Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Poetry: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:15, 25 February 2009 editMerpin (talk | contribs)255 edits →Something to do← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:03, 12 January 2025 edit undoZ1720 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators30,659 edits →Good article reassessment for Little Orphant Annie: new sectionTag: New topic 
(853 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{BT list coverage|poetry}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WPPoetry|class=NA}}
{{WikiProject Poetry}}
{{archive box|auto=yes}}
}}
{{shortcut|WT:POETRY}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 8
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(91d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Poetry/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Connected contributor (paid)
|User1 = Noah Hickman | U1-employer = BYU|U1-EH=yes|U1-otherlinks=COI declarations ]}}


== Rudyard Kipling FAR ==
] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. Reviewers' concerns are ]. ] (]) 16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


==Dispute at Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär==
== Assessments ==
The article ] was recently created by ], and I thank them for that. However, the (unsourced) translation is an utter misrepresentation of the German text. The mistranslation of {{lang|de|Wenn}} to 'When' is what caught my eye first. On closer reading, their English text has often no equivalent in the German. I gave more details at ].


While correcting the translation, I also made more that half a dozen other improvements – some quite substantial – as described in my edit summaries. Tamtam90 reverted them all, twice. I would welcome the input of other editors in this matter. -- ] (]) 00:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, folks... It seems that the "C-Class" assessments aren't being listed in our handy table of assessments. In fact, the C-Class articles are still listed in the category for unassessed poetry articles. I'd like to recommend we avoid rating C-Class because of this. A couple weeks ago, our list of unassessed articles numbered about 700. Currently, it's just under 300. Let's keep going and get that number to zero! --] (]) 12:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


== Disputes on article for "]" ==
== Misplaced Pages 0.7 articles have been selected for Poetry ==


There are several disputes for the professor and poet ]. See the ] and ] if you want to catch up. There is a possible COI editor who is possibly very close to the subject and is very heated on the talk pages. They have repeatedly stated the involved editors do not know what we are talking about when it comes to editing articles for poets and authors, so I'm reaching out here and on ] to address this concern of theirs. Please take a look if interested and feel free to add to conversation/consensus. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 17:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
] is a collection of English Misplaced Pages articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The ] has made an .


==Informal discussion==
We would like to ask you to review the . These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at ]. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at ].
An informal discussion of article issues, a ], has been initiated at ]


== WP:MAJORWORK vs. WP:MINORWORK ==
A , sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with ], although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.


A difference of opinion about which applies arose for me recently, and MOS is not particularly helpful there.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at ] of ]. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Misplaced Pages 1.0 Editorial team, ] 23:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
* ]: {{tq|short}}, example has 16 lines
* ]: {{tq|long or epic}}, example has 10000+ lines
So, what about poems with 17 to 9999 lines? Where do you draw the line, or where do you place the grey area between long and short?


For comparison, the Eminem song "]" (208 lines) and Don McLean's "]" (117 lines) are both minor works.
== Modernist poetry in English FAR ==
According to {{ping|Bkonrad}}, Auden's ] (104 lines) is a major work, which I do not see. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">]</span> (]) 16:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:For the record, I don't care all that much, but the disambiguation entry should match however the article on ] is styled. Since it was initially published as a standalone booklet, I'd be inclined to treat it as a major work. ] ≠ ] 16:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::Also, until Paradoctor's post above, I was unaware of the poem's length. I only saw there was a style discrepancy between the disambiguation page entry and the article. I defaulted to what was used in the article's style, largely based on seeing it had been a standalone publication. But it could well be that the article should be updated. ] ≠ ] 17:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I like your new sig. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">]</span> (]) 17:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:Typically the secondary sources will have some kind of consensus, so I look for that (simpler than hoping to find a rule that is always accurate!). I also tend to find standalone publications (like booklets) are more often treated as “major” than parts of works (like poems within a collection or songs within an album), and format has a bigger impact than the raw number of lines. ] (]) 22:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:: {{tq|secondary sources}} I'd really be surprised if the sources were a) consistent with each other, b) aligned with our purpose of distinguishing "minor" and "major" works. Maybe more to the point, I suspect most sources will use "major" and "minor" as descriptors of impact, not of length, which is what MOS uses as criterion. I don't think sources will work for us there. "American Pie" is certainly not a minor work in McLean's discography.
:: Same issue with publication context/format. MOS doesn't mention it.
:: {{tq|simpler than hoping to find a rule that is always accurate}} Good thing, then, that I didn't ask for that, wouldn't you say? <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">]</span> (]) 22:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Maybe I wasn't clear: I didn't mean to suggest that we go and see whether sources describe a given poem as "major" and then italicize if so; that certainly wouldn't work. I meant that the sources will either italicize the title or put it in quotation marks, and we can follow their lead. To my eye, the Misplaced Pages MOS simply enumerates the same principles that underlie other style guides like MLA style. So, the gray area between "long" and "short" will not be a numerical cutoff, but a contextual assessment already carried out by those who produce our secondary materials on these works. These contextual assessments, in my experience, are often heavily influenced by publication format and genre. So if you are just wondering whether Auden's poem about Spain should be in quotes or italics, it looks like it could be either and I'd go check which is most common in the sources. ] (]) 06:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
::::{{tq|sources will either italicize the title or put it in quotation marks}} Same objection applies here, only much harder, so let me quote myself: {{tq|I'd really be surprised if the sources were a) consistent with each other, b) aligned with our purpose of distinguishing "minor" and "major" works}}.
::::{{tq|To my eye, the Misplaced Pages MOS simply enumerates the same principles that underlie other style guides like MLA style}} Please quote our MOS where it says {{em|anything but}} length determines whether a poem is a major or a minor work. The problem is that the guidance given leaves a three ] gap. That's a bit much for local consensus to carry. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">]</span> (]) 10:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:: It would be good to have some definition like the film industry provides. ] defines a short film as having a run time of no more than 40 minutes. The Canadians use a different definition, but that needn't worry us, we can use and mention these definitions as context would have us. Maybe ] or some publisher's association promulgates a definition of "short poem"? For prose, I dimly recall reading a definition that distinguishes between short story, novelette, novella, and novel in terms of word count.


