Talk:Loeb Classical Library

[Untitled]
Achilles Tatius is a greek writer, I'm moving him. Bruno

Would the following link be innappropriate?


 * http://www.hup.harvard.edu/loeb/

It's really informative, on the one hand; but on the other, it could be construed as advertising. Doops 03:33, 17 May 2004 (UTC)


 * No, it's good. For every publisher (or other commercial operation, for that matter) we want to link to their main page, after all they're their own main authority on what they do. Great article, BTW, make sure it's linked from more places, ancient Rome and so forth. Stan 03:57, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Have you seen the List of books by title pages? If the Loebs are classics they might already be there. Check to be sure. AlainV 03:58, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

And if not you might want to consider creating an article or articles on the most important ones you are familiar with. AlainV 04:01, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

I'm sorry - the Greek lyrics are "minor"?


 * Conventional phrasing for the less-well-known, generally with only small amount of surviving work each. Stan 05:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the intro is quite right; after all, the main qualification for LCL is survival. Septentrionalis 17:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppian, Tryphiodorus and Colluthus were poets. --CRATYLUS22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.110.28 (talk) 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Links
Can we check the wikilinks on these to make sure they're going to the proper places? I don't know enough about this subject to do it myself... --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

One that doesn't is "The Fall of Troy" in the Greek epic section. It links to some rock band. I don't know how to change this, so I just thought I'd mention it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.64.63 (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

They are terrible! Loeb translates the titles differently. I am trying to fix it right now... --15lsoucy (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality
This is a load of bs on the part of some editor. The loeb's are "not intended for serious classicists"? Is that why every classicist professor I've known has at least a small pile of Loeb's sitting on their office shelf? This needs to be cleaned up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.41.3 (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The article has been nominated by an anonymous user to be checked for its neutrality. I suggest: What do you think?--K.C. Tang 06:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Add inline citations (preferably third-party sources);
 * 2) Remove the part of "Volumes Published" (an external link to the Loeb catalogue is enough, if necessary).


 * It's weird— the page once had a real problem with this (stuff like "they represent the Everyman's Library of Antiquity, the canon of our Classical heritage...") but that's gone now so I don't know what the objection is to. The page is mostly dryly factual.


