Template talk:Catullus

Format and placing of template

If this is primarily a navigational template, I wonder if it would be better to format it horizontally (with the picture on the left, and the list of poems on the right) and place it at the end of articles. At the moment it clutters the lead of some articles, and sandwiches the text between the template and an image. I'd be happy to reformat it if others agree ;) Geometry guy 23:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose I should do it if there are no objections, but that would be kind of lonely :-) Geometry guy 00:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image and template utility questioned

The image attached to the template is not a plausible dipiction of Catullus. As a fashionable youth of the Late Republic, Catullus would have worn no beard. The man in the picture looks more like some sort of Late Antique philosopher or perhaps an idealized portrait of Homer. No one has ever imagined Catullus like this except those misled by this image on Wikipedia. It ought to be removed. (see other discussions here and here).

Rather than removing just the image, perhaps the entire template ought to be deleted. Most of the links on the template are redirects to Poetry of Catullus, and those links which actually do function lead to articles, the content of which ought to be removed to Wikisource. Aramgar (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the similar Template:Poems of Catullus. Aramgar (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find the image bogus, too, so I've no objections to getting rid of it. But in my opinion, the categorizations on this template make it much more useful as a navigating tool than the Template:Poems of Catullus, which has only numbers. Even scholars may forget which poem is which! ;) Willow (talk) 22:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we merge the two templates then, for the sake of simplicity? Also, I've noticed that some of the links on the template are just redirects to Poetry of Catullus. Can these be removed? Kafka Liz (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Liz, so nice to meet you! I'm a fan of the Middle Ages, too, although my tastes run more to Minnesang, especially Wolfram von Eschenbach: Sine klawen durch de wolken sint geslagen, er stiget uf...

Merging the templates would be my preference, too. I'd been keeping the other because I thought it might be useful somewhere and, well, because I didn't want the editors who'd made it to feel that their work wasn't appreciated. I also was confused by the many re-directs to Poetry of Catullus, which were even more numerous before. I can at least remove the ones from here. For now, I'll make them redlinks, with the thought that we might combine or eliminate them later. Willow (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you too, Willow. At the moment, I'm more on the visual arts end of things for this period, but my interests are fairly fluid. Regarding the other template, its creator User:Neddyseagoon is still active on Wikipedia, so perhaps we should ask him to weigh in? Kafka Liz (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I remember better about the redirects; they aren't in the template, but in the article pages themselves. I guess that the idea had been that such redirects help readers to find their way to relevant information? If someone were to search for a particular poem, say Catullus 38, then ideally they should get shunted somewhere they would find some useful information.

The only way to get rid of the redirects is to eliminate the pages altogether. I agree that there's little chance we'll be able to make proper articles for those poems, at least in the near future, given all the others we want to work on. But maybe the search aspect is helpful? If we make sub-articles of Catullus' poetry, as we've been discussing, then we could instead redirect the reader to a more specific article (such as Invective poetry of Catullus or Elegies of Catullus) that might actually discuss that poem, at least with a few sentences. Willow (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Food for thought. Let me mull this over a bit. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's amusing that discussion of redirecting the Catullus poems is occuring on about five different talk pages, but not very efficient. Let's stick to discussion of the images here, and discuss the redirects at Talk: Poetry of Catullus.--Yolgnu (talk) 12:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the image on the Catullus template was inappropriate, but was Aramgar's removal of Virgil from Catullus 1 really necessary? Both the poem and the image are about books of poetry.--Yolgnu (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template is much improved without the bearded guy with the heavy brow. Thank you, Willow. I agree that the dead wikiproject is probably not the best place to discuss the future shape of Catullus articles on Wikipedia. I agree that we ought to discuss the redirects at Talk: Poetry of Catullus but feel that the images ought to be addressed on individual article talkpages. Like the dead wikiproject, this page is not the most visible. A discussion here would draw few new voices.

I have offered a brief explanation of why I removed the image of the Vergilius Romanus from Catullus 1 on the talkpage of that article. My post was also an attempt to restart some of the previous, unresolved discussions on images. I can offer a fuller explanation of why the manuscript does not belong if you like.

I believe that User:Kafka Liz could also offer an educated opinion on this issue; she has a great deal of professional expertise in the area of Medieval manuscripts. Aramgar (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post my opinion at Talk:Catullus 1. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to run off right now, but if we're all interested in working together on Catullus, we could re-activate/re-populate the WikiProject. That would give us a central place to discuss, one that our Wiki-descendents might find more easily? I was surprised and a little sad to find the records of our ancestors at the archives of User:Sophysduckling: see for example Sophy's swan-song, and her earlier Talk archives 4 and 5. Those who don't learn from history... :( Willow (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I tried to explain my reasoning and perspective at Talk:Catullus 1.

Links to a bunch of non existent articles

Is this really wise? 130.85.223.4 (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago, many of those poems had their own articles, with references to the scholarly literature on each poem. However, they were mostly undeveloped, and after some disagreements among the members of the Catullus WikiProject, those articles were redirected, rendering them (as you say) non-existent. On the other hand, since so many are now gone, this template appears in only a handful of articles, and hence will mis-direct commensurately few readers. ;) Trying to find the humorous side, Willow (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual meters?

I think it's misleading to describe poems written in, for example, Sapphic stanzas as "unusual" in meter. This form was used by Horace as well and went on to a long history in post-classical literature. The meaning is probably that it's unusual for Catullus to use them, but I think it would be better if it was changed to a name like "other" meters so we don't give the wrong impression that Sapphics, etc. were uncommon to a new reader.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 20:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]