Talk:The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Information about this edition
Edition: 1st version 1858, 2nd 1868, 3rd 1872, 4th 1879, 5th 1889
Source: http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext95/rubai10.txt
Contributor(s): User:Samael775
Level of progress: 50%.svg
Notes:
Proofreaders:

Shouldn't this be listed as by Fitzgerald, rather than Omar Khayyam? My understanding is that the "translation" is very loose, and the work is generally considered to be more that of the translator than of Omar Khayyam himself. 82.120.199.222 01:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not exclusively for Edward Fitzgerald's translations. So far, we have only Fitzgerald and Whinfield, but I would like to incorporate all public domain translations. --Samael775 03:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Images[edit]

Did the original books not come with the images (by Dulac?) that I have seen often associated with Fitzgerald's translation? If so should there be an errata about that or somehow the images scanned? Grenavitar 06:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Rumer/Smirnov[edit]

Why do we have individual pages for each stanza of this translation? The whole thing should be on one page. --Samael775 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that individual page for each poem is better beacause of iw[edit]

I suggest to divide up text on poems because of iw. Look at Czech wikisource: Čtyřverší Omara Chajjáma. I would like to link each poem in English translation to each poem in Czech translation. I could divide up it myself but I´m not sure that English translations follow sequence in original Fitzegerald´s book. (I think that Czech and English translations have different sequence of poems.) I don´t want to divide it without consensus. I prefer wait for argumentation to avoid revert war. But I don´t want to wait for long time... :) (I´m sorry for my English, it isn´t my motherlanguage.) --Čočkin (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

