Talk:Eidos

This article was nominated for deletion on 11/14/07. The result of the discussion was Redirect to Theory of forms.

Problems with the article

Almost everything in the recent expansion is problematic. To take just the first few sentences: No, the word is not "pronounced EE-AH-DOS." No, Plato's Forms are not well termed "ideas of the mind," since in any case the Greek word idea means "form" and not "idea." Eidetic is a redirect to Eidetic memory, which makes no mention of Husserl. The speculation about "close connections" is apparently original research. Etc., etc. I'm reverting, and as far as I can tell nothing of any relevance or value is being lost. There is no coherent topic here, only a coincidence of terminology. The appropriate place for individual thinkers and their ideas are the articles Aristotle, Theory of Forms (which already treats Aristotle's criticisms), Edmund Husserl, etc. Wareh 16:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode

The word eidos in my opinion should be coded by Unicode είδος like have been done in Deutsch [1]version.

The de.wiki version is incorrect. This is an ancient Greek word which needs a smooth breathing and circumflex accent on the initial dipthong. εἶδος is right, just look it up in the LSJ. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At present version I see blank space instead of ancient Greek word , better is coded Russian version UTF-8 [2], isn’t it? Fruktis 19:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, it should be UTF-8 here as well. The article uses the {{polytonic}} template which should force the correct font. Can you see the Greek words in articles like Athena and Apollo? --Akhilleus (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately under IE6 I am not able to see ancient Greek in above articles only in Russian version, there is applied lang-el template. But Opera9 force right fonts in English and Русский [3]versions, I don’t know real reason. Fruktis 20:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a problem with IE. It would be nice to know how to fix it, since a lot of people use IE 6 and 7. Can you see the είδος that you typed above in IE, or do you have to use Opera? And can you see it on de.wiki? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see είδος under IE6 on de.wiki, ru.wiki, pl.wiki. I am not able to recognize second letter in current (εἶδος) under IE6 on en.wiki. I think for IE6 users only few letters in {{polytonic}} template should be replaced by letters from Russian lang-el template. It is my suggestion to take above solution into consideration.Fruktis 09:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that your IE6 does not reliably display polytonic Greek. Changing correct ancient Greek to incorrect is not a solution. Apparently the correct polytonic Greek: εἶδος [lang-el] works for you, and I'm all for improving the polytonic template to work better, but wholesale switch to lang-el seems disruptive — I'll post something at the template talk page in hopes that progress can begin). Meanwhile, I can think of a few likely ways to fix this: (1) simply install more fonts (I recommend Gentium); my understanding is that the polytonic template simply forces your browser into appropriate fonts (the list starts Athena, Gentium, Palatino Linotype); Palatino Linotype comes standard with Windows XP; (2) upgrade to IE7 or switch to Firefox, (2) download the Gentium font and copy my monobook.css (not original with me – mostly copied from others) to your user space. This is well worth doing if you have any interest in ancient Greek on Wikipedia; in any case, the problem ultimately lies in your browser and not in the way Wikipedia pages are encoded (the polytonic template is considered a crutch for the transitional period when people's computers are not displaying Unicode correctly). Wareh 14:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007-11-15 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 02:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to redirect

There was an official discussion (see above banner) in which it was decided to redirect this page (to an appropriate destination which was not even mentioned in the new text!). If there are other uses of Eidos that need pointers, the page to edit is Eidos (disambiguation), which has existed since May 2007. However, I would caution against adding this page's ideas even to the disambig page, because they are too close to original research: all four "see also" topics are basically irrelevant, as are the external links. The recent edits were done as if this were an article on essence or substantial form. It is not, and there are other articles on those topics, which should not be recreated here. Wareh (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant move request

See Talk:Eidos Interactive#Requested move for a move request of that page to this title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Theory of Forms

