Philosophy: Logic Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Associated task forces: /  Logic

"Click here" is almost always bad design. I am changing this accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 04:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, thanks. Andeggs 11:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's this? It's not mentioned in Logical fallacy nor in Modal logic! I have found this: [1], but I dont't know if it covers the whole of it. Tizio 09:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As is being discussed, Bare assertion fallacy seems to be anything but a formal fallacy. The closest thing is ipse-dixitism, so it's been suggested that bare assertion fallacy redirect to that page instead.

What should be done with the template? We could:

1. Leave the text and let the redirect work its magic
2. Leave the text, but change the target link
3. Change the text along with the target link
4. Delete the text

I think one and two are in poor taste for a template; it should unequivocally link directly to the actual resource. Three is fine, but one, two, and three suffer from the same problem: ipse-dixitism isn't a formal fallacy. Four would be best, then, as the informal fallacy template already links to it, as it should.

Anyway, just bringing it up. GManNickG (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was not fruitful in finding an authoritative source, and the page now redirects to Ipse-dixitism. Because that is an informal fallacy, as I brought up above I'm deleting the text from the template completely. GManNickG (talk) 08:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]