 * Neutrality objections are supposed to be accompanied by talk page discussion, so I'm removing it. But in the process I'll give the whole thing a going-over to make sure it's all encylcopedic. Doops | talk 12:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The catalogue is a problem. Cf. WP:NOT.--K.C. Tang 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, I can see that it could be. But reading the guidelines there, I'd say it isn't cut-and-dried — not definitely a problem, just maybe. Doops | talk 16:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Books are also products; so the fact is we have a product catalogue on an encyclopedia article. I think the anonymous user's comment of "reads like an advertisement" is not groundless. I think the Bibliotheca Teubneriana article does the right thing by just providing an external link instead of listing the titles. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 02:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, also, there was a good deal of actual reads-like-advertisement prose which I deleted in my last go-through. Doops | talk 04:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to delete the list for the sake of neutrality; the list is supremely neutral. Nor, given the seminal importance of this series in the reception of the Classics and in the history of publishing (Category:Dual-language series of texts would be much smaller without its inspiring example), do I think that it obviously creates a product listing that should cause serious concern about WP:NOT. (I'm not suggesting this list has the cultural significance of a list of Kings of England, but it is in the encyclopedia because of the actual importance of the series in providing English speakers access to the Greek and Roman classics.) Moreover, I have something invested in the list, since I have provided a couple of updates and even attempted a reorganization of the Greek poetry titles. It never would have occurred to me on my own to come along and wipe out the list (I am in general timid about undoing the result of many Wikipedian-hours unless it is clearly inappropriate or unencyclopedic). Now, having said all that, I have to say, I'm fine with removing the list. The information is readily available from Harvard University Press (indexed three different ways and searchable)&mdash;this is a classic example of the most appropriate imaginable external link at Wikipedia. And I'd hope that, if the list were removed, it would provide some stimulus to develop the article with more information about what is truly noteworthy about the series and its volumes; the series really is so important that much more of this could be written based on reliable sources. In any case, the list is always waiting for us in the edit history if we need it. (A corollary to my argument: if anyone can point out valuable information this list provides not available from HUP, I would be very receptive to a defense of it. For example, it would be appropriate to have a section giving historic information about offerings no longer listed at HUP because they've been replaced.)  Wareh 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A further thought. If we're not comfortable just deleting the list, perhaps it is notable enough for its own page?  There is some parallel in an article like Bekker numbers, which provides important information about the organization of a historically very important edition of Aristotle.  (The difference is that Bekker numbers have become the universal standard of reference in all editions of Aristotle, whereas most Loeb offerings have not tried or managed to become the standard of scholarly reference.)  Finally, I'm not sure WP:NOT applies at all; we are not giving prices or trying to sell Loebs.  So the redundancy issue has to be weighed against the value of having a free and neutral Wikipedia version of the same (somewhat notable) information.  When you ask how this compares to List of Macintosh models grouped by CPU type etc., maybe deleting the list looks like a tougher call.  Wareh 14:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of retaining the list in some form, whether it's in this article or List of titles in the Loeb Classical Library. The information is available at the HUP website, to be sure, but the list here is more useful for some purposes--try creating an excel databases of the LCL volumes from the list here. Now try creating it from the HUP website. One is much easier. Admittedly, there are very few occasions on which someone might need to do this, but there's at least one time this list would have been of practical utility to me (unfortunately, I ended up creating the list from the HUP website instead). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Naturally we have the highest respect for the editors who created the title list, which is meant to be, and in fact in some way is, useful. However, I as a wikipedian am rather concerned about how the readers think of the list. No doubt there are many who find the list very useful, but it is not unlikely that there are some who, like the anonymous user, regard the list as a product catalogue, be it a catalogue of some of the sublimest products of human wisdom. Would it set an undesirable precedent, which is to justify any kind of product list, I wonder? I don't know if we'd better choose to err on the side of being too cautious by deleting the list.--K.C. Tang 10:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, in some sense List of Battlestar Galactica episodes is a "product list"; you can purchase the episodes on DVD, after all. But no one would seriously propose its deletion on those grounds. The same goes for all the lists of TV show episodes or articles about record albums (which are usually just track listings). Check out The Hardy Boys, Tom_Swift, Conan_%28books%29, Very_Short_Introductions--there's plenty of precedent on Wikipedia for lists of book series. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Akhilleus here&mdash;I don't think the anonymous user's concerns justify fretting that there is anything unduly commercial about the list. The notability criterion will remain the key test for inclusion of information about anything in the encyclopedia, and the Loebs' grounds for notability are solid enough that others would have a difficult time persuading the community of editors if they try to use this of all possible examples to justify more questionable listings.  Wareh 21:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've hidden the catalogue, which I hope is a satisfactory solution: it won't look like an ad, while we can get the useful list with a single click. Cheers.--K.C. Tang 12:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, but K. C., you have two different editors here saying there's no need to hide the catalog, because it doesn't look like an ad. I'm reverting your changes, and if you continue to be bothered by this, I suggest you start an article RfC. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry for having been bold, Akhilleus. I thought it would be a acceptable edit, as the list would still be present. Please accept my humblest apology.--K.C. Tang 01:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * K.C., no need for the apology (and I'm sorry myself if I seemed too imperious). I note, though, that in your last edit, the "show" button that toggled the list appeared inside the image of one of the book covers, so it wasn't apparent that I could display the list. A reader unfamiliar with Wikipedia's user interface probably wouldn't have realized there was a list at all. As I said, though, I think the page should remain as is--and if you remain concerned about it, I urge you to get some outside input through an article RfC. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster, this page does not seem very neutral. Grailknighthero (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This conversation is long dormant, but I want to add (since I was ambivalent before) that experience has shown me how appropriate and necessary this article's list is. The fact is, the Loeb volumes are relevant bibliography to scores of our articles, and keeping the list here helps us maintain it and gives us something to link from elsewhere as needed. I've recently worked on Hippocratic Corpus, and it was very nice to be able to refer readers to find the information relevant to understanding that subject in its proper place (here). Wareh (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I've never been sure how "Loeb" is pronounced. Is it "lobe", as of an ear, or "low ebb", like the tide?--Oxonian2006 19:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The former. Wareh 23:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Although Ezra Pound was wont to call it the "Low Ebb" series, presumably referring to the quality of the translations. (He also liked to refer to the publisher New Directions as "Nude Erections".) Deor (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hugh Bowden says "Lerb".--Oxonian2006 (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The family name of the founder is pronounced like English 'lobe', hence that pronunciation.JESL2 (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Internet Archive - add links?
Since there are so many of the older loeb editions on the internet archive. Would some public-spirited person do a search to find out just which are there - and add links beside the individual works listed in this article? Jagdfeld (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This listing may be of use: Downloebables. Wareh (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Except it is very incomplete. E.g. all 4 vols of Euripedes are on the IA - no sign of that on the downloadables list. Jagdfeld (talk) 11:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

fairly literal translation
Into what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Into English, what do you think? Harvard University publishes in Sanscrit? 188.156.14.134 (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The list of works and NOTDIRECTORY
It violates it. It is tiresome that we have to have this discussion but it appears we must. A list of all the titles published in a series clearly and unambiguously runs afoul of the policy. 67.164.156.42 (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In my view, bibliographic information of this kind is useful and has a place in an encyclopaedia. I see no reason to regard this as a violation of WP:DIRECTORY. --Hegvald (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The volume listing grouped as it is (with space still for improvement) is of extreme usefulness to the reader. As a collector of the LCL I check in daily to get information on the volumes and its authors, as I am sure many others do. The listing must stand. --GuitarDudeness (talk) 11:05, 02 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Which of the seven points at WP:DIRECTORY is supposed to be at issue here? I don't see how any of them applies. And I say this as someone who expressed ambivalence about the list in the past (see prev. disc.). I have come around to the view that a complete listing should stand. No one thinks it's strange if articles about other notable phenomena include a list of all the instances (records of a certain band, species of a certain genus). The LCL is plenty notable and the titles it comprises seem to me to be encyclopedic information. Wareh (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Oragnization of The List
Hello, friends. I don't want to relitigate anything from the past. I can see you've debated about whether the list should be on this page, and there is no need to rehash that. My question is about the organization of the list. As of now, the Greek list is organized by topic (poetry, drama, history, etc.), but the Latin list is purely by author. Should we add categories to the Latin list so that it is comparable to the Greek list? Yes, we might have some authors appearing in multiple sections, but it will perhaps make the Latin list more useful. - Amphipolis (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Here is my initial organization based on the categories of the Greek. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amphipolis/sandbox Amphipolis (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I've made the changes proposed. If you disagree, you can roll back, but please let's talk about improving the organization of the Latin list. The simple, alphabetical list does not seem as useful as the categorized list that governs the Greek texts. Amphipolis (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)