Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
List of kigo merge to Kigo??
I posted a comment on Talk:List of kigo a few days ago. The existence of a separate page for this seems redundant, since the Kigo article is already basically a narrative list. Any ideas? elvenscout742 (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Literature portal
Literature has been nominated for a featured portal review and may lose its status as a featured portal. Reviewers' concerns are set out here. Please leave your comments (which can include "keep" or "delist") and help the portal to be of featured quality. The instructions for the review process are here. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Duino Elegies nominated for good article, seeking review...also Thomas Traherne
I did a weekend-long overhaul on the article discussing Rainer Marie Rilke's 1922 work, Duino Elegies. I would hope someone from this project would give it a good, thorough review.
My nomination of Thomas Traherne has been awaiting a review since 29 December...longer than it took me to completely overhaul it.
I appreciate it. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The scope of these two articles are under discussion, see Talk:Haiku in English -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Waka
The primarity of "Waka" is under discussion, see talk:Waka -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
The Hunting of the Snark
The article about The Hunting of the Snark is not so good, but "low importance" for the poem? --DL5MDA (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've re-assessed the article as c-class/mid. INeverCry 19:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
There have been several recent changes to the page I'm Nobody! Who are you? by IP editors that change a single word in the text of the poem. I have difficulty telling whether the current version is "correct" (or what standards there are for judging this) -- in particular, looking through Google books seems to produce a number of different versions with variations on wording and the position of line-breaks. A quick look from someone with any relevant experience would be great. Thanks! --JBL (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've put in my 2 cents on the talk page. Phil wink (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Phil. Span (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're welcome. The same thing could be done for the other ED poem articles.
- Do you think it should be?
- If so, do you have any suggestions for the formatting, labeling, etc.? or OK as-is? (I took the basic table style from Emily Dickinson, so it at least has a sort of consistency going for it.)
- In my mind, I pronounce your handle "Spangle-Jay". Is that right, or should it be more like an off-kilter "Spanglish"? Or "C: Other"? Or "D: IT MUST NOT BE PRONOUNCED!"? Phil wink (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- You're welcome. The same thing could be done for the other ED poem articles.
Mak Dizdar.jpg
file:Mak Dizdar.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Proposed templates
I have been creating a lot of templates outside of my area of expertise lately. I am trying to get a better understanding of Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman. Should I assume that all of Whitmans poems that are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles are included in LoG? Is it a collection of his life's poetic works? Do "One Hour to Madness and Joy" and "Prayer of Columbus" come from LOG? The WP articles are not clear on this. I am trying to create two templates, but if all of Whitman's poetry is in LOG, I should just merge {{Leaves of Grass}} and {{Walt Whitman}}. Advice anyone?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- The more I think about it, the less I think they should be merged even if all the poems are the same.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion, Merge: Philosophically: Essentially, LOG = "The Collected Poems of WW", and this one work defines his literary identity. Other elements of WW's life and work are more or less notable to the extent that they are associated with the author of LOG. Practically: I see no benefit to obliging future editors to identically update poem lists in 2 separate templates. Also, a single view might help clear up a few confusing things about the current templates. Both current templates strongly suggest that LOG was published in 1855... end of story. That was its first edition, but ever-expanding editions continued until the final authorial edition (10th? I forget) in 1892. By the looks of {{Leaves of Grass}}, most of the poems mentioned would not be found in LOG, since they (seemingly) were published after it was; of course, they were published in LOG, just not in the first edition. I would remove the date from LOG, but if there must be one I think the only reasonable option is (1855-1892). Similarly, while Drum-Taps may have been published independently, it is now known (at least to me it is) as a section of LOG; {{Walt Whitman}} implies that they are completely unrelated publications. In my view it would be better to include Drum-Taps as a section of LOG along with Calamus etc., and allow the article to mention that it also had an independent history before its incorporation into LOG. Phil wink (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- What do you advise for the 3rd and 4th lines of the LOG template in terms of merging?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- I take you to mean, "Within a unified WW template, should these lines be sub-categories of a LOG main category, or should they be main categories themselves?" (If I've misconstrued, sorry, let me know.) I don't have a strong opinion on this... I would lean toward making them main categories, not under LOG. It would make sense that, for example, an adaptation based on a LOG poem and an adaptation based on a WW essay would both be listed in the same area; furthermore one could have an adaptation based both on a poem and something else... then attempting to choose whether it's a LOG adaptation or "Other Works" adaptation would be self-defeating. Either way, you'll probably want to include The Wound-Dresser under adaptations. Phil wink (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- What are your thoughts on the revised WW template?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am going to deploy the template. We can continue to discuss it though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. I've created Template:Walt Whitman/sandbox which has my suggestion for a little re-jostling. This gives prominence to LOG, which I think is proper (I've double-checked, and all those poems do indeed come from LOG, as would be expected). It also combines the existing Novels and Other Works sections, since they each only had 1 element. If you don't like that, they can of course be re-divided. I see in retrospect that the poems are alphabetical, whereas I've put Other Works in chronological order, like Adaptations. I don't know if there's a preference or policy on this. The way it stands actually doesn't bother me; the briefer lists are chronological (which seems the most logical to me overall), but the busier list is alphabetical -- just where the reader is most likely to need that type of organizing aid. I've re-ordered the LOG sections to reflect the order they occur in the "Deathbed Edition" -- the final authorized edition (a third order?!) Do anything for you? Phil wink (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Feel free to swap that in or I will do so soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- No problem. I've created Template:Walt Whitman/sandbox which has my suggestion for a little re-jostling. This gives prominence to LOG, which I think is proper (I've double-checked, and all those poems do indeed come from LOG, as would be expected). It also combines the existing Novels and Other Works sections, since they each only had 1 element. If you don't like that, they can of course be re-divided. I see in retrospect that the poems are alphabetical, whereas I've put Other Works in chronological order, like Adaptations. I don't know if there's a preference or policy on this. The way it stands actually doesn't bother me; the briefer lists are chronological (which seems the most logical to me overall), but the busier list is alphabetical -- just where the reader is most likely to need that type of organizing aid. I've re-ordered the LOG sections to reflect the order they occur in the "Deathbed Edition" -- the final authorized edition (a third order?!) Do anything for you? Phil wink (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- I am going to deploy the template. We can continue to discuss it though.