Jump to content

Talk:List of Latin translations of modern literature

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

It would be nice if someone who has access to a copy of Avellanus's Rex Aurei Rivi, Mons Spes et fabulae aliae, and Vita Discriminaque Robinsonis Crusoei would scan these texts in order to make them available online, since Google Book Search does not have them in its database. DaniusArcenus (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate for Listing

[edit]

I just discovered this page. I will go through my extensive collection of this sort of material and see what titles I can add. But my first instinct was that this page was a candidate for a List, as in, a List of . . .. Besides that suggestion, I see a definite lack of internal linking to other wikipedia articles in this article. Anyone else watching this page think its formatting should be improved? I won't alter its format unless there is a desire. But I will look to add titles to it at the first opportunity. EraserGirl (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uniformity

[edit]

I have started adding a few titles here and there. It will take a while as there is little uniformity between sections. There SHOULD be a standardized method of listing. I propose: Translation title, translator, Original Title, Original author with original publication date in the notes or directly linked to the appropriate website etc. This isn't my preferred method, but I am proposing the least alteration to what is already present. EraserGirl (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I propose that you make this your own project, and I will raise issue to anything that I am worried about here. As to the listing method, anything that is standardized and makes the list look good is awesome. Do you plan to take the list to FL review? I would be glad to support it if you do (though I have never been there before). Sadads (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure what FL is. I haven't really done THAT much work on it, so I don't want to indebt myself. personally i am a fan of tables, lists always look raggedy and unfinished. I would prefer to have all the publishing data on each line with the item. I come from the book world where this 'list' is pretty much a joke. A true bibliography for reference would look very different..my god it would even be alphabetized. I scanned about 6 other 'lists' that fall under this project's aegis and they all looked similar, rather informal. If I were to use this list to perhaps check it against my own data and go shopping for what I don't have, (which is what I had wanted to do) I'd have to do a lot of reformatting first: put everything in some order then provide relevant data fields to actually find the items. Some list items link to purchasing links, some link to google books, some link to dead webpages. And there is no clear notation of what has been published in book form and what only exists as someone's webpage. I think THAT's a big deal. I would have been the person who found this list most useful, but I found it rather useless. Sorry, I have been beaten up before on WP when I tried to impose some sort of logic and found that WPer's are very territorial. Any parameters towards organization would be helpful. EraserGirl (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the main contributer thus far has been inactive for about a year, so I don't think you will be stepping on anyones toes. When I said FL, I was talking about Wikipedia:Featured lists, where you should find models and guidelines for well developed lists of a relevant nature. I personally am going to invite you to Be Bold!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and do everything in your humanly power to make this an awesome list! I trust your judgement and if I see anything that looks odd I will make sure that I make a comment here (I am watching the page). Sadads (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

==working copy== I am working on a format that allows one to sort on author or translator or date etc...User:EraserGirl/Sandbox. I started with normal bibliographic fields than stripped it down for WP formatting. This first section are just 'graphic novel/comic book' titles. I have a list of literature (prose and poetry) which is getting longer and longer. Can I get n opinion on this small section before I start putting the long list into a table. EraserGirl (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of MODERN

[edit]

I think we need to exclude Latin translations that were written before the late 19th century. Up until the industrial revolution Latin was still used commonly as a universal language. So it is NOT surprising that more than five different translations of Joachim Heinrich Campe's Robinson der Jüngere exist. Since the original book is in German, simply translating it into Latin allowed the publisher to export ONE edition around the world.EraserGirl (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have focused on books translated into Latin beginning with the late Victorian era, when the purpose OF the translation was educational or to promote interest in the language which is in keeping with the original list preface that I found on the page. At this point it is easier to err on the side of inclusion. There are a few bibliographies out there still to be mined for titles. EraserGirl (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asterix - Original Title

[edit]

NO. The original titles were in French. 94.30.84.71 (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well ya got me there. I will make the necessary changes. Mea Culpa. EraserGirl (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on List of Latin translations of modern literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed

[edit]

The intro makes several assertions about the quality of various translations. These are totally without citation so currently appear to be personal opinion or original research. I wonder if they might even be considered to be libellous since we’re supposed to be an objective encyclopaedia. Those statements really need citations or deletion. Dakinijones (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Pinocchio

[edit]

There is apparently another Pinocchio in Latin that could be added to the list of this article: 

   Pinoculus Latinus
   Ugo Enrico Paoli
   Artemis Verlag, Switzerland 
   1983
   ISBN 3 7608 4065 5

Toddcs (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Latin_translations_of_modern_literature&oldid=1203447150"