Talk:Cyclops (play)

Cutting the first sentence is fine, but I see no reason why the page shouldn't have information about the play's own manuscript tradition, and it looks to me like you could just put it at the end of the intro without modification ("Cyclops is found in..."). HonestManBad (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also "see no reason why the page shouldn't have information about the play's own manuscript tradition". That is one reason I pasted it here, rather than cutting it outright. But having had some of the sleep I wanted, I note that the sources for the information are over a hundred years old, and for that reason am disinclined to just cutting the first sentence, and reinserting. Otherwise, it mentions five, but elaborates for two. This incompleteness compounds the lack of seat.

talk) 08:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

The article as it currently stands almost entirely consists of an extremely large number of quotations from a small number of sources (mainly the introduction to David Kovacs's translation of the play). This is not how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written. These are supposed to be encyclopedia articles written in original language, not repositories of quotes arbitrarily copied-and-pasted from other sources. The vast majority of the quotes need to be removed and the article needs to be rewritten to turn it into an original article. —Katolophyromai (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Katolophyromai:: I am initially curious what you mean about how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written. This is particularly because there is a very strict "no original research" policy. For your "original language", I know not what you mean by that. For example there I quote Casca from the first scene of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, "I know not what you mean by that". An original language would be entirely incomprehensible, like Nimrod in the Inferno. "I am learned, you see", as says Urquhart's Gargantua. I use the language of other people, I use a language which you use, thereby we intend to understand each other. If you mean that a Wikipedia article should be the sort of paraphrasing which people generally do, which almost invariably distorts the assertions into very unacceptable falsity, that I cannot endorse. And on that note, for Kovacs, though I think that he is an ass, I had been led to believe that Loebs are good sources for Wikipedia.

Now I quote you too: "The article as it currently stands almost entirely consists of an extremely large number of quotations from a small number of sources." This I agree with. I found the article in an offensive state then accidentally fell into it. The splash I made was very much as you have described. But what I should make very clear is that though I am responsible for your grief, I am not going to do anything with the article. "The Texan looked at this small coin in the kid's palm and demanded more money but the harnessmaker shook his head and held up his hands in utter finality". (Blood Meridian)

talk) 08:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

What

talk) 14:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

talk) 19:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:GA for you. Happy to walk you through the process if you decide to go for it. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

talk) 22:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay. I'm going to make a new section with my feedback. A new section because it’s easier for me to format. Bear with... ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the page to an earlier version. As it stands, the page was in a bad state. It will need significant work, but that work will be much easier to do from this state, rather than the last. Here was the previous state of the article. It is made almost entirely of filler words with quotations, stringing together people's ideas without providing any real overview. The lead was the most egregious example. To

You previously said: For your "original language", I know not what you mean by that. For example there I quote Casca from the first scene of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, "I know not what you mean by that". An original language would be entirely incomprehensible [...] I use the language of other people, I use a language which you use, thereby we intend to understand each other. If you mean that a Wikipedia article should be the sort of paraphrasing which people generally do, which almost invariably distorts the assertions into very unacceptable falsity, that I cannot endorse. These are quotations from texts written in archaic English. Were they in an article, they would be quoted directly, but very rarely do you ever need to directly quote from a text. A critic's ideas can be conveyed without an over-reliance on quotation. Quotation use should be sparing.

I know you put a lot of work into the article, and I am sorry for doing this, but the page was really made worse. I really hope you take a look at some of the links I've given above, and try to better understand how Wikipedia articles should be written. You can also refer to the

I've looked at the reversion in more detail. There were a significant amount of sources add, and it sucks to remove them, but until the structuring of the article is cleared up, it will need to remain like this.

WP:FA

, for help. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to help you adhere to Wikipedia's writing style.

To get the article looked at quicker, I'd be happy to carry out an expedited GA review once the article is cleaning up, but because of that it means my assistance would be limited. If I can't find anyone willing to improve the article, I will make the improvements myself, but that could take some time. My focus is on another page right now.

talk) 15:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

talk) 17:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Imaginestigers: Just by the by I did accidentally just now sniff a little at the quotation business. Everything is largely a misunderstanding on my part, exacerbated in part actually by several other editors. Particularly confusing is the no original work all original work criterion of Wikipedia. I now suspect that any quotation is inadmissable unless absolutely necessary, for example I recently added a quote to Macbeth#Pronunciations

, namely "Finger of birth-strangled babe / Ditch-delivered by a drab, / Make the gruel thick and slab", because what preceded my imposition was: "The Witches benefited most in this regard. 'Babe' (4.1.30) sounded like 'bab' and rhymed with 'drab' (4.1.31)". I consider this quite a justifiably necessary quotation, but I'll lay it before your judgment.

