This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Theory of forms article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 28 April 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Theory of Forms. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Hi, I am making good progress and hope to finish in some weeks: harder than I thought! JohnD'Alembert ( talk) 10:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the opening statement concludes with: "This transliteration and the translation tradition of German and Latin lead to the expression "theory of Ideas." The word is however not the English "idea," which is a mental concept only." The German expression for "theory of Ideas" is Ideentheorie and I do not know of a difference in meaning expressed in the German word "Idee" vs. the English "idea" (To me they both describe a mental concept only).
Can someone clarify, what difference in meaning are we talking about here? Erwin Flaming ( talk) 06:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Theory of forms. No such user ( talk) 09:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Theory of Forms →
Theory of forms – Per
WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and
WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles.
Tony
(talk) 05:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting.
DrStrauss
talk
19:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Google's ngram search shows about equal hits for lowercase and capped, which means that by our guidelines we go lowercase. The search did not even exclude title case instances in books. Tony (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Rough consensus not to move; editors in opposition presented stronger arguments and evidence. ( closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal ( talk) 02:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Theory of forms → Theory of Forms – I'd like to reopen this discussion. The lead for the last few years has hinged on capitalization to show that the word "Form" here is being used in a technical philosophical way rather than in the everyday use of the English word "form". Although not all scholarly sources follow this convention, plenty do, and it's common to even find sources explicitly making special note of this capitalization. Examples of such sources include: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Wolfdog ( talk) 15:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
"theory of forms" plato "forms are"into Google Scholar (it may seem a strange string of words, but I wanted both "theory of forms" to nail down the specific topic as a whole as well as to see "forms" by itself in at least one sentence). Of the first 30 results, 22 show consistent capitalization; of the first 40 results, 31 show it; and perhaps we can extrapolate from there. (There may be repeat sources.) Wolfdog ( talk) 16:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
8.94 Platonic ideas. Words for transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense, especially when used in a religious context, are often capitalized. See also 7.52.
Good; Beauty; Truth; the One
"Transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense may also begin with a capital letter: Good and Truth. However, this can often seem stilted, biased, or even sarcastic, so it is best avoided when possible (e.g., confined to directly quoted material, or used in a philosophical context in which the usage is conventional)". I'd say in this case our MoS allows it, as this is one of Plato's ideals and it's in a "philosophical context", so I !vote support. However I think we should change the rule. Only some sources in the philosophical literature capitalize these ideals and I don't think Wikipedia should follow that rule. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Rather than "Rough consensus not to move" wasn't the actual result "No consensus"? Wolfdog ( talk) 23:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Graham ( talk) 05:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Support reluctantly: At MOS:ISMCAPS it says
"Transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense may also begin with a capital letter: Good and Truth. However, this can often seem stilted, biased, or even sarcastic, so it is best avoided when possible (e.g., confined to directly quoted material, or used in a philosophical context in which the usage is conventional)". I'd say in this case our MoS allows it, as this is one of Plato's ideals and it's in a "philosophical context", so I !vote support. However I think we should change the rule. Only some sources in the philosophical literature capitalize these ideals and I don't think Wikipedia should follow that rule.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Theory of forms article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 28 April 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Theory of Forms. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Hi, I am making good progress and hope to finish in some weeks: harder than I thought! JohnD'Alembert ( talk) 10:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the opening statement concludes with: "This transliteration and the translation tradition of German and Latin lead to the expression "theory of Ideas." The word is however not the English "idea," which is a mental concept only." The German expression for "theory of Ideas" is Ideentheorie and I do not know of a difference in meaning expressed in the German word "Idee" vs. the English "idea" (To me they both describe a mental concept only).
Can someone clarify, what difference in meaning are we talking about here? Erwin Flaming ( talk) 06:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved to Theory of forms. No such user ( talk) 09:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Theory of Forms →
Theory of forms – Per
WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and
WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles.
Tony
(talk) 05:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)--Relisting.
DrStrauss
talk
19:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Google's ngram search shows about equal hits for lowercase and capped, which means that by our guidelines we go lowercase. The search did not even exclude title case instances in books. Tony (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Rough consensus not to move; editors in opposition presented stronger arguments and evidence. ( closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal ( talk) 02:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Theory of forms → Theory of Forms – I'd like to reopen this discussion. The lead for the last few years has hinged on capitalization to show that the word "Form" here is being used in a technical philosophical way rather than in the everyday use of the English word "form". Although not all scholarly sources follow this convention, plenty do, and it's common to even find sources explicitly making special note of this capitalization. Examples of such sources include: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Wolfdog ( talk) 15:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
"theory of forms" plato "forms are"into Google Scholar (it may seem a strange string of words, but I wanted both "theory of forms" to nail down the specific topic as a whole as well as to see "forms" by itself in at least one sentence). Of the first 30 results, 22 show consistent capitalization; of the first 40 results, 31 show it; and perhaps we can extrapolate from there. (There may be repeat sources.) Wolfdog ( talk) 16:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
8.94 Platonic ideas. Words for transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense, especially when used in a religious context, are often capitalized. See also 7.52.
Good; Beauty; Truth; the One
"Transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense may also begin with a capital letter: Good and Truth. However, this can often seem stilted, biased, or even sarcastic, so it is best avoided when possible (e.g., confined to directly quoted material, or used in a philosophical context in which the usage is conventional)". I'd say in this case our MoS allows it, as this is one of Plato's ideals and it's in a "philosophical context", so I !vote support. However I think we should change the rule. Only some sources in the philosophical literature capitalize these ideals and I don't think Wikipedia should follow that rule. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Rather than "Rough consensus not to move" wasn't the actual result "No consensus"? Wolfdog ( talk) 23:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Graham ( talk) 05:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Support reluctantly: At MOS:ISMCAPS it says
"Transcendent ideas in the Platonic sense may also begin with a capital letter: Good and Truth. However, this can often seem stilted, biased, or even sarcastic, so it is best avoided when possible (e.g., confined to directly quoted material, or used in a philosophical context in which the usage is conventional)". I'd say in this case our MoS allows it, as this is one of Plato's ideals and it's in a "philosophical context", so I !vote support. However I think we should change the rule. Only some sources in the philosophical literature capitalize these ideals and I don't think Wikipedia should follow that rule.