This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED a couple of days ago by User:Aldux. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Argonautika → Argonautica — this work's most common name in English is Argonautica. See for instance [http://www.amazon.com/Voyage-Argo-Argonautica-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140440852/sr=1-1/qid=1161205568/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-0094891-6650413?ie=UTF8&s=books], [http://www.amazon.com/Jason-Golden-Fleece-Argonautica-Classics/dp/0192835831/sr=1-2/qid=1161205568/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-0094891-6650413?ie=UTF8&s=books], [http://www.amazon.com/Apollonius-Rhodes-Argonautica-Cambridge-Classics/dp/0521312361/sr=1-5/qid=1161205568/ref=sr_1_5/002-0094891-6650413?ie=UTF8&s=books]. WP:GREEK also suggests that the title should be Argonautica. A redirect page is obstructing the move. --Akhilleus ( talk) 21:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
Add any additional comments:
Regards what Jene said, it's not really the case; the present article was started at Argonautika, while Argonautica was just a redirect to Jason, after a previous stub had been merged with the former. Since we all appear to agree, I'me ready to move the article personally right now; as an admin, I can overcome the redirect obstruction. Any objections.-- Aldux 20:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
28,100 pages for "Argonautika" 192,000 pages for "Argonautica"
Results from Google. Wirbelwind 22:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that this article completely ignores the existence of the second work under the title Argonautica, by Orpheus. The surviving copy was written at aprox. 1st century AD.
In the Greek Mythology Link by Carlos Parada, Argonautica Orphica is described as "Another major account on the expedition of the Argonauts" [1]. Also in this page [2]
Not to mention "Argonautica by Valerius Flaccus".
Does anyone know more about this? -- Odysses (☜) 08:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I filed a requested move for Kypria on [[[WP:RM]]. Septentrionalis 16:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
All the English translations were grouped under 'verse.' One that I got is prose, so I moved it to 'prose,' but several of the others may be prose also. Green's translation is the only newer verse one I have heard of by someone that has actually read it.-- Dchmelik ( talk) 04:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll be making some changes here very soon, if nobody gets in ahead of me.
Some kind of protocol is needed to divide material between this article and Apollonius Rhodius. I intend using this article for synopses of plot, characters and places, with some coverage of genre and the uniqueness of the poem. General issues of poetic style and reception should be treated over at the other article, even though based almost entirely on Argonautica, since it is not unlike his other works and is the only complete example we have. McOoee ( talk) 01:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Still a bit to do: Discussion section needs considerable expansion and Reception section hasn't even started yet. And the itinerary chart still needs Book 4 info. It's an extraordinary poem. I get the feeling it was a collaborative effort, representing the world view of a scholar on one hand and a woman on the other. I doubt it was his wife and it may have been a group of women he was consulting. They probably 'adopted' him as their very own professor, a pet monkey, and he 'adopted' them as talking parchments, another research project. Anyhow, I'll get around to finishing it in the next few weeks, I hope, and then it will be time to move on to something else. McOoee ( talk) 12:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, not in the mood anymore. The Itinerary chart still needs to be finished. If nobody is willing, by all means delete it. Thanks. McOoee ( talk) 05:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Extremely well written new edit! It clears up some of the obscurity in Apollonius Rhodius' poem. Oilstone ( talk) 17:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Most of the wiki entry for Argonautica is comprised of extraneous "information" and should be subjected to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.119.111 ( talk) 08:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the tone is not encyclopedic at all and it very clearly is an adapted essay. It's also full of opinionated assertions like "Apollonius in fact is the most Homeric of all the poets whose work has come down to us from the Hellenistic age", "Medea is generally agreed to be the most interesting and lifelike character in the poem", and "Apollonius seems to have rejected the Aristotelian concept of unity." If I had more knowledge of the subject I'd rewrite it myself and start over with a blank slate.
