Wikipedia talk:Getting to Philosophy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Getting to Philosophy page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1

This page has been mentioned by a media organization:

Colin Marshall (September 19, 2024). "Do All Roads Lead to Philosophy on Wikipedia?: They Do About 97.3% of the Time". Open Culture. Retrieved September 20, 2024. There is, of course, a Wikipedia page about this, called "Getting to Philosophy."

TikTok video

I learned about Getting to Philosophy from this TikTok video. = paul2520 💬 15:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This might not be the best forum to discuss anecdotes... Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Adeeta (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Me too! I'm very honoured to see people who are just like me. 1204753792 edits (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cited example no longer true?

The section "Method summarized" states that as of Dec 9, 2021, there is a chain from this article (Getting to Philosophy) to the article on Philosophy. This no longer seems to be the case. The article for Fact now seems to lead back to True via the first blue link. I am not experienced enough with wikipedia revisions to know for sure what has changed, but this means that any path to philosophy that goes through the Fact article now ends up in a loop.

This means that the cited example in this article is no longer true. The statistics about the number of articles which eventually lead back to Philosophy are also probably drastically reduced due to this new loop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.231.52 (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: the above does appear to be the case, as on Dec 17th a link to True was added in the first line of Fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fact&diff=1060708543&oldid=1052461341 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.231.52 (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the truth page, if the links for fact and reality were switched, it would go like this:

Truth → Reality → Object of the mind → Object (philosophy) → PhilosophyY

172.112.210.32 (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lots of chains to philosophy like Abstraction and Awareness have links, one loops back, one goes to philosophy. Tulurm (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that WP:GTP is not true anymore. Tulurm (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy number

I feel like it would be a good idea to say how many pages take 1 click to philosophy or 2 or 3 etc. Maybe the number of clicks it takes to get there would be its philosophy number, with Philosophy being 0 and eg. phenomenon or heirarchy being 1 click away, having a philosophy number of 1

Periodicpro18 (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This applies to this article

Very cool 2600:8800:8C80:2060:925:5291:62E2:8E0C (talk) 09:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Longest Path (as of 12/19/22)

So I was putting together a side project about this phenomenon, taking all articles and finding their lengths to Philosophy, and I think I found a contender for the longest path: Parmouti 12. Thanks to the structure of the "Coptic Calendar" pages, it goes from that day backwards through the calendar until it reaches Thout 1, which then links to Coptic calendar due to the next previous link not existing, which then follows a standard route through some religious pages until reaching Philosophy. In total, the path is a whopping 241 articles long! I feel like something of this sort of significance should be encapsulated somewhere in the page, but I'm not sure where it would go, especially since I don't have a source besides my own research. It's especially interesting since the next longest link is from Paoni 12, which is another article about the Coptic calendar, but that's only 61 articles away (since there isn't a page for Parmouti 30).

Interestingly, if each of these articles first linked to Coptic calendar, they would have links of 20. If they instead linked to the page for their month, they wouldn't reach Philosophy at all (they would loop at Mathematics)! JazzHandsIncarnate (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also mildly interesting, the next longest non-Coptic calendar path I could find is from Eochaid Gonnat, at 46 articles long. This path is as long as it is because each of the articles following it start with "X, son of Y", with Y being a link to their parent. JazzHandsIncarnate (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good for the dedication of spending that long clicking links over and over! 12.86.69.234 (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its Paoni 15 now. Tulurm (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait mathematics does not loop anymore Tulurm (talk) 12:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that dont lead to philosophy

Ive been following this as a school project, so far i've only found one link that does not lead to philosophy and that is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karoline_Hausted as it leads all to dead links, i'm not sure if this counts or not but it would be interesting to see what other pages don't end up at philosophy. 197.159.50.163 (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name -> Referent -> Name is one Clayel (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must be doing something wrong; I always go back through etymology pages until I end up on Wiktionary instead. Am I breaking the rules? Should I maybe only go to Wikipedia links? --timhortonsconspiracist who is hopeless without the visual editor; go ahead and change this part if you're good at source editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.185.8.191 (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting to Philosophy Phenomenon Gone

I think it doesn't work anymore. Some edits seems to have changed the tail end of this chain, such that most article chains now end up at a loop of Logic -> Logical Reasoning -> Inference -> Reason --> Logic.

Tried many times and still doesn't work. Genius150 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed this on some scale, with the loop being Concept -> Abstraction -> Rules of inference -> Logic -> Reasoning -> Conclusion -> Concept Clayel (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't new, see Wikipedia talk:Getting to Philosophy/Archive 1. Given constantly-changing article content, loops may appear and disappear over time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Now the loop is Abstraction -> Concept -> Abstraction. Tulurm (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has Psychology taken over this phenomenon?

I tried this on two random articles and ended up at a loop with the Psychology page.

mind - thought - Consciousness - Awareness - Psychology

Started at Gennaro Calì and C8H14O2 also Əliquluuşağı and Sant'Andrea Forisportam, Pisa and Parkhurst (crater) and Logistics specialist and Pat Wellington

each random article I view leads to the Psychology loop.

Brian R Hunter (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GIF idea which might be more explanatory?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Getting_to_philosophy_through_%22Wikipedia_Getting_through_Philosophy%22.gif

I made this gif which I believe might be more visual than the current one. It also uses this very page to demonstrate the effect - might spare some other users the trouble. Wanted rando's thoughts about it and potentially about putting it on the page 87.88.164.141 (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good, it would be nice if you made into some kind of file in Wikipedia or Wikimedia commons so it can actually be used. Abdullah raji (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness-Awareness loop

This doesn't seem to be the case anymore, there now seems to be a loop between awareness and consciousness as of 11/27/2023. Even philosophy feeds into this loop. 57.140.28.22 (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomenon or end goal?

As I've read through some of these talk page sections, including in the Archive 1, it's become seemingly apparent that when a page does not meet the criteria for this phenomenon, that page or some page in the chain is edited to rectify that. While at one point this came up and was seen as a "detriment" to Wikipedia, I'm not trying to imply that this is the case this time around, twelve years later. Some changes in this regard, such as this one adding a couple of valid page links before a redlink, can easily be seen as necessary. But it's gotten to the point where I do not think that it can truly be called a "phenomenon", as it does seem to be "rectified" in ways that are not detrimental to the site. It's almost become more of a de facto child project of WP:DEORPHAN. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 19:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - like the Philosophy-Psychology order in Awareness. Tulurm (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when some link orders are switched so they do not go to philosophy or form a loop, these are undone. Tulurm (talk) 08:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstraction

I noticed that lots of articles led to Abstraction. Abstraction was edited so concepts and rules would be switched. Concept leads back to Abstraction, forming a loop. Communication leads to Abstraction too. Now it's a loop. Tulurm (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article leads to philosophy

Because of course it does... Nithsk (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rules Clarification

my friends and I were messing around with this phenomenon, and we encountered a couple of edge cases.

for one, if a link is a species' scientific name, which are normally italicized, would that be skipped as other italicized links are?

for two, what should you do if the first link leads to a topic within the same article, would you detour to the main article, if available, go to the first link in the topic, or go to the next valid link in the main article? 50.230.216.101 (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a formalized game: I would encourage you to adopt whatever rules you find most interesting. Remsense ‥ 论 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]