== We should start an article on ] ==
] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. Reviewers' concerns are ]. ] (]) 22:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


We should start an article on ] - "Poet and social activist Ingoapele Madingoane is considered the doyen of modern, politically conscious oral poetry. The late Madingoane was a formidable member of the 1976 Black Consciousness Sowetan poets.He wrote the famous, evocative, mini-epic poem, Africa my Beginning, which was published by Ravan Press in Johannesburg in 1979 and banned by the apartheid authorities two months later. Madingoane performed the poem widely in Soweto, accompanied by Mihloti Black Theatre’s flutes and drums. It became a regular feature during the protest rallies and funerals of anti-apartheid activists. He has had an indelible impact and influence on the post-apartheid generations of poets, including world-renowned poets ], ], and ]. Madingoane was honored with a SALA Literary Posthumous Award in 2007, nine years after his death"
== Philitas of Cos FAC comments requested ==


- ] (]) 15:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I nominated ] as a ]; comments are welcome at ]. ] (]) 05:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
== Assessing poetry articles ==
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 19:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

A couple weeks ago, I began a personal mission to assess articles in the category for unassessed Wikiproject Poetry articles. When I started, there were about 700 articles in that category. It's now under 130. Whew!

I've been noticing, however, that many of the articles are questionable to include in the project. Should we have set standards for inclusion? For example, this article ] is neither a poet, nor a poem, nor a poetic term or type. --] (]) 12:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed it from the category. Were an article to be written on Hölderlin's actual poem, it would be under the auspices of this wikiproject. ] (]) 15:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

==Forgot a term==
I'm looking for a term. The case at hand: ] often wrote poems in a specific form: 5 interlinked Alexandrine couplets one after another (5 couplets, ten lines). I would use the term ], but my dictionary says a stanza is a part of a larger poem, and that's what I recall, but I used the term stanza for lack of a better term. What term am I looking for for Coppee's ten-line stand-alone verses? the term ]? Is there a specific term?
Here is the verse form I'm talking about:

:''J'adore la banlieue avec ses champs en friche''
:''Et ses vieux murs lépreux, où quelque ancienne affiche''
:''Me parle de quartiers dès longtemps démolis.''
:''Ô vanité! Le nom du marchand que j'y lis''
:''Doit orner un tombeau dans le Père-Lachaise.''
:''Je m'attarde. Il n'est rien ici qui ne me plaise,''
:''Même les pissenlits frissonnant dans un coin.''
:''Et puis, pour regagner les maisons déjà loin,''
:''Dont le couchant vermeil fait flamboyer les vitres,''
:''Je prends un chemin noir semé d'écailles d'huîtres.''

No Copyright. ] (]) 03:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

:Not to sound pedantic, but I think that's just called "a poem" - unless there's a specific term for this type of poem (i.e. it's not a ] but it might be something else). --] (]) 14:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

::That wasn't pedantic at all, I was expecting that. There may not be a specific term for this form so the term would be "verse(s)" or "poem". Thanks. Not to be pedantic myself, but there are a lot of forms that have specific terms: ], ], ], ], ], etc. ] (]) 23:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

:::Right, that's what I was saying: I think you might be looking for a poem ''type'' rather than a poetic term. If that makes sense. Anyone with better ideas is welcome to jump in! --] (]) 02:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

::I understand what you're saying. By "poetic term" you mean terms such as "verse", "poem", "stanza". By "poem type" you mean ], ], etc. You're saying there is probably no "poetic term" I'm looking for, rather I'm looking for the specific term for that form ("poem type"), if there is one. ] (]) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

== Tagging and assessing ==

Opinions requested!
#Should our poetry project template be added to categories?
#Should the template be added to the many, many "year in poetry" articles? For example, ] be part of our project? How do we assess them if so?
--] (]) 14:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
: I can see your point. The categories present a challenge for us-- they can never be assessed as anything more than a cat, which puts them under the unassessed articles. I think we should probably shy away from the "years in poetry" and other categories with our tags. They are not actually poetry articles, and I would not be sad if they no longer had the template. But we do need to do something about the C-class articles... so many of the pages out there are more than start class but no where near a B.

