Greetings P,
I made a list of possible future directions for WP:PHILO. I wonder if there are any you didn't like or about which had some ideas. User:Gregbard/todoBe well, Greg Bard 23:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- You've written some very interesting suggestions. I've placed my thoughts below. -Pollinosisss (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
- I like your "Major goals" and "Build infrastructure" sections.
- The Philbot sounds very interesting. How difficult would it be to create something like this? I don't really have any experience with bots.
Out of your "Possible categories", I would love to see these two
- Category:Contemporary scholars of ancient philosophy
- Category:Contemporary scholars of medieval philosophy
I could easily start populating a "scholars of ancient philosophy" category.
I'm not sure about this one
- Category:Medieval scholars of ancient philosophy
What kind of people would go in here? Most medieval scholars were involved in appropriating and adapting Greek philosophy.
I'm all for these.
- Split Anarchism and Marxism task forces out of WP:PHILO.
- Merge Socialism and Marxism task force.
As for possible new task forces, I think some discussion is definitely worth having.
These would be nice to have I think.
- Jurisprudence task force.
- Humanism task force.
Do we have enough articles to justify these two?
- Empiricism task force.
- Rationalism task force.
The cats seem pretty empty
What do you think of these ideas?
- Changing "Ancient Philosophy Task Force" to "Ancient Greek Philosophy Task Force"
- Changing "Medieval Philosophy Task Force" to "Scholastic Philosophy Task Force"
and Splitting "Eastern Philosophy Task Force" into
- "Islamic Philosophy Task Force"
- "Indian Philosophy Task Force"
- "East-Asian Philosophy Task Force"
I don't really find the current "Eastern Philosophy Task Force" particularly helpful. It's sorta just a dumping ground for anything "non-western" right now. -Pollinosisss (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I was surprised you rated this article as with "C" (that is, missing relevant material, containing irrelevant material or missing citations). The article isn't perfect, of course, but I'm not sure I agree it has these particular problems. I wonder if you could make your criticism more specific on the talk page? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I usually rate articles with obvious shortcomings C or lower. I gave this particular article a C because I felt that the lead section was not an adequate overview of the article. I don't really have any criticism other than that. -Pollinosisss (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we will be tagging and assessing for a very long time - thanks as always for your hard work at the start - I flutter in every week or so for a small few - still no closer to doing anything about portals in strange areas SatuSuro 11:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
-
- wow old factory even came and asked us a question- hmmm - and there are even 3 responses - thats more than some other parts of the place get at times SatuSuro 15:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Based on your comments at: Talk:Index of Catholic Church articles you may be interested in the following discussion: Articles for deletion/List of Carpenter named articles. Jrcrin001 (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to give Adriana Cavarero a better rate, but don't know how to do this. I think that she merits a B category. If you agree, can you to this (I know only how to undo a category, but once there are new posts, the "undo" doesn't work). Thank you Artethical (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