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- What are your thoughts on the revised WW template?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- I take you to mean, "Within a unified WW template, should these lines be sub-categories of a LOG main category, or should they be main categories themselves?" (If I've misconstrued, sorry, let me know.) I don't have a strong opinion on this... I would lean toward making them main categories, not under LOG. It would make sense that, for example, an adaptation based on a LOG poem and an adaptation based on a WW essay would both be listed in the same area; furthermore one could have an adaptation based both on a poem and something else... then attempting to choose whether it's a LOG adaptation or "Other Works" adaptation would be self-defeating. Either way, you'll probably want to include The Wound-Dresser under adaptations. Phil wink (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- What do you advise for the 3rd and 4th lines of the LOG template in terms of merging?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion, Merge: Philosophically: Essentially, LOG = "The Collected Poems of WW", and this one work defines his literary identity. Other elements of WW's life and work are more or less notable to the extent that they are associated with the author of LOG. Practically: I see no benefit to obliging future editors to identically update poem lists in 2 separate templates. Also, a single view might help clear up a few confusing things about the current templates. Both current templates strongly suggest that LOG was published in 1855... end of story. That was its first edition, but ever-expanding editions continued until the final authorial edition (10th? I forget) in 1892. By the looks of {{Leaves of Grass}}, most of the poems mentioned would not be found in LOG, since they (seemingly) were published after it was; of course, they were published in LOG, just not in the first edition. I would remove the date from LOG, but if there must be one I think the only reasonable option is (1855-1892). Similarly, while Drum-Taps may have been published independently, it is now known (at least to me it is) as a section of LOG; {{Walt Whitman}} implies that they are completely unrelated publications. In my view it would be better to include Drum-Taps as a section of LOG along with Calamus etc., and allow the article to mention that it also had an independent history before its incorporation into LOG. Phil wink (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. I recently created {{Langston Hughes}} and will deploy that soon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Template:W. B. Yeats formatting
I created {{W. B. Yeats}} today but am undecided on what format is best for the reader. The current format is Template:W. B. Yeats may not look as good at some of the lower resolution settings and smaller screen sizes. The original format might be a bit cluttered. Opinions needed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:23, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Does this do anything for you? I tried to split the difference between structure-too-hidden and structure-too-stripey. Don't know if it's better, worse, or indifferent. Phil wink (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- What do you think of the current format?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really like any of our 3 tries. I've created yet another example in the sandbox. To me, this is clearly the cleanest and most elegant example, but it comes at the high cost of de-linking poems from their volumes. (Also, I've predictably moved Poetry to the top.) I certainly value showing the hierarchy of volumes-to-poems, which all the other examples display, but currently we're only showing a portion of Yeats's many long-titled works, and the potential for fussiness and diffuseness concerns me. So I'm now leaning toward an "album/single" structure. Besides simple aesthetics, 2 advantages are 1) a single list of poems arranged alphabetically... more useful (I suspect) for anyone looking for particular poems, 2) no need to fret about where to position a poem: for example, "The Lake Isle of Innisfree" is currently in Other, presumably because it was first published in a paper; however it was later included in The Countess Kathleen and Various Legends and Lyrics (1892)... by just putting it in Poems we don't have to fight about it. Thoughts? Phil wink (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- The simplified "album/single" version in your sandbox is certainly more accessible, and would be my preference as a reader. INeverCry 20:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think the album/single format is fine. Are you still working from the early list before I dug through the categories. I found that W. B. Yeats bibliography was missing a lot of works. I am not sure what years to use for a lot of poems. Do you want to take a stab at the full list?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I just did it as album/single, but I bet some of the dates I used are wrong and some are missing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can add anything of value to the W. B. Yeats bibliography, but my home references are lightweight when it comes to deep bibliography. Regarding individual poems in the navbox, I wonder whether it wouldn't be better just to leave the dates off. Yeats was a frequent reviser; I don't think it would be that unusual for a poem to have 4 dates: 1) original authorship, 2) original publication in a periodical, 3) first publication in a book of verse, 4) publication in a collected edition... and this is if there aren't any textually funny things going on. Normally, one would probably just choose always to go with #2 or #3, but with Yeats each step of the way might well involve meaningful re-writing... including re-writing for subsequent collected editions! I do think that the poetry volumes and other books still benefit from the appended date, however. Phil wink (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Poem dates removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can add anything of value to the W. B. Yeats bibliography, but my home references are lightweight when it comes to deep bibliography. Regarding individual poems in the navbox, I wonder whether it wouldn't be better just to leave the dates off. Yeats was a frequent reviser; I don't think it would be that unusual for a poem to have 4 dates: 1) original authorship, 2) original publication in a periodical, 3) first publication in a book of verse, 4) publication in a collected edition... and this is if there aren't any textually funny things going on. Normally, one would probably just choose always to go with #2 or #3, but with Yeats each step of the way might well involve meaningful re-writing... including re-writing for subsequent collected editions! I do think that the poetry volumes and other books still benefit from the appended date, however. Phil wink (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I just did it as album/single, but I bet some of the dates I used are wrong and some are missing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think the album/single format is fine. Are you still working from the early list before I dug through the categories. I found that W. B. Yeats bibliography was missing a lot of works. I am not sure what years to use for a lot of poems. Do you want to take a stab at the full list?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- The simplified "album/single" version in your sandbox is certainly more accessible, and would be my preference as a reader. INeverCry 20:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really like any of our 3 tries. I've created yet another example in the sandbox. To me, this is clearly the cleanest and most elegant example, but it comes at the high cost of de-linking poems from their volumes. (Also, I've predictably moved Poetry to the top.) I certainly value showing the hierarchy of volumes-to-poems, which all the other examples display, but currently we're only showing a portion of Yeats's many long-titled works, and the potential for fussiness and diffuseness concerns me. So I'm now leaning toward an "album/single" structure. Besides simple aesthetics, 2 advantages are 1) a single list of poems arranged alphabetically... more useful (I suspect) for anyone looking for particular poems, 2) no need to fret about where to position a poem: for example, "The Lake Isle of Innisfree" is currently in Other, presumably because it was first published in a paper; however it was later included in The Countess Kathleen and Various Legends and Lyrics (1892)... by just putting it in Poems we don't have to fight about it. Thoughts? Phil wink (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- What do you think of the current format?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