On another note, I myself am not sure how a page is put up for reassessment, and I have read our WP:Wikiprojet Poetry/assessment page six times. Perhaps we could attempt to make it a bit clearer?... or maybe I am just a moron:)] (]) 13:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

:C-class does still exist, by the way. It is just so new that it hasn't spread very far (i. e. to our assessment page.) ] (]) 17:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
::Right Right, but for practical purposes, I have stopped using it and have switched most c-class to start-class at the moment just so they dont continue appearing on our unassessed page. No one has complained about it yet, so I think there will be little backlash. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::I think it would be better to change the template so that it recognized C-class. Would you change all the articles that used to be c-class back? Then I will fix the template and the problem will no longer exist. ] (]) 17:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Very well, i am a strong advocate for a C class, and I would gladly change all the start classes back to C class. I just suck at templates:) ] (]) 18:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
With the Template now fixed I have put all of my Start changes back to ''C'' class, but now we have a C class with about 10 articles in it. I have started with the A's in the start class, looking for articles that deserve a higher assessment. Just FYI.] (]) 20:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, can we modify the template to include ''Category'' and any other term to remove all tagged items from the unassessed that have an assessment?] (]) 21:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

:::::If anyone knows how to do it, I think this would be really helpful. --] (]) 15:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

== Help editing an article ==

I have been working for about a week editing the article on ], and I wanted to see if anyone has any suggestions as to what content does/does not belong and how to keep origional research out of a description of a poem. Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.] (]) 20:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
:Likewise, I have reviewed the ] page, which has undergone many changes since its last assessment on June 18,2008, and I think it is close to being a GAC.] (]) 15:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
::Great choice spending time on ]. I might drop by for some Misplaced Pages style edits, if that's something you need help with. Otherwise, when I get a moment, I'll look at the content too. --] (]) 15:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

== Borges - review as good article ==

] has been nominated for a ]. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are ]. ] (]) 18:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

== help with article assessment ==

Last week, while our template was missing the C class, I assessed an article on ] as start class, which upset a lively admin named ]. While I agree that the article is very well-written and an excellent source on the subject, my concern about putting it at a B class was that the interlinear references don't appear to give enough information to allow a reader to verify the claims made about or in reference to the sources. I was of the opinion that the style guide suggests that all information about a source should be given to allow the reader to quickly verify a reference and that the more information that can be supplied, the better. If anyone has the time, I would love to get some mentoring on interlinear references and would like hear what you have to think about whether or not the reference method should detract from the articles assessment, which I would personally put at C-class because my foundation in research papers is probably a bit too strong for my own good. I would appreciate any discussion of the subject here or on my talk page.] (]) 01:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
:I would support a Start-class assessment of that article. This particularly user is incredibly valuable to the project, but can be defensive of articles (as we all can be, and I'm no exception). The assessment, we must all remember, is ''only'' relevant to ''this'' project (with the exception of GA and FA class). Those who are not members shouldn't be too concerned about our assessments. --] (]) 02:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
:] I came across this artice which was listed as a Start-class. after a quick look, I put it at C, but would like to see what others think in terms of a higher rating] (]) 20:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
::Wide range. Missing only a few cites. Has pictures. It could be a low B class. ] (]) 20:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I was the one that introduced most of the sourced info in that article and I very rarely upgrade class listings for my own work. :) Someday I'll get back to Whittier and bring it up to GA, but I'm distracted by Transcendentalists right now! --] (]) 21:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
:How about this one: ]. It is well-sourced, though it is not written from a NPOV. But what I am most curious about is the crazy format for the quotations with the different colors. It makes me want to tear my eyes out, but am I allowed to subtract from an assessment for that? ] (]) 06:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
::Egads!! I went in and toned down a couple quote boxes (cquotes in particular are rarely used; some of those quotes were also too short to be in boxes). My guess is that the big colored box quotes are meant to serve in place of artwork. It's silly and needs to go. In this instance, I'd feel that the ] problems are significant enough to downgrade the article (though I doubt I'd rate it high based on the tone of the article and that it's written in first person!) but I'd be sure to offer a friendly note on the talk page about what the problem is and why it doesn't conform to standards. See if the main editor is still active and maybe even leave a personal note for him. --] (]) 13:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
How about this one: ]. It looks good from a quick view, but I do want to put it up for review before moving it any higher than a C ] (]) 19:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
:And this for that matter ] ] (]) 05:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
::Well, they're both over the recommended limit of 50K (the first one is too big by almost 5X) so I think that's a strike against them. The excessive redlinks are also awful to look at. But I'd still rate at a B because of the decent citations (assuming they meet ]; I didn't really check it out deeply). --] (]) 14:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I have gotten mixed reviews on red links: is it ok to go through and delete them if they are not likely to generate an article, or are they supposed to be left as they are? ] (]) 22:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
::::I think the policy is purposefully ambiguous (see ]. Many of the links in those articles could definitely be created some day, but they probably won't. I'd suggest, for example, that the links in the "References" in the first article are unnecessary, as are most of the redlinks to his works. I can't assume that the people linked are too obscure but it seems to me that might be the case (at least, in the English language). I think the article creators should show more discretion when it comes to redlinks, but that's just me. To answer your question more directly, for our purposes I think it might be worth leaving a note on those talk pages, and let editors with a more vested interest take action, if they deem it necessary. --] (]) 23:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

