Talk:Category (philosophy)

Usefulness of Wikipedia[edit]

--Ludvikus 01:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not only be relevant to the world, it should be especially relevant to Wikipedia users. As such a user, when I search for "categories" I would find the information hidden away at Wikipedia:Category schemes much more useful than a word game. Perhaps this entry can be appended to indicate its context.

Done Mostlyharmless 23:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category of being[edit]

--Ludvikus 01:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this and Category of being the same article? /Popperipopp 12:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One reason is that the above is merely a single category. --Ludvikus 01:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

The plural is the correct usage. --Ludvikus 01:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection I think you're right. But then this article ought to be at Categories (philosophy) in my opinion, with Categories redirecting to Category, since just "Categories" is ambiguous. Hairy Dude 13:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With with your support, I've just made the Bold Wiki move. --Ludvikus 16:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, Wikipedia naming conventions require the singular. Secondly, though, the article is inaccurate and pointless as it stands: two bare lists, not even linked to relevant articles, of Aristotelian and Kantian categories, which misdescribes Kant's notion of a category, and ignores other philosophical uses of the term.

Thirdly, I've also just seen Category of being, which is also far from perfect, but which includes everything that this one does and much more. Luvikus' confusion about the use of singular and plural in article titles notwithstanding, I'll make this a redirect. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]