Jump to content

Template talk:Cite Plutarch

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

Template feedback

[edit]

I saw that you (Quuxplusone) created this template via deployment in these articles that happen to be on my watchlist:

I'm not entirely sure what to think of the template, since it doesn't de-duplicate automatically like {{sfn}} or generate proper anchors. Something that would generate CS1-compliant citations would be definitely preferable to copy-pasting long {{cite book}} incantations.

But for use as notes themselves rather than as anchors, I must remark the output is rather long: I can't immediately think of anyone in the field who would cite Plutarch as anything akin to Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Life of Pompey" 16.4 (ed. Clough 1859; ed. Loeb). The fuller citations (such as those found in Goldsworthy's books) which don't conform to LSJ or OCD abbreviations still omit mention of VP.

I'm also confused as to the name cite Plutarch when Plut also wrote such things as Mor, De def or, De Pyth or, etc that can't fit into this VP-only framework. The documentation and coding also suggests that use of modern orthography for Gaius Gracchus – who is called CG in LSJ and C Gracch in OCD but in full "Gaius Gracchus" (eg Mouritsen Politics [2017]; use of "Caius" is extremely dated) – also wouldn't work.

Finally, when it comes to which translation to link, I would be more comfortable linking only Loeb rather than Dryden-Clough. The Loeb includes the Greek and notes. And although there are advances in recension – eg https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2001/2001.05.08/ on Tuebner's 5th edition – nobody has really put much bother into translating the whole thing again (let alone in the public domain) even though Perrin's translation in part predates or otherwise ignores the important Tuebner 1st editions. Ifly6 (talk) 08:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ifly6: Generally I agree with your criticisms of the current template, and would like to see it improved "stone soup"–style. Specific points below:
(1) I don't know how to get a template to dedupe automatically. Please teach me! My own preferred style so far is to make a ref like <ref name="PlutSert10">{{cite Plutarch|Sertorius|10}}</ref> and then use <ref name="PlutSert10"/> on second/third reference — but I agree, that doesn't solve the problem that I also need <ref name="PlutSert11">{{cite Plutarch|Sertorius|11}}</ref> and so on. How would {{sfn}} be used and/or help, here?
(2) "Fuller citations in the field omit mention that Life of X comes from a larger body called Parallel Lives" — perhaps, but this template is for use on Wikipedia, which isn't part of "the field"; it's aimed at the general reader who might appreciate seeing wikilinks to both the article on Plutarch (who's that guy?) and Parallel Lives (oh there's a bunch of these?). So on this point — desirability of omitting the link to Parallel Lives, desirability of writing e.g. Sert. for Sertorius or C.G. for [GC]aius Gracchus or even Plut. for Plutarch — I strenuously disagree with you.
(3) On the precise spelling of [GC]aius, I defer to you. I have noticed in proofreading the Clough edition that its names are sometimes cumbersome, e.g. "Marcus Brutus" for "Brutus"; and ditto Loeb, where "Cato Major" is short and cute but not as self-explanatory as "Cato the Elder". I had to pick one name per Life to privilege over all the other spellings, and I think I already made the wrong choice in some cases.
(4) "Plutarch also wrote other things" — True. This was again short-sightedness on my part; I wanted a template for Lives but maybe either it should be named {{cite Plut Life}} or it should take additional arguments or it should just abuse #switch even further so that you can name individual essays from Moralia or whatever. (Like, "If the second argument is De Pythiae Oracula then omit the text Parallel Lives, from the output." That sort of thing.) I'm sure the current status is suboptimal; I'm not clear on how to make it more optimal. What do you think? Rename the template to {{cite Plut Life}} or {{cite Parallel Lives}} or something? (But the answer to (1) might also affect this answer, I suspect.)
(5) "Link to Loeb only, omit Dryden/Clough" — For a little context, I've lately (past ~year) been quite active in submitting errata to Bill Thayer on his Loeb transcriptions (places where his transcriptions have typos w.r.t. the real book, or wrongly hyperlinked, or wrong section breaks, etc). He was initially very responsive but less so lately. I've also found some (but not as many) typos in the Perseus transcription, and been told by Perseus that their entire site is no longer actively maintained (they're switching to the "Scaife Reader," which is backed by a totally different database, apparently). So I think it's very important for Wikipedia to link to a copy of Lives within the Wikimedia ecosystem — i.e., on Wikisource. I definitely don't care if it's Dryden or Loeb. But Dryden is what we have got, today, on Wikisource, so that's what I linked to. You see I'm very worried (in the age of archive.org hacks) about relying only on a third-party site outside the Wikimedia ecosystem. Now, if in five or ten years Thayer's site goes dark, it'll be nice to have only one template to change instead of a million scattered refs — and you might say "Could we just link Thayer for now and switch to Wikisource then?" — but I strongly prefer to keep the Wikisource link as at least a coequal alternative. If you want to work on getting a copy of Loeb into Wikisource, I'm all for that. If you want to change the Thayer link to something even more awesome, or add yet a third link (e.g. to Perseus), I'm all for that. If you can think of a less obtrusive (shorter) way to hyperlink the both of them than my clumsy "(ed. Clough 1859; ed. Loeb)", I'm all for that.
