Talk:List of translators

message: Why we shouldn't create an article called list of Bible translators? Rafael, the Gawain 22:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to do so. But has nobody commented on the fact that texts such as the Bible and the Koran are currently listed under the heading of "literature"? --woggly 07:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking over the list again, clearly the list of Bible translators does not belong under the heading of "Translators into English". I'm afraid we'll have to work out some clever solution for how to sort translators both by language and by works translated. I'm off to see how they solved this at "List of Prizes". --woggly 07:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So, I'll create this article, list of Bible translators. That's what you said "need not be applied consistently to each and every work, but makes a lot of sense for works like the Bible where the list of translators is long and of particular interest". Rafael, the Gawain 16:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translators of the Bible 

message: Hello, would it be worth mentioning on this page whether certain translations of, say, The Odyssey are in verse or prose? For example, E.V. Rieu would be a prose translation, while Robert Fagles would be a verse translation. Any thoughts? Thanks. --Kyoko 16:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's worth mentioning that, plus the dates for historic translations and maybe a little note about the really famous versions discussing significance, influence etc..--Folantin 18:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  worth mentioning verse/prose translations? 

message: Would there be any way to provide a generalized list of translators and translated works, or is this just a project which is outside of the scope of Wikipedia? My primary interest is actually in recognizing translators of Japanese books into English, but I'd like to be able to refine it beyond that level. I'm actually more interested in the translated books by their categories. I obviously can't prove it, but I believe that there are many translators who have only done one or two books, but if those books are in a category of my interest, it seems very difficult to find the translations, except almost by accident.
Shanen (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  General solution possible for searching for translated books? 

message: I am intrigued by the claim that Amyot was the version of Plutarch on which Shakespeare relied. It is generally my impression -- although I don't necessarily subscribe to this myself -- that Shakespeare read North (who of course translated from Amyot, and not the original), not Amyot. I'm quite open to the argument that he read Amyot instead of, or in addition to, North. But I wonder what the basis for the claim is.  Can anyone cite some relevant scholarship?  If so, I'd be much indebted. If not, perhaps the claim needs to be attenuated.
Best wishes to all,
--BenJonson 15:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does it claim this? The article claims that Shakespeare used North who had translated Amyot's version of Plutarch. --Folantin 15:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakespeare's Plutarch