Talk:Catullus 3

Spare sources

I removed two sources from the list as they primarily deal with the Catullus 2/2b controversy. I am moving them here, as they may be useful elsewhere, in particular in Catullus 2.

• Kent RG (1923). "Addendum on Catullus' Passer". The American Journal of Philology. 44 (4). The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 44, No. 4: 323–324. doi:10.2307/289257. JSTOR 289257.
• Braunlich AF (1923). "Against Curtailing Catullus' "Passer"". The American Journal of Philology. 44 (4). The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 44, No. 4: 349–352. doi:10.2307/289256. JSTOR 289256.

Викидим (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Illustration

@Ficaia: I am not sure how to illustrate the poetry (a traditional encyclopedia usually does not have any illustrations). However, I do not find placing not just one, but two videos in a place of an illustration to be useful to the reader. In particular, I do not understand adding the second video, the one showing a male reading the poem. Is this person a famous actor? Is he a professional in the field of Catullus' poetry? If yes, this fact needs to be stated. If not, I see little encyclopedic value in showing someone non-notable reading the Latin text. Викидим (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It's obviously useful to the reader to be able to listen to someone read the poem. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

How do we know that the pronunciation is correct? How do we know that the actor's play is adequate? I could understand a point of having a video with an accomplished narrator (someone like Morgan Freeman) reading the text: it would show the reader a top-level performance, a reference point to judge the other, lesser, ones. We typically provide a descriptions of the level of professionalism in the descriptions of other illustrations ("members of Kansas City Ballet" or "street dancers" obviously carry different weight). What would you suggest to add as a description of the narrator's qualification to the caption of this video? Викидим (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, similar files have been added to other articles: e.g. Catullus 13. So other editors thought the pronunciation was at least passable. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully @JimKillock: knows the actor and can help us understand his qualifications. Викидим (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Викидим and @Ficaia,

1. Why have these at all? Well, that is simple enough. Most people won't know or normally hear Latin. These videos give everyone the chance to hear how these famous poems sound in the original language, with pronunciation as close as is available to how it is believed to have sounded. Even better, if people are able to follow along in English via subtitles.
2. Why these videos? Well, they are what exists, licenced with a CC / CC-by-SA compatible licence; specifically I asked the performers to release their YT videos as CC so they could be used on Wikipedia
3. Videos like this are popular, it seems from webstats. Around 10% of users appear to try loading videos from Wikipedia pages.
4. On accuracy of pronunciation, you can only rely on editors with some knowledge of Latin / Classical pronunciation. In those terms, both of the performers are good / good enough IMHO, but feel free to ask around. There is Latin Wikipedia and the Wiki Classics group for instance.
5. If it is any reassurance, many of the videos of these performances have been used as a featured video on Latin Wikipedia's front page. If they were genuinely sub standard, I expect Latin Wikimedians would have told us. That said, we should assume there are others who could do better.
6. On qualifications, both are Youtubers and as Latinists they are amateurs, neither have any special claim, albeit the video without a person's image contains his own translation of the poem, and he is a language teacher.
7. Do you need two? Probably not, I've no objection to removing one, or pointing to the reading videos in more general terms, such as a link to the WM category
8. You could put the readings under the main text if you want an illustration near the top, for hover links etc
9. If choosing one over the other, maybe ask others for their opinions. The performance styles are different, people may have preferences for whichever reasons. Or you may decide that having the English and / or subs burnt in is the most important factor for you.

Jim Killock (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Nobody else chimed in for months, so let's try to invite more editors here. Previous discussions to consider (feel free to add more):

• Talk:Catullus 5#Illustrations Pinging participants that are still active: @WillowW:
• Talk:Catullus 5#Images in Catullus poems Pinging participants that are still active: @Kafka Liz:

I will also trying to attract attention on WP:POETRY. Викидим (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Not very active these days, but not a fan of videos as the lead image. Maybe find an actual image, and move the videos down, if we determine to keep them at all. Kafka Liz ^{A girl is no one} 10:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• The image that is currently down next to Influence would do nicely. Kafka Liz ^{A girl is no one} 10:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  That image was the original image in the lead, now replaced by two videos. Викидим (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  I support changing it back. Kafka Liz ^{A girl is no one} 23:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome § Illustrations to poems by Catullus

In my opinion the videos seem like a decent addition to the articles, and I see no issue with simply moving the images down a little. Sound and visuals in combination is a great tool for remembering.★Trekker (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the value in having both videos; one or the other seems at least potentially useful to illustrate what the Latin sounds like, but I don't see the point of having both. I would lean towards this one. Byron's translation included in the other video is rather non-literal and currently not discussed in the article at all, and I can't see the value of having some random person read out an English translation of the poem: anyone reading this article can do that themselves so unless there's e.g. some historical value (as there might be for, say, including a recording of a twentieth-century poet like William Carlos Williams reading their own poetry) I don't see the point. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Summary of arguments

Discussion has died down, so it might be good time to reach the consensus. Here is my summary of the discussion so far. All errors are my responsibility, feel free to correct the arguments or proposals. --Викидим (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Arguments and resolutions proposed

Editor	Argument	Resolutions proposed
Викидим	There is no clear benefit in two videos. The one with an unknown actor has very little value. Quality of non-professional performance is unclear.	Remove videos, restore illustration
Ficaia	Ability to listen to the sounds of the poem is useful. Other Catullus poems are illustrated similarly.	Keep videos
JimKillock	Ability to hear the sound is useful, especially with subtitles in English. Readers click on videos. Performers are good enough.	OK to keep one video or include just a link. OK to move the illustration above the video(s).
Kafka Liz	Videos are not good in the lead.	Restore the original layout (with picture) or move the videos down.
StarTrekker	Sound and visuals are great for committing things to memory.	No issue with having either video, where they are in the article does not matter a lot in my opinion, the illustrations are also great
Caeciliusinhorto	No value in having both videos. No value in the reading out the English translation in one of them. The English translation in the video is non-literal and not discussed in the article.	Keep one video with a face of an actor.

• As I stated above I have no issue with having either video, where they are in the article does not matter a lot in my opinion, the illustrations are also great.★Trekker (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

• @JimKillock: A question: when you stated "especially with subtitles in English", did you have a particular video in mind? --Викидим (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

  No, no particular video. Just that the viewer should be able to follow the intonation and sound with an English subtitle if possible. Jim Killock (talk) 13:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Emerging consensus

Here is my analysis of the emerging consensus:

1. The consensus is clearly not for keeping both videos in the lead. Just one editor (Ficaia) argues for it, suggesting that the videos are useful and similarly illustrated other poems. Another editor (StarTrekker) is OK with keeping two videos, not necessarily in the lead.
2. There is a consensus that videos in general are useful and of acceptable quality. Just one editor (Викидим, yours truly) was looking for a complete removal and questioned the quality (I now accept the assurances of other editors about the quality). Another editor (Kafka Liz) argued for moving both videos away from the lead;
3. When comparing two videos, there is an argument that the one with the face of an actor is better (Caeciliusinhorto), with no counter-arguments (the rest of the editors expressed no preference);
4. Викидим and Kafka Liz argued for placing the original illustration on top, JimKillock and StarTrekker are OK with it, Caeciliusinhorto did not state the position. This leaves only Ficaia opposing.

--Викидим (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposal

Based on an unopposed description of consensus above, I am planning to:

1. Move the picture back as the top illustration in the lead.
2. Place the video with the face of an actor below it.
3. Move the second video lower in the article.

--Викидим (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

No objections for few months, performing the change. Викидим (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)