From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Euripides and life[edit]

This is an article on on a major literary figure and yet the highest number of edits by any one user to date is just 35. That's extraordinary and yet it is nothing unusual in the extraordinary WP universe, where life struggles like a weed to get a hold in the Stalinist architecture of committee-work. Any article produced by a committee tends to be a bit haphazard, even lifeless, I think, and hopefully somebody will take ownership of this one. I might put some roots down myself since I can see lots of cracks here. McZeus (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

His iambics have grace, simplicity and inevitability, almost like lyrics in fact, so when critics say he neglected the chorus, it wasn't all on the debit side of the ledger - he turned conversation into a divine kind of language. Tragedians then wrote 3 plays per year, which averages out about 10 lines of verse per day. Try writing 10 lines of verse per day, keep it up for 30 years or so, look at the quality of your output and then compare it with his. You might as well have drunk the ink instead of written with it. And the highest number of edits to date is just 35. Has the universe lost the plot? She squanders her wealth because she can make flowers at a snap of her fingers. But that's no excuse for just 35. McZeus (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you smoking? Whatever it is, be bold, and edit. If you feel the article needs work, then get going! If you need any help or advice, give me a buzz. You think Euripides is bad? Try history of theatre. Or Theatre of ancient Greece for that matter! DionysosProteus (talk)

I'm getting into the mood. It's called method acting. As soon as I am Euripidesed enough, I'll do something worthy of the master. Till then, please don't interrupt. McZeus (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC) |}

New Edit[edit]

I'm going to paste here the section that seems to need the most work and I'll do the redrafting here, so that anyone can comment on the changes if they wish to. I'm not sure at the moment how long I am going to be working on this and that's another reason not to mess with the front page until I'm ready to replace it with the version here. I hope nobody will be inconvenienced. McZeus (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem in this section is pretty obvious - the jumble of meanings, even after some editing out, and the lack of citations. The best thing to do is delete it completely, except for the final paragraph, which is sourced. I'll do that as soon as I have redrafted a new section, probably offline. McZeus (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I've moved your draft to a sub-page of the article, here and archived the talk on an archive page.  • DP •  {huh?} 06:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That's OK. I've never edited a subpage before and it will be an interesting experience. McZeus (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Telephus - can I have some of his stuff please?[edit]

I wanted to add some more material about the play 'Telephus' and maybe someone can help me with some images of Telephus, as suited to Euripides' play. Especially, I have seen some pictures of kraters showing Telephus, one as the beggar in disguize about to kill the child of Orestes, and another as Mnesilochus disguized as a woman acting like Telephus about to 'kill' a skin of wine that is disguized as a child, in Aristophanes' play Thesmophoriazusae (sounds almost as complicated as Dikaiopolis/Telephus/beggar/Aristophanes/Herodotus in The Acharnians). It all sounds a bit confusing, I know, but such things do happen in real life too. The kraters are:

  • Apulian bell krater by the Schiller painter ca 370 BC, Martin von Wagner Museum
  • Lucanian red-figure calyx-krater, Pelicoro painter ca 400 BC, The Cleveland Museum of Art.

If anyone can download those images, or images like them, that would be much appreciated. I found the pictures in A Companion to Greek Tragedy. ed. Justina Gregory (see references list in article), pages 111 and 113.

Thanks! McRap (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You might ask User talk:Athinaios, who's been doing an enormous amount of work on vase painting. Best wishes, Cynwolfe (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou 'Cynwolfe'. I'll direct 'him' here. 'McRap'. McRap (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


Currently as follows:

Trustworthy 1.8 (12 votes)
Objective 2.5 (12 votes)
Complete 1.3 (10 votes)
Well Written 2.4 (13 votes)

The current article that has been scored in this way is here, which doesn't look anywhere near as bad as the ratings suggest, as far as I can tell. Hopefully the people who rate articles will also get on and write them, or at least attempt to improve them. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I often find the ratings puzzling. I suggested that the box should be set up as customer feedback, like "Would you recommend this article?" I find the "Complete" rubric questionable: if you come here to learn about a topic because you know little or nothing about it, how do you know it's complete? But if you ask "Did you find what you were looking for?" and the answer's no, the you could give the rater a space to ask questions. Editors could use these questions to improve the article, and become more aware of how to serve the reader. Readers may not want to edit, but could still improve content by pointing out deficiencies. Anyway, I don't find ratings don't really tell me much about what needs to be improved. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Only people who copy edit should have the keys to the rating drawer. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Update on ratings[edit]

Trustworthy 1 (13 votes)
Objective 5 (13 votes)
Complete 5 (11 votes)
Well Written 4 (14 votes)

Compare with the above ratings! The result is clearly absurd. There is just one extra vote yet the impact is significant. The extra vote has lifted everything but Trustworthy. In case people need reminding, Trustworthy means: Do you feel this page has sufficient citations and that those citations come from trustworthy sources?. There are currently 99 citations, all from good sources. Beats me! Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 12:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I just rated the article myself, scoring 5 for all indicators. Newest ratings:

Trustworthy 3 (14 votes)
Objective 5 (14 votes)
Complete 5 (12 votes)
Well Written 4.5 (15 votes)

Yes that's much better. I'll have to rate articles more often. Eyeless in Gaza (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


There are other translations and English reconstructions of *Phaethon* circulating in manuscript besides the Vlanes one, but I do not have citations for them. I've added a citation to for the Vlanes reconstruction. Ptrourke (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

B level rating[edit]

This rating is wrong. This is the epitome of a encyclopedic article on a Greek tragedian. The articles on Aeschylus and Sophocles are quite inferior! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Translations of Excerpts[edit]

Is there a particular reason the play excerpts are translated into English rhyming meter? We are an encyclopedia—we ought to be using something more accurate and less stylized (and the same can be said for the names of the headings under his biography). (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)