two more
Just letting you know that I will soon be deploying {{Allen Ginsberg}} and {{William Carlos Williams}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- I have deployed those above and {{Philip Larkin}} and {{W. H. Auden}}--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- The last two poets that I will do are {{France Prešeren}} and {{Adam Mickiewicz}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Task force for William Blake Content
Hey All, I am in the process of establishing an GLAM-Wiki internship with The William Blake Archive this fall, and would like to establish a task force for all topics related to William Blake. Of course the project would initially capture everything in Category:William Blake (over 150 items) and hopefully will expand beyond that as we find content relevant to Blake. Are there any objections to it being captured under WikiProject Poetry? I can set it up in the next couple weeks. Sadads (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hey all, so I have created the project page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry/William Blake, would definitely appreciate any help and collaboration you might want to bring! Sadads (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I trust you'll also advertise at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts -- possibly even Wikipedia:WikiProject Graphic design or Wikipedia:WikiProject Books? Phil wink (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you're looking for a precedent then we set up a Canterbury Tales task force recently: WP:CANTWP. Might help you to organise. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I will advertise to the other groups as I get closer to the GLAM Wiki activities during the Summer and Fall. I mostly started the article tagging to do some initial data gathering, and have a bunch of other stuff going on in real life in the next several weeks. Thanks for the support! Sadads (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you're looking for a precedent then we set up a Canterbury Tales task force recently: WP:CANTWP. Might help you to organise. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I trust you'll also advertise at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts -- possibly even Wikipedia:WikiProject Graphic design or Wikipedia:WikiProject Books? Phil wink (talk) 22:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Giovanni Della Casa.jpg
file:Giovanni Della Casa.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Deals with the Devil
If you know of any famous poems regarding selling your soul to the devil, please add them to {{Faust navbox}}, which I have recently created.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
"Limerick"
The usage of Limerick is under discussion, see Talk:Limerick -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 22:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Tvardovskij.jpg
image:Tvardovskij.jpg has been nominated for deletino -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Images
These are not my images that are up for deletion. I did not upload them, I have not used them. I am informing your wikiproject that images related to poetry are up for deletion, per discussion at WT:FFD that images up for deletion that are related to the purview of wikiprojects should be informed then are up for deletion. As I have receive a statement that seems to indicate you (WPPOETRY) do no wish me to inform you of such things, I will stop doing so. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 00:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I left a message from myself, not the poetry project and was not suggesting we don't wish to be informed. I noted that the images seemed to be nominated for deletion because no source was given for them. The link to WT:FFD is a useful context for your messages. Thank you Span (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have discontinued posting notices here about poetry-related files up for deletion. If the members of this wikiproject wish to figure out such events, then you may yourselves track all the deletion nominations at the various deletion processes. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for trying, and sorry if you are disappointed by response. I agree with Spanglej above - images uploaded with proper information are less likely to run into issues (assuming they are free to distribute). --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Categories for discussion
The following categories are up for merger/discussion. Input welcome:
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_2#Category:Native_American_women_poets
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_2#Category:African-American_women_poets
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_1#Category:Victorian_women_poets_and_novelists
--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Prototype of category intersection
Please take a look at a prototype of dynamic category intersection here Category:Singaporean_poets, and the associated proposal here Wikipedia_talk:Category_intersection#A_working_category_intersection_today. What this illustrates it that even though there are no categories (nor need for individual categorization) of something like "LGBT women poets in Singapore", we can nonetheless dynamically pull up such a list. Would you see this as something worth exploring? Are there particular intersections within poetry that you'd like to have, but don't today because the category system limits you? Are you concerned about potential for ghettoization of women or minorities?
- I'd be interested in testing something like the prototype, at broader scale, and I think the poetry tree might be a good place to start. Anyways, please check it out and share your feedback. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
In light of the recently enacted community ban of a longtime contributor who is alleged to have pursued an on-wiki vendetta against the subjects of certain articles, I am prompted to ask experienced editors who can spare any time to examine this article to ensure it complies with basic policies and to determine whether its maintenance tags should remain in place. A more detailed version of this request is on the article's talk page. Thank you. Rivertorch (talk) 06:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Discussion on novelist categories
Greetings! You are invited to take place in a conversation happening Category_talk:American_novelists#Stalemate here about how to move forward with discussion on subcategories of by-country novelist categories.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Attention William Blake task force
The page Infant Sorrow contains an entirely unreferenced original essay analyzing the poem. Although the page is marked as a low priority for WikiProject Poetry, the William Blake task force (if it is still active) should be interested in cleaning it up, I should think. Cnilep (talk) 08:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you! If we want to clean that article up now that would be great, but I am also supporting a class of undergraduates to improve the poems from Songs of Innocence and of Experience in the Fall. The Blake Task Force is actually really new, so there are certainly people around to help! Sadads (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Infobox poem updates
I've added an |original_title_lang= parameter to {{Infobox poem}}; use the relevant ISO639-2 code e.g. "fr" for French, "de" for German.
