Talk:Catalogue of Women/Archive 1

Requested move
Catalogues of Women->Catalogue of Women: more usually known (both now and in antiquity) as "Catalogue of Women". &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Petrouchka (talk • contribs) 04:32, 21 Jun 2005.

I'm new to Wikipedia, so please forgive me if I have done wrong: I have already gone ahead and created a rather large new article at Catalogue of Women, incorporating material from the 'Catalogues of Women' that was here and turning this page into a redirect. This kind of makes the move request redundant, unless someone undoes what I've done. As I said, I'm new, so my apologies if I've gone about this in the wrong way: mea culpa. Petrouchka 11:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It is a requirement of the GFDL license that we retain edit histories, and copy/pasting content destroys the link to it. I've therefore merged the history into this article.  WP:RM has had quite a backlog so I'm sorry it wasn't attended to sooner, and thanks for your comments above.  violet/riga (t) 4 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

manuscripts
I moved manuscripts section from Hesiod to here, though the section has problems. McCronion (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll expand it, but should I? There are at least 54 papyri of the Catalogue, not counting those which have been more doubtfully assigned to the poem by Traversa and Hirschberger.  Also, when we list manuscripts on other pages it means we are outlining the textual history of the work, but with the Catalogue over 70% of the fragments are preserved in quotations by other ancient authors.  So, should we list all the papyri with proper annotation or delete this bit altogether.  I'm fine with both and will take action on both. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the best approach is a summary of the manuscript tradition and papyrus finds rather dwarf the reader with an obscure list. Your choice. I'm not really interested - I just wanted to remove the burden from Hesiod. McCronion (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds right: I'll describe the situation in a little "Transmission and reconstruction" section when I get a chance. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

citation templates
In advance of completing a major expansion and reorganization that I've been attempting in fits and starts, I'm augmenting the bibliography and formatting it all with citation templates. On the page for this method of citation it says not to do this without consensus, since some editors find the syntax annoying (I do, too), but since the topic involves so much doubt and dialogue between different types of scholarship (editions, reviews, chapters, etc.), this seems most accessible way to go. If people are much opposed, I'll do the grunt-work of reformatting the whole list and will, of course, take responsibility for formatting the additions of others if we decide to keep the method. The Cardiff Chestnut (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * An update on this. Since the above described complicated system of cross-references has fully developed, my wonderfully generous offer to reformat the citation method if challenged has expired.  If a consensus is reached to the effect of changing this convention, I will still honor my commitment to undertake the conversion.  In any event, I still promise to reformat any bibliographic additions for consistency, should new editors simply wish to add bare details.  Fragmentarily yours, — cardiff &#124; chestnut —  00:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Show off
I just noticed the current state of this article here, all the work of User:Cardiffchestnut. What's he trying to do? Impress people? It won't work! I see through his tissue-thin scholarship and his pretence at a work ethic as if through a glass. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This is actually a very good article, and Cardiffchestnut has done (and keep doing) some excellent work on it. You should know that talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view, as you did here. For more please see Talk page guidelines. Macedonian (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Eyeless is just kidding with me. But thanks to both of you ... hopefully this article will be in shape before some monastery yields a complete MS of the Catalogue and everything written so far is found to be hogwash.  —  the cardiff chestnut  &#124; talk  —  04:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I should have guessed that something was wrong here!... :) Macedonian (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A few suggestions
No, I won't be reviewing this good article nomination - simply because I don't have time to have a careful look at everything and check all of those references.

Nevertheless, I had a brief look at the article. It certainly looks good, comprehensive and informative, and especially very well researched and annotated. However, there are a few things I think should be changed. These remarks are nothing more than suggestions for improvement, according to my personal opinion, not per WP:GACR: Michael! (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead section is quite long. It seems to be the longest piece of text after "Aeolids". Could you rearrange or rewrite it in a shorter way?
 * Quotes (in first section and onwards): translation left, Greek text right. I prefer the original Greek at the left and the translation at the right, but this is just a matter of taste.
 * It is also nice if you could put a short "Translation by ##, year" beneath each translation. Yes, note b contains this information, but this is quite long to read if you just want to know the translator at a one short glance. Again, just a matter of taste.
 * The two portraits are quite large if compared to the other images. Furthermore, those two and another third image are at the left margin, but all other pictures are at the right margin. Don't you think it would be better to put all images at the right margin?
 * The second last picture is called "Seneca.jpg", but the figure caption says "intended to be Hesiod". Could you place a short note in the caption to explain?
 * You might want to have a separate (sub)section "Authorship" instead of having it incorporated at "Date, composition and authorship".


 * On the introduction, I don't think it's terribly long per WP:LEAD in relation to the article as a whole, but it might be less daunting with a couple of the paragraphs broken up. (I'll insert at least one break that I see.) Placing the Greek on the right seems appropriate for Wikipedia's non-specialist readership, with "form following function" as the aesthetic principle. The translator doesn't need to be attributed within the body copy, unless the point is to highlight the translator. The Seneca/Hesiod portrait has such a long checkered history that it has its own article, to which we can helpfully link. I'm not sure how you can disconnect composition and authorship. Will try to act on the rest, while noting for an potential reviewer that these points wouldn't keep the article from getting a C rating, let alone a GA. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, for the bronze bust Pseudo-Seneca is already linked; discussing the identification as Seneca would be off-topic for this article, and the file name isn't displayed in the article to generate confusion. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The points I made are just a few opinions after a short first impression - I didn't read the article carefully - they're nothing more than quick suggestions. Of course, they don't have to be addressed for passing it as a GA. Feel free to ignore them.Michael! (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I might return to this interesting article in a few days to have a more careful look at it - although I won't be reviewing it, as I said before.Michael! (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Mestra engraving
Davidiad, the Baur engraving is awfully dark to read. Might I suggest you take it to the photography workshop at Commons? I've been really impressed by how promptly they respond to requests, and they do a nice job. There's an easy form for requests. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll look into that in  a bit.  I've honestly hated that image forever, but Mestra gets so much print, so I had to take a gulp and say the picture stays in, kid.  davidiad { t } 15:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong photo?
"A Roman-era sculpture possibly representing Hesiod". That statue portrays Seneca (evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seneca.JPG ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.34.245.65 (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this. It's linked to the article on the sculpture, which is called Pseudo-Seneca because of its great difference from other representations of him. It's been identified as a handful of folks, one of the most common identifications being Hesiod, hence its usage here.  davidiad { t } 00:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Chart template
the update to use the chart templates was a step forward, in my opinion. sure, it may be that source for these is hard to read, but so is the corresponding html. the advantage of using the chart templates is (1) it is far more concise, so less bloat in the wikisource and (2) they can be tracked and updated later to something easier to read if such a method arises, and (3) the currently implementation may use html tables, but this can also be changed down the road if there is a more accessible method in the future, say using list markup or nested div markup. if there is some reason for using html table markup, please discuss here. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A'ight, Frietjes, works for me. But in the first generation, "(stones)" cannot be within the box, since that implies that the Leleges were stones and not descended from stones, hence my formatting of that branch, which matches the cited source. If that isn't possible, we should go back to HTML. Also, far less important, is there a way to get rid of those boxes? Thank you,  davidiad { t } 00:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Both fixed, though I'm not fond of the spacing or the 1px hiccough at the left hand juncture of multi-member branches.  davidiad { t } 01:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)