Mottenen

Google books

#Apollodorus. [1] - OK
#Conger, Syndy M. [2] - OK
#Eggenberger, David I. (editor). [3] - OK now, this is the one I used

1. Grimal, Pierre (editor). [4] - No, my edition has a different front cover and ISBN: 0600023664 - can't be found on google books - what information do you need?
   1. For this one, I need first and last name of the author (which I believe is a different person then the editor), any other co-authors, year published, publisher, relevant page numbers, isbn (you already gave it to me), title, and work. That should be all.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

#Hyginus, Gaius Julius. [5] Okay I can't find this one. It's a part of a series where this is "University of Kansas Publications. Humanistic Studies, No. 34. The Myths of Hyginus". Translated and edited by Mary A. Grant. Printed in Lawrence in 1960 by Univerity of Kansas Press. It has something called an L.C.C.C. number: 60-63875.Mottenen (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
#Liberalis, Antoninus. [6] - OK

1. Ovid (Ovidius Naso, Publius). [7] - Mine is a reprint from 1971, the linked is from 1977, any difference?
   1. Mm...I'm not sure. Was your's published by Penguin?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
   2. Yes it was. Mottenen (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
   3. I think it's best to yours then. Is the rest of the information the same besides the year?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
   4. Yes Mottenen (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
   5. Cool, generated the reference and about to anchor in the article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

#Onions, C. T. (editor). [8] - OK
#Park, Edwards A. and Samuel H. Taylor (editors). [9] - OK
#The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. [10] - OK
#Watson, Owen (editor). [11] - OK

Okay, couple of things. For some of these I found books that were published during different years than what you had. If you scroll down to the bottom of each of these links, you'll find a section called Bibliographic information, check the information there to make sure it's the same book that you used in the article (same edition, volume, everything). Best to get this out of the way in one fail swoop, measure twice cut once. Also, in the citations and anchors I develop, I will like not provide a link to any of these books (unless you want me to of course). This is because you simply don't have to. I use books all the time and don't bother to even try to find a google book. The reason for this big list of links is only because I need to generate the references. Once we make sure all the books on this list are the same, I'll anchor all the refs and we can begin using citations, which I think you'll find cool.  ;-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Hyginus link is to the Grimal-book, guess it was a mistake. Added comments on some of them, but I have to check the rest on the library - they're in the department for books that are not for lending. Will be back some time tonight with the rest :) thank you for your help! Mottenen (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Now I've given you which are correct and which aren't Mottenen (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I got a few right.  :-P Would you mind finding the rest on google books? In English? I don't have a preference between the different additions. And your welcome. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

map making ability?

just wondered since you whipped out the other diagram so quick. Any chance you could create something like this map [12], but for this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_reptiles (and maybe with green like here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bog_turtle_distribution_map.svg) TCO (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have honestly no idea how to make that sort of a map - yet. Give me a week and I might have hunted down some tool to do it, okay? I will need to ask some of my more geeky friends, I think ;) Mottenen (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

We could also ask that fellow who did the State Breeds thing. Just throwing it out there if easy. Let me try him and if he turns us down, then come back. Lot's to be done with our incest-girl anyhoo. TCO (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Generated sources to be anchored

• <ref name='Apollodorus 1998'> {{cite book | last1 = Apollodorus | last2 = Hard | first2 = Robin | title = The Library of Greek Mythology | work = Oxford world's classics | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 1998 | location = US | pages = 131-239 | accessdate = 2011-01-20 | isbn = 978-0192839244}}</ref>

• <ref name='Shelly 1997'> {{cite book | last1 = Shelly | first1 = Mary | last2 = Conger | first2 = Sydny | last3 = Frank | first3 = Frederick | last4 = O'Dea | first4 = Gregory | title = Iconoclastic departures: Mary Shelly after Frankenstein: essays in honor of the bicentenary of Mary Shelley's birth | editors = Syndy Conger, Frederick Frank, Gregory O'Dea | publisher = Fairleigh Dickinson University Press | year = 1997 | pages = | isbn = 978-0838636848}}</ref>

• <ref name='Hockman 1984'> {{cite book | last1 = Hochman | first1 = Stanley | last2 = McGraw-Hill, inc | title = McGraw-Hill encyclopedia of world drama: an international reference work in 5 volumes, Volume 4 | volume = 4 | publisher = VNR AG | year = 1984 | pages = 123 | isbn = 978-0070791695}}</ref>

