User talk:Sophysduckling/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Novels WikiProject Newsletter June 2006

Here is a new initiative for our project. You are recieving this as you have at some point signed up as a "member" of the project. Have a look at the newsletter via the link and see what you think. The June 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know about that. I'll check it out. Sophy's Duckling 02:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup Taskforce

I added Break of Reality to your desk. It needs to be checked for tone and either new work listed on its page or closed. I did cleanup work on it and I'm too close to tell if it is done. Please take a look at it or let me know and I'll assign it to someone else. RJFJR 02:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take it. It looks to be pretty close. Sophy's Duckling 02:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about my page

Hi - you've been to my page and made some editorial changes - plus added a few errors - no blame. I just would like to know how come, and if you're working to an agenda, perhaps vis-a-vis other similar pages. I can then adapt my updates to suit that agenda. Most of the stuff is well out of date, I didn't originate the entry, and as it's there, I may as well put the record straight and make the thing accurate and comprehensive

peter lemer

Replied to on user's talkpage. Sophy's Duckling 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Kierkegaard

You wrote Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Kierkegaard , but you didn't sign your vote. Regards, TruthbringerToronto 00:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. :) Sophy's Duckling 04:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novels WikiProject Newsletter July 2006

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The July 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Sophy's Duckling 22:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the welcome

(Hope I am doing this at the right place). Thanks for the messages. I have been editing wikipedia articles anonymously for several years now, so I am not a total newbie, though the tags and templates sometimes still confuse me. Max robitzsch 00:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catullus

I'm not sure if you're the right person to be speaking to about this, but all of the Catullus poems I've seen on here have been edited by you; if you're not the right person, do you know who is? I'm a great fan of Catullus, and have been since school when I studied Latin and happened upon a copy of his Carmina. So, I must say first that I am glad to see that he has been duly represented here. However, I think that maybe the poems as they stand could do with some cleanup: standardising formatting, linking together properly (through "see also" links) etc. I was thinking that maybe making a Catullus infobox might work? It could turn into a very worthwhile project indeed. Anyway, not trying to be troublesome or overly critical, I just thought I'd point this out. Byrgenwulf 18:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More About Catullus

You have created a number of articles about individual poems of Catullus featuring latin text and translation. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of source materials, and I don't believe most of the individual poems meet wikipedia's standards of motability. Please move these pages to wikisource. I'm also not sure if your english translations belong on the latin wikisource, but I could be wrong. Check their policies. --Samael775 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that at least some of the Catullus poems are certainly notable enough to have their own pages; Catullus poems have inspired poets for hundreds of years (most notably in the Enlightenment). There are various poems that have their own Wikipedia articles; see Wilfred Owen for links to two. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_poems for more, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_poems for more, etc. I trust I don't need to belabor this point.

User:Silence and I have got it into our heads to create some sort of standardized template for the things so they're more than what most of them presently are, which is translations. I'd rather see them viewed as stubs and works in progress than some violation of some policy that doesn't apply to other poems. Catullus 1 displays an example of what we consider to be a starter template.

I should also add that the reason we are including the Latin text is scansion, an important piece of analysis that is not found on Wikisource. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to having your support in this project. Sophy's Duckling 05:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

    • I have no objection to having pages for some of Catullus's more significant works. However, you are not allowed to post original sources under WP:NPS. You are allowed to post the lyrics of short poems and songs (see WP:L&P), but if these translations have not been published by a reliable source, then they are not allowed under WP:NOR. You can always post your translations on Wikisource, and link wikipedia's Catullus article to them. --Samael775 14:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the links, though I don't think they are relevent to these articles. NPS doesn't apply here because scansion is valuable analysis that is not acceptable on Wikisource, and scansion demands the original text. Obviously I have not gotten around to scanning all the poetry, but I don't think that means it's okay to delete the articles right now--nobody deletes stubs because they're stubs. NOR dose not apply here because scansion is also not original research, as there's really only one way to scan and everyone who's hit 3rd year Latin knows how to do it. L and P doesn't apply here because Catullus's poems that are really famous (eg c85) are shorter than a great deal of English poetry located on this encyclopedia. Thank you for your time, and please contribute; unfortunately, I will be leaving for a country that censors Wiki so I will not have loads of time to expand them for a while. Sophy's Duckling 04:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not referring to the scansion when quoting WP:NOR, I'm sure you could find a source for it. I am referring to the fact that the translations are obviously homegrown. Google searches for random quotes from the translations reveal nothing other than wikipedia and its mirrors, one of them even says it is by User:Kenneth Charles. Your translations may be allowed on wikisource, but here they are OR. --Samael775 14:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you read what you're linking to. NOR does not mention translation once. NOR is described as one or more of the following:
   * It introduces a theory or method of solution;
   * It introduces original ideas;
   * It defines new terms;
   * It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
   * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
   * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
   * It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

