Talk:Cyclops (play)

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

"No man" Pun[edit]

I'm entirely sure what this means when it says that the word meaning "no man" is used in the subjunctive. Subjunctive, as with all moods, is a quality of verbs, not of nouns or adjectives. Is there anyone familiar with the Greek text who can correct this (in whatever fashion is required)?

"No man" Pun[edit]

I believe they're getting at the Μή τις / Μήτις pun - but theres no subjunctive here, so have removed reference to the mood.--Lagodion 21:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of The satyr play and Euripides' Cyclops#Euripides' Cyclops and the structure of the satyr play[edit]

The text under the heading of Euripides' Cyclops and the structure of the satyr play of The satyr play and Euripides' Cyclops rightly belongs in a discussion of the play. Bongomatic 08:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, sort of I can't attest that the section belongs where it is, but I think it would go better at Satyr play than Cyclops (play). It may be appropriate for both, though. We could perhaps put it in both articles. Tealwisp (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text[edit]

I am cutting this from the article, because it doesn't currently have a place to sit.

Sizable fragments of other satyr plays have been discovered, such as Sophocles' Trackers and Aeschylus' Net-fishers.[1] Cyclops is found in five extant manuscripts.[2] The first is the Codex Laurentianus, Laur. Plut. xxxii. 2. It appears to have been written in the fourteenth century in a number of different handwriting styles. It is kept in the Laurentian Library at Florence, Italy. The second manuscript is the Codex Palatinus 287, thought to be from the fourteenth or fifteenth century. It is kept in the Vatican Library.[3]Untitled50reg (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Euripides. McHugh, Heather, trans. Cyclops; Greek Tragedy in New Translations. Oxford Univ. Press (2001) ISBN 9780198032656
  2. ^ https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/oeuvre/1914/
  3. ^ Euripides. Patterson, John. Editor. The Cyclops of Euripides. The Macmillan Company (1900) page ix.
Cutting the first sentence is fine, but I see no reason why the page shouldn't have information about the play's own manuscript tradition, and it looks to me like you could just put it at the end of the intro without modification ("Cyclops is found in..."). HonestManBad (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also "see no reason why the page shouldn't have information about the play's own manuscript tradition". That is one reason I pasted it here, rather than cutting it outright. But having had some of the sleep I wanted, I note that the sources for the information are over a hundred years old, and for that reason am disinclined to just cutting the first sentence, and reinserting. Otherwise, it mentions five, but elaborates for two. This incompleteness compounds the lack of seat. Untitled50reg (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just considering that Cyclops is extant basically because it starts with κ, and that this is a nugget of information highly fragrant and satisfying yet not in the article. It should probably be given some attention because as I said it smells wonderful. Untitled50reg (talk) 08:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absurdly large number of unnecessary quotations[edit]

The article as it currently stands almost entirely consists of an extremely large number of quotations from a small number of sources (mainly the introduction to David Kovacs's translation of the play). This is not how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written. These are supposed to be encyclopedia articles written in original language, not repositories of quotes arbitrarily copied-and-pasted from other sources. The vast majority of the quotes need to be removed and the article needs to be rewritten to turn it into an original article. —Katolophyromai (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Katolophyromai:: I am initially curious what you mean about how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written. This is particularly because there is a very strict "no original research" policy. For your "original language", I know not what you mean by that. For example there I quote Casca from the first scene of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, "I know not what you mean by that". An original language would be entirely incomprehensible, like Nimrod in the Inferno. "I am learned, you see", as says Urquhart's Gargantua. I use the language of other people, I use a language which you use, thereby we intend to understand each other. If you mean that a Wikipedia article should be the sort of paraphrasing which people generally do, which almost invariably distorts the assertions into very unacceptable falsity, that I cannot endorse. And on that note, for Kovacs, though I think that he is an ass, I had been led to believe that Loebs are good sources for Wikipedia.
Now I quote you too: "The article as it currently stands almost entirely consists of an extremely large number of quotations from a small number of sources." This I agree with. I found the article in an offensive state then accidentally fell into it. The splash I made was very much as you have described. But what I should make very clear is that though I am responsible for your grief, I am not going to do anything with the article. "The Texan looked at this small coin in the kid's palm and demanded more money but the harnessmaker shook his head and held up his hands in utter finality". (Blood Meridian) Untitled50reg (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What Katolophyromai means is that the article should be written in plain and simple language, descriptive without being entirely made of quotations. I don't know why you're criticising wording that is not actually controversial. "Original language" is precisely what is necessary here. The concepts must be broken down into plain language which faithfully reproduces the meaning of the original. The article actually borders on infringement, even with proper attribution. This article needs a huge amount of culling. At present, it is actively hostile to any readers who visit it for more information. It’s an issue of structure and style. As for the lead, citations are not typically necessary in the lead because they should be referenced elsewhere in the article. The lead is a warm-up for readers, where they can get an overview. Quotations like this aren't necessary. I am sorry to say, but I think the article is worse than what was there before (which was still really bad). Imaginestigers (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Katolophyromai: and @ImaginesTigers: Having abrogated the utter finality I have attempted to beat the offensive content into something less offensive. As somewhat interested parties I offer you such news. Untitled50reg (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Untitled50reg: It’s looking significantly better! A great job. I think the Story and Analysis sections currently suffer from two (starkly different) problems, if you're looking for critique. Story should be broken up into some paragraphs (3-5, I think, from the size of it, but less looks better). And for Analysis, always attach your footnotes to punctuation (you might need to jiggle around a bit; commas and full stops are good). You could probably group together the analysis better into discrete, thematic sections (subheadings do the job -- I say it a lot but check out Hamlet, a great Analysis section). Really good work, though. If you polish it up more, it’s 100% a straightforward WP:GA for you. Happy to walk you through the process if you decide to go for it. ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers: I would rather invite critique than avoid it. But I have shunted the references about. That was presumably vestiges of its curious and piecemeal parturition. This curious and piecemeal parturition was surprisingly mentally taxing, attempting to hammer out something at least speciously coherent. For this reason I postpone any polishing. But for the story: the play is basically one scene, in front of a cave, and what that story says is basically how it goes. I'm not sure how to cut it up just for the sake of doing so. Untitled50reg (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm going to make a new section with my feedback. A new section because it’s easier for me to format. Bear with... ImaginesTigers (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions[edit]