• <ref name='Eggenberger 1972'> {{cite book | last1 = Eggenberger | first1 = David | title = McGraw-Hill encyclopedia of world drama, Volume 1 | volume = 1 | work = McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of World Drama | publisher = McGraw-Hill | year = 1972 | pages = 49 | accessdate = 2011-01-23 | isbn = 978-0070795679}}</ref>

• <ref name='Celoria 1992'> {{cite book | last1 = Antoninus | first1 = Liberalis | last2 = Celoria | first2 = Francis | title = The Metamorphoses of Antoninus Liberalis: a translation with commentary | publisher = Psychology Press | year = 1972 | pages = 93-202 | accessdate = 2011-01-23 | isbn = 978-0415068963}}</ref>

• <ref name='Onions 1966'> {{cite book | last1 = Onions | first1 = Charles | last2 = Friedrichsen | first2 = George | last3 = Burchfield | first3 = R. | title = The Oxford dictionary of English etymology | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 1966 | pages = 600 | accessdate = 2011-01-23 | isbn = 978-0198611127}}</ref>

• <ref name='Park 1858'> {{cite book | last1 = Park | first1 = Edwards | last2 = Taylor | first2 = Samuel | title = Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 15 | volume = 15 | editors = Edwards A. Park and Samuel H. Taylor | work = Bibliotheca Sacra | publisher = Allen, Morrill and Wardwell | year = 1858 | pages = 212 | accessdate = 2011-01-23}}</ref>

• <ref> {{cite book | title = The compact edition of the Oxford English dictionary: complete text reproduced micrographically, Volume 2 | volume = 2 | work = The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary: Complete Text Reproduced Micrographically | publisher = Oxford University Press | year = 1971 | pages = 1888 | accessdate = 2011-01-23}}</ref>

• <ref name='Watson 1976'> {{cite book | last1 = Watson | first1 = Owen | title = Longman modern English dictionary | editors = Owen Watson | publisher = Longman | year = 1976 | pages = 736 | accessdate = 2011-01-23 | isbn = 978-0582555129}}</ref>

Here's the ones I did. I believe we just need two more before they can be incorporated into the article.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you go into edit mode and put in the page ranges? Only include the range you used information from, wouldn't necessarily be all the pages of the book. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me get this straight before doing anything - where it says pages= I insert page numbers like 94-95? What if I have used multiple passages like 94-95 and 132? Looks chaotic right now, but i guess it will look awesome! Mottenen (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, yes, it is a mess right now.  :-) You are 100% correct, you would insert 94-95. For your second example, you would insert 94-132, the citations can be manipulated such that you can point out a specific page within that range. Good questions and yes, this style of references is a beast to figure out/implement sometimes, but it makes things easier later on. Stick with me on this one, I promise you you'll like it once it's over.  ;-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I also wonder what should be done if two disasociated pages were consulted. Can one use commas in the pages field? Or should one just put two cites down? (Not just being theoretical, but it has come up on turtle stuff. Like there would be a description in one section and then plates or something else way later. Or a little bit in the summary and then something else way later in a species section.)TCO (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, commas are totally legit for the individual citations ([13]). However, when generating an anchor, it's best to include the whole range used, like if I use page 1 and page 1000 I would just say 1-1000 in the anchor.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

P.s. YEah, this is the way to go, Mottenon. It might seem like a lot of work, but it all fits into a general effort we will do to make the thing more scholarly. The awesome plot summary will still be there, don't worry!TCO (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking forward to see it in action - I hope you will excuse me for a little hour before I start with putting in the pages - having one hell of a hand-in here and I am going to hand it in electronically in 45 minutes :S Mottenen (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Added them now, good to go! Mottenen (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, all of these have been added to the article and the reference section has been reformatted slightly. There are only two more above that we have to figure out, here's one I believe:

• <ref name='Grimal 1969'> {{cite book | last1 = Grimal | first1 = Pierre | title = Larousse World Mythology | publisher = Littlehampton Book Services Ltd | year = 1969 | pages = | accessdate = 2011-01-24 | isbn = 978-0600023661}}</ref>

If this looks correct, you can fill in the page field and I will add it to the article. The one remaining one I need some information for. We're getting there!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Not quite mine - that's the previous edition. My editions data are:

• <ref name='Grimal 1974'> {{cite book | last1 = Grimal | first1 = Pierre | title = Larousse World Mythology | publisher = The Hamlyn Publishing Group Limited | year = 1974 | pages = 94-132 | accessdate = 2011-01-24 | isbn = 978-0600023664}}</ref>