are you sure it is really useful to break up this page into 500 pagelets ? I think it will make it more difficult to read and maintain. ThomasV (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I found compromise solution. Pagelets will be transcluded in one. Pagelets are better for iw. One page is probably better for reading. See Example of transclusion for 30 first poems (click to edit this page to see how it is made.) Red numbers become blue, when the whole experimental page will be moved in correct page. Do you agree with this solution? --Čočkin (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
No. I do not agree with this solution.
if we follow your logic, "because of iw links" all wikisource texts shodli conform to the subdomain that splits them in the smallest possible chunks? this is insane.
You should understand that texts on Wikisource need first to be provided with scans. What you did to this text will only make the transition to 'Page' namespace more difficult, and all the pages you created will have to be deleted.
ThomasV (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
So offer better solution which include iws between two poems. Is good to have texts longer than 100kb, when there is recommendation that texts shoudn´t be longer than 32 kb? Maybe work with scans will be difficult but to make iws among 500 and 770 poems when they are on only TWO pages is impossible. Difficult problems can be solved but impossible not. --Čočkin (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
PS:For example these (Where have we come from? Where are we going?, The Rose said: “Oh, my most radiant beauty and What do you mean to the world? – Nothing!) translations of Khayyam are "the smallest possible chunks" too and nobody deleted them... Why to delete my "the smallest possible chunks"? No quatrain is a chunk. Quatrain is poem which can exist alone without context with another quatrains. It is logic structure. --Čočkin (talk) 10:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
What do you gain, when delete these 500 poems? Nothing. Maybe future problems with scans and proofreading which can be solved. When you delete these poems you lose the iws. Where is the gain? --Čočkin (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
There is another disadventage of using 500 poems on one page: bad outcome when you use the Side-by-side view (DoubleWiki). Look at DoubleWiki with using one page and DoubleWiki with using pagelets. --Čočkin (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I have done a some work on interwikis and poems. The problem with iw links, and the double page extension, is not resolved by splitting. This is due to another problem, a work may have multiple versions here and multiple translations in the same language eg. The Raven (Poe). The best that can presently be done is to have links between the whole works. Linking to the individual poems is not a problem when they are collected on one page. The view that a poem is an individual text is legitimate, but they are also part of book (a larger text) in this library; keeping them together is conceptually correct. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I can keep poems on one page and simultaneously split them. See this solution: Example of transclusion for 30 first poems. --Čočkin (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC) PS:Raven is ONE poem, it isn´t list of 500 poems... --Čočkin (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
An interesting solution. If and when the work is moved to the Page: namespace the content could be transcluded to a complete page and the separate pages. I'm still very wary of splitting quatrains to individual pages, I doubt the benefit is worth the effort; this pushes against the boundary of a library's scope. Indexing the content is more appropriate. "The Raven" was an example of multiple editions and translations, that two are French makes it similar to the two translations here. I suppose that users would want to compare whole translations, and be presented with the whole work, if they were interested at all. Why provide a means of linking 1000s of discrete units of text when it is unlikely to be used? Why labour to serve a function that is provided by the user opening two windows with the whole text? Is there evidence of demand for these options?Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
AD THIS "I doubt the benefit is worth the effort" It will be my effort. And this effort is for me fun. I give maybe only small benefit to wikisource. But I think small benefit is still better than no benefit. It will cost only my time.
AD THIS "this pushes against the boundary of a library's scope" Yes and it is big adventage of wikisource against another projects as gutenberg, googlebooks (books scaned by google) and so on. These projects have still better reliability than wikisource. (And I think that they will have better reliability than wikisource for long time.) They have more bigger libraries. (And I think that they will have more bigger libraries than wikisource for long time.) But they cannot provide to you comparation of translations by one click of mouse! This is by my opinion the way (one of the easist ways) for gain of first place among electonic/online libraries for wikisource. We must do something else than the others and we must be better in it than the others. This is one way to eternal success of wikisource. Maybe it seems to be too pathetic and affected but I think that it is true. Give to reader something what he cannot gain by competitive projects. --Čočkin
AD THIS "Why labour to serve a function that is provided by the user opening two windows with the whole text?" Because the fuction provide very bad outcome when 2. (poem) in en translation isn´t 2. in cs translation, when 3. en isn´t 3. cs and so on. (for example en 37. is linked with cs 99.; en 36. with cs 197.; en 34. with cs 124.; en 39. with cs 225. and so on).
AD THIS "Is there evidence of demand for these options?" Yes. I want it. :) And I think that I will be NOT alone. --Čočkin (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi! Sorry for the delay, I've been thinking how to organise thing like this. I have found a scan of the 1883 version of the Whinfield book, so we now have a primary source to work from. I have started a new book at: Quatrains of Omar Khayyam (tr. Whinfield, 1883). I have created a template, {{side by side}} to simplify the repeated side-by-side structure for each quatrain, and if you look at the transcluded pages, you will see how I have arranged the sections.
  • So I see now that these is basically a collection of 500 more or less separate poems, rather than 500 verse of the same poem. Apologies. The problem that you will create with interwiki links is that every Czech quatrain will link to every Enlgish translation (and we have several different versions), and every English one will need to link to every Czech one. This is a lot of IW links and is very vulnerable to become broken or not being maintained during changes on either site.
