Template talk:Panchatantra

Some conundrums

Because the Panchatantra has been ceaselessly evolving for around for 2 millennia, I think that, like the Panchatanra itself, some of the elements of this template will defy strict definition. I'm noting my thoughts on some conundrums so future editors can form better-informed agreements or disagreements.

• Title: I've taken the odd step of including several non-linking alternate titles. These (with 1 exception) all redirect to Panchatantra, so they cannot be included as their own links, but I think it's well to include them at the top, because there's no telling which of these readers will have heard of, or whether they have any idea that they're nearly synonymous. The exception is Hitopadesha which (hear me out) occurs twice: as an AKA at the top and as a link in "Related Works". It is right on the cusp of "just another version" and "independent work", and I think this double identity justifies its double mention. Other AKAs are possible: Tantrakhyayika, Pancakhyanaka... but anyone who knows these is already into textual history and won't need them in the navbox!
• Stories: In each case, I have just put in the link as I found it. In most cases, this does not correspond well to the title in any version of Panchatantra (that I've seen). This is a problem which cannot be solved perfectly, but a partial solution exists in my List of Panchatantra Stories ("Stories" in the navbox) which displays a Panchatantra title (from one source or another) but provides piped links to these same articles.
• Related Works: These are "related" in at least 3 distinct ways: Aesop & Jataka are quasi-parents: either they were a source for Panchatantra or (probably more likely) they and P drew from related even-older sources. La Fontaine & 1001 are quasi-children: they retell a selection of P's stories. Brihat & Katha are compendia which include versions of P in them. Hitopadesha, as discussed, is its own thing: half-way between a quasi-child and simply a version. Because the specific relations can be a little shifty, I've decided against attempting to categorize them within the navbox... they're all just "Related".
• Early/Modern: Surely La Fontaine is modern! Where do you draw the line? My unstated rule has been to try to reserve "Modern" for scholars attempting to go back to original sources (and translators using these scholarly sources), and leave the links in the centuries-old chain of Chinese whispers (inappropriately enough) in "Early". A rule-of-thumb dividing date is Wilkins' 1787 translation of Hitopadesha. So both by date and by manner, La Fontaine is "early".

I'm happy to discuss further if needed. Phil wink (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)