Is that okay to add with you? Mottenen (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That'll work.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Good job working through the ref formatting

I knew this would be a process (some iterations) and we're not done yet. But totally appreciate my wingman doing all this ref stuff (should we put a turtle talk page header on there to take credit?) and appreciate Mottenen, you learning these systems. It will end up helping the article and just be a pattern of deeper scholarship. Kudos, men! TCO (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

P.s. It rocks that I didn't do the work.  ;-) TCO (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks TCO. We're about fifty percent there I feel. Two more books to get refs for, all need to be anchored, and citations need to be replaced. Three days or so and the article's refs will be golden. By the way, the most recent change I made to my userpage involved a tool you may be interested in.  ;-). NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Myrrha

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

On Myrrha and bitterness

That "myrrh" derives from "bitter" is noted on the page on myrrh. More to the point, I am an Arabic-speaker, so I know that murr means "bitter" in that language; and Semitic etymology is a sort of hobby of mine, and "M-R-R" is a well-known common Semitic root dealing with bitterness (qv maror). Hope it helps. Lockesdonkey (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

In that case thank you very much for your contribution. I tried to look it up in an Arabic-English dictionary but I simply don't get the logic of the Arabic alphabet so I had to give up. Mottenen (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome upgrade, Lockes! Can you throw a ref in there (some dictionary or the like)? I'm not questioning you and (of course) we will leave the note. But it would help us--we are getting a lot of comments about needing more refs. For the Ovid summary, it is obiouslly just one source. But on all the other stuff, I want to move us to bristling with refs. I know it sounds clerical, but if you could dump some ref in (we can format it and all, just get info down), it will help our little work to brush up this fascinating topic of Greece and Arabia to Good Article.TCO (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If you put "myrrh" and "bitter" into google you'll get a stack of refs. Not sure about quality of refs, you can always go to google books. Perhaps the book 'Hebrew in Its West Semitic Setting' p.264. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello and thanks Sun, TCO said you had some trick to avoid mr. SineBot? :) Mottenen (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The 'trick' to avoid Mr. Sinebot is to sign your posts. ;) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If you look up the site there is some trick to turn it off. Do try to sign your posts though. I am trying to do better. Just hate when he ecs me as I'm signing and amplufying thoughts. TCO (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of sources, there's always Hans Wehr's inimitable Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic. My copy is nowhere to be found (at the moment), but Arabic dictionaries are arranged by roots; you should thus find murr in the section on the root Mīm-Rā'-Rā'. If you are using Wehr (which given your frustration and its ubiquity is likely), you will find it after a (potentially long) block of text on the various verb forms of the root M-R-R (I don't think they're a lot, but I could be wrong); Wehr lists all the verb forms and then lists nouns derived from the same root. Another peculiarity of Wehr's is that he lists roots with geminate letters before all other entries which start with the same two letters, as opposed to counting the letters as two. Another confusing aspect is that M-R-R is actually two different roots, one dealing with transit/passage (of both things and time), and the other with bitterness; with the one about passage having a lot of derived forms (both the word for "traffic" and the word for "to continue" are derived from that meaning, to give you an idea). You will likely find two separate entries with the same heading. It might be helpful to keep a copy of the Arabic alphabet--in its contemporary order--in hand. Lockesdonkey (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the very insightful comment. We'll get something down! TCO (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

Okay Mottenen, have a look at the bibliography of the article. Make any changes you think need to be made to the anchored references. After everything is squared away with them we can start replacing citations (which shouldn't take too long because it looks like you already have all the places for them).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've changed two already, current references 3 and 5. Do you like that style? They link down to their appropriate item in the bibliography, that's the only real difference from what you had. I think it helps the reader but if you want to leave it like you had it there's nothing wrong with that but they must all be consistent.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do, thank you for your work. I've got more sources but I think I can generate them now. I think it is best to still have a split sort of citation for Hyginus, Ovid etc. referencing both X 394 and p. 200 (so we have the general ref and our translated version if you get me). I think I'm going to try doing that thing now Mottenen (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I can do this crap! :D Thank you very much for your invaluable help, making my article pro-looking!! Mottenen (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Haha, no problem! Have at it and if you have any questions you know where to find me. Just two things to keep in mind, make sure your citations link down to your citations which should then link down to your bibliography. Also, making a split citation may be a little difficult but I think I can swing it if you're stumped (although you don't appear to be, you're doing great!). --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you please look at the thing I've made with the Shakespeare citations 16 and 17, where I've added the stanzas' numbers after the pagenumber? Mottenen (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

