Talk:In Praise of Folly

message: A recent "correction" replaced the image at the righthand side of the article, under a misapprehension about placing images on the page, with the pronouncement  "images go on right". I offered the editor the following tips from my Userpage, while keeping in mind Thoreau's remark, A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. Consistency is important within pages and among closely connected pages, but its only purpose is to serve the reader. 
Not all Wikipedia pages need have identical formats, with the first illustration squared top right, though more than one Mediator is convinced this is a requirement. Some images are neutral in their format possibilities, others not:
*1. Images need to face into the page.
*2. Vanishing points need to lie on the page.
*3. Sources of light in an image need to come from the center of the page.
Even if one has never thought about page layout, a moment's reflection will demonstrate the reasonableness of these three axioms, practiced by all professionals. --Wetman 04:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was I who stated "more than one Mediator [I meant Administrator] is convinced this is a requirement"— from dreary personal experience: it was a biography entry I recall, with the image left staring vacantly off the page, like Folly. There is a broader lesson here, aside from the self-evident Formatting 101 axioms above: Let us make no unnecessary "guidelines", for they will surely be enforced by authoritative fools. An excellent motto at Wikipedia (I wish I could always follow it myself): Avoid unnecessary interference. It seems a pity to see a page so pointlessly disfigured, nevertheless, and by someone who has made no contribution to this article.   --Wetman 06:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: In Praise of Nobishness: On formatting images

message: what was the original language and whatever it was, why is the title given in so many traslations in the opening section?  140.180.166.176 (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: original language?

message: Librivox has just added a free audio recording of John Wilson's English translation of The Praise of Folly to their collection: http://librivox.org/the-praise-of-folly-by-erasmus/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.58.44 (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: audio recording

message: The Erasmus article says that the work was published in 1511; this article says 1512. Alpheus (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of publication? 

message: Can we reach a consensus about whether the preferred rendition of the title in English, for the purposes of this article, is The Praise of Folly, In Praise of Folly, or just Praise of Folly? I appreciate that there's no "correct" answer, and that all three variants are used in reputable sources, but at the moment it just looks silly having one variant as the article title, and another in bold at the head of the lede. GrindtXX (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments on this, so I'm going to standardise as In Praise of Folly, and move the article to that. GrindtXX (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a native English-speaker now aged 65 I've only ever heard of the translation 'In Praise of Folly' - 'Praise of Folly' might do, but surely not 'The Praise of Folly'. So I agree with the previous contributor that we should stick to 'In Praise of Folly' - as far as I can see the only place where there is any serious dispute about this is this talk page! And some of the other translations may, as so often on Wikipedia, have been provided by non-native users of English.213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title