== article ] ==

I was looking through the poetry articles, and I came across ] only to find that it is a list of various poets. The list does not have any rhyme or reason (no pun intended) and seems to include the favorite poets of the various editors who have happened across the page. They WP:Style article says that lists that are too broad have little value. I was wondering if, since an article on ''Poet'' is of the highest importance to our project, anyone else would like to lend a suggestion as to how we should approach this article. God knows I don't want to write an article on ''Poet'' when the definition is almost implicit in the ''Poetry'' article, but should we do something?] (]) 02:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:My gut reaction is that "poet" should be "list of poets". I say we take whichever we like better and make that the main article and leave the other as a redirect. There's no need to be so redundant (there's also categories on poets, which work pretty well). --] (]) 15:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

== Assessment standards ==

You know, I've been planning on proposing this for some time but was just nudged by a comment from Ottava Rima. I think we should take a moment and come to an agreement on what our importance assessment standards should be. Granted, these assessments aren't really of any consequence, even to most members of this project; even so, it might make things go easier when we get those tags up there.

In my head, I've been using a couple standards. First, I always assume that the general overview article of a poet is more important than any individual poem. I very rarely assess at "high" importance - I usually reserve that rating for the absolute canonical poets that every kid learns in high school (the Shakespeares, Miltons, etc.). The balance, battling between mid and low importance, I usually base on how important poetry was to their career. For example, if someone wrote poetry but is remembered as a politician first and foremost, our interest in him in this project, I believe, is of low importance. I also use low importance for the really inconsequential poets (I've seen a few articles on self-published 18-year olds; I don't find them important).

Okay, that's really just about the poets. It gets complicated when you talk about individual poems, poetry collections, and characters from poems. Anyone have suggestions for standards? Oh, I also think most poetic terms (like "stanza") are so basic that they should be high importance.

Let's chat about this. Chime in with feedback, criticism, suggestions, etc. --] (]) 16:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with almost everything you said. However, I think we should probably take an objective stance on the importance of some poems to the project. Obviously, the ] article should probably be higher in importance than say ] , since it is obviously more dear to our project. However, I think that many of the poems that are in most Anthologies should probably have an importance of mid, since these will be searched by many readers who intend to learn more about them, and a good article can provide references that will assist the avereage reader in further study. My criteria I have been using to assess poems has been based on a few quick facts I am looking for.
*Does this provide a clear overview about the poem itself with limited information about the poet.
*is it referenced with credible sources
*Does it contain links to major themes and stylistic terms that are important to the project.
:I have to admit that poems such as ''The Red Wheel Barrow'' would get a mid to high level of importance from me because of its importance not only as a work but its place within the history of poetry and its use of a certain style. We can not help being arbitrary in the importance selection, but I guess my question comes when we are dealing with poems that will receive a high level of hits from students studying basic English courses. I tend to believe that poems and poets who will receive the highest amount of attention should have the highest importance, to make sure we focus first on articles that will reflect the strength of our project to the most people ] (]) 13:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

* I think that a good rule of thumb for importance is to rank any poem listed in the Norton Anthology or similar textbooks composed by a major author as "mid" or higher based on exposure of these works. Any author who writes them should be high. Mostly, this agrees with Mrathel. I think we are going off of exposure to highschool/undergraduates, which is a key demographic to Misplaced Pages. Any terms that would be used to understand the structure of a poem should be high. Any major poetic or critical (New Criticism, Deconstruction, Structuralism, etc) movements should be listed as high. Any major critics who helped shape their field or an interpretation should be mid (Walter Jackson Bate, M H Abrams, or Harold Bloom, for example). Those are just my thoughts and are up to change. ] (]) 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

::Apparently, we have this section in our project: ]. It looks like a generic copy/paste job. May I recommend we start working on a working guide to assessment at ]? I think we all know where we are going with this... --] (]) 21:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I'll copy out some indexes of some books, including the Norton compendium. We could then go off of major authors from there. Major authors should be high and their major works mid. Their minor works low. Minor authors should be mid, with works low. Obscure authors not listed on the compendium or in various text books should be low. On Wikiversity, I'm compiling a "canon" list of English lit, so this would dovetail with what I am currently working on. ] (]) 21:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for being so inquisitive, but I am still not sure how an article is put up for reassessment. On the Assessment page of our project there is a part that says "List below". Are they supposed to just list the article in that section (that seems kinda given) but then the section below states that logs are generated automatically and should not be manually edited. Being a wiki N00b, I can only guess that they list manually and it will be added to the log upon assessment, but I just want to be sure. ] (]) 16:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Don't worry about asking questions; that's the point of collaboration. You're looking at two different things: one is for editors (say, non-members of this project) to request assessments of poetry-related articles (though, in practice, they'll probably just ask right here on the main discussion page). The other section on there is for the bot assessments, like what's in that big grid on the main poetry page (and at the top right of the assessments page) – the one that shows how many of each assessed article there are. --] (]) 16:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