User: JHunterJ asserts that there is/was a consensus for this highly doubtful solution, but Special:WhatLinksHere/Eidos showed (and still shows) a disarray. Was there a decisive discussion in recent years? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the section right above. Salvidrim! 19:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I read it. It is obvious that now there exist no consensus for redirecting to a definite target. Philosophers tug the rope towards "Theory of Forms", gamers do the same towards "Eidos Interactive". But notice that the discussion started not as a poll about primary meaning, but from a reckless proposal to rename Eidos Interactive article to "Eidos". User:Vegaswikian closed the discussion as there is (obviously) no consensus to occupy this name by the article about a company. But the discussion itself revealed significant objections against the status established by WP:Articles for deletion/Eidos. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eidos: Disamb. or Redirect, and to which page.

(Non admin-closure) Closed as "Option 3 - Keep as a disambiguation page Eidos", no further action needed as the page has been a stable disambiguation page for a while now. Salvidrim! 22:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following this RM suggesting to move Eidos Interactive to Eidos, debate arose as to whether Eidos should be a disambiguation page, a redirect to Theory of Forms or a redirect to Eidos Interactive.

There are three mains options, along with a summary of the rationales (copied or paraphrased) :

1.- Redirect Eidos to Theory of Forms. (Initial status.)

This was the status since the Eidos article was deleted and the page redirected as a result of this AfD in November 2007. At the time there was no mention of Eidos Interactive, thus no thorough discussion; the Eidos article was about the philosophical concept, thus after deletion was redirected to Theory of Forms.

Rationale: The term "eidos" is of fundamental importance in Western philosophy since ancient times and has strong historical significance. It is connected with such universal notions as "idea". Redirecting it to a company's article would risk bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. The company was named after the concept, not the other way around, thus the philosophical concept is the primary topic.

2.- Redirect Eidos to Eidos Interactive.

Rationale: While the word "Eidos" refers to a portion of the Theory of Forms, this is only refers to a fraction of it, mentioned only once in a list of similar words. Eidos Interactive is the article most readers looking up "Eidos" would be looking for. The page views of Eidos seem to correlate those of Eidos Interactive.

3.- Keep as a disambiguation page Eidos, listing the different uses. Tentative version here.

Rationale: Neither proposed target is a clear primary topic (or both could be arguably considered primary topics), and there is a number of confusable articles. Ideal compromise between two opposing views.

I will notify all who took part in the discussion so far. Salvidrim! 20:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion and voting

Support 3, but I suggest that it be modified:

Keep as a disambiguation page Eidos, since there are several confusable articles, and no clear primary topic

Some editors are addicted to the doctrine of "primary topic", which is abhorrent to me – though I used it in debate at the RM discussion, with people who wanted Eidos Interactive to be the primary topic for Eidos. Where there is no primary topic, a DAB page is given the bare title without addition of the qualifier "(disambiguation)" (see Naming the disambiguation page).

I have added entries to Eidos, including a "see also" section.

