Content deleted Content added
Line 435:
:Mel, I appreciate your comments. Thanks for joining in the discussion again. Can you please elaborate specifically on why you think Mel's approach will be better? And why you think that my method is not effective? I understand your Republic comment, but if you are referring to the other dialogues, specifically Cicero's, I believe that we've already discussed the matter - my conclusion is that none of the other dialogues are generally accepted to have "Republic" as the dominant English-language title of the text. Cicero's usually retains the Latin title, and Bodin's has alternate translations that are often preferred, as well as not being (to my knowledge) an actual dialogue. Furthermore, even if both of these works were in fact dialogues with the common name of Republic, the current title as it stands can indeed still direct to the Plato text if it is considered to be prominent enough to be the primary topic for the title. Given the prominence of the work in the whole of philosophy, as well as the fact that the other two works don't have a clear enough claim to the title as a standard, I think it's more than enough to grant Plato's work the primary topic for the text.
:Again, as far as the convention as a whole en masse and other specific titles, I'd like some elaboration as to why and how this will negatively affect things. (contribution by [[User:Girolamo Savonarola|Girolamo]], see edit history)
::My name is Francis, not Mel.
::I have more confidence in Mel's approach. That's the basic reason. Not that I always agree with Mel on everything!
::The way Girolamo is handling this gives me much less confidence. There was no agreement on the "Republic (Plato dialogue)" -> "Republic (dialogue)" change. Girolamo changed nonetheless. Yes, quoting Girolamo, "we already discussed that matter", but the result of that discussion was not anything near to a consensus to change. So I don't trust all that much how Girolamo is proceeding with regard to this discussion.
::And I don't like it when wikipedia discussions turn into discussions on whether one prefers the ''style'' of one individual over another. In my view that should be avoided, while basicly un-wikipedian. But it has happened nonetheless.
::That being said, for Plato's republic, I just quote what I wrote yesterday (but similar quotes can be retrieved from the discussion a month, two months, etc... ago): '''"Republic (dialogue)" as an article title still strongly suggests there's only one influential dialogue titled "Republic", which simply is misleading.''' and '''we can explain that in long talk page texts (and that is what has been done, and which I'm not unwilling to continue, but not if it ultimately only continues the discussion as a goal in itself).'''
::So I still need to know whether Girolamo is just steering for a "discussion as a goal in itself", after which he reverts to whatever he likes personally, not really taking account of the views brought forward in the discussion. So this is only the first step in clarifications I might add, but let's agree on the basis of such discussion first: no discussions void of meaning please (which also implies: reading what someone else writes). --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] 06:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
| |||