== http://www.poetryfreedom.com/ ==

Hello, I am close to 3rr on ] over this website, which as far as I can tell is essentially composed of user-contributed content- it is a poetry myspace, and does not belong in the external links section. I just want to be clear that there is consensus for these reverts. Comments? ]] 00:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
:It seems you're right to keep reverting. Have you considered putting it up for semi-protection at ]? --] (]) 01:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

==http://www.shmoop.com/==
I know that numerous individual conversations have take place regarding "Shmoop", both on user talk pages and on article talk pages (see ] and ]). Shmoop claims that it is for "High-schoolers raised in the IRC age", or something to that effect. As a recent high school graduate, I despise cloying condescension, which is exactly how Shmoop feels: one of the reason that WP is great is that we don't dumb things down- we assume that people come here to learn. Each article on Shmoop consists of a summary of the material (which is usually not as comprehensive as the[REDACTED] version-- definitely not the "further research" that ELs are intended to provide) and then, the main basis of my objection, the "Why should I care?" section. Of course, my objection is mainly on policy grounds-- they do not add anything to the content of the article, and the link-adders are not here to add anything to the encyclopedia other than shmoop links. Whatever one's assessment of Shmoop may be, their stereotype of people of my age group ''is'' an agenda, and they are here to push it- nothing more. The main point is that external links are there to enhance content and provide scholarly context-- not to dumb it down. I would like to obtain consensus one way or the other in this thread. One point in ]'s favor is that he has not re-added the links without discussion. I leave you with some excerpts from Shmoop's analysis of ]:

{{cquote|A country in the midst of an identity crisis…a passionate need for change…major stress about the state of the nation. Sound familiar?

"London, 1802" doesn't get into specific political issues, but instead asks readers where the character of England went astray. Imagining that very same question being posed on Capitol Hill is not difficult. We can be certain that, were Wordsworth to time-travel his way into modern day America, he'd be pretty riled up about the kind of change going down.}}

{{cquote|The second half of the poem dwells on Milton's high points; the speaker gets all swoony about Milton's writing, and uses celestial imagery to show us just how divine it is. Not only is Milton's writing admirable, apparently, so was his character. The man could do no wrong. The speaker goes gaga over the all-around loveliness that was Milton, and ends the poem by praising the deceased poet's humility.}}

{{cquote|This poem is extra-special-fancy by Wordsworth's standards; we can imagine him sitting down, clearing his throat, cracking his knuckles, and thinking, "What would Milton like?" This is kind of like buckling down to write a fan letter to your favorite celebrity, dead or alive, in which you want to tell them just how totally amazing he/she is, and how much you really, REALLY love him/her.}}

]] 16:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:Hmm... well, I'm not sure this project is the spot to build a Misplaced Pages-wide consensus. I'm not sure where to go on something like that, but I'm sure there's a spot. Anyone know better? --] (]) 17:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
::Yeah, I noticed a link to this being added to the ] article, but I am not really sure how we can decide on something like this and didn't feel compelled to take it off because it was under external links and was not obvious. As a matter of policy, allowing these links to stay would only open the door to other age-based sites putting their link underneath, and I can only imagine that you would end up with a tedious discussion about making sure all age groups are represented. If the reader comes to wp, I can only imagine they do it to get an encyclopedia article and not an age-appropriate reader guide, but I also fail to see how our project has much of a say in the matter as a whole even if we agree to systematically remove the links from articles without clear policy to back those actions up. ] (]) 18:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I think Lithoderm is absolutely right about shmoop.com, but a WP-wide consensus is probably best discussed in ]. (The site appears to be very US-centric which means that adding links to it would be problematic with regard to ]. That's in addition to the points brought up above, of course.) --] (]) 19:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
::::I have copied this discussion over to ], and will notify ]. ]] 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

