Talk:μῦθος

"From: WT:RFC"
Reads more like a homework assignment, than a dictionary definition. --Connel MacKenzie 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As the root word from which we get myth, that might be understandable. However, given the circumflex and citations from Classical sources, this clearly had the wrong language header.  I've changed it to Ancient Greek (instead of modern).  It looks also very much like it could be a copyvio, but I don't have a resource that woud verify this. --EncycloPetey 01:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * it summarizes the main meanings given in LSJ, not reproducing enough LSJ material by far to qualify as copyvio (IANAL), "mythos means speech in Homer" isn't a copyrightable statement after all. What does "reads more like a homework assignment, than a dictionary definition" even mean? Are we, or are we not, allowed to consult published dictionaries for our definitions? Are we, or are we not, required to consult published dictionaries for our definitions? 83.78.7.49 17:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is OK to use published references, but is considered proper to include a mention of them as references if they are the direct source of the information (even in summary). This is partly to give credit to the work of the original authors and researchers, but also to allow the curious to look for additional information.  You are not required to consult published dictionaries.  It is in fact a good thing to attempt to explain a word in your own vocabulary first.  Too many dictionaries that I've seen rely on each other for the same vocabulary and explanation.  Original thinking is good. --EncycloPetey 19:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this is not Wikipedia. By "reads more like a homework assignment..." I meant that the various definition "splits" are not likely to be appropriate.  Offhand, I think all of those separate definitions could/should be listed as one single defintion.  Instead, it looks like a homework assignment for someone spelling out the differences in style between certain authors.  --Connel MacKenzie 19:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Cleaned up, removed tag. Cerealkiller13 21:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see -- well, the "homework" has been done by LSJ -- we are certainly free to re-arrange their enumeration of meanings, but we should certainly be aware of their work. to "explain the word in our own vocabulary" in anything close to the quality of a major dictionary of Classical Greek would need enormous knowledge of classical literature. You cannot just dump your subjective impression of what the word means here or there without being aware of the work of previous scholars who have collected the contexts of its attestations. Yes, we should think for ourselves, and arrange the material for our purposes, but only after having seen the leading authoritative academic dictionaries. Dbachmann 12:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nicely done, Cerealkiller13. Dbachmann, on en.wiktionary.org, it is our common practice to give examples that show how the different authors use the term, by citation of those authors, rather than mimic other secondary sources directly.  --Connel MacKenzie 15:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * yes? (I realize this?) -- you are most welcome to add such citations, nobody ever claimed the entry was finished, no? I just decided to invest ten minutes in the entry for now, not two hours, but obviously we all would like to see the entry expand into a full-fledged repository of usage of muthos in classical literature. Dbachmann 15:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)