This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Argumentation theory article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page history | |||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
An editor has wondered whether Toulmin is given undue space in the essay and whether this material should be merged with the Toulmin page. Regarding the first q, he is the field'd discussion of the ideas of giant. There is no one of eaqual stature and his ideas are used by virtually everyone. As for the second question, some of this material was plainly taken from the Toulmin entry. But given Toulmin's stature in the field, this material, in my judgment, ought to remain. 136.165.77.101 (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I just undid
the latest edit to this page because someone added a source to the
Sources section without citing that source in the article. That edit looked to me as if it might be self-promotion (
WP:SELFCITE) of a freshly-published article. But then I looked at the
Sources section and wondered: Is this section really a "Further reading" section, rather than a list of sources that were used to write the article? If the citations in the
Sources section really were used to write the article, then shouldn't they be inserted into inline <ref>
tags? Another option is to use
Harvard citation templates (a form of
short citations) in the <ref>
tags to point to an alphabetical list of citations in the
Sources section (for an example, see how citations are handled in the
Common factors theory article). In other words, this article, as it currently stands, has a mix of citation styles that should be standardized into a single citation style (per
WP:CITEVAR). If you have any ideas about what that standard citation style should be, please share your ideas below.
Biogeographist (
talk)
14:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Argumentation theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Argumentation theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:45, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Per unanimous consensus below, the redirect will instead be retargeted. ( closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 20:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Argumentation theory → Argumentation – Argumentation redirects here and is clearly the more WP:COMMONNAME. Despite the lead section having been edited to describe Argumentation theory as a discipline or field of study, the page is still basically just about argumentation itself (the concept of people communicating via arguing or how arguments logically function/operate). Wolfdog ( talk) 21:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Despite the lead section having been edited to describe Argumentation theory as a discipline or field of study: this is a mistake or misrepresentation, as the lead section has been about argumentation theory from the first edit; it was not subsequently changed to the current subject: see the first edit here. The suggestion to change Argumentation to a disambiguation page seems worth considering. Biogeographist ( talk) 22:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)