== Merge of 2 editions ==

I recently merged articles on the 1988 and 2003 versions of ] , which was published in 2 editions, the second fixing selection and odering problems of the first. While the selection of poetry is different in the second edition, I considered the fact that it was a book by the same editor with the same title, and boldy put both pages together since they were stubs. ] has not taken this merger well, and I just wanted to be sure that I am doing the right thing here. In the case of faulkner's ''Flags in the Dust'' and ''Sartoris'', I can see how the book would have two different articles since they have seperate titles for two editions of the same novel, but in this case, the names are the same, and i can only guess that someone searching for one edition would not object to having information about the other on the same page. Please lend me your thoughts if you have a second. ] (]) 14:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
:Personally, I think it's good to keep them as one article. "Publication history" sections are great places to expand on future editions, changes, updates, additions, etc. --] (]) 15:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
:Looking at some of the talk page discussions, I'm not sure if I stand by my first response. Can we confirm if these are two versions of ''one'' book or two completely different books? Is there a scholarly consensus out there? For example, though the first edition of ''Leaves of Grass'' and the final "death-bed" edition are ''extremely'' different, Walt Whitman (and everyone since) has considered it one book, '']''. Is the same true for Larkin's book? --] (]) 15:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
::The difference is noticable: mostly, a reordering of the poems and addition of 40 poems that were omitted from the origional (as was the editiors choice at the time, which he later recanted). There is no doubt that the 2003 edition is an updated version of the 1988 edition, but my objection came from the fact that it was a reworking of the same collection by the same author under the same title and printed by the same company. There is no scholarly consenus on the subject from what I have read, and the second edition is supposed to be the ediors reordering of his previous work to fit a better chronology of what Larkin might have intended. Of course, Larkin was not around when the second volume was published, so there is no way to settle the matter. Even so, having a seperate article for 2 editions of the same book, neither one really asserting singular notability, seemed unreasonable. To the average reader, it is rather unlikely that a distinction would be made between the two editions to the point that he or she would search for an article on ''Collected Poems (1998)'' or ''Collected Poems 2003'' as the result of a conscious decision. ] (]) 16:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
The 2003 version is not "an updated version" - it is the publishing in a single volume of four seperate collections of poetry, plus appendices of poems published but not collected ''ie'' it contains ''only'' what Larkin himself chose to publish. The 1988 version is all this ''plus'' a very contraversial selection of the unpublished material. Furthermore Thwaite chose not to follow Larkin's own ordering, but put all the poems in a strict chronological order, thus placing published poems alongside unfinished poems & finished poems not suitable for publication etc. In a sense the two volumes had two different editors, in that all decisions vis-a-vis inclusion in the 2003 edition were essentially made by Larkin. The two volumes could easily have been called "Complete Poems (ed. Thwaite)" (1988) and "The published poetry of Philip Larkin" (2003). Would people still want to merge the two articles? The release of the 1988 vol. did much to damage Larkin's image: his careful selections were unsettled by being published alongside private expressions. The 2003 vol, on the other hand, seems to co-incide with a feeling that Larkin has been given enough of a kicking and that we're going to have to get on with the fact of the poetry's continued importance, whatever we might feel about his politics etc. I recommend that anybody getting involved with this discussion reads Here's a quote from it: <blockquote>
The 2003 Collected Poems, then, is not intended as a corrective or a replacement of the earlier book, but as a sort of companion volume. This is an odd arrangement, and one wonders what Larkin the librarian would have made of it. Would he have been flattered, amused, reprehending? One can imagine a tag line in a letter to his pal and confidant Kingsley Amis: "Two Collected Poems bum."
</blockquote>]-] 18:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
:Very Well, I have undone the merge and stand smilingly corrected. ] (]) 01:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

== Christian epic ==

is problematic. We have individuals wanting to use the term "romantic epic" instead of "romance epic" (one refers to epics of the Romantics, the other refers to Epics that have Romance like plots). Also, this user removed "Christian epic" from ''Orlando furioso'' on the biography page, even though the poem has God supporting Christians against the "pagan" Saracens, and the major critics in epic and Italian epic deem it as a Christian epic. We need to come up some rigorous definition so we can ensure such problems stop happening. ] (]) 19:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
:The easiest thing to do is simple: ''we'' don't define anything. Just find a scholarly source that says what it is and footnote it. Footnotes tend to be ironclad and protected from argument if the source is solid. --] (]) 15:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
::I provided hundreds of sources and yet others want to say that their own personal knowledge or a few rare uses trumpts it. to here. I think what we need to do is create a page, define the major terms and how they are used, cite many sources for each, and then link people to that page at the beginning of such disputes so they are quickly stopped. ] (]) 16:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
:::I see what you're saying. My honest advice right now is to back away; people are painting you like the bad guy here. Give this issue some time to cool off and then return to it. Sources are sources, after all. But now that it's on the noticeboard, let others become aware of the issue and see what "side" is supported. The problem with making our own definitions is that it imposes the rule of this project when no such authority exists (i.e. ]) and, of course, we also risk the dreaded original research label. --] (]) 16:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
::::If we use citations and multiple references, we should be able to create a valid page to bring up to the fringe noticeboard when people try to push definitions that aren't accepted within literary criticism. Its just a thought. ] (]) 16:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

So, the article on ] is listed with an article name of ''Howl'', but the article is about ''Howl and Other Poems''. Does anyone else find this a bit strange? An article on ''Howl'' the poem would easily meet notability standards on its own, and yet it seems to be tied up inside the article on the book of poems that contains it. Anyone agree? ] (]) 19:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
:I definitely agree. ''Howl'' should easily pass notability requirements and garner a decent-sized article. ''Howl and Other Poems'' can certainly be discussed within the ] article but that's about it, I'd suggest. --] (])
:My rule of thumb is that any major author's work that has more than five sources has more than enough to be deemed notable. Clearly, ''Howl'' does. I also think that individual collections are notable enough. ] (]) 00:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
::I agree with Ottava based on that criteria (though, for notability, I might even only go for three or four independent sources, though you definitely need at least five to get a decent article out of it) for collections as well as individual poems. Personally, I'd prioritize "Howl" over ''Howl and Other Poems''. --] (]) 03:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I created an article for ] using a bit of the information provided in the ] article, which I assume will fly under the radar until I can turn the ''Howl'' article into one that actually talks about its topic. Feel free to add or subtract if you have a chance:) ] (]) 16:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

