This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The first paragraph of the article as it stands at present appears to have been lifted and slightly modified from the synopsis of 'The Library of Greek Mythology (Paperback)' on Amazon. See [1]
I know this is not a trivial thing to answer, but about when does it date to? In particular, did it come before or after Ovid's Metamorpheses? TCO ( talk) 22:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I recently noticed that a few hundred pages which cite the Bibliotheca did so with a link to Apollodorus of Athens and no link here, with a good handful making explicit attribution to that scholar and few even calling the Bibliotheca the Chronicles, after Apollodorus of Athens' work. So the problem was two-fold: 1. the wlinks were going to a tangentially related article instead of the primary; and, 2. this misdirection was introducing errors of fact. To resolve this as quickly as possible, I simply went through and replaced citations of the form (e.g.) "
Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 1.7.3" with "
Bibliotheca 1.7.3". But now the question arises: how should the text be cited in WP? Four Five options are:
It's not as though we generally strive for absolute consistency like this, but since my edit imposed Option 3 everywhere, we should probably agree on a method, at least to bring the state of the citations I changed into a more consensus driven format. (I'll of course bear the brunt of the effort to introduce whatever format is preferred here, and try to introduce xlinks as I go along.) Thoughts?
I'm glad to see these final two suggestions from Phylaristis and Cardiffchestnut -- without any link to Apollodorus of Athens, which I would consider misdirected. Readers want reference to the author actually in question. That author is Pseudo-Apollodorus, and anyone who wants to know why Pseudo-Apollodorus has that name will be given an explanation at Pseudo-Apollodorus with further links to Apollodorus of Athens from there. I don't think we do or should link "Pseudo- Dionysius the Areopagite" when we want to refer to the author of the Theologia Mystica. Sorry if this is gratuitous repetition--it's not because I'll be up in arms if my advice isn't followed, but because I was so laconic the first time here. Wareh ( talk) 21:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Does the author name himself? Why would the author be "blamed" for the wrong id of him with the Athenian Apollodorus? If the author doesn't call himself "Apollodorus of Athens," IMHO the author should not be called pseudo-. Perhaps he should be called Apollodorus the mythographer or something neutral. Along with this, I think the dating of the document could be an improved and special section. ( EnochBethany ( talk) 23:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC))
I would be interested in seeing added a section of the type of Greek employed: koine? Atticistic? mixed? I am in the process of buying the Loeb edition via Logos, and I expect to form an opinion; but as we know original research isn't desired here. Still an opinion could be posted on the Talk Page, even if it is not put in the article. ( EnochBethany ( talk) 23:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC))
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2024 and 14 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cthetree ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Optimistic Learner, LegoOrchid.
— Assignment last updated by Johnstoncl ( talk) 23:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I have edited sections, added new sections that seemed relevant and added new sources and citations to the article. Cthetree ( talk) 20:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The first paragraph of the article as it stands at present appears to have been lifted and slightly modified from the synopsis of 'The Library of Greek Mythology (Paperback)' on Amazon. See [1]
I know this is not a trivial thing to answer, but about when does it date to? In particular, did it come before or after Ovid's Metamorpheses? TCO ( talk) 22:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I recently noticed that a few hundred pages which cite the Bibliotheca did so with a link to Apollodorus of Athens and no link here, with a good handful making explicit attribution to that scholar and few even calling the Bibliotheca the Chronicles, after Apollodorus of Athens' work. So the problem was two-fold: 1. the wlinks were going to a tangentially related article instead of the primary; and, 2. this misdirection was introducing errors of fact. To resolve this as quickly as possible, I simply went through and replaced citations of the form (e.g.) "
Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 1.7.3" with "
Bibliotheca 1.7.3". But now the question arises: how should the text be cited in WP? Four Five options are:
It's not as though we generally strive for absolute consistency like this, but since my edit imposed Option 3 everywhere, we should probably agree on a method, at least to bring the state of the citations I changed into a more consensus driven format. (I'll of course bear the brunt of the effort to introduce whatever format is preferred here, and try to introduce xlinks as I go along.) Thoughts?
I'm glad to see these final two suggestions from Phylaristis and Cardiffchestnut -- without any link to Apollodorus of Athens, which I would consider misdirected. Readers want reference to the author actually in question. That author is Pseudo-Apollodorus, and anyone who wants to know why Pseudo-Apollodorus has that name will be given an explanation at Pseudo-Apollodorus with further links to Apollodorus of Athens from there. I don't think we do or should link "Pseudo- Dionysius the Areopagite" when we want to refer to the author of the Theologia Mystica. Sorry if this is gratuitous repetition--it's not because I'll be up in arms if my advice isn't followed, but because I was so laconic the first time here. Wareh ( talk) 21:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Does the author name himself? Why would the author be "blamed" for the wrong id of him with the Athenian Apollodorus? If the author doesn't call himself "Apollodorus of Athens," IMHO the author should not be called pseudo-. Perhaps he should be called Apollodorus the mythographer or something neutral. Along with this, I think the dating of the document could be an improved and special section. ( EnochBethany ( talk) 23:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC))
I would be interested in seeing added a section of the type of Greek employed: koine? Atticistic? mixed? I am in the process of buying the Loeb edition via Logos, and I expect to form an opinion; but as we know original research isn't desired here. Still an opinion could be posted on the Talk Page, even if it is not put in the article. ( EnochBethany ( talk) 23:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC))
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2024 and 14 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cthetree ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Optimistic Learner, LegoOrchid.
— Assignment last updated by Johnstoncl ( talk) 23:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I have edited sections, added new sections that seemed relevant and added new sources and citations to the article. Cthetree ( talk) 20:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)