Contents

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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:

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Ancient High‑importance This article 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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Metaphysics Ancient philosophy Greece Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The result of the move request was: MovedtoTheory of forms. No such user (talk) 09:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And it looks like this page was moved from Theory of formstoTheory 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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.

It has been proposed in this section that Theory of formsberenamed and movedtoTheory of Forms. Abot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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)[reply]

• MOS:CAPS says that we should capitalize a term only if it's "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources". Because it's not clear from your nomination statement, I want to ask, are you contending that that is the case here? Or is this more of a WP:IAR kind of thing? Colin M (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]