I've also added an hCalendar microformat, so please use {{Start date}} for the first publication date. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:58, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
FAC: Trees (poem)
I decided nominate my work on this well-beloved Kilmer poem for FAC. If you'd like to take a look and offer your suggestions and comments, the FAC is here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trees (poem)/archive1 Thanks. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Free verse vs vers libre
Are free verse and vers libre different things? The articles suggest they're similar, and the introductions are almost identical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ienpw III (talk • contribs) 15:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Conceptual Poetry
A long time ago I thought there should be an article on Conceptual Poetry. Now I'm not so sure. I started here User:Thelema12/Conceptual_Poetry but I didn't get very far. Does anyone care if I delete this article?--Thelema12 (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Please see question at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Poetical_testament. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:Blake and invitation for participating
Hey All, just in case you have missed it I thought I would point to the new GLAM-Wiki activities related to the William Blake Archive at WP:Blake. We have expanded a few articles already (including William Blake's sketches of Visionary Heads and mythological figures within his poetry like Spectre (Blake)), and would appreciate support, feedback or other participation! Check out the most recent update about the project or come help us work through our quite long list of "to do's" at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poetry/William_Blake#To_do including articles about Blake's illustrations, his mythology and his poetry! Hope to see you around, Sadads (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Niggers in the White House concerns
- Hi. I hope this is the correct board for this. I am concerned that Niggers in the White House is tagged with the poetry project. I have stated my concerns on the articles talk page. I wonder if any Project Poetry members would mind taking a look. My argument is basically that this not a subject for the project to be associated with, purely for technical definitional purposes. I have made my points there. I would welcome any feedback, especially on the article talkpage section I have started. Cheers Irondome (talk) 23:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's as ridiculous as arguing that the poem is a subject with which Wikipedia shouldn't associate. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- My question was civilised and in GF. I merely wanted clarification. I said nothing about content, rather the pieces' status as poetry. Your pointy and defensive rebuttal, which actually says nothing, I find concerning. Your edit summary, using the term "ridiculous", I find patronising and mildly offensive. I go to the experts on WP in this area for polite and intelligent feedback and I get this crap. Irondome (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Irondome: Though Joefromrandb's response could have included a little bit more polite language, your assertion also appears offensive as well (Though surely wasn't intended to be). Generally, in poetry circles, the definition of poetry is very open and inclusive, not valuing one particular subject or another, and Wikipedia's policies towards openness always err on the side of inclusion. By suggesting that something doesn't meet a standard of inclusion as "poetry" is to limit the genre, and thus align yourself with the defenders of high culture like Matthew Arnold, who suggest that high cultural forms, like poetry, must only strive towards certain "proper" values (For more information on this debate see High_culture#Concept). Your comment appears to challenge the values of openness and inclusiveness both Wikipedia and poets now defend continuously. Besides, WikiProjects should monitor the poor content as well as the good content, if not only to ensure that it doesn't become the site of vandalism and poor scholarship! I hope this helps you better understand Joe's reaction, and I hope you continue to enjoy Happy Editing! Sadads (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Sadads: I appreciate your thoughtful and informative response, and your understanding of the essence of my original enquiry. Now I have the answers I was seeking. Cheers for that! Irondome (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Irondome: Glad it helped! Sadads (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Sadads: I appreciate your thoughtful and informative response, and your understanding of the essence of my original enquiry. Now I have the answers I was seeking. Cheers for that! Irondome (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Irondome: Though Joefromrandb's response could have included a little bit more polite language, your assertion also appears offensive as well (Though surely wasn't intended to be). Generally, in poetry circles, the definition of poetry is very open and inclusive, not valuing one particular subject or another, and Wikipedia's policies towards openness always err on the side of inclusion. By suggesting that something doesn't meet a standard of inclusion as "poetry" is to limit the genre, and thus align yourself with the defenders of high culture like Matthew Arnold, who suggest that high cultural forms, like poetry, must only strive towards certain "proper" values (For more information on this debate see High_culture#Concept). Your comment appears to challenge the values of openness and inclusiveness both Wikipedia and poets now defend continuously. Besides, WikiProjects should monitor the poor content as well as the good content, if not only to ensure that it doesn't become the site of vandalism and poor scholarship! I hope this helps you better understand Joe's reaction, and I hope you continue to enjoy Happy Editing! Sadads (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- My question was civilised and in GF. I merely wanted clarification. I said nothing about content, rather the pieces' status as poetry. Your pointy and defensive rebuttal, which actually says nothing, I find concerning. Your edit summary, using the term "ridiculous", I find patronising and mildly offensive. I go to the experts on WP in this area for polite and intelligent feedback and I get this crap. Irondome (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's as ridiculous as arguing that the poem is a subject with which Wikipedia shouldn't associate. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Changing project logo
Hi everyone! I uploaded on Commons two icons (Inkwell icon - Noun Project 2512.svg and Quill icon - Noun Project 13454.svg) which I find to be better than the current logo of the project (Quill and ink.svg). IMO the first one could be used as the portal icon, while the second one would be great in {{WPPoetry}} as image on the left. What do you think? — TintoMeches, 11:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Current logo -
Proposal for portal logo -
- If I recall, I was the one who chose the current icon - somewhat arbitrarily, I'd admit. I personally have no attachment to it. I like both of these other options but prefer the last one. Great work. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Proposed merge: Tifi Odasi and Macaronea
I have proposed merging Tifi Odasi, a 15th century poet, with Macaronea, the poem he is known for. Discussion is at Talk:Macaronea. Cnilep (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Requested move for Lorca
There's a move request to place Lorca at Lorca, Spain to avoid ambiguity of the title with Federico García Lorca. Diego (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The Road Not Taken / Full text from Wikisource
What are The Poetry Project's guildelines/consensus on quoting full text of short poems from Wikisource? If you could please help resolve the dispute on the poem's Talk page, that would be most helpful. Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Authorship Dating
Hi it would be helpful if the authors lifespans here could be confirmed. Wikisource:Index talk:Canadian poems of the great war.djvu
(The work itself is PD in the US (pre 1923 publication outside the US)
If anyone has the time to do a full blown date check for each individual poem, that would also be appreciated but not essential. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Indian poet Manohar Shetty
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Manohar Shetty is marked as eligible for CSD G13 deletion. SpinningSpark 01:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
The article Cultural depictions of T. S. Eliot has been nominated for deletion. Anybody interested in commenting, for or against, can do so here. __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Request article for Diana Hendry
Hello! I was looking to request an entry for the poet and children's literature author Diana Hendry, who was shortlisted for the Costa Award in 2012. I can't see where to request on the WikiProject page. Lulayuppy (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Eliot's "A Song for Simeon" at FAC
I wanted to raise your attention to the FAC nomination for "A Song for Simeon", Eliot's 1928 poem, which would fall under the interest/goals of this WikiProject. I would be grateful for your comments, suggestions, and critique there to improve the article. The FAC nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Song for Simeon/archive1. Many thanks.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Just to let you know that Wikipedia:Poems about Wikipedia exists and that you might want to include it as a see also somewhere on the project page (or you might not want to of course). Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Request to comment re AfD of a living poet and reliability of Magma and Poetry London sources
