikipedia Theophrastus. When you are less busy elsewhere, I would love to request your help for the analytic philosophy article. While I would not refuse help in general, my specific request is if you know anything about intensional logics. I did not add the part about Tichy, but I do not want to modify it. I also rather like Alonzo Church, and he seems worthy of mention in a similar respect. If you could fix/source that part, I think I can keep the rest of the article above water. Cheers. Cake (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MisterCake, that is a challenging topic to work on and thanks for all your improvements so far! Regarding intensionality, discussing Tichý seems to be quite specific. A different approach would be to give a short general explanation of the underlying issue (can co-referential expressions be substituted without changing the truth value) and problematic cases (e.g. modality, propositional attitude reports), since readers may not know what extensionality and intensionalty are. This could then be connected to a sentence about the development of intensional logics as attempts to formalize how this affects inferences.

A few more general observations

• The article has a record number of sections and subsection—a total of 160 by my count. Accordingly, there are many one-sentence subsection, such as Analytic philosophy#Deontology and Analytic philosophy#Legal positivism. I would suggest reducing the number of sections to half or a quarter if possible. At the same time, you could try to connect the individual facts to present a more coherent narrative.
• You could consider starting the article with a definition section to explain the attempts to say what analytic philosophy is and how it differs from other traditions (continental philosophy, some sources also include pragmatism as an additional contrast). I think there is also criticism about whether the distinction is still meaningful today. With a definition section, the lead section can summarize rather than present full explanations with layers of footnotes.
• Gottlob Frege (1848–1925) was a German geometry professor at it might be better to introduce him as a logician and philosopher than a geometry professor
• of the world that can be known only by knowing remove the "that"
• It used a notation from Italian logician Giuseppe Peano, and it uses a theory inconsistent tense
• Prior to publication of the Philosophical Investigations add "the" before "publication"
• that necessity is the criteria for replace "criteria" with "criterion"
• Some passages use the expression analytical philosophers rather than "analytic philosophers"
• I'm not sure whether a methods section or a criticism section would justified or could be included somewhere.

Phlsph7 (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I am definitely a splitter rather than a lumper. It has been suggested to make another article for the analytic/continental divide itself. If memory serves, the continental article similarly has a ton about it. I considered talking about Frege's 2nd puzzle. I guess I should do if intension will come up. Trying to keep it no longer than it needs to be, and to not get lost explaining. Hence I don't have a section on logic itself. Say, Ryle's objections to Descartes are rather easy to explain, but saving the space for now. Even Dummett's book uses "analytical", but good point so as not to confuse the reader.. Cake (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frege's 2nd puzzle is relevant to intensionality, so you could mention it in this context. The article currently has 9532 words readable prose size, which is quite long but, given the scope of the topic, probably still justifiable per WP:SIZERULE. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Frege's 2nd puzzle, Russell's version of Frege's 2nd puzzle, and Church, though it is hard for me to talk about either intension or the advanced logics more than obliquely. Frege's section could really use two diagrams. One for a kind of triangle of reference but with the sentence, on the up slope: expressing, a sense at the peak, and on the down slope denoting or designating or something, a reference or nominatum or bedeutung. For the second, Penrose has a diagram almost identical to Frege's conception of three realms. Cake (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not sure how, but an editor on the Heraclitus article conveniently made it so only the first two headers/topics appear on the "contents" side bar thingy. Cake (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is Template:TOC limit. This may hide the problem from the table of contents but doesn't solve the underlying issue. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the topics divide up more or less naturally, so it is hard for me to edit those. I may have to call upon the guild of copy editors if that is required. I tried to remove a few headers for the individual philosophers. Cake (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed the fat down to under 9000 words. Thanks again for the help. Cake (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS Tichy's article and the PSR article could really use some work. Tichy says little more than he was an analytic philosopher and did semantics, "he used logical linguistic analysis to solve philosophical problems and was concerned with what we mean when we say" kind of thing. The PSR only talks about it being a law of thought - one of the most annoying memes for which people would cite an old wikipedia page. I fixed the law of thought page, and the other three "laws" themselves. Cake (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Communication Rule of Three

