Template talk:Plutarch

The other table

I have fixed several errors in this table regarding mistaken identifications. (I caught Brutus, Dion, and Aratus.) However, the other table (such as appears on the Parallel Lives page) is still in error, and I don't know how to fix it or comment upon it. Once it is correct, it also needs to be removed from the erroneous biographies and added to the correct ones. 132.161.166.27 03:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good eye. As soon as this template is appropriate, and fleshed out I will replace the older one with mine, which as you've noted is derivative of it. It can be found at Template:Plutarch's_lives -BiancaOfHell 17:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the old Plutarch template from the Dio Chrysostom page, and put the new Plutarch (orange one) on the Dion_(tyrant_of_Syracuse) page.-BiancaOfHell 17:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, removed old template from the incorrect Brutus Decimus_Junius_Brutus_Albinus and placed new template at the correct Brutus Marcus_Junius_Brutus. -BiancaOfHell 18:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Finally, did as before for incorrect Aratus and placed new Plutarch template at the Aratus of Sicyon page. -BiancaOfHell 18:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artaxerxes has also been corrected to refer properly to Artaxerxes II of Persia instead of Artaxerxes I of Persia. -BiancaOfHell 05:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Color Scheme

I've reverted the colors. They're bright. Not dull. If it's really inappropriate then they could be removed again at a later time, but I'd like to give them a run at least. -BiancaOfHell 15:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Parallel Lives and the Solo Lives

There might be a better way of clarifying which of the Lives are the parallel ones and which are the solo biographies, without complicating the template: Aratus of Sicyon, Artaxerxes, Galba, Otho. Maybe even which pairs of Lives have comparisons that are still extant. And which ones start with the Roman lives first(Aemilius Paulus-Timoleon, Coriolanus-Alcibiades and Sertorius-Eumenes.), instead of Plutarch's general trend of starting with Greek lives. Probably conveying this information is beyond a template's use. -BiancaOfHell 18:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template for the Macedon Kings uses footnotes in an interesting way. Could adopt style. see Template:MacedonKings -BiancaOfHell 22:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a marker such as (1) Comparison extant ... might be a good start.-BiancaOfHell 23:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements

could rename 'The Translators' to 'Editors and Translators' since John Dryden and possibly Clough were nothing more than editors. Maybe 'Editors, translators and biographers? Include Rualdus then ... Maybe two sections... Translators... and Editors/Biographers? Anyways, there's room for improvement.-BiancaOfHell 13:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments above. Dryden was not a translator for what is popularly called the "Dryden Translation" or the "Several Hands" translation. I have looked for, but can find no, direct evidence that Dryden even had a hand in editing this edition. He may well have only contributed the "Life of Plutarch" and his name. If anyone knows of evidence to the contrary, I would love to hear about it. As for Clough, he was clearly hired to edit the "Dryden Translation," but rather proudly notes that he did so with the Greek at hand, so that the term translator may come a little closer to being true for him. However, part way into the editing, he felt that a new translation would be best; the publishers, however, would not let him do this. (Kenny's bio has the full details.) Editor, then, is the proper term, I would think. I will change the template to read "Editors and Translators." Mddietz (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do the template footnotes "Comparison extant" and "Four unpaired Lives" mean?

The Plutarch template contains footnotes saying "Comparison extant" and "Four unpaired Lives". What do these notes mean? I saw the Plutarch template used at the article Arthur Hugh Clough and visited the template history page to identify who authored the footnotes so I could address my question to him, only to discover that the individual, User:BillDeanCarter, is banned and cannot be contacted.

The footnotes have survived unmolested or even questioned, it seems, since written by BillDeanCarter on 13 December 2006, so perhaps they are meaningful or useful, but it would be helpful to the general reader if the footnotes were explained somewhere that he could be directed to in an obvious way such as (See template talk page) or maybe they could be restyled to be less obscure in themselves. As Wikipedia is meant to explain things—and reveal—baffling obscurities are best avoided. — O'Dea 08:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]