They look good, both link down to the book in the bibliography. The anchor though appears to be formatted a little bit differently than the others. For instance, "Venus and Adonis" is in quotes, is that a chapter? If so then I think that's fine. Otherwise I think they looks good, do you have other concerns with them?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

On your talk page you have a link to a reference generator which I used and I inserted the poem's title as a chapter, to clarify that was what we used from that book - just a bonus info. I was just concerned that others might think it looked strange but if you like it then I guess it's OK. Mottenen (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The google book one? Yes, then you can't go wrong.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Referencing

I have to tell you, you're doing great reference work!

		The Citation Barnstar
		Awarded to Mottenen for all of his/her citation work with Myrrha. You picked it all up so quick, I'm so impressed! Hopefully you will continue to use that format in the future, good luck in all your wiki endeavors. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much, and thank you for guiding me! Mottenen (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't mention it fellow 18 year old.  ;-) Good luck with article expansion, I'll be lurking (did that sound weird?).  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I will be watching also. Have fun, Dane! Kick some Wiki butt!!! TCO (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

shifting to lurk mode

Good job moving things forward!

Article is really coming along in terms of adding to the beautiful lead and plot summary that was there to start with. Keep after it with the refs and the researching. It's a process with the article and with your own learning of "wiki scholarship". But you are a sharp guy. And that article is a killer topic. Definitely will be a credit to the encyclopedia when you get this to GA. (And FA if you are up for that pain)!

I will try to check in occasionally and help with advice (or roll my sleeves up and work a little). But you are getting the tricks of how quality content is compiled. And its good for you to dig the ditches a bit here.

Kudos. And in a foreign language! Skol! (is that even correct?)

TCO (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Need some help for a friend

Can you please come over to this article Jutland (horse) and see what you can do? ARticle is being criticized for being to short after getting to GA. Let's try and build up the content. You are Danish, so let's have that help us. Maybe pull some Danish sources or whatever. Obviously if you don't find anything, that means something too, but we should try to find some.TCO (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm on it Mottenen (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the to the rescue.TCO (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Left you feedback on my page

I left you my detailed thoughts on some work to improve the logic and org at my page. No push but those are my thoughts. I think better if you do it yourself. Is your baby. Implement what makes sense, disregrd what you think is wrong!TCO (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Good luck man!

Made me smile. Good work and have fun!TCO (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!Mottenen (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

God speed Mottenen. If anyone brings up concerns about the refs you can call on me for help (if you need it!). In any case, I was just admiring how quickly TCO and others can fill up a talk page! Another thing I was admiring was your article! Nice work, good luck with GA! NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Myrrha

Hi Mottenen, first of all by all means I didn't want to disrupt any editing patterns at that article. I entered with the intent to promote to GA and see if I could do anything about it. In general I enjoyed the read. My advise is to cite the whole paragraph and have at least one citation per paragraph, but my fear is that future wikipedians will not know whether the single sentences of that paragraph are referenced, so I would put a citation in every sentence. Probably I am paranoid for that, but I prefer so. Now if you summarize the content of Metamorphoses that's fine, but it's still original research, which is fine and dandy, only that it's frowned upon by Mr. Jimbo's warriors because prohibited in wikipolicies, so it will hinder the process of promotion of the article. Try to find a book written by a critic on Ovid and that's done. One piece of advice: please try to avoid expressions such as "my article", because that's prohibited too by wp:own. Best. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, do you want me to use the reference I've used at the bottom for every para? Secondly, do you want me to cite someone saying the eighth bolgia is for deceivers or do you want the direct passage in the Comedy? (not sure if he says it directly, only read it once) Thirdly, I didn't know about the WP:OWN thing - all I meant was "the article I'm main editor at for the time being", though you probably figured. Thanks for CE Mottenen (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My rule is: every paragraph should have at least one source. In need, please merge paragraphs so that the reference applies to all the sentences of a paragraph. Second, I want you to cite someone that the eighth bolgia is for deceivers, correct. And no problem for the ce's, in general, before submitting something to GA, it's best to submit it here--Brunswick Dude (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Already did that once, and having one of them as my spare partner on it :) but it's comforting to have another one look at it too! I'll handle it Mottenen (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Now those refs are handled. Are you a mythology interested editor or just CE'ing random GA nominees? If it's the first, do you know anyone who could do my review? Mottenen (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