Hi, Phlsph7. You know that thing, "Tell 'em what you're going to say, say it, tell 'em what you said"? I was going to add it to dab page Rule of three, but couldn't find a destination for it. Seems like a gap topic, maybe, that deserves an article, but nobody has noticed or wished to and I thought it might be something that would interest you. See Talk:Rule of three#Communication Rule of Three for details. Nice bumping into you again! Mathglot (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathglot, it has been a while. Thanks for the suggestion, I think you are right that the topic deserves an article. One would have to go through some sources to decide whether the most common name is "rule of three" or another title. I'm currently working on something else so this is probably not something I would get to anytime soon. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:01, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Cognition is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Cognition is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Magnesium Cube -- Magnesium Cube (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings

Thank you for your in-depth articles on complex topics, which not only take considerable time to maintain but also deserve praise for reaching featured status. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Cheers. MSincccc (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Cognition has passed

Your good article nomination of the article Cognition has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. 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 Magnesium Cube -- Magnesium Cube (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good image

I like the way you make an image of File:Addition with carry.png. I hope I could create a similar image to the one you have made by myself, specifically for the counting section in Addition#Non-decimal. So how did you do it? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dedhert.Jr, I made the image using LibreOffice Calc (other spreadsheet software, like Microsoft Excel, would work as well) by zooming in and taking a screenshot. However, it would have been better to create an SVG image (for example, using Inkscape) to scales cleanly at any size. I could also give it a try if you have a clear idea of what image you need. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thanks. Inkscape is something I can use for now. But if you want to make the image that I need, can you make this one?

1 1 1 1 1 (carried digits)

0 1 1 0 1

+ 1 0 1 1 1

—————————————

1 0 0 1 0 0 = 36

You can see the real example that I cannot copy exactly in the given link, i.e, in Addition#Non-decimal. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:14, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Binary addition with carry

@Dedhert.Jr: I gave it a try, does this work for you? I left out the "= 36" since I found it odd to have it for the sum but not for the addends. I can include it if you think it's important. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. That's nice. Thank you. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January–February 2026 Backlog drive

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idea for an article

A mere suggestion for the future. You seem to like contributing to philosophy articles which are wide in scope. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy from the 1960s has articles for philosophy by nation. American philosophy, British philosophy, French philosophy, German philosophy, Italian philosophy and so on. The Stanford Encyclopedia online might be more up to date, but unless I missed it, they do not have those articles. Only for non Europeans (eg Latin American philosophy) or for a narrow European topic (aesthetics in 17th century Britain, or whatever). I fear they think it would be "racist" or some other taboo to have a wide scope British philosophy article (but not Latin American). So, we could cover a subject the reliable Stanford ignored, which certainly has sources. Also, the wiki articles on these subjects exist but are rather thin. French and German don't go back as far as they should, to Alcuin of York and Gottschalk of Orbais and so on. Cake (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, these would be good topics to work on. Our articles seem to follow primarily a historical outline, covering the topics century by century. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Aesthetics

Congratulations, Phlsph7! The article you nominated, Aesthetics, 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, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 7, 2026. 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/February 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/February 2026. 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) 22:42, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Identity (philosophy)

I saw you're working on Truth now, which reminded me of a conversation from before. I also see you're not in short supply of suggestions from other editors, but if you don't mind another one, Identity (philosophy) is in pretty bad shape. I was planning to get to it on my own, but real-life situations have slowed me down a lot, and my to-do list in real life and on Wikipedia is growing faster than I can keep up. If you find the time, it would be nice to see this article get some attention. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Farkle Griffen, I think we touched on the problem of identity when you were working on Equality (mathematics). There is also much to be done on Identity (philosophy), which is currently more or less a single-section article. I'm not sure when I will be able to address this. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for Political philosophy, introduced: "Political philosophy studies the theoretical and conceptual foundations of politics. It examines values guiding political decisions, political ideologies outlining desirable social arrangements, and the legitimacy of political institutions. This is a level-4 vital article with close to 300.000 page views last year."! - Thank you for more content to be featured soon! - - Happy new year! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]