Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
 

Using definition lists for syllogisms[edit]

The Open Question Argument has two instances of syllogistic arguments. They were formatted like this:

(Premise 1) ...

(Premise 2) ...

(Conclusion) ...

I turned the syllogisms into definition lists; "(Premise 1)" etc. are the terms, and they are followed by the arguments:

(Premise 1) 
...
(Premise 2) 
...
(Conclusion) 
...

Is this the best way of formatting this kind of argument?

Page status[edit]

Given that this has been tagged as a proposal for several years now, the page's status should be resolved one way or the other. IMO this could either become a {{WikiProject style advice}} page, in which case it needs to be moved to WP:WikiProject Philosophy/Style advice, or it should be marked as a failed proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No formal proposal was ever made, it was merely tagged on the page itself. So now there is a formal proposal, so let's have people get their chance to voice their issues. We already have some constructive input from members. (ahem are you even a member of WP:PHILO?) Greg Bard (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The proposal tag is a formal proposal.
  • Who cares what I'm a member of? The MOS, including every single subpage of it, is the business of the whole community. If you want this to be PHILO's property, then you need to move the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
If you are not a member of WikiProject Philosophy you are welcome to comment like everyone else, but the consensus to be arrived at must be among members only. I wouldn't presume to insert myself in the Mathematics project, nor the Military History project insofar as this type of governance is concerned, and I expect the same of others. Greg Bard (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
No. If this is to become a community-wide guideline, then the whole community gets to help make the decision. If this is to become a WikiProject-only advice page, then you need to WP:MOVE the page out of the whole community's Manual of Style and into a WikiProject Philosophy subpage.
It's up to you: your group may write whatever it wants at WP:WikiProject Philsophy/whatever, or you may submit the page to the entire community for full community input, during which every editor's view is equally important, with no special voice for self-declared members of one little group. You need to make your choice and act accordingly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)