User talk:Sophysduckling/Archive 2

Cleanup taskforce
I added Howard Bloom to your desk. Please look at it or pass it along. RJFJR 14:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yay thank you! Sophy&#39;s Duckling 19:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

stub
can you fix your main page to not be a stub? I dont know why you want it as a stub, but I dont wnat to play with your main page... Jabencarsey 07:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I was trying to make a link and it turned into stubbery. Sophy&#39;s Duckling 22:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

user page
I edited your user page using a trick of wiki coding you probably don't know. You had added your user page to Category:Cleanup_by_month. What I believe you wanted was a link to that category's page. To do this you enter Category:Cleanup_by_month. The colon at the beginning tells it you want a link not to be part of the category. I hope you don't mind my editing your user page. RJFJR 20:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all. You're right; I didn't know the coding. Thank you. :) Sophy&#39;s Duckling 17:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup taskforce
Spiritual marriage has been added to your desk. This is a long time project involving religion that we are trying to close out. It has been open for quite a while so its status needs to be checked to see what is left to be done. Please check and accept or pass (or let me know and I'll reassign it). Thank you. RJFJR 16:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (your reply) I accept Spiritual marriage. Would it be okay if you reassigned Howard Bloom? Sophy&#39;s Duckling 20:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (my reply) No prob. RJFJR 06:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