(6) "The Loeb includes the Greek" — Thayer's site doesn't transcribe the Greek, AFAIK. (Correct me if I'm wrong!) Perseus does, but good luck getting a #switch-friendly URL (or even a stable URL) out of Perseus. The lack of stable URLs is the only reason I didn't even try to link to Perseus so far. --Quuxplusone (talk) 15:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re 1. If you invoke {{sfn}} with the same parameters it automatically de-duplicates. Eg...[1][1][1][1] This means you don't need to track that user-generated ID and de-duplicate yourself. Doing that is bothersome WP:MEATBOT stuff.
Re 2. I accept that most editors dislike OCD (and ilk) abbreviations because they require knowledge to understand. What I mean in my comment is that VP is not referenced. People write citations like Plutarch, Sertorius, 31 (which is essentially what the abbreviation expands to). They don't write extremely long ones like those which the template currently creates. An analogous issue is essentially that we don't know what to call each of these. All the abbreviation schemes pick Latin tags to be most understandable for a scholarly audience that knows Latin.[2]
Re 4. If you want to just handle VP, I guess rename to {{cite parallel lives}} is justified. I would still, however, encourage the template to act like {{cite book}} and the rest of the CS1 ecosystem to create anchors that work with {{sfn}}. If it were to do that then length limitations don't really become a problem. You can generate long anchors like:
  • Plutarch (1920) [2nd century AD]. "Life of Marius". Parallel Lives. Loeb Classical Library. Vol. 9. Translated by Perrin, Bernadotte. William Heinemann. OCLC 40115288 – via LacusCurtius.
And the default anchors can be overridden by passing to |ref=. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome/Guides/Primary sources#Shortened footnotes. If the default anchors were something like {{harvid|Plutarch, ''Marius''}} that'd be a reasonable compromise position. It'd also, by template at least, "solve" (by convention) the naming consistency problems in that that if you put two decades of Wikipedia editors in the same room citing the same source they'll produce all sorts of inconsistent citations such as:
  • Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "The Life of Marius", 32.1
  • Plutarch, Parallel Lives, The Life of Gaius Marius, p. 551 (nobody should use pages)
  • "Marius". penelope.uchicago.edu. 32.1. (horrible)
  • Plut. Mar. 32.1 (OCD convention)
  • Plutarch, Marius, 32.1 (OCD but expanded which I don't find unreasonable)
  • Plutarchus, Vita Caii Marii, 32.1 (translated into Latin for some reason)
  • Plutarchos, Gaios Marios, 32.1 (transliterated Greek for some reason)
  • Πλούταρχος, Γάιος Μάριος, xxxii, i (I saw this but once, please don't do this)
And then insert all manner of variations with or without quotes, with or without italics, with or without Roman numerals, with or without English-style decimal separators, with or without publication information, with or without various extra commas and punctuation, etc etc.
A template which essentially just generates properly-formed batteries-included CS1 anchors for all of Plutarch's works based on the Loeb naming conventions (which, if we are to cite the source itself, should probably omit Life of, see eg these contents) would save people a lot of time rather than having to copy around these long incantations with {{cite book}}.
No real comments on the other matters, they're reasonable objections. Entering Perrin or the Tuebner 1st editions (eg the 1914 first edition first volume) into Wikisource is something that should be done but also not something that I expect anyone will do. That said, if Thayer were to put it on Wikisource that'd be nice too. (I also doubt that Dryden/Clough was ever manually put onto Wikisource inasmuch as it was just copied from Gutenberg.) Ifly6 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Ifly6 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d Smith 2000, p. 1.
  2. ^ Consider, for example, the fact that PIR is written entirely in Latin, CIL is written entirely in Latin, and until the 1990s all the introductions for OCTs were written in Latin. This is because Anglophone scholars have to deal with non-Anglophone scholars and "everyone" reads Latin (even if traditionally we say the words so differently its not mutually intelligible). On a personal note, when it comes to Germans, I prefer their Latin to their German, if only because not even Germans can read academic German.


@Ifly6: Re (1), I think I'm amenable to whatever you're suggesting, but I can't picture it. Could you post an example of the wikitext/markup that you'd rather see? Like, right now, what the user types is:
   Plutarch<ref name="Plut1.1">{{cite Plutarch|Theseus|1|1}}</ref>
   writes to Sosius<ref name="Plut1.1"/>
   that he prays for kindly readers.<ref name="Plut1.3"/>
   
   ==References==
   <references>
     <ref name="Plut1.3">{{cite Plutarch|Theseus|1|3}}</ref>
   </references>
and what he receives is basically:
   Plutarch<ref name="Plut1.1"/>
   writes to Sosius<ref name="Plut1.1"/>
   that he prays for kindly readers.<ref name="Plut1.3"/>
   
