Talk:British philosophy

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:Bertrand Russell 1950.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bertrand Russell 1950.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in British philosophy

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of British philosophy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "commentary":

  • From Occam's razor: Johannes Poncius’s commentary on John Duns Scotus's Opus Oxoniense, book III, dist. 34, q. 1. in John Duns Scotus Opera Omnia, vol.15, Ed. Luke Wadding, Louvain (1639), reprinted Paris: Vives, (1894) p.483a
  • From John Punch (theologian): Johannes Poncius’s commentary on John Duns Scotus's Opus Oxoniense, book III, dist. 34, q. 1. in John Duns Scotus Opera Omnia, vol.15, Ed. Luke Wadding, Louvain (1639), reprinted Paris: Vives, (1894) p.483a

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN ORIGINAL'S REFERENCE TANGLE TRIVIAL BUT CLARIFIED?"
Dear AnomieBOT, thank you!
DEAR SENTIENT ONES,
My apologies for the orphan I created when copy-pasting the passage concerned from the main article Occam's razor.
I have corrected the orignal error, but in doing so was prompted to change the wording slightly, as well as the position in the text of the reference, in order to remove an ambiguity (present in the original). However I find I am now unclear which of the references given in the original passage refers to the incorrect wording of the principle itself and which to the argument that Punch was making about that and the scholastics.
The main article on Occam's Razor states that Occam did not use the phrase which appeared here to describe the principle. My edit aimed to address this and to get rid of the trivialising summary attached to it.
The only question remaining then is which of the "commentary" references in the main article refers to Punch's origination of the phrase and which to Punch's (NOT Occam's) claims for that. As I have no interest in Punch the question appears trivial as long as the reference I retained provides validation of the claim that Punch was the originator. While it seems clear from the verifiable works of Occam that are provided, that the phraseology Occam himself used does not accord with Punch's phrasing, it would be preferable to be able to point to the source of it rather than to its absence, the former being easier to verify. The only alternative would be to delete the references to Punch. I am not in a position to chase down the three references so have left it as is.
Hope that clarifies!
LookingGlass (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British philosophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:British_philosophy"