Talk:A priori and a posteriori

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the A priori and a posteriori article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

Philosophy: Epistemology / Logic High‑importance

This article 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

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology
	Logic

Latin High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article issues and classification

Article has failed the B-class criteria since 2014 and echoed again in 2022. Reassess article. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links

More than one instance of "A priori and a posteriori" in the "External links" will likely prove redundancy.

There are six entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number to push for adding links and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four. The problem is that none is needed for article promotion. Another problem is adding links just to add them if they do not follow the content guideline.

ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
WP:ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]