Talk:Tyler Burge

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 16:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

new entry on Burge
I started this entry on Burge a few days ago. Given that hundreds of other philosophers have Wiki entries, lack of an entry on Burge was a significant lacuna. I wrote a discussion of Burge's view on anti-individualism. I think other discussions are a good idea, in particular about de re belief and Burge's writings on epistemology. Hopefully, these can be discussions of graduate-level quality.

--Rldoan 09:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are there books and collections in the bibliography (e.g.Fodor and Putnam) which are not authored by Burge and which do not contain works by him?

DP (10/30/07 8:30pm)

The sources in the bibliography are/were there because they were referenced in the article. I did not intend the bibliography to be a list of works by Burge. This was the citation style I adopted, which is the style of Stanford Encyclopedia (parathetical references in the body with a list of works cited at the end). However, the Wikipedia standard is footnotes. So anyone should feel free to make that change.

Rldoan (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am writing a book on Burge, and collaborating with him on a longer encyclopedia article on his work. I was wondering whether you would be willing to allow me to sort of 'overhaul' the page--mostly just adding stuff that your entry does not address--and then we can discuss changes, if you think there should be some. Thanks. Magisterkant (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, does this mean anything to anyone?

Rldoan (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Format
I have placed a template at the header to reorganize the article according to the standard Wikipedia format, as some of the comments above allude to its non-Wikipedia formatting (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout) - Manual of Style (layout)) ... Stevenmitchell (talk) 06:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not just do that then?
Why not just do that then Steven, rather than tag it as needing done? The philosophy of WIkipedia is, as I understand it, to become involved and edit where you see problems, not simply to highlight problems for others to come after you and sweep up. I realise that it is not just you, but others who do this. It leads to massive bloat in article content and a backlog of things needing done.

TonyClarke (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)