Talk:Eidos

message: 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)
thread_title:  Problems with the article 

message: The word eidos in my opinion should be coded by Unicode είδος like have been done in Deutsch 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.  is right, just look it up in the LSJ. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, it should be UTF-8 here as well. The article uses the  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)

text: 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)

text: 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  [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)
thread_title: Unicode

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot 02:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007-11-15 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Back to redirect 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: See the section right above. Salvidrim! 19:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Redirect to [[Theory of Forms]] 

message: * 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.
:NoeticaTea? 21:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks for the policy link, updated option 3. Salvidrim! 15:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

text: *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)
thread_title:  Discussion and voting