Template talk:Fallacies
Add topic | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Click here
[edit]"Click here" is almost always bad design. I am changing this accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 04:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Good point, thanks. Andeggs 11:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Fallacy of modal logic
[edit]What's this? It's not mentioned in Logical fallacy nor in Modal logic! I have found this: , but I dont't know if it covers the whole of it. Tizio 09:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of Bare assertion fallacy
[edit]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:
- Leave the text and let the redirect work its magic
- Leave the text, but change the target link
- Change the text along with the target link
- 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)
- 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)