Translation does not introduce a theory, translation does not introduce original ideas (it just makes them accessible to the English-speaking population--which is a point if not necessarily an easily linkable policy of Wikipedia). Translation does not define new terms, it merely puts existing Latin terms into existing English ones. Translation does not presume new definitions of pre-existing terms (that's why it's translation, not writing). Translation does not introduce an argument (the notes do, and you'll find if you get to Catllus in your Latin studies th at the notes presently included all are textbook ideas). Translation does not present an analysis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments. It does not introduce neologisms (again, otherwise it would not be translation). Thanks for your time, but it would be better spent expanding the articles. Sophy's Duckling 18:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Offering a third opinion: articles about individual poems, if they're notable enough to deserve their own article, belong in Wikipedia. The poems themselves, translated and annotated as you have done, belong in Wikisource or Wikibooks. Wikisource has a section on Catullus's Carmina which is at an early stage of construction, and your work would obviously help to fill it out, so I recommend you get yourself a Wikisource username and move the poems over there. --Nicknack009 18:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
With all politeness, I must disagree. The translation of the Aeneid on Wikisource has no notes. And how can you write about a poem without including the poem? And why (this isn't directed at you, but just in general) is Catullus especially targeted? I don't see any of the English poems (all of which include the poem) getting hellfire rained down on them because they're stubs (and a great deal of them are). Sophy's Duckling 00:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
There are annotated texts and original translations on Wikisource - for example The Annotated Strange Case Of Dr Jekyll And Mr Hyde, or Arch of Claudius. Not all texts are annotated because it's a much newer project than Wikipedia and very much a work in progress, and needs editors like yourself who are interested in source texts. It's perfectly posible to write about a work of art without reproducing that work of art. I'm responding to a request for a third opinion, and wasn't aware of other poems that are included in their entirety on Wikipedia, but they should probably also be moved to Wikisource. See also Category:Move to Wikisource. --Nicknack009 07:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:L&P states that articles about lyrics or poems should focus on analysis and cultural impact, not simply on the text, and specifically states that articles consisting only of original text are grounds for speedy deletion or transfer to wikisource. Original translations are most certainly original research, because they are the translator's opinion on what the poem actually says, and are never totally accurate. WP:V states that "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources" and since you and Kenneth Charles's translations have not been published, they cannot be included. My advice is move your translations to wikisource and link Catullus to the wikisource author page. I have nothing against your translations, they look quite good, but wikipedia is not the place for them. Thank you for contributing them to the public domain, and I hope you will continue to contribute in the proper project. --Samael775 15:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Coming from WP:3O and briefly reading the discussion on the subject, I have to agree with the Third Opinion of Nicknack009. WP is guarded by policy, and WP:VERIFY states that articles have to be cited and verifiable: "they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers". Further, a translation is original work, not a copy. I would like to point to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (e.g. see Article 2 of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works [1]; quoting: "Translations, adaptations, arrangements of music and other alterations of a literary or artistic work shall be protected as original works without prejudice to the copyright in the original work"), which may or may not be applicable by Wikipedia in regard to translations. Anyway, I'm afraid the translations will eventually get deleted. -- Steve Hart 23:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
In the Village Pump, Francis Schonken pointed to Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Sources in languages other than English, which certainly legitimates translations by editors. It does, however, say that "where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly." I leave it to those who read Latin to decide whether there are any citable, public-domain translations that are better than those by our own editors.Grouchy Chris 09:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE: If you're here to give a third opinion, please give it at the talk page on WikiProject Catullus. It was just started, and we're trying to figure out an appopriate scope. I think a discussion there would be much more productive than on a soon-to-be-archived talk page of a user who is soon-to-be-gone. Thanks, Sophy's Duckling 15:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Novels WikiProject Newsletter August 2006

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The August 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And yet more on dear old Catullus