For my own activity on Wikipedia I have just looked and found that I have made 505 edits, but at no point have I intended to edit Wikipedia. I had no intention of looking at wherever you sent me to, but "mine own jealous curiosity", as says King Lear, who I believe is in the public domain, sent me there. Accordingly I have no intention of moulding the Cyclops midden into an article, but I am also quite liable to begin that very doing immediately after typing this. "Villains by necessity, fools by heavenly compulsion", as they say in that selfsame quotable play.

talk) 17:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:BEBOLD! Just be mindful of what I've linked. Wikipedia does have a house style for writing. Broadly: it is plain, accessible language, stripped free of adverbs, and not argumentative. Wikipedia articles should not selectively provide information; they are an overview, a way to for people to easily dip into criticism and discussion. Some of that criticism may be wrong. They may be things you disagree with (that certainly is true for me). But the important, big stuff must all be there. Quotations are seldom necessary on Wikipedia. It’s best practice to avoid them outside of Analysis and Reception sections. If you need any advice on editing, or have any questions, feel free to drop a message on my Talk page! ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

talk) 09:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Please understand, that being able to edit Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. And that privilege can be taken away. You will continue to enjoy that privilege only if you follow our "endless screaming of rules" ;-) Paul August ☎ 14:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 16:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Done.

talk) 19:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• First thing is first: there's no need for any references in the article's
  lead
  . The lead (meaning the part above the Contents box) is a summation of the rest of the article. They should be no longer than four paragraphs (one or two is sufficient for an article of this size). Anything that is stated in the lead should be very easy to find the source for somewhere in the rest of the article. Leads only need a reference when it is a controversial statement (nothing on this page is likely to be).

  I would provide a brief explanation on what a satyr play is. You don't need to do that if you Wiki-link it (so satyr play.

• Regarding the Story section, I have two key comments.

  1. I do think that the story section which you replaced was better than its current form. It includes a natural but formal use of language; the sentences naturally flow (and are not short, simple, and declarative). What exists in the current version of the article feels a bit stilted. I can assist you on this if you give me until the weekend, but I do think you have the natural fluency with English to fix it up. Broken record, but have a look at Hamlet#Plot or Odyssey#Synopsis. You have a much shorter section here, but define things for a reader. Imagine that they are a student who hasn't read the text, but has a class about it the next day. Why is Silenius suddenly appealing? (You are allowed to use sources here, but they aren't necessary for plot summaries typically.) Who is Odysseus?

  2. Wiki-links should only be used if it is clear to what they go to without clicking on the link (referring to the link to Ganymede).

• The Analysis section is the big one. Like I said before, I recommend splitting up criticism into distinct groups. Remember: you are providing an overview. References are good, but there's perhaps a tendency to over-reference here, and overcomplicate things. It’s essentially become a list of sources, rather than a coherent overview of schools of thoughts about the play. What are the overarching trends in criticism?

  Consider: does all of this need to be in Analysis? The first two paragraphs, certainly, read to me like textual history, supported by citations. That isn't analysis of the text. Don't let your sections get too big, and don't let your paragraphs be too small.

  Consider: instead of jumping from citation to citation, relay one critics' ideas as a few sentences. Then, offer a change of direction. See Hamlet#Analysis.

  Consider: is the average reader going to understand what [...] Euripides employed "metapoetically loaded terms" like second and double and new to highlight interactions with his sources, familiar and foundational texts in Athenian education. As editors, our job is to make things clear. We aren't the be-all of criticism: we're a jumping off point through which the curious can find sources. Our job, instead, is to structure and give order.

If you have any questions, let me know. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 08:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Though I did just make one minor change because I realised that the "See also" had got lost somewhere. That is now back in. P.S. satyr play with a link is actually in the first sentence of the article. I'm not sure if you were implying that it is not so.

talk) 09:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

This then links to The Rape of Ganymede (Rubens); when, by rights, it should instead link to Beer goggles Nuttyskin (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]