Talk:Works of Aristotle

message: To the author of this article: how did you come to the list? can you quote scholars for each spurious and non-spurious book? Josemazcorro (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Please see discussion at Aristotle as the same material has been inserted there --Snowded TALK  18:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As the non-linear, lecture-note style is an important side note to understanding Aristotle I have added this section in. I have taken several college courses that address Aristotle's works and each time both the text and teacher referred to his writing style. If both teacher and book include this information it is obviously important. I agree with my teachers that it is important. One of the major drivers of higher quality text copying into Arabic was complaints about Aristotle's "poorly-translated" (actually poorly-written) corpus.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets have the discussion in one place please - cutting and pasting the same material to two articles and two talk pages is not the way to go about this. --Snowded TALK  18:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of dubious material 

message: This title is not italicized, even though it is in a foreign language and is the title of a collection of works. Was this a conscious choice due to an established yet modern reason? If so, it should stay as is. If not, then the phrase should be italicized throughout. 
My real-life limitations most likely will prevent me from following up on this, so I appreciate others who can follow through. Thank you for your consideration. 
—Geekdiva (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a reason why this article's title is not italicized? 

message: According to Shoja, Tubbs, Loukas, & Ardalan 2008, The Aristotelian account of“heart and veins”, Intl. J Cardiology 125 p. 304-310, the Corpus Aristotelicum was prepared in Rome beginning in around 86 BC. If this is true (and Shoja et al. cite no source), this article doesn't say who made it, when, what was in it, or how it was transmitted to us today. This is a critical point, because accepted dogma is that Aristotle's works were lost, and then recovered in the 12th century from Constantinople.  What works of Aristotle were available in Latin, in Rome, before then?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philgoetz (talk • contribs) 16:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this article even called "Corpus Aristotelicum", since it says nothing about it? 

message: Physics (Aristotle) includes substantial material on the Aristotelian corpus that's not specific to the 'Physics' and should be moved to another article, as the editors have discussed on the talk page. The ideal article for this material would probably be this page, Corpus Aristotelicum. What do you think?
Also: is there a special procedure for moving material from one article to another?
JKeck (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are no objections here, I'm going to move the sections (The authorship paradox, Research at the Lyceum, The question of the library) from Physics (Aristotle) to this article. JKeck (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Material for This Page 

message: What are there so many "harvnb" templates used to cite, e.g., "Lynch 2010", but then there is absolutely no references to what "Lynch 2010" is. Is it a journal article? Book? Other?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:943F:9200:D011:A857:5882:E903 (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Why are there so many [ref group="topic note"] entries that are basically parenthetical asides? If they're important, why are they not in the many body of the article? If they are not important, what purpose do they serve? How many footnote-equivalents does one article need?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:943F:9200:D011:A857:5882:E903 (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantity of Topic Notes 

message: I'm open to other suggestions but strongly opposed to "Corpus Aristotelicum" or anything similar. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH at the minimum apply here, that name was horrible.  - car chasm (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from aesthetics, it still is rather common. The least we should do, is mentioning it in the first sentence. Of course while avoiding any suggestion it was the original title...--MWAK (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's also not the same thing. So it's a bad title.  - car chasm (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renamed article to Works of Aristotle