Talk:Encyclopédistes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject France  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Merge[edit]

This article is stubby and incomplete, and List of contributors to the Encyclopédie has less than a bare minimum of explanatory text at the top - how about moving the list material to this article? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In the face of overwhelming public indifference, I have been bold and done it. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Move[edit]

I suggest we move this to Philosophes. Thats what they called themselves. Tourskin (talk) 06:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Source and reference[edit]

The article currently refers to claims made by some one named Frank Kafker who doesn't seem to have earned enough interest, notoriety, credibility or fame for an article of his own, thus I think it would be appropriate to refer to the source of this claim if it is to be left in the article. Bjorn.Persson (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Kafker is well known for scholarship on encyclopedism. That an author is notable is not necessarily connected to whether that author is a reliable source. Regardless, it's unnecessary and maybe undue to include an attributed statement like that given such a tiny amount of text, I think. The current article is kind of embarrassing considering the influence these people have on Wikipedia. It's been on my to do list for a while now. Would you care to take a stab at another formulation of the lead? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)