German

Hi Mottenen. Sorry for bothering you on your talk page, but I noticed that you are Danish, and that you have knowledge of the German language. I wonder if you could help me out a little with a translation. In German-speaking countries, tournaments called "Freischiessen" are held. I know the direct translation is "free shoot" ("frei" is free and "schiessen" is shoot), but I don't know if that's really a good way to render it in English or not. Do you know what a good translation might be? Thanks in advance!-RHM22 (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of it but my dictionary says something like "shooting free" or "free shooting". We don't really have that expression in Danish either, so it's only a guess :) I can tell you that it's a transitive verb so maybe "shoot" can be misleading if it's read as a noun. Is it important that you know this word? If it is then I can ask one of the German-experts in my family. --Regards. Mottenen (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! No, it's not really important. It's for the article Shooting thaler. "Free shoot" will do, because it does a fair job of describing it; it is my understanding that the winner of the Freischiessen was given tax exempt status for the year. It's probably one of those words that simply cannot be accurately translated into English. Thanks again!-RHM22 (talk) 21:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if you're interested, Myrrha might have appeared on an ancient coin. There's a picture and short description of the coin on this page.-RHM22 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I see it, but it seems very unlikely that it's Myrrha (though they suggest it). No myth at all describes the tree being harmed and even if we should ignore that, the snakes make even less sense. Thanks for it, but sorry I can't seem to find a way fitting it in without its seeming too irrelevant:( --RegardsMottenen (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it seemed unlikely that it was the same character from your myth. Also, the coin is Roman, so that probably makes it even less likely, since Myrrha was apparently a Greek myth. I know that Roman mythology was "borrowed" from the Greek, but was the Myrrha myth ever translated into the Roman culture? Sorry for my ignorance on the subject. I enjoy mythology, but I don't know a lot about it.-RHM22 (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess you can say it was. Ovid, who wrote the most detailed version, was a Roman poet :) --Mottenen (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: List of Metamorphoses characters

Hi, Mottenen. The table looks pretty good; I've done an example edit to show you some possible changes. For long tables like that it current common practice is to have a separate reference column, rather than putting the reference in the cells, so I added one. As for making the table sortable, you really only have two columns that you can sort on- name and appearance verse. the Role column isn't standardized enough (and doesn't looks like it could be) to be sorted on- what use would it be to have all of the characters who are "son of" someone together? Unless you think they all could be divided neatly into categories and then start off each description with "God of" or "Hero" so that they go together, but I'm dubious. That said, when sorting the appearance column you can really only sort by first appearance- you'll need to decide if that's a useful way of arranging the characters, in the order that they first show up. If not, then sorting isn't useful for this table. If you decide that it is, note the way that I set up the sort- because the sorting column naively sorts alphabetically, you have to use {{sort}} templates so that IX doesn't come before V. I set it up so that, for example, "VI: 5-333" was sorted as "06: 005-333" so that 13 wouldn't get put before it because of the leading 1 and that "06: 223" wouldn't get put before it due to the leading 2 in the verse. It's an annoying amount of fiddling to set up after the fact, so if you decide to go with sorting you should do it as you go, in my opinion. Oh, and I just realized- "Appearance in Metamorphoses (Book: verses)" should be renamed to "Appearance(s) in Metamorphoses (Book: verses)", and if you have multiple references in the ref column that will need to be renamed "ref(s)".