Can someone comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Cumming, particularly on the claim that "Magma and Poetry London are, for the UK, two of the leading mainstream journals, alongside PN Review and Poetry Review" ? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, poetry experts. Someone put a lot of effort into this article and then never submitted it to be included in the encyclopedia. Now it's about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable poet, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Never mind, it's gone. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Dear poetry experts: I haven't been able to figure out if this old abandoned Afc submission is about a poetry topic or not. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a message to inform you that Portal:Literature (promoted to Featured Portal in 2006, delisted in mid-2013) is currently being considered for relisting as a Featured Portal at Wikipedia:Featured_portal_candidates#Portal:Literature. If you have any questions or comments, or would like to offer your support or voice your opposition, I encourage you to do so there. The FPO criteria can be found at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Thank you, Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha? 07:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Poetic devices in Night of the Scorpion
I have tagged Poetic devices in Night of the Scorpion for possible merging with Night of the Scorpion. Would appreciate you good and poetic people taking a look and determining how to proceed. You may indeed find that the first article should be binned. Thanks. --Derek Andrews (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- None of it should be merged unless something can be adequately sourced (and even then cautiously). The first article is entirely original research, written poorly, and ought to be deleted per policy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm somewhat surprised it went this long without being deleted. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Translations of poems
Over at String Quartet No. 14 (Schubert) we have an issue about translation. The article quotes (in its entirety) a translation of a German poem on which the quartet is based. The translation is quite free, and is, in fact, the translation that I have seen around. But an editor, quite justifiably, felt a literal translation would be better, which he did himself.
In my youth, many years ago, I remember reading a guideline about translations, but, for the life of me, I can't find it. Are original translations considered original research? Are they preferable to published translations which take freedoms? Do original translations (if allowed at all) have to be attributed to the translator?
Yours in confusion, Ravpapa (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- By chance I'm discussing a similar issue at Talk:Life Is a Dream, where you can see my rather hard-line views under Talk:Life Is a Dream#Translation for lines in blue box. This seems a topic on which guidelines are vital, and I haven't found them on WP either. Probably a hundred similar discussions of better and worse quality are hidden away on a hundred talk pages. If there really is NOT currently a WP guideline (or if it is found, and found to be wanting), we definitely should have a general discussion with (hopefully) useful conclusions. I'm not sure what is the best way to launch this general discussion (unfortunately this project's talk page doesn't seem to see a lot of action these days). Any co-conspirators here? any suggestions for the best venue? Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
- Phil, you could get a broader discussion, perhaps, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Belated Comment: If a translation is in the public domain or free for us to use because of the expiration of copyright or the author's release, by all means feel free to use that translation. We need to comply with WP:NFC and WP:LYRICS. However, does it best represent the source text? If there is no free alternative available, a user creating his or her own literal translation or a close-to-literal poetic translation is acceptable (but given the quality of some translations, it ought to be checked or a user should ask for someone to check their work--I welcome it when I translate from one of the languages I occasionally do work in, especially if I'm not entirely proficient in it). If it is a poetic user-made translation, I get extremely cautious because some translations that aim to be poetry often do so at the expense of being an accurate, reliable translation. I would prefer literal translations that offer a line-to-line correspondence, and policy states that a basic verbatim translation does not violate the policies on original research (WP:OR) or synthesis (WP:SYNTH), and I find that Wikipedia's policy and guidelines encourages users to provide accurate translations, see: WP:SYNNOT WP:NOTOR#Translation and contextualizing.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a conversation going on at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 4#Male writers about the gendered categorization of author pages (particularly whether to use "men" or "male" writers). Further voices would be appreciated to develop a consensus on the standard amongst writer articles, Sadads (talk) 19:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Move proposal
Talk:Jay Wright (poet) will not show up on Alerts. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Scansion continues to rankle
Recently the content of Systems of scansion has been merged into Scansion; however it has been done so thoughtlessly that it nearly amounts (in my view) to vandalism. Short version: I explicitly attempted to replace and improve all germane elements of Systems of scansion in Scansion; therefore, virtually 100% of the added content was already represented (better -- so says I) in Scansion before the needless merge. If anyone wishes to address this, I am happy to discuss the history and intent of these 2 articles, but I can't fight this fight any more. Phil wink (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- @Phil wink: - Has this been an ongoing problem? Like a long standing content dispute or something that just happened once and you didn't ask an admin to reverse it? --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, not long-standing. This merging editor (who is new to me) is just acting on a merge template I in fact placed. I only did that because my plan was to completely replace Systems of scansion with Scansion but another editor was hesitant and suggested the merge notification to allow discussion -- which never really materialized; then I didn't feel I had any consensus to do anything so I just left both articles as they stood. It's hard for me to deal with this myself any more because of the wholly negative responses branding me as inexpert, biased, a terrible writer, and (metaphorically) a public wanker -- and interestingly, a shill for Attridge and not enough like Attridge. Not only does this make me regret the hours I've wasted on this article, but more importantly, my position is that the merged content should be deleted -- not sent back, but just deleted because it's been superseded -- and I trust this could only be seen as me trying to maintain my own awful little demesne. Phil wink (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hey, if you can improve the article, go ahead, be bold and get it done. I love scansion and know it well, but I don't love it that much to write the article. You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. :) --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- No, not long-standing. This merging editor (who is new to me) is just acting on a merge template I in fact placed. I only did that because my plan was to completely replace Systems of scansion with Scansion but another editor was hesitant and suggested the merge notification to allow discussion -- which never really materialized; then I didn't feel I had any consensus to do anything so I just left both articles as they stood. It's hard for me to deal with this myself any more because of the wholly negative responses branding me as inexpert, biased, a terrible writer, and (metaphorically) a public wanker -- and interestingly, a shill for Attridge and not enough like Attridge. Not only does this make me regret the hours I've wasted on this article, but more importantly, my position is that the merged content should be deleted -- not sent back, but just deleted because it's been superseded -- and I trust this could only be seen as me trying to maintain my own awful little demesne. Phil wink (talk) 03:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello, poets! Is this a notable publication? It's one of those old abandoned Afc submissions. I'm not sure where to look for references about publications like this. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
- Published by Loyola, New Orleans, in print since 1968, some of its poems awarded the Pushcart Prize, was early to published some writers who became famous/notable [1]. Not much else as far as third-party sources that I see. Not a big fighter in the ring.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Reorganisation
I added a few things to this Project's page and will continue to do so--hopefully to organize a few thoughts and improve the effectiveness of the goals of this project. Always open to comments, suggestions, criticism.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
On our coverage of sonnets
We have Sonnet cycle and Sonnet sequence...which to me seems like one of them ought to be merged into the other. Thoughts? --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Invitation to User Study
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC).
