Talk:In Praise of Folly

In Praise of Nobishness: On formatting images

What is wrong with this illustration in this position? See note.

A recent "correction" replaced the image at the righthand side of the article, under a misapprehension about placing images on the page, with the pronouncement "images go on right". I offered the editor the following tips from my Userpage, while keeping in mind Thoreau's remark, A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. Consistency is important within pages and among closely connected pages, but its only purpose is to serve the reader.

Not all Wikipedia pages need have identical formats, with the first illustration squared top right, though more than one Mediator is convinced this is a requirement. Some images are neutral in their format possibilities, others not:

• 1. Images need to face into the page.
• 2. Vanishing points need to lie on the page.
• 3. Sources of light in an image need to come from the center of the page.

Even if one has never thought about page layout, a moment's reflection will demonstrate the reasonableness of these three axioms, practiced by all professionals. --Wetman 04:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The following remark was left at my personal page, where the poster vandalized the layout, ostensibly to make his "point": "It is better to place an image at the top right of a page because the top left is where the reader expects to see the text. I for one do not want to see a picture, and then have to go looking for the text. As an example of how silly it is, see above. DunceHarris"

a visual illiterate's edit, based on such an untutored point-of-view, be permitted at Wikipedia, simply because the person is as aggreessive as this? --Wetman 19:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since this work by Erasmus is one of satire and good humor I have to admit that I have a hard time keeping a straight face about this dispute. The conflict between Lilliput and Blefuscu of course comes to mind. But before the two of you start throwing eggs at me for my impertinence, I have to state that I am acting here in innocence as well as with some natural "editor's interest" since I have started and contributed regularly to articles which now have images on both sides of the page, through no intervention of my own but also with no interference from me. To begin with I would very much like to know where it says , anywhere in any of the Wikipedia suggestions or lists of rules, that top images must absolutely, irrevocably be on the right. In other words, on what textual basis "more than one Mediator is convinced this is a requirement"? It would seem to me that the person who has done the initial change would have the motivation and energy to find this text. Thank you for your kind attention. --AlainV 01:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That was I who stated "more than one Mediator [I meant Administrator] is convinced this is a requirement"— from dreary personal experience: it was a biography entry I recall, with the image left staring vacantly off the page, like Folly. There is a broader lesson here, aside from the self-evident Formatting 101 axioms above: Let us make no unnecessary "guidelines", for they will surely be enforced by authoritative fools. An excellent motto at Wikipedia (I wish I could always follow it myself): Avoid unnecessary interference. It seems a pity to see a page so pointlessly disfigured, nevertheless, and by someone who has made no contribution to this article. --Wetman 06:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be on the right? --Dd42 07:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For a layout with images in a strip down the right, see Eiffel Tower --Wetman 19:48, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

original language?

what was the original language and whatever it was, why is the title given in so many traslations in the opening section? 140.180.166.176 (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• The original language was Latin. Note the picture with Holbein's marginal sketch. There were numerous translations. BibleBill talk 13:22, 16th of the 10th, 2009

audio recording

Librivox has just added a free audio recording of John Wilson's English translation of The Praise of Folly to their collection: http://librivox.org/the-praise-of-folly-by-erasmus/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.58.44 (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Date of publication?

The Erasmus article says that the work was published in 1511; this article says 1512. Alpheus (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Folly's father is Plutus not Pluto

Folly's father is Plutus the god of wealth not Pluto the god of the underworld. "I didn't have Chaos, Orcus, Saturn, Japetus, or any other of those out of date mouldy old gods for a father, but Plutus, god of riches himself...' (Praise of Folly, Penguin Classics,1993 pg 15)

Title

Can we reach a consensus about whether the preferred rendition of the title in English, for the purposes of this article, is The Praise of Folly, In Praise of Folly, or just Praise of Folly? I appreciate that there's no "correct" answer, and that all three variants are used in reputable sources, but at the moment it just looks silly having one variant as the article title, and another in bold at the head of the lede. GrindtXX (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No comments on this, so I'm going to standardise as In Praise of Folly, and move the article to that. GrindtXX (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

As a native English-speaker now aged 65 I've only ever heard of the translation 'In Praise of Folly' - 'Praise of Folly' might do, but surely not 'The Praise of Folly'. So I agree with the previous contributor that we should stick to 'In Praise of Folly' - as far as I can see the only place where there is any serious dispute about this is this talk page! And some of the other translations may, as so often on Wikipedia, have been provided by non-native users of English.213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Seems to be little resistance to the proposed title, as well as no participation since before the first relist, so it is time to close this in favor of the nom's proposal. Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The Praise of Folly → In Praise of Folly – Most usual form of the title in English, and used consistently throughout article. GrindtXX (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Support - and what about the claim in the lead sentence "sometimes translated as In Praise of More"? Really? Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, rejigged. The article is pretty poor, isn't it? Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@GrindtXX: WP:BB – just do it! – S. Rich (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. We need to see evidence about which form is most common. The Norton Critical Edition has it as "The Praise of Folly".[1]--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.