Talk:Cypria

Comments

Deleted the link **Proklos' summary of the Epic Cycle translated by Gregory Nagy

Could not retrieve it from internet archives

Corrected and reinstated on 28 September, but I forgot to mention that here at that time. Oops. Petrouchka 02:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

• Kypria → Cypria —(Discuss)— English usage is Cypria. — 16:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Septentrionalis

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as nom 22:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC) Septentrionalis
• Support The most common form in English is Cypria, as in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, s.v. "Epic Cycle". Per WP:GREEK, Cypria is also the preferred transliteration on WP. (n.b. I personally prefer Kypria, but no one has made me King of Greek Transliteration yet.) --Akhilleus (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support as Akhilleus. Andrew Dalby 18:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Jonathunder 23:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain, as the person who created the article and wrote most of what's still in it. While I strongly oppose the current policy on rendering of Greek names, I have registered that opinion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Greek). (It may be worth pointing out that all articles on Greek topics need redirect pages anyway; that's an argument that I've seen adduced against changing the policy, but it cuts both ways.) I would add that the Aithiopis article is in an identical situation, so if this matters enough to anyone they might want to consider that too. Petrouchka 02:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per WP:GREEK.--Aldux 21:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I don't want to seem irritating, but shouldn't this have been discussed first with User:Petrouchka, the author of the article and of several other articles on the lesser works of the Trojan Cycle? It would be a pity if such a good editor took offence for such a small question.--Aldux 23:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to do so; the move will require admin assistance, so it should go to WP:RM even if agreed privately. Septentrionalis 23:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Aldux alerted me. I wasn't intending to comment but I've now posted my view above. Petrouchka 02:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll just add that I voted to "support" only for consistency with current practice on Wikipedia. I strongly agree with Petrouchka on the wider issue. Andrew Dalby 09:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I think you would have to establish wide enough consensus to alter WP:NAME. which holds that Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. The general audience does not understand these hypercorrect forms; Hellenists should not need them. Septentrionalis 18:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"The Cypria was considered to be a lesser work"

The change in the assessment of Cypria, exhibited in Aristotle and then influenced by Aristotle's example, was a Hellenistic downgrading. I can't enter this in the article because it will be challenged as "original research" and I have no standard history of Greek literature here. Anyone interested in this point? The present passive of non-attribution makes no distinctions and contains little information. --Wetman 19:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Additions of 8/2/2007

The newly expanded article reads very well to me. I just want to raise one minor problem: the detail in footnote 1 actually doesn't support any dating of the fixed text of Cypria as known in classical times -- because (as the article goes on to say, and as I would agree) the main stories were in all likelihood fixed (part of a Faktkanon maybe) earlier than the text. Thus the Judgement of Paris could quite well have been painted before the text as known in classical times was fixed. Andrew Dalby 16:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Chigi vase reference

Note 1 is used to support the statement of the date the composition of Cypria is placed at. The link in this note is now broken. As it is a fairly important point, and also considering the fact that this note is repeated as a reference in the Literature section of Cyprus, could someone please update the link with a working one or replace the note with a proper literature citation? AstarothCY (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Content

I added the following caveat: "What follows embeds reports of known content of the Cypria in a retelling of the known events leading up to the anger of Achilles.".

A better approach would be to report the episodes that are actually known to have been in the Cypria. The fully-detailed lead-up to the Trojan War is reported elsewhere.--Wetman (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)