- FYI, they offer a paltry $10 amazon gift card for what I think is a massive invasion of privacy and they get to use/release your image from the video chat session(s).--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear poetry experts: This old Afc submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable poet? Should the article be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Here is a current Afc submission about a poet. Is this person notable, and should the article be accepted? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Leaflet For Wikiproject Poetry At Wikimania 2014
Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Naming conventions for bibliographies
I have proposed naming conventions for bibliographies here. Any constructive comments you are willing to provide there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Leaflet For Wikiproject Poetry At Wikimania 2014(updated version)
Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Literature Online Access
Hello all! At The Wikipedia Library we are currently in talks with Proquest's Literature Online and Early English Books Online to get Wikipedians access to those databases/collections. They asked us for a bit of information about how Wikipedians might use the research materials, asking us to do a brief survey. It would be extremely helpful if users could fill out the following Google form: Proquest - Literature Online / Wikipedia Library user interest survey. Afterward, while waiting for us to finish talks on Literature Online, we would like to invite editors to apply for already established available partnerships, listed at our partners page. Thank you for all of your help! Sadads (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just reminding everyone that this might be of interest! Calling all survey takers, Sadads (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Afd Laura McCullough
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura McCullough. She just signed up as User:Lmcullough and naively wrote her own article. She left a lot of refs on her talk page I've advised her to copy to the article talk page. I have no idea myself if they are RS, but if someone wants to help her with this, go for it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I have several books including two anthologies I edited, won two NJ State Arts Council Fellowships, one in prose and one in poetry, won the Kinereath Genseler Award for my book Panic (also a BOTYA finalist) with Alice James Books, and there are a ton of links to my work on line. A quick search pulls these up. If they need to be linked on the page, then that would be great, but calling the page into question is inappropriate as my creds are in line with many other poets' pages:
some Books and anthologies I have written or edited:
Collapsed list
|
|---|
|
Interviews of me or by me: Radio or Videos of me or me interviewing other writers: Examples of poems online:
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lmccullough (talk • contribs) 20:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I just wrote an article for Virgil's Eclogue 4. Feel free to look over it, make corrections, and ping me if you need any of the texts I cited if you want to verify/check what I wrote. Thanks!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
AfD Van G Garrett
The article Van G. Garrett is nominated as an Article for Deletion. I have no association to the subject nor did I write the original article. I think that the nomination for AfD was appropriate, given the state of the article. However, when I researched the article before recommending, I found some decent references and substantially modified the article. In particular, Van Garrett is a poet who appears to have regional (Houston area) notability and perhaps some national and international significance. However, I may have biased myself by performing the research and modifying the article. I am posting this article in the hopes that members of this WikiProject may have more experience reviewing poet-focused articles and may be able to more objectively opine at the AfD Project Page. Also such members may also know of reference material to which I do not have access.--Rpclod (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
"Epic"
The usage of Epic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:epic poetry -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear poetry experts: This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. The poet has quite a few published works, but needs sources, which I don't know how to find. I am posting it here in case anyone is interested in working on it. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Project related discussion
This should be noted here, since it won't show up on project alerts. There is a discussion at Talk:Songs of Innocence (album) including whether to move the new U2 album over the William Blake Songs of Innocence (1789) redirect to the later Songs of Innocence and Experience combined Blake collection. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Request for editing on Whitman's Song of Myself
hi there, I just left an edit on Song of Myself's talk page, regarding this. basically the poem is formatted all wrong (full stanzas dropped to 1 line), and should probably get fixed. I found a web-version of the text on UI Urbana's English Dept. website that IS formatted correctly, even with each stanza/section getting it's own anchors. I was hoping someone who knows how to do the wiki editing might just be able to take that source html and with a few find & replaces in word or something be able to get it all ready to go for a properly formatted article. Also, since every stanza is set up to be linked to, i thought it would be a good idea to keep that somehow, in case people later decide to make more a more in-depth table of contents (perhaps one just for that section with the poem in it?), or if the article develops and people would like to link up to sections of the poem from within a different section. This would also be good if people ever decide to start linking to content from other pages that might be talking about a reference to something from Song of Myself. but if that's too much, it should just copy/paste from the site itself without much issue. the section heads might cause problems, though now that i think about it, so maybe 1 poem at a time (there's only 52 haha)? thanks! --Mrdeadhead (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject X is live!
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear poetry experts: This old AfC submissionm an incredibly detailed poetry biography, will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable subject? Obviously some of the material will need to be cut out, but should this be kept and improved instead of being deleted?—Anne Delong (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Wow. I'd say most of this needs to be cut. Besides being exceptionally long, it seems to discuss a living person, so the lack of sourcing is problematic. It looks like good information and it must have come from somewhere. Is the original contributor no longer active? --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, and to answer your original query: I'm afraid I'm not convinced the subject is notable enough for an article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
New Wikipedia Library Donations
Hello all, there are two recent donations available through The Wikipedia Library that are relevant to this project: WP:Women Writers Online and WP:Project MUSE. Please sign up for the accounts if you think you can use them. Enjoy! Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
FAR Rabindranath Tagore
I have nominated Rabindranath Tagore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Literary technique listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for Literary technique to be moved to Narrative technique. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Years in Poetry - Typo issues
Team, I have come across some articles of the type Year 12xx in poetry where the Titles of some poems are in language other than English. This is causing all kinds of Wikipedia Grammatical check issues. I have tried looking for translations for some of these names, but no go. I request editors to translate these names in "Foreign language title (English Language title)" format. E.g. La beauté des Sonnets (The beauty of Sonnets). --Wikishagnik (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Auden review.
