Talk:Conventionalism

Philosophy: Social and political / Science Low‑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

Low

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

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy
	Philosophy of science

Expansion

A Google search shows that conventionalism is a real concept/term in philosophy. The article's description of conventionalism is somewhat correlative with the description here and here. The article needs expansion and references (or perhaps a redirect to an existing article but I haven't been able to identify an appropriate target). Pan Dan 12:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on supplying the refs! I have removed the {{prod}} deletion tags. --Elonka 17:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm actually not convinced this article should stay in its current form, and I'm surprised you removed the {{prod}} given how little I added to it. What it needs is an expert, so I've tagged it. Ah, how much easier it is to use the {{expert}} tag than to actually attempt the research! :) Pan Dan 17:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the references look good enough that it's a "real" term. I regularly scan new articles, and there are tons of "nonsense" term articles that get added to Wikipedia every day, most of which are deleted on sight. My first glance at this one was that it was another nonsense term, but since it actually looks real, I'm more than happy to give it the thumbs up! Neutral and referenced articles on Wikipedia are always a pleasure to see. --Elonka 18:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]