User talk:LatinCreations

Your submission at Articles for creation: Catullus 22 (January 4)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiDan61 was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Catullus 22 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Catullus_22 Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiDan61&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Catullus_22 reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Update to Catullus 22 Article Submission
Hi WikiDan61, thank you fro your previous review and feedback. I just wanted to let you know I edited everything you asked me to change/add in your comment and I hope you will be willing to review it again! Please let me know if theres anything else I can do to improve it before it is published... LatinCreations (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've looked over your updates, and made some changes:
 * I'm glad you've found a source for the translation, which itself credits an older work: . But if we're going to cite a translation, we should actually use that translation, as poor as it might be. Anything else would be considered original research. (Yes, I, too, studied Latin - 45 years ago! - so I recognize that the translation is poor, but it's the best we have available unless you can find a better scholarly translation.)
 * Your section on choliambic meter defines the concept well enough, but that is unnecessary as we already have an entire article on the topic. I'd like to see more analysis of how that particular meter is used within this particular poem.
 * You're on the right path, but I don't think the draft is yet ready for publication. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

To wikidan61
Template:Ping

Hi,

Thank you for you comments and again taking the time to review the draft. I understand your comments on the translation: I am currently a student studying the language and appreciate the idea that you would like the translation to be as credited as possible. Similar to yourself, I recognize how blatantly poor any translation I have been able to find is, which is why I have attempted to use as much of the translation as possible while changing it slightly to try to improve it. However I understand wikipedia's rules behind no original research. As I have had (and currently do) many scholars of the language as mentors, would it be ok to use a translation created by one of them (of course properly citing and giving their credentials)? I also understand your comments on cholamibc meter, it has always been my intention of updating and adding to that section (as well as other sections), in order to give more than just what is already available on Wikipedia.

Please let me know your thoughts on my question, and I will ping you again when I have updated the meter section... LatinCreations (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You could only use a published translation, per Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Catullus 22 has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Catullus 22. Thanks! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Publication
Template:Ping

Hi WikiDan61,

Thanks for your comments earlier on today... Since you seem to be having the same trouble as I am in finding a reputably sourced translation online, would it be best to (for now) remove the translation and publish the rest of the info without it? I will of course add a little bit on the specifics of how the meter is used in this poem specifically as you asked but then I believe (and hope you do as well) that I have addressed all of your concerns and have a created a source of valuable information for people to use in educating themselves on Catullus 22. My goal is to get this published by Thursday evening/Friday morning (EST) as I would like to show it in a presentation I am creating for a class of mine... Afterwards, I will do my best to either find a reputably sourced translation or try to get an expert to give their opinion on it.

Please let me know if you feel as though this is the best route forward LatinCreations (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Catullus 16 translation citation comparison
Template:Ping

Additionally, I would like to bring up the idea that Catullus 16's fully published page takes their translation directly from this same source (with one of the "hobbyists" as the creator as well. Additionally, it cites from another source which has since taken down their translation and now provides no insight into the creators or editors of that translation. Lastly, it cites a version of Whitaker's words (a valuable source I cited before when trying to create a translation with influence from a different translation fused with my ideas obtained from this dictionary), but you cited the fact that no original research is allowed. While I am not trying to get this page unpublished, I do want to highlight the somewhat seemingly contrasting standards my page is seemingly being held to in relation to this one. Please let me know if any oversight has been made or if there is something that this translation cites/originates from that is different to one of the translations I have proposed.

I believe its important to have as much information on Wikipedia regarding classical Latin texts as possible (for education purposes), though also want to make sure all pages are being held to the same standard (I hope and am convinced you will understand this). Possibly you can rethink the value of the sources of my proposed translations given this other published page's standards of sourcing?

Please let me know if you find any of these remarks relevant (there is of course a chance I am missing something that differentiates Catullus 16's page's citations from mine). If not, I look forward to hearing a response to you as to whether it would be a good idea to submit my article for publication without the translation until these sourcing problems can be remedied.

I appreciate your time in helping me to publish the article,

LatinCreations. LatinCreations (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Update to previous comments
Template:Ping

I apologize for adding so much at once but as I am looking, Catullus 1 also cites their translation as coming from the same cite written by one of the hobbyists, and Catullus 3 and 5 seems to have completely come from Wikisource (the first translation I used that you rejected), and 35 and 85 from Smithers and Burtons (which you have most recently questioned the legitimacy of), inevitably there are more published articles from these sources that I have attempted to cite from, however I thought that 6 was enough examples. I can search fro more if it is necessary.

Again, thanks for your consideration,

LatinCreations. LatinCreations (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Catullus 22 (January 12)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiDan61 was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Catullus 22 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=Draft:Catullus_22 Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiDan61&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Catullus_22 reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Response to decline
Template:Ping

Hi Wikidan61. The reason for the loss of inline citations is because late last night when I was trying to save the page, I was told there was an error and it didn't save any changes I had made (added citations etc). There was somehow another person editing the page supposedly and so 2 versions that were conflicting were created Because of this, to readd all inline citations in any reasonable amount of time would have been practicallyimpossible, hence my change to a bibliography without inline references. If required, I can readd inline citations but I am just quite frustrated at the fact that I lost a lot of work that I had to readd. LatinCreations (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)