Talk:Henry More

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophers

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	Anglicanism Portal Henry More is part of WikiProject Anglicanism, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Anglicanism To-do:

The proposed merger of spissitude into Henry More seems inadvisable, because even if it's a small article, spissitude reasonably comes up in other articles where More is not directly mentioned, as with fourth dimension. --Kaz 20:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any advantage to merging. If that is a genuine geometric term, why should it be merged into somebody's biography? Makes no sense.Dfass 00:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it were a genuine geometric term, you'd be right. But it isn't; that's precisely the point. It never caught on. So it doesn't deserve an article of its own, as though it were legitimate, current terminology. But a mention of it in Henry More's bio could be of some interest, and a redirect to that bio would do two things at once: Direct the reader to where relevant information can be found, and put it in context (a term proposed by Henry More, that never caught on). --Trovatore 01:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)