Noetica^Tea? 21:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the policy link, updated option 3. Salvidrim! 15:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2. This title has a primary topic and should lead to it in order to best serve the readership. Despite Noetica's irrational casting the concept of "primary topic" as an addiction, it is instead a concept of helping the readership get the best possible use of the encyclopedia. The people who want (expect) Eidos Interactive to be the primary topic for "Eidos" are the readers, who keep using that title in order to reach that topic but instead of to wade through a different page first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it was an addiction; I said that some editors are addicted to it. Cf. nicotine, alcohol, and rule-following. Those are not addictions either. Let's make rational distinctions, shall we? And let's not misrepresent each other's statements. Now, you claim 1) that this title has a primary topic, and 2) that "the readers" want or expect Eidos Interactive to be the primary topic. Please show your evidence for those claims, and against the claims 3) that there is no primary topic, 4) that the primary topic is the 24-century-old philosophical notion (see Theory of forms), and 5) that what "the readers" expect is just one consideration in determining these matters. Noetica^Tea? 03:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors are addicted to it, but it's not an addiction. No wonder I can't keep up. But otherwise, let's. We can start with the abundance of evidence provided in the move request.[4] On the other side there is merely talk, no evidence. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is suggestive to declare that "Wikipedia is not a Greek-English dictionary" and "not a schoolmarm", and exploit a flawed and incomplete decision of 2007 to illustrate the perceived discrimination of video gamers. This "discrimination" could be easily avoided by early creation of a dab page, which also would save Wikipedia from dozens of incorrect links as well as from one incorrect redirect. But we see one of such attempts disrupted[5][6]. Actually, many en.WP editors assumed that eidos is εἶδος [7][8][9][10][11] and obviously "will be best served by getting to the sought article from Eidos". Were the redirect to one aritcle or another, but we would see many editors mistakenly supposing that eidos leads to "their" article, so a disambig page would be the the only permanent solution. Wikipedia is not a schoolbook, but not Electronic Entertainment Expo too, is it? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not an expo either. It is a collaborative effort based on consensus policies and guidelines, including WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Navigational pages (including disambiguation pages) are for the benefit of the readers, not the editors. If you believe that a base-name dab is the only permanent solution in cases of ambiguity, you'll need to build consensus for that substantial change to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC first, before trying to apply it here, since current guidelines opt for the benefit of a base-name primary topic (whether a philosophical concept or an entertainment company) where a primary topic exists. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Navigational pages (including disambiguation pages) are for the benefit of those who depends on it most. There are tools which warn about (unintentional) dab links. But any tool cannot correct an incorrect editor's assumption yet. If even one editor were to make a dozen of links to "eidos" (assuming εἶδος) which ultimately point philosophy readers to an article about company, it would bring the site into disrepute. But a thousand of readers browsing a dab page is not a disrepute. And links to the "Eidos" redirect of November, 2007, which assume Eidos Interactive, are equally bad. BTW if JHunterJ was not to obstruct disambiguation in 2009, most of gamers' inbound links would IMHO be corrected by now. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If ony Incnis Mrsi were to assume good faith in 2012. Ah well. I suppose you missed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eidos, which is where your supposed obstruction was built, not by me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support 3 as interpreted by Noetica ("Keep as a disambiguation page Eidos"). I have previously argued, directly from the terms of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, against the necessity of the conclusion that the primary topic associated with "eidos" is the contemporary software company. I pointed out that one academic library has 252 items with "eidos" in the title (naturalized as a word in English and other modern languages in scholary discourse), and that the referent is not the software company. There is no need for consensus to change WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, because that editing guideline already states, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to historical significance, if it has significantly greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." (Au contraire, it would require consensus and guideline-changing to produce a framework within which the arguments advanced for Eidos Interactive as primary topic here would be decisive.)
In short, I believe that the philosophical usage(s) are quite arguably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but not being the sort of person who wants to ram that conclusion down others' throats (option #1), I say we neutralize the disagreement with option #3. When there is such a tame and bland and easy choice open to us, in conflict with no guideline and of inconvenience to no reader of the encyclopedia, why wouldn't we follow it? Wareh (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support 3 keep the disambig page. I'm of the view the the most common usage today is for the game publisher, but it seems clear others have strong views otherwise so its harder to apply WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The disambig page minimises the problems for all readers. It certainly not surprising to find a disambig page. I also think there is some merit in having a page about the word like the old revision[12] I find this a more satisfying explination than that in the Theory of forms.--Salix (talk): 20:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I chose not to officially include a fourth option to create an Eidos article in light of the AfDs -- do you think it is a good idea? Salvidrim! 20:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support 3 - This situation seems to be the very reason why disambiguation pages are needed. If people are disputing it redirecting one way or another (ie options 1 and 2), that's probably all the more proof that the disambiguation page is needed. (Kind of like when one person says a "citation is needed", and another says "No, it isn't". The fact that it's being challenged, and that there's a difference in opinion, seems to suggest that a citation is in fact needed. Same principle here.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support 3. Deor (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]