Talk:The New Science

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Philosophy: Literature / Science / Modern Mid‑importance

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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Philosophy of science
	Modern philosophy

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Self-Proclaimed Masterpiece

Is it appropriate or necessary for the article to list the book as his "self-proclaimed masterpiece"? Isn't it widely accepted that it is in fact his masterpiece? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main point is missing!

Surely the main point of this book is that the natural world and the social world require different ways of knowing (epistemologies).ConBlanchet (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The translation of the long form title

The translation of the long form title of the work with all of its /s is quite unreadable and in need of a new/renewed translation.

I don't know enough about/surrounding Italian of the 18th century to fix it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.100.144 (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. The current title is wrong for the original edition anyway. — LlywelynII 04:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Side issue

It's common enough in English to call it "the Scienza Nuova" but using English's capitalization rules. If we're really doing the Italian form of the title and we're really including "the" in the article title, we should include the Italian La. Afaik, Italian titles take italics and not French «guillau... whatever-these-are».

For the record, I'm in favor of using language-specific title markings but English capitalization per our usual style guide but (a) I'm not sure if there's a special rule here and (b) the section dealing with this work on the Italian wiki also uses La and capitalizes all three words, fwiw. — LlywelynII 04:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDICTIONARY

This isn't a dictionary, this is the English Wiki, Italian already employs fairly regular phonetic spelling with few vowels, and the IPA—for those who can read it and really want it—is available at the words' Wiktionary entries. There's no reason at all to clutter up our readers' WP:LEADSENTENCE with foreign IPA for such straightforward words that people don't need to use in English in the first place. If you aren't sure about the way Italians read 'sc', just call it "Vico's New Science" and you're good to go. — LlywelynII 04:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, fwiw, the IPA was mildly wrong and Wiktionary keeps that kind of info correct. — LlywelynII 04:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE

It seems highly doubtful that

historicists like Isaiah Berlin and Hayden White

are so essential to this work and its continuing importance that they deserve specific full-name mention in the lead. They also seem like they should fall under the "philosophy of history" already mentioned earlier in the same sentence. Kindly explain why they're so personally important to mention before adding them back into the lead, or just add them in to some footnote or lower section. — LlywelynII 04:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]