W. H. Auden, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual 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. MusicAngels (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The Nasobame
I’ve discovered a minor problem: The dewiki, barwiki and lbwiki articles on The Nasobame are all about the fictitious animal itself, which is described by the poem. On the other hand, the enwiki article is about the poem itself. This is a problem because it’s now unclear whether the Wikidata item should be about the poem or the fictional taxon. I suggest that the enwiki article be rephrased to be about the animal as well, for instance by changing the first paragraph to:
The Nasobame (German: Nasobēm) is a fictional animal first described by German writer Christian Morgenstern (1871–1914) in a short nonsense poem, Das Nasobēm, usually translated into English as The Nasobame. The poem was written around 1895 and published in his book Galgenlieder (1905).
The Wikidata item Q7753113 would then be about the fictional taxon, and there would be a separate (new) item about the poem. WDYT? —Galaktos (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Done —Galaktos (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Immediately reverted by Rhododendrites, because screw discussions. Fine. I’ve moved the link on Wikidata, because Q7753113 is still about the animal, not the poem (which is Q19149635). —Galaktos (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Galaktos: You changed the subject of an article without even mentioning it on that article's talk page,
because screw discussions
. If you had done so I could have told you that the fictitious animal is almost certainly going to correspond to Rhinogradentia, sometimes referred to as Nasobames, covered at length by Gerolf Steiner's equally fictional Harald Stumpke. In Stumpke's account, people named the animals after the poem (and Steiner himself was inspired by it). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)- No, they don’t correspond. The Nasobame (Nasobema lyricum) is one particular species (or even just one animal with a child), the Rhinogradentia are an entire (fictional) order of mammals (including the Polyrrhina family, which includes the Nasobema genus). That’s why dewiki has separate articles on them (notice that de:Nasobem is about the animal, with a description of its body, occurrence, natural enemies, etc.).
- Also, Talk:The Nasobame just describes the project as under the scope of this WikiProject, a stub, and low priority. Even on this talk page the topic went for a month without any reaction, so the chances that anyone would have seen a mention on the article’s talk page are nil. —12:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaktos (talk • contribs)
- @Galaktos: You changed the subject of an article without even mentioning it on that article's talk page,
- Immediately reverted by Rhododendrites, because screw discussions. Fine. I’ve moved the link on Wikidata, because Q7753113 is still about the animal, not the poem (which is Q19149635). —Galaktos (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Look at the sources used in de:Nasobem. One is Morganstern himself; the other two are about Rhinogradentia. One of those two is the fictional account in which fictional people name the fictional animal after the animal in the poem (and the other is one of the textbooks that mistakenly [or humorously?] included the order as real).
- So there's no article about the poem, but there's an article about the subject of the poem. The sources the articles rely on are either about Rhinogradentia or about the poem. You are correct that the articles exist this way, but it makes no sense. It's similar to having an article about a Grecian Urn someone wrote an Ode to once without having an article about Ode to a Grecian Urn and citing sources that either talk about the poem or about Grecian urns in general (when there already exists an article about Grecian urns). That may not actually be a helpful analogy. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Also, re:
so the chances that anyone would have seen a mention on the article’s talk page are nil
- So you think I noticed your change to the article within minutes but wouldn't have responded on the talk page? It's on my watchlist because of Rhinogradentia. Look, I don't have any problem with a bold edit -- certainly if that edit brings articles in line with the way things are organized elsewhere -- but just don't give me this "because screw discussion" nonsense as though it was me who didn't use the talk page before making a significant change. Not everybody who watches articles within a particular WikiProject also watch the WikiProjects themselves. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)- re:
Not everybody who watches articles within a particular WikiProject also watch the WikiProjects themselves
– your edit summary clearly references mine, in which I also mentioned this talk page. —Galaktos (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)- You're right. I didn't notice the end of your edit summary. Sorry to be accusatory. "because screw discussion" clearly put me on the defensive. Refocusing on the content, can I request that if we're to continue this discussion, we take it it to Talk:The Nasobame? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, let’s continue there. Sorry that I was so rude here. I should probably have stepped away this for a few hours before reacting, to “cool down”. —Galaktos (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- You're right. I didn't notice the end of your edit summary. Sorry to be accusatory. "because screw discussion" clearly put me on the defensive. Refocusing on the content, can I request that if we're to continue this discussion, we take it it to Talk:The Nasobame? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- re:
- Also, re:
21st century in poetry
An article called Poetry in the early 21st century was deleted this week, and the useful content merged to 21st century in poetry, which was previously just a table of years linking to 2001 in poetry, 2002 in poetry, etc. The result of this is that 21st century in poetry now has a lot more information, but it hasn't been checked or brought up to the standard of the individual pages. Could somebody have a look at it? 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 09:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
De laudibus Christi
I've been working on Cento vergilianus de laudibus Christi for the past few days. It's one of the first examples of a Christian poem, as well as one of the few extant examples of a poem by a women. I'd love it if anyone wants to look over what I've made. Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 05:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
5th century BC poetry page
I took out the "Works" category because each poet's name is linked to his own page, where his works are listed. AMCoop (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
On using line number in poems
If this is the wrong place to ask this, my apologies. Is there any policy in Wikipedia about including line numbers with poems? I didn't see any documentation on this anywhere I checked. I came across a poem where someone had tried to do this, and because you can't just type spaces off to the right side of the poem, the line numbers ended up getting embedded into the left side, and therefore becomes the first character of the line. I would think there would be some kind of provision for this, as long poems benefit from line numbers. But maybe it's impossible to do here on Wikipedia. Thanks. __209.179.86.123 (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with asking here -- other than that this project doesn't seem to get a lot of traffic these days. I am not aware of a guideline for verse line numbers, and I can imagine a few reasons they might be avoided:
- Wikipedia generally eschews long quotations (of anything), and if a poem is under copyright, it may be against policy to quote extensively from it.