I've reverted the page to an earlier version. As it stands, the page was in a bad state. It will need significant work, but that work will be much easier to do from this state, rather than the last. Here was the previous state of the article. It is made almost entirely of filler words with quotations, stringing together people's ideas without providing any real overview. The lead was the most egregious example. To Untitled50reg, I highly recommend you look at some other high quality articles for a better idea on how to improve pages. My go-to example is the Featured Article on Hamlet. You can visit WP:LEAD for information on how to write a lead. The excessive number of quotations isn't really acceptable on Wikipedia. You can provide a gist without the exact word choice.

You previously said: For your "original language", I know not what you mean by that. For example there I quote Casca from the first scene of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, "I know not what you mean by that". An original language would be entirely incomprehensible [...] I use the language of other people, I use a language which you use, thereby we intend to understand each other. If you mean that a Wikipedia article should be the sort of paraphrasing which people generally do, which almost invariably distorts the assertions into very unacceptable falsity, that I cannot endorse. These are quotations from texts written in archaic English. Were they in an article, they would be quoted directly, but very rarely do you ever need to directly quote from a text. A critic's ideas can be conveyed without an over-reliance on quotation. Quotation use should be sparing.

I know you put a lot of work into the article, and I am sorry for doing this, but the page was really made worse. I really hope you take a look at some of the links I've given above, and try to better understand how Wikipedia articles should be written. You can also refer to the WP:Manual of Style. I'm going to reach out to WP:CGR for some assistance. Imaginestigers (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the reversion in more detail. There were a significant amount of sources add, and it sucks to remove them, but until the structuring of the article is cleared up, it will need to remain like this. Untitled50reg: I'd be happy to work with you here, on the talk page, on making up a skeleton framework for the article which you could fill in. But you would have to familiarise yourself with WP:MOS, and I'd specifically recommend looking at previous Featured Articles, a list of which can be found here WP:FA, for help. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to help you adhere to Wikipedia's writing style.
To get the article looked at quicker, I'd be happy to carry out an expedited GA review once the article is cleaning up, but because of that it means my assistance would be limited. If I can't find anyone willing to improve the article, I will make the improvements myself, but that could take some time. My focus is on another page right now. Imaginestigers (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Imaginestigers: Ah, well Hamlet I can certainly do and go-to too: "Go to, I'll no more on't". (3.1) Untitled50reg (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Imaginestigers: Just by the by I did accidentally just now sniff a little at the quotation business. Everything is largely a misunderstanding on my part, exacerbated in part actually by several other editors. Particularly confusing is the no original work all original work criterion of Wikipedia. I now suspect that any quotation is inadmissable unless absolutely necessary, for example I recently added a quote to Macbeth#Pronunciations, namely "Finger of birth-strangled babe / Ditch-delivered by a drab, / Make the gruel thick and slab", because what preceded my imposition was: "The Witches benefited most in this regard. 'Babe' (4.1.30) sounded like 'bab' and rhymed with 'drab' (4.1.31)". I consider this quite a justifiably necessary quotation, but I'll lay it before your judgment.
For my own activity on Wikipedia I have just looked and found that I have made 505 edits, but at no point have I intended to edit Wikipedia. I had no intention of looking at wherever you sent me to, but "mine own jealous curiosity", as says King Lear, who I believe is in the public domain, sent me there. Accordingly I have no intention of moulding the Cyclops midden into an article, but I am also quite liable to begin that very doing immediately after typing this. "Villains by necessity, fools by heavenly compulsion", as they say in that selfsame quotable play. Untitled50reg (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Untitled50reg: I absolutely encourage you to go forth and edit! WP:BEBOLD! Just be mindful of what I've linked. Wikipedia does have a house style for writing. Broadly: it is plain, accessible language, stripped free of adverbs, and not argumentative. Wikipedia articles should not selectively provide information; they are an overview, a way to for people to easily dip into criticism and discussion. Some of that criticism may be wrong. They may be things you disagree with (that certainly is true for me). But the important, big stuff must all be there. Quotations are seldom necessary on Wikipedia. It’s best practice to avoid them outside of Analysis and Reception sections. If you need any advice on editing, or have any questions, feel free to drop a message on my Talk page! ImaginesTigers (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ImaginesTigers: Well Fortune smiles upon you, for I have judged that there is no alternative to Wikipedia. For this reason I cannot ignore it. I will probably pick up my editing hammer several hundred more times for smashing several hundred more abhorrences. Because there is no alternative and because Wikipedia is so disgusting if not outright inimical it gnaws my bowels into this desperate hammering. I will probably salvage somewhat of Cyclops. But I am not going to attempt to familiarise myself with an endless screaming of rules, particularly if such rules want to excise the most useful and most necessary bucket of adverbs from which I will freely pluck and smash into an article's folly. For accessibility I am in all spheres of life reprimanded with that stamp. Accessibility is an abstraction only, which I cannot scrutinise no matter how vehemently the world gestures and gibbers at it. I will only intend as short and as clear and as declarative as might rattle out from me. But I am here formally reneging my aforesaid utter finality and no more on't. Untitled50reg (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please understand, that being able to edit Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. And that privilege can be taken away. You will continue to enjoy that privilege only if you follow our "endless screaming of rules" ;-) Paul August ☎ 14:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul August: I have spent much of this day wrangling with Cyclops mess in my sandbox. This has made me very tired and my brain has fallen out from my face. I am accordingly just going to agree with you with a very polite and drowsy nod. Untitled50reg (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Untitled50reg (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on this article[edit]

