Talk:Táin Bó Cúailnge

This file has been copied from the CELT Project, where it is regularly updated. What is the use of taking it out of context and replicating it here? Why not make a link instead? I cannot believe handling of information by wholesale-copying is Wikipedia's aim. Beatrix Faerber, CELT Project, Cork

There should be a link too, of course. But why should the text be available only at CELT and nowhere else? What if the CELT servers go down? What if CELT loses its funding? Isn't it better that the text be available in more than one place? Angr/Talk 22:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The CELT text is copyrighted. It was published in 1976 and therefore the text is still within copyright, and the headers of the page at CELT specifically say so. This is a copyvio and should be removed. --82.7.115.184 19:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

CELT's annotations and comments are copyrighted, but they are not included here. The text reproduced here is centuries old and CELT cannot claim copyright on it. Please read de minimis and threshold of originality. Angr/Talk 19:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

CELT does not claim copyright; but it has received permission from the publishers of the text. They hold copyright. The manuscript is centuries old, but anybody working in medieval studies and text editing knows that to prepare an edition from a manuscript requires a lot of work. Beatrix F.

No doubt, but "a lot of work" does not equal "claim to copyright protection". Only creative work is copyrightable, and editing a medieval manuscript makes no creative additions. It's the same with the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel - it's been recently restored, but the restorers do not get to claim copyright on it as a new painting. The creative work is still Michelangelo's, and anyone can take a photograph of it and use that photograph any way they want. The publishers of the text hold copyright only on the editor's notes and the translation, but not on the text itself. —Angr 06:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Footnote formatting

It's only ~1/4 done, with a substantial portion of the text unproofread sandwiched between two proofread portions without footnotes adding to the text length but not the footnote length, and the footnotes have already exceed the text in length. We're probably going to have to come up with something else. Prosody (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Other desiderandum: maintain footnote numbering. Appears impossible with citeref. Prosody (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Line numbers

It would be desirable to maintain the line numbers while simultaneously preserving reflowability. So far as I know this hasn't been done before on WS. Worth thinking about. Prosody (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)