  • The solution I propose (and you are very welcome to question it) is to create a disambiguation page for every quatrain (named something like "The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam/1"), which will contain links to the relevant quatrains in the English Wikisource as normal, using anchors (i.e "Quatrains of Omar Khayyam (tr. Whinfield, 1883)#1" for the Whinfield one, "The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (tr. Fitzgerald, 1st edition)#4" for another editon, etc). It can also contain IW links to the same page as cs.Ws: "cs:Čtyřverší_Omara_Chajjáma/1"}}, from where you can link to the individual Czech quatrains. The advantage of this approach is that there is only one IW link per quatrain, and additionally it allows us to link different versions of the same quatrain on each Wikisource, which would provide a level of linking we don't currently have.
  • If you agree to this approach, there are many things to do next:
  1. The version of the Whinfield book needs transcribing, and this version also has Arabic text. Can you transcribe Arabic? If so, you should do this, as I can't even distinguish the letters!
  2. We need to set up the central "spine" of quatrains, ready to link to the different versions. You said there are 770 in a Czech version. We have 500 in the 1883 version of Whinfield, there are 250+ in a different version of Whinfield, and various other editions all have different numbers. I seem to recall there are around 1000 in total. Even you said that the Whinfield #34 is the Czech version #124! Is there a consistent numbering scheme that is independent of any one work? That is the scheme we need to use to number the central disambiguation pages. Failing that, we need to think of some other way to index them.
  3. The other versions may need improvement (and anchoring) to allow us to include them in the structure.
I still prefer my solution but I´m glad for each solution which can link one poem with another (I mean different translations in one language and links among languages too). (The poems must be corresponding of course.)
What I prefer is this:
1) link poem no book
2) each poem have own subpage --Čočkin (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
AD This "Can you transcribe Arabic?" Unfortunetly not.
AD This "We need to set up the central "spine" of quatrains" It is more more difficult. 1) Some literal historians means that Khayyam isn´t author of all poems about which we think that belongs to him. There were similar poems to Khayyam´s poems so people thought that he wrote them and now know them as Khayyam´s poems. 2) Some translators make very free translations, so free that literal scientist cannot find concrete original poem from which translator translated. (Fitgerald is most known example.) 3) Some translators didn´t transalted from original. For example czech translator Štýbr transalted from English (from Fitzegerald) at first but later from original because he find out that Fitzegerald´s transaltions aren´t accurate and learnt Persian language. 4) It exist different editions of Khayyam work because his opus was hand writing (I think but I´m not totally sure. He is from medieval ages so it should be true). 5) There are different versions of the same translations. For example the version of Whienfield translation which I begin to spit is modernized by a literal historian. See this in source (at the end of page): "The text has been modernized by Prof. Arkenberg.". It will be very difficult to find the fixpoint. I unfortunately think that firm spine don´t exist. If you find firm point you are genius.
AD This "Is there a consistent numbering scheme that is independent of any one work?" I´m affraid that not. But I don´t know.
AD This "Failing that, we need to think of some other way to index them." Why to create own index? Why don´t use existing indexes (I mean sequence of numbers in each translations) in now and here existing online books? I still prefer links among poems on subpages. Each poem will be on own subpage and after that I can bind poem with poem. --Čočkin (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
AD This "Can you transcribe Arabic?" AGAIN: Maybe we can ask someone on Persian or Arabic wikisource/wikipedia for help. --Čočkin (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
AD This "The problem that you will create with interwiki links is that every Czech quatrain will link to every Enlgish translation (and we have several different versions), and every English one will need to link to every Czech one. This is a lot of IW links and is very vulnerable to become broken or not being maintained during changes on either site." I see more benifits than problems. When do you have vulnurable child you will send him to doctor. (When a fault apper somebody fix it.) You will not kill the child (I hope :)) only because is vulnureble. Or you will not go to abort only because the child can be vulnurable. I think that you cannot kill this problems you must cure illness. You cannot avoid all vandals but you can block them and so on. You don´t close wikisource only because there are vandals (=because wikisourse is vulnurable). You shoudn´t be against link poem per poem only because it can make some problems. Every solution makes problems. Our aim is to find solution which give the best outcome with not a lot problems.
AD Firm point: Firm point should be original text (djvu). But you cannot read Persian language/Arabic writing and I too. You don´t have access to original hand writing of Khayyam. (And I think that it doesn´t exist - his work is probably alive only because other people after his death rewrite, overwrite his work, made a choise from his work, made similar poems as he did. And now you want to find firm point? It unfortunutely doesn´t exist, I´m affraid. (IMHO) --Čočkin (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If these particular quatrain poems have an individual significance, if there are different editions and translations with different order (numbering) of quatrains and some quatrains are also independently translated, they should be on their own subpages. If number of different translations (several translations into one language and the same for another language) is not extremely high, it is inappropriate to use disambiguation pages for interlanguage linking, because it causes malfunction of "match" function (on Wikisource, unlike Wikipedia, interwiki isn't required 1:1 only). --Milda (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a sysop on persian wikisource, if you need help about understanding persian language I can help.Pedram.salehpoor (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Pedram.salehpoor! If you have any interest in transcribing the original persian quatrains at Quatrains of Omar Khayyam (tr. Whinfield, 1883), that would be fantastic. You can see the formatting I put in place there already. I would be great to have more of these cross-language works around! If you want to talk more, leave a message on the talk page of that work, or on my own talk page. Cheers, Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)