Hi there. Okay. Let's break this up into chunks.

  • First thing is first: there's no need for any references in the article's lead. The lead (meaning the part above the Contents box) is a summation of the rest of the article. They should be no longer than four paragraphs (one or two is sufficient for an article of this size). Anything that is stated in the lead should be very easy to find the source for somewhere in the rest of the article. Leads only need a reference when it is a controversial statement (nothing on this page is likely to be).
    I would provide a brief explanation on what a satyr play is. You don't need to do that if you Wiki-link it (so satyr play.
  • Regarding the Story section, I have two key comments.
    1. I do think that the story section which you replaced was better than its current form. It includes a natural but formal use of language; the sentences naturally flow (and are not short, simple, and declarative). What exists in the current version of the article feels a bit stilted. I can assist you on this if you give me until the weekend, but I do think you have the natural fluency with English to fix it up. Broken record, but have a look at Hamlet#Plot or Odyssey#Synopsis. You have a much shorter section here, but define things for a reader. Imagine that they are a student who hasn't read the text, but has a class about it the next day. Why is Silenius suddenly appealing? (You are allowed to use sources here, but they aren't necessary for plot summaries typically.) Who is Odysseus?
    2. Wiki-links should only be used if it is clear to what they go to without clicking on the link (referring to the link to Ganymede).
  • The Analysis section is the big one. Like I said before, I recommend splitting up criticism into distinct groups. Remember: you are providing an overview. References are good, but there's perhaps a tendency to over-reference here, and overcomplicate things. It’s essentially become a list of sources, rather than a coherent overview of schools of thoughts about the play. What are the overarching trends in criticism?
    Consider: does all of this need to be in Analysis? The first two paragraphs, certainly, read to me like textual history, supported by citations. That isn't analysis of the text. Don't let your sections get too big, and don't let your paragraphs be too small.
    Consider: instead of jumping from citation to citation, relay one critics' ideas as a few sentences. Then, offer a change of direction. See Hamlet#Analysis.
    Consider: is the average reader going to understand what [...] Euripides employed "metapoetically loaded terms" like second and double and new to highlight interactions with his sources, familiar and foundational texts in Athenian education. As editors, our job is to make things clear. We aren't the be-all of criticism: we're a jumping off point through which the curious can find sources. Our job, instead, is to structure and give order.

If you have any questions, let me know. ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ImaginesTigers: Ah well I should perhaps confess that I never intended to give the article anything more than a kickstart. The reason I undertook any kickstart was little more than that I read Cyclops and thought that it deserved better than what was there on Wikipedia. This is likewise why I undertook the wrecksalvaging. But I have still intended nothing more than a kickstart. For this reason and also because I have no idea what might be the problem with "Euripides employed 'metapoetically loaded terms' like second and double and new to highlight interactions with his sources, familiar and foundational texts in Athenian education", I think I will now just let the article rove the seas for a while and hope that it snaps up some barnacles for itself. Untitled50reg (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Though I did just make one minor change because I realised that the "See also" had got lost somewhere. That is now back in. P.S. satyr play with a link is actually in the first sentence of the article. I'm not sure if you were implying that it is not so. Untitled50reg (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the Cyclops decides to take [...] Silenus to bed[edit]

This then links to The Rape of Ganymede (Rubens); when, by rights, it should instead link to Beer goggles Nuttyskin (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyclops_(play)&oldid=1221132382"