Talk:Logic

"Lógica" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Lógica and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent referencing style, no hope for GA or FA unless change

 * User:Phlsph7 and others who may be interested:
 * The referencing style is very, very inconsistent. There is no hope for a GA or an FA unless it is made consistent. I will happily do this in the same style as Black Monday (1987). I already have a major start at User:Lingzhi.Renascence/sandbox. Completely finishing it might take 2 more hours, but having 2 hours free time might take 2 days. [It might still look rough, but I know how to fix everything]... After that, I would copy everything over from my sandbox to here. Let me know if anyone has any objections &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I assume that with "consistent reference style" you mean replacing all regular reference tags in the body of the article with shortened footnotes. I think it's a good idea and I agree that this would be beneficial for a possible FAC. Thanks for putting all the work into this. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of making some changes to your sandbox, I hope you don't mind. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * System changed. Actually, the style was more than 90% consistent, but there were many cites here and there in more than 1 different style. I assume they were added by a variety of editors. There were also sometimes many full citations of the same book, one for each page or section that was being referenced. Finally, I think the sfn format is more readable, not only in the References section as displayed, but in the underlying wikitext of the body text. &sect; Lingzhi (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2023
Change "like the modus ponens" to "such as the modus ponens". Change "like inferring that all ravens are black" to "such as inferring that all ravens are black". + check the rest of the article for similar errors.

Honestly, an article about "logic", a featured article too, should not be making these kinds of horrible errors, mixing up "like" with "such as". 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:9D96:289E:22BD:C291 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Someone with such strong opinions shouldn't be mixing up formal fallacies with informal fallacies based on the narrowest archaic definitions of words in human language. Remsense  聊  00:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Partially done by someone / Page is unprotected Hyphenation Expert (talk) 01:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Navya-Nyaya and modern set theory
The reference https://www.jstor.org/stable/2106873 talks about fringe theory regarding its relationship with modern set theory and it was first added by the user jagged 85 on 25th March 2010 who was known to misuse his sources. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks for bringing this to the talk page. Could you clarify how your claim is relevant to the article? The source you mentioned is only used for one sentence. This sentence does not mention a relation between the Navya-Nyāya school and modern set theory. I don't know if this was different when the source was first added. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This same source is also used in other articles ilke Indian logic and History of science and technology in the Indian subcontinent where they talks about the relation with modern set theory. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 08:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The user jagged 8 may have misused sources, but this source does support the sentence, and it is a reliable source although a bit old. Plus, there are plenty of other sources that support the same idea from a quick google search (e.g. ), including the SEP . Shapeyness (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you but can these reliable sources talk anything about modern set theory which was been subsiquently added to articles like Indian logic.It was once there in this article page but was subsequently removed. Myuoh kaka roi (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Reverts
@Remsense, @Phlsph7. I think I have to agree with the user IP, the image may be supposed to be located after the infobox and language maintenance template in sequence. This layout is already been set as one of the guidelines (or manual of styles) per MOS:ORDER. Did I miss something here? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks for the input. As far as I'm aware, the first image is used when previewing the article by hovering over a link to it or searching it. The preview should show modus ponens, not a Greek letter. It's true that MOS:ORDER puts infoboxes before images. I assume the infoboxes meant there are infoboxes about that specific article, which are often used for people or books, like at Willard Van Orman Quine. The template we have here is a sidebar. I'm not sure if sidebars are considered a type of infobox.
 * But since we are at it, WP:LEADSIDEBAR states that "The placement of a sidebar in the lead is generally discouraged". I suggest that we remove it, which would solve the dispute anyways. There is already a philosophy infobar at the bottom of the article. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2024 (UTC)