Talk:Lycaon (king of Arcadia)

Greece Mid‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mythology Mid‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

No myth!!

Where's the myth? What about HERE? The current text makes a list of sons which is pretty meaningless without any real myth. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and comments

1. "There are several version of the Lycaon myth, already reported by Hesiod (Fragmenta astronomica, by Eratosthenes, Catasterismi), told by several authors."

Should it end with "and told by several authors"?

2. Pausanias VIII? Apollodor? Ge? Where are these coming from?

3. The list of sons of Lycaon says they are 50 but only 49 are listed.

ICE77 (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ToposText

Not entirely sure where's the best place to have this discussion, given the very large amount of pages now involved in this editing (and I sort of assumed a discussion had already been had about it elsewhere, and I was just unaware of it – if it happened it would be great to point to it). @Gawaon: @Chaotic Enby made the edit (here, and on so many other pages) not because ToposText is generating AI source material, but because in this specific instance they have used an AI generated translation of Tzetzes text.

Personally I dislike the tag because of the exact issue apparent here: it does not specify what exactly the issue is, and can indeed lead people very easily to assume that the problem is that the entire source is somehow fictitious or AI generated. This is certainly not helped by the fact that the page one ends up at by clicking the link does not mention AI translations anywhere. Without any further context the reader has no chance of figuring out that the problem isn't that the source material is AI generated.

ToposText is indeed a great resource; so far the Tzetzes commentary is the only one where I've seen them using an AI translation. It is also, unfortunately, the only English translation of the text. It would seem to me that a better solution would have been to change the references to point to a copy of an edition of the ancient Greek text (available on archive.org) rather than leaving all these misleading tags lying around across so many pages (I include in that 'change the references' the step of 'checking that the Greek actually does say what the AI translation claimed'). Endlesspumpkin (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about it was had here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup #Links to AI-generated translation. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! In the discussion, we reached the conclusion that it was better to tag automatically, as there isn't really an equivalent translation we can find right now, and automatically changing the references to something else across so many pages (in this case to the Greek original) might have been suboptimal. I agree that this isn't specifically clear, and think that the best thing to do right now would be to add a parameter to the tag to replace "AI-generated source?" by "AI-generated translation?". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you could do that, that would be absolutely marvellous. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict x2) Darn, I wrote a two-paragraph response which tried to explain why tagging seemed the best idea given the situation, and weighing up our options, but if you're happy with adding a parameter, then that certainly solves things. I also want to just clarify that while Chaotic Enby was technically the one who made the edits, they were really only doing me a favour and saving me the hassle of downloading AWB myself (so consider me "responsible" for any issues caused). – Michael Aurel (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I've got this working. [1] This solution only allows for either "source" or "translation", so probably in future it would be good to alter or generalise this, but this should at least solve the current issue here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. I've added the tag back to this page. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]