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
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
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
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).
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.
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.
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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]
I'm no expert, but, for a cursory response to your question, I typed "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)[reply]
Support. In this context, it is commonly capitalized, and more recognizable as the Platonic theory when capitalized (given that "forms" itself is a generic word). Walrasiad (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I went to Google Books to see how it's treated. The top result was William A. Welton's Plato's Forms: Varieties of Interpretation (2002). In the introduction, "theory of Forms" is alternated with "theory of forms", but "forms" by itself is not capitalized. In R. M. Dancy, Plato's Introduction of Forms (2002), "Theory of Forms" is usually capitalized, but not always; by itself "Forms" is usually capitalized when using Plato's sense, not the generic sense, but I think I saw some counter-examples. In Gail Fine, On Ideas: Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's Theory of Forms (1993), "forms" by itself is never capitalized, and "theory of forms" is sometimes treated as a proper name, and capitalized, but also referred to in a generic sense, and not. Vasilis Politis, Plato's Essentialism: Reinterpreting the Theory of Forms, we find "theory of Forms" and "Forms" consistently capitalized, with the theory itself not being treated as a proper name, but "Forms" capitalized to distinguish a specific sense from a generic sense of the word. This mirrors the earlier usage in R. E. Allen, Plato's 'Euthyphro' and the Earlier Theory of Forms (1970, 2013), in which "Forms" is capitalized as a special use, but "theory of Forms" is not. If I look specifically at 19th century sources, I still find a split in usage, with "Forms" capitalized more often than "theory", but not always.
So what we have here is two different issues: whether the "theory of forms" postulated by Plato is the proper name of his theory, for which there is some support, but it seems to be so treated in a minority of sources, both old and new. "Forms" by itself is not a proper name, but is capitalized in many sources, perhaps the majority, to distinguish it from the generic use of the word, and this practice goes back a long way in scholarship, although it has never been universal. This supports the proposed move, although I'm not personally convinced that "Forms" needs to be capitalized in order to distinguish Plato's sense from the generic sense of the word. Not sure whether to support the proposal, but that's what I'm finding: "Forms" is not a proper noun, and "theory of forms" is only sometimes treated as a proper name, but "Forms" is capitalized simply to distinguish it from the generic "forms". P Aculeius (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The Chicago Manual of Style, which tends to see eye to eye with our style on capitalization more often than not, offers this guidance:
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
While it doesn't suggest that capitalization is mandatory, it does suggest that it is a very common and acceptable deviation from its standard down-cap style. Graham (talk) 00:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and suggest that Theory of ideas would be even better. See usage stats from book n-grams. And fix the over-capitalization of Form in the article text; MOS:CAPS says we don't do such things. Also, when I look into books covering this topic, I find capitalization of "Theory of Form" mostly in mentions of other work titles, but "theory of form" in sentences. Dicklyon (talk) 16:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 23:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nothing seems to have changed since the RM when it was moved to the current title. Also, "our MOS allows it", as mentioned above, would be a fine argument for keeping the title capped, but not adequate for moving it away from the current one. Primergrey (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I saw a rough consensus against as while a majority of editors supported those that opposed had stronger arguments, both in terms of the PAG's the referenced and the evidence they provided in support of those PAG's. BilledMammal (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: Which policies and guidelines were you thinking of specifically? And, in particular, how was SchreiberBike's argument weighed? For reference:
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.
If I had the time and energy I'd propose a change of MOS:ISMCAPS at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters to see if there is support for what seems to me to be an outdated style. I've not got the time or energy, so I encourage someone else to do so. Rather than continue to debate this individual article, we should work on the general principle. (Admitting sadly that such discussions usually end without consensus, so maybe we should continue to beat against this small wall.) SchreiberBike | ⌨ 20:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