I think overall the table format is better than the bulleted list that is there now, and I like the format you have set up so far. Keep it up! --PresN 21:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for a quick response! So I should just put the "footnotes" into the ref column? Do you think making each of the books (I, II, III etc.) stand on a different line would make it more readable or confusing? Mottenen (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think making it sortable will do anything good btw. - unless I add a "Metamorphosed into"-column, but since far from all characters are metamorphosed it doesn't seem obvious to have such a column. Mottenen (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say for footnotes they should go next to the text they're footnoting, while references should go in the ref column. That's because footnotes are directly modifying specific chunks of text, and it's confusing to the reader to not have them next to that text. References are verifying all or part of the row as a whole, so they just need to be in the same row. I don't think that you should break up the books into different lines- if for no other reason than that it will make each row incredibly tall. (Jupiter alone would be as tall as half of your table right now.) I don't think it's hard to read as it is. I would not add a "Metamorphosed into"-column unless it applies to almost all of the characters. --PresN 23:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay good, then we agree. I will try formatting the whole thing (will likely take a week, since there are about 200 characters ...) and might drop by for advices on how to bring it further then :) thanks a lot! Mottenen (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mottenen. I see you've linked a number of articles to List of Metamorphoses characters via a "see also" link. The list itself seems a useful extension of the Metamorphoses article, but its content appears to offer no further knowledge of the "persons" involved (or deities, in the case of those articles on my watchlist). In at least some cases, or possibly most, a "see also" link therefore seems inappropriate. Of course, where Ovid's Metamorphoses is cited in article text, there's an opportunity for linkage, via inline article citation; but I suggest that should be to the Metamorphoses article, where an interested reader can link to the List if s/he so chooses. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The list was meant as a useful tool for the Metamorphoses readers who, like myself, sometimes feel Ovid is drawing pretty many characters into his book. If such persons look the characters up on Wikipedia I thought it helpful to guide them to this list in case they did not have any idea it ever existed. It is (becoming) helpful in the way that it can give a quick overview of the whole gallery of characters. Additionally I'm still working on the list - I hope to make it FL. Regards, Mottenen (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong; I think this type of concordance can work very well. The dramatis personae of Metamorphoses are legion. But then, so are those of the Fasti, and of Apuleius' Metamorphoses: given such a precedent, one could expand the "see also" list until the whole of Latin literature is covered by "see also"s. Of course, one wouldn't do that. On the other hand, wiki-linkage to these works within footnotes, or where appropriate, within the main body of text, and thence to their dramatis personae, seems to me a useful service to readers. In general, "see also" sections should serve to expand or broaden context by pointing the reader to comparable or related topics. Well done with Myrrha, by the way. Haploidavey (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! It's always nice when people pat you on the shoulder. So what are you proposing? That I add the link in footnotes or...? Would you be so king as to make an example on one of the pages so I don't get it wrong again :) regards Mottenen (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd best clarify my meaning; here's an example: Hermaphroditus cites Ovid's Metamorphoses; a reader clicking the link can read more about Ovid's Metamorphosis: author, work and background, and a section on chapters and content, all fully wiki-linked. As far as I can tell, your list can serve only to elaborate that section. Your enthusiasm and hard work do you great credit, but perhaps you might consider the logic. Even if Ovid mentions Ceres and Jupiter, neither Ceres (mythology) nor Jupiter (mythology) should link to the Metamorphosis article, because neither article cites that work. If you find this unsatisfactory, you might consider opening the matter up for discussion, perhaps under the auspices of one of our Projects. Only two are listed at the Metamorphoses article Talk-page; the Wikipedia Greece and Rome project might a good bet. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course, the Ceres article should cite Ovid's Metamorphoses somewhere, I'd think, at which time the article should link to the article on the Metamorphoses. I agree with Haploidavey's assessment of this. If the figure's article says something like "So-and-So is one of the figures whose narrative tradition was transferred to later Western culture primarily through Ovid's Metamorphoses," you could have a link such as [[List of Metamorphoses characters|one of the figures]]. I do think the article is a good see-also for List of Roman deities, and have placed it there. Last time I looked, Pythagoras was not listed as a character, even though he has a rather a huge role in Book 15, nor Julius Caesar, whose apotheosis Ovid praises a little too enthusiastically. In the article title, Metamorphoses should be italicized; see WP:ITALICTITLE. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well put. There are gaping holes in Ceres and other articles which can be linked, once filled. Haploidavey (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: References- see Hugo Award for Best Novel for an example of how to fill in the reference column- note that it should be "ref(s)", not "ref.(s)" (or just "ref", if you only ever use one per row). That you're using Harvard style shouldn't change anything- just put the "[1]" in the cell. There isn't really a prettier way to do it that I've seen. --PresN 20:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay thank you again. I'll get started right away. I need two or three refs on the gods for their attributes - that will be Bulfinch. Regards, Mottenen (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Congrats

Well done, young man. TCO (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Mottenen (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Vicki Leekx

Done! :D Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Metamorphoses

This might be a dumb question... the List of Metamorphoses characters isn't deleted but in your edit summaries a few hours ago you said it's a deleted list? (Apparently, I would really dig Metamorphoses and I should read it someday). Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 21:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I had added it to the characters' articles, but I was told to remove it again. Should maybe have written "removed" instead, didn't really think of that. Sorry for the inconvenience, the list is still there: List of Metamorphoses characters and I'm working on it still :) Regards, Mottenen (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Listen to Myrrha please

Please listen and support/oppose avec comments! [14]

TCO (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Mechanical energy/archive1

I made some comments here. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mottenen. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)