== template file deleted ==

the quill file for the template was deleted. I changed the file image to a generic quill, but it has not shown up on the pages with the template. Perhaps someone who knows what he or she is doing can fix this?:) ] (]) 18:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
:It just takes time. It's up now. ] (]) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
::It's good to change things up a bit every once in a while anyway. I like the new image choice. --] (]) 18:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

== Notable? ==

I didn't dig too deep into looking at the notability standards for poems, so could someone take a look to see if ] is acceptable? <b>]</b><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 01:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:A good rule of thumb: is it significantly covered in at least three independent reliable sources? So far, the article doesn't show it. --] (]) 02:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:It seems more appropriate for Wikisource, seeing as how there is only a minor introduction and it contains the whole poem. ] (]) 03:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
::It is a rather common set of lyrics for the Fur Elise in many hym books in the Baptist church, so I can only imagine that it is notable if examined closely...but the article doesn't reflect that. ] (]) 04:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Ha, Fur Elise... I am smoking crack. 9th symphony is more like it. I should probably quit talking now:) ] (]) 05:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
:::A while back I came across the page for ] and it seemed a bit COI to me, but the question I have is about the public speaking dates listed on the page. I think the definitive answer on this would be in ], but would love to hear how others see it. As for the article itself, it is horrible, but I just wanted to know on this issue for future reference ] (]) 13:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

== Something to do ==

If Poetry project members are looking for something to do, the list of ] has gotten a bit long. Feel free to join in the assessing! --] (]) 19:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:Happy to help, but I started to have a look at this & got a bit confused ... Frost, Dickinson, Goethe, Neruda are 'top' but Milton, Rilke, Wordsworth, Yeats are 'high' ... are there some objective guidelines for this?? ] (]) 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
::As I understand, the "top" articles aren't up to us but are already chosen under the ] list. Generally, we as a project don't rate above "High", which means those "Top" rated ones should be knocked down to High. Someone help me out if I'm wrong. --] (]) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Sounds about right. ] (]) 03:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Another housekeeping issue: is there any way to make it so that the "none" section of importance doesn't bring up articles labeled "NA"... as this would help keep the NA and unassessed separate? ] (]) 14:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:I went through most of the remaining ones. The only one left is still there because I nominated it as a Good Article and I wasn't sure what to do with the quality rating in the meantime. ] (]) 23:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

== ] ==

About a year ago, a user from de.wikipedia started adding links to ], cross-wiki (many languages). This user also registered here as ]. The fairly large number of links added triggered the attention of the linkspam blacklisters and Lyrikline.org was globally blacklisted, our article on the web site (created by the alleged spammer), was directly deleted, and all links added here were removed. In spite of efforts from de.wikipedia editors to have the blacklisting removed, it has remained, and de.wikipedia then went ahead and whitelisted the entire site for their own use, monitored the situation, and the report is that there has been no abuse.

See the article, ] which I just arranged to restore, with the cooperation of the administrator who originally deleted it. Lyrikline has "4,700 poems by 470 poets in 49 languages." The site is supported by highly reputable organizations and can be considered, in my opinion, a reliable source. Any poet hosted there would be notable, intrinsically. (They are not an open site, contributions are reviewed by an editorial process.) For each author hosted, there is a bibliography, a biography, and a selection of poems that are available as text, as an audio file of the poet reading, and translations into various languages.

I would like to restore the links -- or most of them -- added by ], because I consider that, in almost every case I've seen, the links would be a benefit for the readers. Before doing so, though, I want to solicit comment from editors interested in these articles; I may drop a note on the article Talk pages before inserting the links, but most of these articles probably are not being watched closely.

See ] for the edits here of the user, it is effectively a list of poets I'd start with, though there are many more possible, Lyriker had added only a relatively small number of links before being warned, then immediately blocked.

Actually adding the links will require that either the blacklisting of lyrikline.org be lifted, or that the site be locally whitelisted, or that each link to be added be whitelisted. I have seen resistance to whitelisting lyrikline.org links based on opinion expressed on ] that such links aren't "necessary," with citation of ]. My opinion is that this is a misunderstanding of ], which quite clearly supports links to a site like lyrikline.org; in particular, the audio files could not be hosted here, nor could the poetry or translations be quoted except partially. These pages are the equivalent of the poet's own pages; the audio files are, I believe, contributed by the poets directly to lyrikline.org.

Any comment will be appreciated. --] (]) 02:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've compiled a list of poets (over 500) with pages at Lyrikline.org, at ]. The names are wikified, so one can see which ones have articles here. A case could be made that any English-language poet on Lyrikline should have an article here. There may be some problems with name spelling, there may be more articles than this page shows as not redlinked. --] (]) 05:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:03, 12 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Poetry and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPoetry
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry
Shortcut

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.


Dispute at Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär

The article Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär was recently created by User:Tamtam90, and I thank them for that. However, the (unsourced) translation is an utter misrepresentation of the German text. The mistranslation of Wenn to 'When' is what caught my eye first. On closer reading, their English text has often no equivalent in the German. I gave more details at Talk:Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär#Disputed translation.

