Talk:The Ruin (poem)

revert
I've reverted the addition made by anon user as copyvio. Although I am unable to find the source directly, the indirect evidence is:
 * 1) The prose is professional and polished, written by an experienced expert scholar.
 * 2) The entry is full of typo's and spelling errors. Someone obviously manually typed this in from another source. One doesn't write high-quality material full of hasty typos.
 * 3) There is missing text, for example this line:
 * Again we can identify the ubi sunt motif
 * Again? This is the first time it is mentioned. Obviously there is additional material where the ubi sunt motif was mentioned that was not copied in.

If the anon user could please log in with a userID and identify themselves and where this material came from it can be restored.

--Stbalbach 18:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack Watson
Who is Jack Watson, has he released this translation into the public domain? Assuming it's not a 19th C translation, by default it would be copyright, and need explicit release. -- Stbalbach 16:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The poem is under a license similar to Wikipedia's, except more liberal, and is noted in the comment for the edit. From :


 * "Translations included here include newly published material by Jim London and Jack Watson. These poems may be used freely as long as proper credit is given."


 * In other words, compatible with the GFDL. Fourdee 20:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are public domain translations available but this seems more accurate. The older ones involve a lot more guessing and re-interpretation. Fourdee 20:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Fourdee. -- Stbalbach 14:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Article wiping, disambig
I have no idea why someone (User:Ghirlandajo) saw fit to wipe this page and replace it with a disambiguation page for two articles, one of them brand new and some obscure reference to Ukranian history. This is an English encyclopedia and this poem is historically significant to the English language.

At any rate, two articles is no reason for a disambiguation page. The new and less significant use of the term is sufficiently covered by an OtherUses4 tag at the top. Please do not wipe articles without discussion. I have undone this, added the otheruses tag, and made the The Ruin (poem) article redirect back to this. Fourdee 02:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)