   ==References==
   <references>
      <ref name="Plut1.1">
        [[Plutarch]], ''[[Parallel Lives]]'', "Life of Theseus" 1.1
        ([[s:Plutarch's Lives (Clough)/Life_of_Theseus#1:1 |ed. Clough 1859]];
        [https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Theseus*.html#1.1 ed. Loeb]).
      </ref>
      <ref name="Plut1.3">
        [[Plutarch]], ''[[Parallel Lives]]'', "Life of Theseus" 1.3
        ([[s:Plutarch's Lives (Clough)/Life_of_Theseus#1:3 |ed. Clough 1859]];
        [https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Theseus*.html#1.3 ed. Loeb]).
      </ref>
    </references>
I can easily wrap my head around that. I don't know much about {{sfn}} or {{harvid}} or the rest of that ecosystem. I don't want this template to become useless on pages that don't use the {{harvid}} approach to footnotes (i.e. that separate Citations from Sources). The vast majority of Wikipedia pages don't separate Citations from Sources, and I think that's fine and good and I want a template that will work with that kind of page. If it also works (maybe even produces something different) on pages that do separate Citations from Sources, then that's awesome too.
Revisiting (3), I think I misunderstood the thrust of your comment earlier. I think you were merely observing that a user who wrote {{cite Plutarch|Gaius Gracchus|1|1}} would be disappointed just as much as a user who wrote {{cite Plutarch|Julius Caesar|1|1}} or {{cite Plutarch|Philopœmen|1|1}}, not saying that there was any specific improvement to be made on that one spelling in particular. But if you think there are specific improvements to be made to any of the spellings, now's a great time to be WP:BOLD in that area specifically. :) --Quuxplusone (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see how when you invoke {{sfn}} with the same parameters it automatically de-duplicates above, unlike [1][2][3][4][5] which does not? Essentially it would be really nice to see something which de-duplicates the same way {{sfn}} does. So if you invoked {{cite Plutarch|Theseus|1|1}} repetitively it would not generate separate footnote entries. This means it is not necessary to keep track of ref tag name parameters. This is especially bothersome because Plutarch writes thematically, meaning that citations will naturally recur and differ only slightly. If you are insistent on not having anything to do with {{sfn}} and its auto-de-duplication, then I would really encourage implementation of the CS1 standard. Ifly6 (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The length matter can be solved simply in the same way people already solve the fact that a {{cite book}} invocation is very long and, while it can be repeated over and over, it shouldn't be. (For me, I just use {{sfn}}; alternatives such as manual reference counting exist but I don't know why anyone would want to assume such burdens.) Ifly6 (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Do you see how when you invoke {{sfn}} with the same parameters it automatically de-duplicates above, unlike [...] which does not?" — Yes, I see that it does that. I don't know how it does that. Basically you're asking me to do some template programming here, and I'm saying I am not good at template programming — please, show me a picture of what you are asking for. Or hook me up with someone who's really good at template programming who can show me etc. --Quuxplusone (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The approaches are inherently incompatible. Either the template has to be used as a footnote generator like {{sfn}} or as an anchor generator like {{cite book}}. I don't know what you intend with this template; I would prefer the latter. If the latter, then no de-duplication is necessary. And it is far simpler, as you would just need to essentially create a CS1 wrapper. Ifly6 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is already the latter (that is, {{cite Plutarch}} is used in the same kinds of places as {{cite book}}), so maybe that's good. What would have to change to make it conform to your vision? I see that you linked to a category full of "CS1 wrappers," but I don't know what a CS1 wrapper is, nor do I know how to create one. Basically you're asking me to do some template programming here, and I'm saying I am not good at template programming — please, show me a picture of what you are asking for. --Quuxplusone (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Write a switch statement that outputs the correct {{cite book}} invocation for the various lives. Ifly6 (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re 3. I think it should be agnostic to input spelling and produce an output that is consistent with whatever is the best source.[6] What I mean by that is that is that I think these should all produce the same output: {{cite parallel lives|Caes|1.1}}, {{cite parallel lives|Caes.|1.1}}, {{cite parallel lives|Caesar|1.1}}, {{cite parallel lives|Julius Caesar|1.1}}, {{cite parallel lives|life of Caesar|1.1}}, {{cite parallel lives|Life of Julius Caesar|1.1}}. Ifly6 (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong disagree here. As you said further above, one of the big advantages of this template's existence is that it "'solves' (by convention) the naming consistency problems," both in how a Plutarch citation looks to the reader and in how the citation looks to the programmer/editor. Nobody wants to see random edit wars over whether the exact same citation should be spelled {{cite Parallel Lives|Caes.|1.1}} or {{cite Parallel Lives|Caesar|1.1}} in the source code. --Quuxplusone (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The solution to that is not to edit war over WP:COSMETICBOT edits. Ifly6 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Such & Such 1999, p. 420
  2. ^ Such & Such 1999, p. 420
  3. ^ Such & Such 1999, p. 420
  4. ^ Such & Such 1999, p. 420
  5. ^ Such & Such 1999, p. 420
  6. ^ Where "best source" is defined as essentially "whatever edition that a classicist would use or recommend someone to use".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Cite_Plutarch&oldid=1255826026"