While correcting the translation, I also made more that half a dozen other improvements – some quite substantial – as described in my edit summaries. Tamtam90 reverted them all, twice. I would welcome the input of other editors in this matter. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Disputes on article for "Barrett Watten"

There are several disputes for the professor and poet Barrett Watten. See the Talk:Barrett Watten and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Question_about_a_professor's_article if you want to catch up. There is a possible COI editor who is possibly very close to the subject and is very heated on the talk pages. They have repeatedly stated the involved editors do not know what we are talking about when it comes to editing articles for poets and authors, so I'm reaching out here and on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment to address this concern of theirs. Please take a look if interested and feel free to add to conversation/consensus. GeogSage 17:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Informal discussion

An informal discussion of article issues, a "Before opening a reassessment", has been initiated at Talk:Dylan Thomas#Article issues and classification

WP:MAJORWORK vs. WP:MINORWORK

A difference of opinion about which applies arose for me recently, and MOS is not particularly helpful there.

So, what about poems with 17 to 9999 lines? Where do you draw the line, or where do you place the grey area between long and short?

For comparison, the Eminem song "Rap God" (208 lines) and Don McLean's "American Pie" (117 lines) are both minor works. According to @Bkonrad:, Auden's Spain (104 lines) is a major work, which I do not see. Paradoctor (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I don't care all that much, but the disambiguation entry should match however the article on Spain (poem) is styled. Since it was initially published as a standalone booklet, I'd be inclined to treat it as a major work. older ≠ wiser 16:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, until Paradoctor's post above, I was unaware of the poem's length. I only saw there was a style discrepancy between the disambiguation page entry and the article. I defaulted to what was used in the article's style, largely based on seeing it had been a standalone publication. But it could well be that the article should be updated. older ≠ wiser 17:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I like your new sig. Paradoctor (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Typically the secondary sources will have some kind of consensus, so I look for that (simpler than hoping to find a rule that is always accurate!). I also tend to find standalone publications (like booklets) are more often treated as “major” than parts of works (like poems within a collection or songs within an album), and format has a bigger impact than the raw number of lines. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
secondary sources I'd really be surprised if the sources were a) consistent with each other, b) aligned with our purpose of distinguishing "minor" and "major" works. Maybe more to the point, I suspect most sources will use "major" and "minor" as descriptors of impact, not of length, which is what MOS uses as criterion. I don't think sources will work for us there. "American Pie" is certainly not a minor work in McLean's discography.
Same issue with publication context/format. MOS doesn't mention it.
simpler than hoping to find a rule that is always accurate Good thing, then, that I didn't ask for that, wouldn't you say? Paradoctor (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe I wasn't clear: I didn't mean to suggest that we go and see whether sources describe a given poem as "major" and then italicize if so; that certainly wouldn't work. I meant that the sources will either italicize the title or put it in quotation marks, and we can follow their lead. To my eye, the Misplaced Pages MOS simply enumerates the same principles that underlie other style guides like MLA style. So, the gray area between "long" and "short" will not be a numerical cutoff, but a contextual assessment already carried out by those who produce our secondary materials on these works. These contextual assessments, in my experience, are often heavily influenced by publication format and genre. So if you are just wondering whether Auden's poem about Spain should be in quotes or italics, it looks like it could be either and I'd go check which is most common in the sources. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
sources will either italicize the title or put it in quotation marks Same objection applies here, only much harder, so let me quote myself: I'd really be surprised if the sources were a) consistent with each other, b) aligned with our purpose of distinguishing "minor" and "major" works.
To my eye, the Misplaced Pages MOS simply enumerates the same principles that underlie other style guides like MLA style Please quote our MOS where it says anything but length determines whether a poem is a major or a minor work. The problem is that the guidance given leaves a three orders of magnitude gap. That's a bit much for local consensus to carry. Paradoctor (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
It would be good to have some definition like the film industry provides. AMPAS defines a short film as having a run time of no more than 40 minutes. The Canadians use a different definition, but that needn't worry us, we can use and mention these definitions as context would have us. Maybe PEN International or some publisher's association promulgates a definition of "short poem"? For prose, I dimly recall reading a definition that distinguishes between short story, novelette, novella, and novel in terms of word count.

We should start an article on Ingoapele Madingoane

We should start an article on Ingoapele Madingoane - "Poet and social activist Ingoapele Madingoane is considered the doyen of modern, politically conscious oral poetry. The late Madingoane was a formidable member of the 1976 Black Consciousness Sowetan poets.He wrote the famous, evocative, mini-epic poem, Africa my Beginning, which was published by Ravan Press in Johannesburg in 1979 and banned by the apartheid authorities two months later. Madingoane performed the poem widely in Soweto, accompanied by Mihloti Black Theatre’s flutes and drums. It became a regular feature during the protest rallies and funerals of anti-apartheid activists. He has had an indelible impact and influence on the post-apartheid generations of poets, including world-renowned poets Lesego Rampolokeng, Siphiwe ka Ngwenya, and Kgafela oa Magogodi. Madingoane was honored with a SALA Literary Posthumous Award in 2007, nine years after his death"

- 189.122.84.88 (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Little Orphant Annie

Little Orphant Annie has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Poetry: Difference between revisions Add topic