As for all texts from antiquity, a section on the state of manuscript evidence (extant manuscripts, lost manuscripts documented to have existed in earlier times, their relationship, noteworthy differences...) would be very welcome. -- 194.39.218.10 ( talk) 10:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I just changed the heading levels because it makes more sense this way. I thought I would mention it here in case someone objects to it, but I don't imagine it will be a big issue. Thiagovscoelho ( talk) 17:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED a couple of days ago by User:Aldux. - GTBacchus( talk) 02:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Argonautika → Argonautica — this work's most common name in English is Argonautica. See for instance [http://www.amazon.com/Voyage-Argo-Argonautica-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140440852/sr=1-1/qid=1161205568/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-0094891-6650413?ie=UTF8&s=books], [http://www.amazon.com/Jason-Golden-Fleece-Argonautica-Classics/dp/0192835831/sr=1-2/qid=1161205568/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/002-0094891-6650413?ie=UTF8&s=books], [http://www.amazon.com/Apollonius-Rhodes-Argonautica-Cambridge-Classics/dp/0521312361/sr=1-5/qid=1161205568/ref=sr_1_5/002-0094891-6650413?ie=UTF8&s=books]. WP:GREEK also suggests that the title should be Argonautica. A redirect page is obstructing the move. --Akhilleus ( talk) 21:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
Add any additional comments:
Regards what Jene said, it's not really the case; the present article was started at Argonautika, while Argonautica was just a redirect to Jason, after a previous stub had been merged with the former. Since we all appear to agree, I'me ready to move the article personally right now; as an admin, I can overcome the redirect obstruction. Any objections.-- Aldux 20:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
28,100 pages for "Argonautika" 192,000 pages for "Argonautica"
Results from Google. Wirbelwind 22:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that this article completely ignores the existence of the second work under the title Argonautica, by Orpheus. The surviving copy was written at aprox. 1st century AD.
In the Greek Mythology Link by Carlos Parada, Argonautica Orphica is described as "Another major account on the expedition of the Argonauts" [1]. Also in this page [2]
Not to mention "Argonautica by Valerius Flaccus".
Does anyone know more about this? -- Odysses (☜) 08:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I filed a requested move for Kypria on [[[WP:RM]]. Septentrionalis 16:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
All the English translations were grouped under 'verse.' One that I got is prose, so I moved it to 'prose,' but several of the others may be prose also. Green's translation is the only newer verse one I have heard of by someone that has actually read it.-- Dchmelik ( talk) 04:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll be making some changes here very soon, if nobody gets in ahead of me.
Some kind of protocol is needed to divide material between this article and Apollonius Rhodius. I intend using this article for synopses of plot, characters and places, with some coverage of genre and the uniqueness of the poem. General issues of poetic style and reception should be treated over at the other article, even though based almost entirely on Argonautica, since it is not unlike his other works and is the only complete example we have. McOoee ( talk) 01:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Still a bit to do: Discussion section needs considerable expansion and Reception section hasn't even started yet. And the itinerary chart still needs Book 4 info. It's an extraordinary poem. I get the feeling it was a collaborative effort, representing the world view of a scholar on one hand and a woman on the other. I doubt it was his wife and it may have been a group of women he was consulting. They probably 'adopted' him as their very own professor, a pet monkey, and he 'adopted' them as talking parchments, another research project. Anyhow, I'll get around to finishing it in the next few weeks, I hope, and then it will be time to move on to something else. McOoee ( talk) 12:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, not in the mood anymore. The Itinerary chart still needs to be finished. If nobody is willing, by all means delete it. Thanks. McOoee ( talk) 05:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Extremely well written new edit! It clears up some of the obscurity in Apollonius Rhodius' poem. Oilstone ( talk) 17:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Most of the wiki entry for Argonautica is comprised of extraneous "information" and should be subjected to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.86.119.111 ( talk) 08:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, the tone is not encyclopedic at all and it very clearly is an adapted essay. It's also full of opinionated assertions like "Apollonius in fact is the most Homeric of all the poets whose work has come down to us from the Hellenistic age", "Medea is generally agreed to be the most interesting and lifelike character in the poem", and "Apollonius seems to have rejected the Aristotelian concept of unity." If I had more knowledge of the subject I'd rewrite it myself and start over with a blank slate.
As for all texts from antiquity, a section on the state of manuscript evidence (extant manuscripts, lost manuscripts documented to have existed in earlier times, their relationship, noteworthy differences...) would be very welcome. -- 194.39.218.10 ( talk) 10:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I just changed the heading levels because it makes more sense this way. I thought I would mention it here in case someone objects to it, but I don't imagine it will be a big issue. Thiagovscoelho ( talk) 17:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)