Template talk:Age of Enlightenment

message: Gah, I'd still like this template to be "honed up" a bit more...--Jazzwick 17:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There you go. Let's agree on whether we are going to use Template:Enlightenment or Template:The Enlightenment. --AVIosad 23:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Right. Do all the pages on which this template is use Template:Enlightenment? If yes, you can clear Template:The Enlightenment. To be fair, there still remains some work to be done on this templatepossibly more concepts and people; definitely Major works, such as Candide, L'Encyclopedie, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, etc. Well done for starting the whole thing, I never would have got round to doing it : ) --AVIosad 01:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, certainly. There was initially some confusion over which template to use, but this has now been resolved (see above). --AVIosad 02:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: I've put the template on the pages of all the people in the original one. User:Logologist added some Poles. Could you have a look at User_talk:Logologist#Enlightenment_Template: I think we need to decide on the notability criteria for inclusion in the templateis it European-wide notoriety (which probably limits the list quite severely) or country-wide (which might inflate it to ridiculuous proportions). I'll invite Logologist to join the discussion here. As an option, we might have a more general template, and then create individual ones for separate countriesbut that's a lot of hassle and I'm not convinced of its necessity.AVIosad 21:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Advance an opinion on notoriety/inclusion, for example ; ). Seriously though, there still remains a lot to be done: a list of major works, placing the template on the concepts pages, and also it might make more sense to sort people by dob rather than alphabetically, that would be very useful, although it would take some time. --AVIosad 22:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it kinda does. You can move it to either History of Science or Philosophy of Science. Or, even better, Scientific Revolution. --AVIosad 22:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Probably no need to put it on all three, though, Scientific Revolution should be enough, may be with Philosophy of science --AVIosad 23:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Some good ideas here.  logologist|Talk 19:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever the technical solutions, Wikipedia needs, I think, to be not less but more inclusive.  If only to counter the ignorance that feeds chauvinism.  logologist|Talk 21:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Another point, alluded to by AVIosad in an exchange with me:  many biographical articles on Poles need improvement in content and English usage.  logologist|Talk 21:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Keeping the same number for all countries would be unfair on those which were more involved in the Enlightenment. For example, French philosophers were obviously more important for the Enlightenment than those of Russia (shame, really, but true). I think we should keep some of the most notorious people and create separate national templates (and may be put a link to them from the main template, but that's something to think about later). That would not mean limiting numbers to a certain number, but rather agreeing on the most important persons (I shouldn't think this would be very had, although no doubt will cause a debate). And, by the way, User:Piotrus, could you possibly add a 'show/hide' thing on this whole template? I couldn't figure out how to do this. --AVIosad 01:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion

message: I'm afraid Hugo Grotius is a bit too early to be included in the Enlightenment proper (or we would have to include Descartes as well, they lived at aroung the same time. I added George Berkeley to the American sectionhe was Irish, and live in London a lot, but also in America and I wanted to expand the American section a bit. Tell me if you disagree. Also, what's the consensus on the inclusion of people in the Template? --AVIosad 03:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bishop Berkeley looks very out of place in the U.S. rubric.  But David Rittenhouse should make a good replacement.  logologist|Talk 05:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Both Hugo Grotius and Descartes may be considered as belonging in the Enlightenment, if the 17th-century Age of Reason is construed as being the early part of the Enlightenment.  logologist|Talk 22:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The inclusion of Descartes within the ranks of the Enlightenment thinkers is, I am given to understand, a matter of considerable debate among academics. Personally, I would say that while his ideas are fundmental to the Enlightenment thinking, they are not strictly speaking "Enlightenment philosophy". I think in this particular case the debate can be resolved by adding a list of precursors to the Enlightenment. This would include Grotius. Does that sound like a good idea? --AVIosad 15:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a fine idea. Perhaps the list does not even need to be on the template, but just be linked from there to a separate 'list' page. Any thoughts on the pros/cons? Sarvodaya 16:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of [[Hugo Grotius]]

message: Goethe is not an Enlightenment figure; he is wholly a Romantic. But the Romantics were counter-Enlightenment. Therefore, Goethe ought not to be listed. The same argument could be made for Herder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.255.103 (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This, most unfortunately, untenable dichotomy in Goethe's case is not particularly helpful with regard to determining his inclusionary value, for Goethe's thinking, which was heavily based upon German Classicism (which had itself grown to fruition under the behests of the Enlightenment), does not completely stand contrariwise in relation to the Enlightenment, for he rather attempted to illustrate its disadvantages as among other such thinkers during this turbulent period. Briefly, I am no advocate for eliminating him, nor the "Romantics" of other stripes (and here I must add, in Germany, a German Romantic was very different from a German Classicist, but within the broader purview of Europe, both were considered "Romantic" in nature), at all for it would do much damage to informing others of the various modes of thought that were also current during Enlightenment times, that is, were <I>influenced</I> by the Enlightenment as any successive instance would have to be properly considered as being—but I do not hereby wish to imply any "romantic" is acceptable here.— ignis scripta 21:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Romantics 

