Talk:Theory of forms
| 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  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
criticism edit
That opening paragraph is a disaster. it's pretty much unintelligible. I'm not qualified to fix it. The idea isn't that difficult to convey, is it? Aristotle didn't get it and apparently even the people writing about it don't either. It is a tricky concept to convey, especially on Plato's level. Sigh...I'm basically assigning myself work, and I'm not even in control.
Sorry this is my only contribution. Maybe somebody could add an appropriate tag and a few good scholars can help get it fixed. Thanks. @strangersound
Progress Report edit
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)
Request for clarification on "theory of Ideas" / Ideentheorie edit
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)
Requested move 29 July 2017 edit
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
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)
- Comment: the article seems to capitalise "Form" throughout; if the article is moved to Theory of forms then that should probably be changed... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- And it looks like this page was moved from Theory of forms to Theory of Forms in 2008 per this discussion on the grounds that the title was a proper noun. I am unconvinced that it is, though. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support – In addition to the ngrams that Tony showed, often "Forms" is capped when "theory" is not, but it's hard to see how that could a proper name, nor the full title. The lowercase "theory of forms" is quite common, so go with WP style default. Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.