Talk:The New Science

Self-Proclaimed Masterpiece
Is it appropriate or necessary for the article to list the book as his "self-proclaimed masterpiece"? Isn't it widely accepted that it is in fact his masterpiece? -Xcuref1endx (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The main point is missing!
Surely the main point of this book is that the natural world and the social world require different ways of knowing (epistemologies).ConBlanchet (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The translation of the long form title
The translation of the long form title of the work with all of its /s is quite unreadable and in need of a new/renewed translation.

I don't know enough about/surrounding Italian of the 18th century to fix it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.100.144 (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Will do. The current title is wrong for the original edition anyway. — Llywelyn II   04:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Side issue
It's common enough in English to call it "the Scienza Nuova" but using English's capitalization rules. If we're really doing the Italian form of the title and we're really including "the" in the article title, we should include the Italian La. Afaik, Italian titles take italics and not French «guillau... whatever-these-are».

For the record, I'm in favor of using language-specific title markings but English capitalization per our usual style guide but (a) I'm not sure if there's a special rule here and (b) the section dealing with this work on the Italian wiki also uses La and capitalizes all three words, fwiw. — Llywelyn II   04:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTDICTIONARY
This isn't a dictionary, this is the English Wiki, Italian already employs fairly regular phonetic spelling with few vowels, and the IPA—for those who can read it and really want it—is available at the words' Wiktionary entries. There's no reason at all to clutter up our readers' with foreign IPA for such straightforward words that people don't need to use in English in the first place. If you aren't sure about the way Italians read 'sc', just call it "Vico's New Science" and you're good to go. — Llywelyn II   04:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, fwiw, the IPA was mildly wrong and Wiktionary keeps that kind of info correct. — Llywelyn II   04:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE
It seems highly doubtful that
 * historicists like Isaiah Berlin and Hayden White

are so essential to this work and its continuing importance that they deserve specific full-name mention in the lead. They also seem like they should fall under the "philosophy of history" already mentioned earlier in the same sentence. Kindly explain why they're so personally important to mention before adding them back into the lead, or just add them in to some footnote or lower section. — Llywelyn II   04:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)