WikiSource
I would like to hear the rationale for moving the contents of Catullus 1, Catullus 2, etc. to WikiSource. Specifically, I would like to hear how the content of those pages is better served by the format of WikiSource pages (i.e. a lengthy, unfootnoted, all-in-one-language-or-the-other transcription of the text, without any of the valuable context, summarization, explanation, alternative translations, side-by-side English/Latin comparisons, etc. that Wikipedia can provide: in other words, turning the valuable, well-organized, and encyclopedic information on the Catullus pages into the dry and relatively unuseful content of pages like this). I ask because I'm rather confused by the nature, scope, and consistent ideal 'style' for sisterprojects like Wiktionary and Wikibooks (partly because those sisterprojects themselves are often remarkably confused and inconsistent in their own style guidelines, if they exist at all), so I don't know (1) what benefits removing this content from Wikipedia would lead to (especially considering how short many of the Catullus poems, like Catullus 1, are, making requiring that they not be quoted on Wiktionary seem rather ridiculous and over-circuitous), and (2) whether WikiSource would be able to encompass the full scope of the current Catullus poem pages (i.e., will it preserve the useful adjacent-translation table format, the footnotes, the much-needed context-explaining introduction, etc.? if not, removing the content from Wikipedia is a terrible idea), providing all the same information just as efficiently. From what I've seen, no WikiSource page is as effective at providing brief, in-depth foreign-language texts with English translations, and if such in-depth, sourced textual analysis and historical context (which is certainly a highly noteworthy and encyclopedic topic and endeavor if a complete listing of Pokemon characters is) isn't currently within WikiSource's scope, then I see no reason to withhold such valuable information from Wikipedia readers, where it's much more accessible to a much larger number of editors anyway. Also, I have even more doubts that WikiSource will be able to handle some of the future additions to the Catullus pages I have planned, such as a lot more descriptions of the poetic structure, meter, etc., including line-by-line metrical analysis much like the current line-by-line translation. Sorry, but I just currently have too many doubts about whether removing this information from Wikipedia will benefit Wikipedia or its readers (certainly I'd have no reservations whatsoever about mirroring the information on WikiSource, and there are already Latin-only texts available at the Latin WikiSource project), perhaps because I'm unfamiliar with the more in-depth WikiSource texts; if I'm mistaken, I apologize, and please enlighten me as to how much of the content and format of pages like Catullus 1 would work perfectly well on WikiSource. -Silence 19:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If the articles were indeed expanded to include all that you mentioned, they could probably be on Wikipedia. However, simple line-by-line translation, which is what much of the articles currently are, should be on wikisource. Sophy&#39;s Duckling 21:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, I agree with your statement that Wikisource has no indepth analysis. That's because it is meant just to have the dry text. Aeneid (your example) has its own Wiki article, but the wiki article does not consist of line by line analysis and translation of Books 1-12. Part of this is because the Aeneid is freaking long. You haven't run into this problem with Catullus yet because you're doing the 10-20 line poems, but what about poems like c.64? I suggest we move the translations over to Latin and English wikisource, and include the other things you say you have planned on Wikipedia. I'll certainly be glad to help you with the transition/expansion. Sophy&#39;s Duckling 21:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "If the articles were indeed expanded to include all that you mentioned, they could probably be on Wikipedia." - Sure. And even if I don't do it myself, the articles certainly have potential galore to be expanded in the future by other interested editors, as long as we provide them with the articles and texts to do so; that's what Wikipedia's all about! I don't understand the fear of dealing in-depth with classical texts on Wikipedia. We have lengthy individual articles on plenty of Biblical passages and even lines, so why not, for example, books of the Odyssey or Shakespearian sonettes? One of my greatest future hopes for Wikipedia is that someday we will have fully-referenced, line-by-line description and (fully cited and with contrary opinions provided!) analysis of some of the most important works of literature in human history. If we can spend thousands of pages of text analyzing every individual railroad station, township, and Super Mario 64 character, I don't see why we can't provide the Aeneid with the same level of grueling detail and description&mdash;eventually. So, one of the reasons I was a bit put-off by the "Wikisource" tags being added to the Catullus poem articles is that I hope to have the idea of these Catullus poems, once they've been further improved, catch on, and eventually be used for even more important and ambitious literature-describing endeavors. If we can explain every step of the quadratic equation, detail every facet of croquet rules and regulations, and explore a detailed analysis and plot summary for every single episode of Friends and The Simpsons (with a separate article for each ep! yowza!), why can't we draw on the thousands of works that have been written on the major works of poetry and prose as a valuable resource too? Obviously we're not there yet, but as Wikipedia continues to expand both outward (increasing its number of articles) and inwards (increasing the depth and scope of each article), covering such matters as, for example, a line-by-line analysis and description of the Aeneid, should (hopefully) be inevitable. Couldn't hurt, anyway.
 * "simple line-by-line translation, which is what much of the articles currently are," - But not all of the articles, and moreover, almost everything that isn't the line-by-line translation requires the line-by-line translation to be present so the footnotes and other explanatory text can make sense. (For the ones I've yet worked on, that is. The ones I haven't reached yet are in many cases very deficient, though they have potential.) The purpose of Wikibooks is primarily for longer texts (i.e. ones that would be impractical to host in toto on a conventional Wikipedia page); there's no sense in banning shorter ones, which can very easily be fit into a conventional, encyclopedic and informative article.
 * "That's because it is meant just to have the dry text." - Right. Which is why I'm fine with mirroring the text of the Catullus poems at the English Wikipedia (just like they're at the Latin Wikisource sans translations), but don't care for the idea of also removing that text from the Wikipedia articles, at least when it's relatively short&mdash;especially if moving the text to Wikisource would require not using the useful table-format instituted on the Wikipedia pages for adjacent, line-by-line comparison of Latin and English, or, even worse, if the original Latin isn't included on the English Wikisource Catullus pages at all (much like the Aeneid pages). If that's the case, Wikisource simply can't compare to Wikipedia in this area, despite having been specifically created to host source-texts.
 * "Part of this is because the Aeneid is freaking long." - Exactly so! If there was interest and support for beginning the lengthy and difficult endeavor of a line-by-liner of the Aeneid someday, I'd gladly participate, though. We've successfully dealt with much more difficult and complicated matters on Wikipedia already, after all! But for now such an ambitious task would be unrealistic, so that's why I'm experimenting with the Catullus-poem articles for now (which, you must surely agree if you compare the histories before and after my edits, are now much more encyclopedic and helpful than they were previously!).
 * "but what about poems like c.64?" - I may not even do that one; there aren't even pages for a lot of Catullus poems, you've noticed, so we obviously aren't covering everything equally at this juncture. If I do decide to try a longer poem, it wouldn't be that different from doing a shorter one, and there are a variety of ways to make such a page easier to access and work on, including dividing it into multiple articles (much like the Aeneid is on so many different pages on Wikisource, whereas The Raven is on just one; consistency is less important than practical concerns like accessability), creating subsections and daughter articles, etc. I'm also very open to suggestions, of course!
 * "I suggest we move the translations over to Latin and English wikisource, and include the other things you say you have planned on Wikipedia." - So you're saying that the Latin and English texts will be on completely different pages&mdash;nay, completely different sites, if the Wikisource move goes through? Useless to readers. Hiding the Latin outside of the English Wikisource renders textual analysis, scansion, etc. impossible, and hiding the English outside of the Latin Wikipedia renders the article useless to English-speakers (and this is the English Wikipedia, so...). I don't see who would be benefitted by destroying the current system of providing users with both the English (since Wikipedians on the English Wiki are expected to know English) and Latin (since the text was written in Latin) in the organized, efficient, clean, and accessible fashion it currently is. Certainly we should provide the Latin and English Wikisources as an alternative, so people who prefer one or the other can use those, but we shouldn't remove valuable information and make it less accessible and comprehensible to readers just for the sake of arbitrary bureaucratic concerns over where "Wikipedia" ends and where "Wikisource" begins. Just as is the case with Wiktionary and Wikipedia, the dividing line between one or the other is often far from clear. Wikipedia deals with countless words and provides etymologies and meanings for all of its articles where appropriate. Wiktionary is a tool (for putting clearly trivial or inappropriate-for-encyclopedias definitions, etc.), not a constraint; Wikisource should be treated exactly the same way. It should not limit, but expand, Wikipedia's ability to provide its readers with information.
 * Also, thanks for the offer to help! I'm obviously no Catullus scholar, and I've improvised the structure of all the Catullus poem articles, so I can use all the alternative perspectives possible! -Silence 00:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. *goes to remove wikisource tags if they're not already gone* Sophy&#39;s Duckling 03:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. For once, my mountain of text worked! Usually it just makes people angry. I'll still gladly add the Catullus texts to the English Wikisource, incidentally (once I'm clearer on what the best style for a Wikisource page is, anyway). Anyway, I look forward to working with ye on the translations! Many could certainly use improvement. -Silence 04:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your point about the Pokemon characters was most convincing. Catullus's poetry is some of the most famous, influential, and beautiful poetry around. c.85 is far more noteworthy than Pikachu. :D In any case, having articles for poems isn't unherad of. Sophy&#39;s Duckling 21:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Dulce et Decorum Est is noteworthy in that both the poem and the original Horace quote have distinct articles! (dulce et decorum est pro patria mori). But you missed the real massive listings of Pokemon characters: Category:Pok%C3%A9mon_species_by_type, List_of_Pok%C3%A9mon. :) So, yeah, I think expectations of eventually reaching a similar level of detail for major works of literature throughout history is reasonable. If I can find some really good references to cite, maybe I'll even give that a try sometime; the Catullus articles are still, admittedly, pretty bare (though still useful). -Silence 13:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)