message: I thnik the template should also include a reference to neogreek enlightenment and it's main figures (Korais, Rigas Fereos, Iosipos Moisiodakas etc). 155.207.253.199 15:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek enlightenment 

message: This template is getting a bit bulky. Any chance we can make it collapsable? Kaldari 15:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would, if only I knew how. --AVIosad(talk) 16:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapsable 

message: Can Eugenio Espejo be added to the template? Dalobuca 16:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another inclusion 

message: In this template, Anders Chydenius is listed under Sweden. However, he was born in Finland, and in his article, he is considered to be Finnish throughout the text. Of course, Finland was part of Sweden during his entire lifetime, but shouldn't there still be a row for Finns as well, where he could be listed instead? For instance, Scotland and England are kept separate, too.
I'm not saying this just because I'm Finnish, it's just something that caught my eye. If you decide to keep him Swedish in the template, I won't cry myself to sleep over it. :P
84.248.26.163 00:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anders Chydenius]] - Swedish? 

message: "Greece" is out of alphabetical sequence in the template.  Could someone please put it in its place?  Nihil novi 06:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Nihil novi (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Greece

message: This template is useless clutter. Hugo Grotius died in 1645, for crying out loud. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please prod 

message: I propose that, within each country, the individuals be listed chronologically by birth order, from earlier to later.  Currently, in England, the 17th-century Lord Shaftesbury follows the 18th-century Mary Wollstonecraft.  Nihil novi 21:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronological order

message: The "USA," "Venezuela" and "Related concepts" sections, at the end of the template, have gotten lost in the visible text (they are still present in the "edit" format).  They were last visible to readers in the 14:25, 1 November 2007, version.  Perhaps someone with technical expertise could restore them?  Nihil novi (talk) 04:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've brought back "USA," "Venezuela" and "Related concepts," but I can't stuff them back into the Template box.  Nihil novi (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that  only supports up to group20. Later groups are ignored because the template parameter is not recognized. I have commented out 3 groups  until somebody else finds a better solution. The problem started after November 1 when group21 was added. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation.  It will prevent further loss of time in trying to stuff the three excess groups into the box.  I had a suspicion there might be a limit, but I didn't know.  Thanks!  Nihil novi (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "USA," "Venezuela" and "Related concepts"

message: The current table is based on mistaken geographical premises.  Poland, for example, is not in Eastern but in Central Europe.  Nihil novi (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on, give us a break. ;) Poland is in Eastern Europe. Even the the UN says so! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you should change the entry on Poland then to reflect this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  02:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Piotrus here, user Calcagus (now under the name Deacon of Pndapetzim) picks a very outdated definition. They are more in description of the title and it is obvious that Poland should be in Central Europe.--Molobo (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Eastern Europe"

message: The template does only mention Eastern and Central Europe, then jumps to Great Britain. 
When I read the first sentence of Central Europe it says: somewhere between East and West. And that looks right to me. Unfortunately, for this template, the only "West-European" country would be the Netherlands (as Great Britain has its own section, and France is part of Latin Europe). But still it is quite strange to find the Netherlands as a Central European country..... Dick Bos (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Central Europe" (again) 

message: I redirect this orphaned template here. This is how it looked like before. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Template:The Enlightenment]] 

message: This template should be renamed to :Template:Figures of Age of Enlightenment, as this is what it covers. This is not just a technicality, as we do need a proper :Template:Age of Enlightenment template, one with concepts (which should be kept from the current template and not moved). Most crucially, I think the new main section of this template should be "by country", i.e. list articles such as American Enlightenment, Enlightenment Spain, Enlightenment in Poland, Russian Enlightenment, Scottish Enlightenment. I also think we desperatly need more "Enl. by country" articles (it is shocking we don't have British, French, Italian). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename template 

message: Montesquieu, one of the greatest representatives of the enlightenment in France, did not at all support secularism, and neither did a host of other important enlightenment thinkers; there is therefore no justifiable basis for grouping it under "Age of Enlightenment".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.156.126.230 (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secularism 

message: The Age of Enlightenment portal was recently deleted. I've removed the red link from the template. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed him from the list. Indeed, he did not seem to be representative of the Enlightenment. In fact, he was active in the 19th century, when that era already had ended. Trakking (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks to you. --Dioskorides (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to deleted portal removed