Template talk:Corpus Aristotelicum table

This template 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

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Ancient philosophy

The "by whom" tag on "generally agreed"

While this tag is very useful in other contexts it is not relevant here; in other words, I am saying this is a misapplication. The term "generally agreed" is in general use in the field of classics to mean basic knowledge that all classicists know. WP allows such knowledge to be stated without a reference. In classics, it means that the issue is long-standing, much debated, and much publicized and although no definitive proof is given or is possible nevertheless there is little dissent and general agreement. Now, as to its use here, this one tag is absurd. What exactly is it asking? On each and every work that is crossed out, there are dozens of articles, possibly volumes of debate over the centuries. Exactly how are we supposed to fit that in the table? The arguments should be summarized for each item of course. That is the the sort of thing that should be given in the article on the work. There is absolutely no place to put it in the table. Moreover,no one reference will cover it. Suppose you did put a reference. Just who is he to be informing the whole classical world of what they already know? The cross-out already informs the public that there is an issue and that if they want to know what it is they should see the article. There is no other way to do it. Whoever put the tag on there is obviously over-zealous and is not acquainted with classics. There is no one ref that you can put in. Every single crossed-out work would need one, and not just one. So, I say that the cross-out alone is enough to alert the reader of the controvery and conclusion and that if he wants more information he should refer to the article. Why clutter the table up with tags in the context impossible of answer? If you don't think the articles present the issues enough, put the tags there.Botteville (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide ebooks shutdown

The sandbox version of this template (edited by @Trialpears: and @Sardanaphalus:) has links to ebooks.adelaide.edu.au. That website has now been shut down, and I'm planning to remove links in mainspace. Will this affect other pages of yours? Smith(talk) 09:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me, but I've only edited this template to implement a TfD decision. Removal sounds very reasonable though. --Trialpears (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]