I have made a quick example of a "navigation infobox" thingy for the Catullus articles, which you can find here. Feel free to fix up, and in particular to add all the various articles to it (I'll be working through them and doing the same). Then it can be put in the template category, and placed on each Catullus article. This will allow readers to easily navigate through all of them without having a mammoth list of "see also" links. It also "cleans up", in that there aren't hundreds of little articles floating around all by themselves. What do you think? It could probably be made prettier, but Hell, at least it's a start... Byrgenwulf 18:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks good. We might also want to include the article on Lesbia (I think there is one; if not, there really should be), the poet he is inspired by (Callimachus?), and articles on meter. And we need to figure out a more standardized template for the articles (I think I'm on the verge of persuading User:Samael775 to help) and referencing to Wikisource. We also should prioritize the articles we do; I suggest we start with 1, 5, 11, 51, 85, and 101. Thanks for doing that. Do you think we could start a WikiProject Catullus? Sophy's Duckling 18:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I think a "Project Catullus" would be a delightful idea, and hopefully Samael would deign to help out as well. There is a stub on Lesbia, but I suppose she is pretty much condemned to stubhood, unless one were to pad the article out a bit by describing her character as it is portrayed by Catullus himself: surely a legitimate exercise, as long as his portrayal and the various historical speculations as to her identity are kept separate. I'll add her and Callimachus to the "bar" after finishing this, and start adding all the poems with individual articles.
Another subsection on that navigation bar which could be interesting is links to Catullus' contemporaries: Caesar, Mamurra, Gellus, Cicero, as many as there are articles...because his poems can offer wonderful satirical commentary, and the best way to understand them is to understand both the climate in Rome at the time, and the people on whom he was commenting. Byrgenwulf 12:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Right, I have moved the navigation box from my sandbox, you now find it at: Template:Catullus. I tried putting it into "Catullus 1", but it isn't working quite correctly yet, but it will be fixed and ready soon...one includes it in an article by adding {{Catullus}} at the top. Byrgenwulf 12:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Dummy Edit

Dummy edit! Dummy edit! Please see the dummy edit, stupid javascript! dummy edit again! Sophy's Duckling 19:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Catullus

When you're done dummy editing, you might want to have a look at WikiProject Catullus. I was thinking about it this afternoon, the project would definitely be in order...especially so discussions about whether the poems must stay or go are not fragmented over a thousand talk pages (well, actually I'd be surprised if a thousand people in the world cared about Catullus, but anyway).

Please add to the project page, and start getting it into shape: I just added a generic templatey thing to it. I think it would be best, as well, to discuss there what will happen to the various poems.

I hope my posting hasn't confused the stupid javascript. Byrgenwulf 19:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

lol, not at all. It was just me. I didn't read the thingy that told me to dummy post clearly enough. Thanks for making that. I'll go round to livejournal and see if I can get anyone interested. Sophy's Duckling 19:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This "livejournal" thing intrigues me (I've run into it before, you see). Are there people there who like Catullus? Like a webring of Catullans or something...
But to get more people who could contribute is only a good thing. Thanks! Byrgenwulf 21:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Livejournal is a less tacky social networking site than MySpace, and it's a more restricted blogging site than most bloggers (i.e., you can choose to filter your updates so that only certain people can see them). I'd reccomend getting one because they're fun. And there are communities there I'm going to update to (wikipedians and latin) in the hope of recruiting more Catullus contributors. Sophy's Duckling 16:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry of Catullus

Whoa whoa whoa...you should really stop whatever it is you are doing. You can't turn all those poem articles into redirects, it destroys the article histories. Adam Bishop 06:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

They're not articles. I created them. I only turned one, and all it was was a copy of wikisource, into a redirect. Don't worry. :) Sophy's Duckling
Oh, I see...sorry :) Funny how the first one I looked at happened to be the copy from Wikisource... Adam Bishop 06:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
That's okay! 15:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
So, now that I'm shown myself to be a jerk...can I help? I used to hate Catullus but now that I can read him in Latin he is much more awesome. Adam Bishop 16:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can't get enough of Catullus

Thanks a lot for being willing to negotiate. And yes, I do need to contribute more to the main namespace. I am currently working on a better referenced, more NPOV version of The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Anyway, I want you to know that original translations are allowed on wikisource, so you are welcome to publish your translations there. I think that your texts are more appropriate there, wikisource was founded as a repository for source texts because wikipedia decided not to allow them. At present, english wikisource allows only english texts, but I think they would accept something like the table on Catullus 1. I would prefer you put your translations on english wikisource, as most english-speaking users will look there for transltions. --Samael775 15:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree; they should be up on wikisource as well, but not to their complete exclusion on wikipedia (as you say, the table on Catullus one, developed I think by user:silence, is a good format). Thanks for talking about this. Sophy's Duckling 15:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have proposed a compromise on the WikiProject Catullus talk page that I believe you will find acceptable. --Samael775 15:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)