- Although we would want a reference to which lines were quoted (e.g. "Hero and Leander, lines 1-16"), numbering each line (or every 5th or 10th or whatever) would probably be considered overkill unless the article in question referenced these quoted lines (probably multiple times), so therefore the numbers were actually necessary to help the reader.
- A third reason to avoid might be: it's awkward to format ... which is not news to you.
- Having said all this, it is not at all impossible to imagine cases in which numbered verse lines might still be a good idea. I'd be interested in looking at the actual case you have in mind... which article is it? I don't have an excellent solution -- a string of spaces typically disappers during HTML rendering, and spacing with something like {{pad}} would make lining up the numbers a real pain. The only thing that comes to mind is a table, for example:
On Hellespont, guilty of true love's blood, In view and opposite two cities stood, Sea-borderers, disjoin'd by Neptune's might; The one Abydos, the other Sestos hight. hight: was named At Sestos Hero dwelt; Hero the fair, 5 Whom young Apollo courted for her hair, And offer'd as a dower his burning throne, Where she should sit, for men to gaze upon. The outside of her garments were of lawn, lawn: fine fabric The lining purple silk, with gilt stars drawn; 10 gilt: golden Her wide sleeves green, and border'd with a grove, Where Venus in her naked glory strove To please the careless and disdainful eyes Of proud Adonis, that before her lies; Her kirtle blue, whereon was many a stain, 15 kirtle: gown Made with the blood of wretched lovers slain. (Hero and Leander, lines 1-16.)
- This has the possibly unfortunate effect of spacing the lines out vertically. But some might find this a positive effect. Others may have other formatting ideas. Phil wink (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the fast response. I kind of figured it would take something like what you did, but I had hoped that Wikipedia might have some special template that could magically format line numbers in poems. (You can't have everything I guess.) I forgot to mention the poem with the formating error: Thanatopsis. I may try to fix it sometime unless someone beats me to it.
- This reminds me of something else. Is it okay to add the line numbers to the poems located in Wikisource? Also, is it all right to add some kind of gloss to a poem? (I'm talking about in the article itself; I assume it shouldn't go in Wikisource.) And last, what is the guideline for adding an entire poem (like Thanantosis) to the article itself and when it should it only be on Wikisource? Again, thanks much for your help. __209.179.43.188 (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've re-formatted the text of "Thanatopsis" ... from this you can gather my general opinions in this case: 1) Line numbers were overkill, since nothing in the article actually referred to them; moreover, since the split line #17 was taken to be 2 lines, all the numbering from that point on was off by 1 anyway. 2) Definitely
<poem>...</poem>should be used in cases like this (it allows us to delete all those ugly<br />s). 3) Since the source I happened to consult indicated verse paragraphs by indentation, I followed suit, using {{pad}}s, rather than the double-spacing that the previous editor attempted (and I strongly suspect that indentation was the original method). In this case, one could also just use multiple spaces in a row -- normally HTML rendering will chop these out, but<poem>...</poem>will retain them for you. - As for whether the text should be there in the first place ... I personally am not bothered by long quotes of PD material, but I suspect the majority of editors would say nope nope nope. WP:NOFULLTEXT supports them, not me.
- I'm not too familiar with Wikisource, but I think that even minute changes/additions are verboten. Glosses can be OK in an article, but in my view should only be used for really rare or archaic words, or words very likely to be misinterpreted. I'd say less is more. I've added (probably too many) examples above, of one way to use tables to add glosses -- a non-tabular method is used at The Wife of Bath's Tale#Female dominance. Hope that helps. Phil wink (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've re-formatted the text of "Thanatopsis" ... from this you can gather my general opinions in this case: 1) Line numbers were overkill, since nothing in the article actually referred to them; moreover, since the split line #17 was taken to be 2 lines, all the numbering from that point on was off by 1 anyway. 2) Definitely
Nonnes Preestes Tale of the Cok and the Hen, Chauntecleer and Pertelote listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nonnes Preestes Tale of the Cok and the Hen, Chauntecleer and Pertelote to the article The Nun's Priest's Tale. Please participate in the redirect discussion now here if you have not already done so. This would be a valid redirect from the full Middle English title of the poem, if it is in fact the recognized full title, but we're not sure about that. Your help would be appreciated. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'll try to work up a few notes. Phil wink (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Query
How do I get a biography of a poet linked to the Poetry portal? See for example Gu Taiqing. Curious1949 (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Writing contest about Valencian poets
Hello. I want to invite you to participate in a new writing contest about Valencian poets because the World Day of Poetry. The contest is open till March, 27 and you can edit in every language. The information is in Spanish and Catalan, and the contest is organized by Amical Wikimedia and Wikimedia Spain. The rules are very simple: 1 point for each 1000 bytes added and 1 extra point in case the article was new. Page in Spanish and in Catalan. --Millars (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Sonnet template
In the next days (or possibly weeks) I plan to update the {{Sonnet}} infobox which sits at the top of each individual Sonnet article to the new template which currently resides at {{Sonnet/sandbox}}. This will not alter the images or text currently displayed in the articles, only the formatting and features of the box. If anyone has any objections or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 06:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done Phil wink (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Clarification: I did in fact update the text, too. I had intended to take this step in the future, but events coalesced. Phil wink (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Invitation to our April event
.jpg)  | |
|---|---|
|
Women Writers worldwide online edit-a-thon
| |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Seeking consensus on title of Shaw Neilson
Please help with discussion. I think the article should be titled John Shaw Neilson. Please see talkpage. Thank you.----Design (talk) 08:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Input requested at RfD
Please comment on the discussion here. Thank you, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Expanding project classes
The poetry template currently uses the limited classes so Category:NA-Class Poetry articles is filled with almost 1900 pages of categories, redirects and the like. If the template was expanded to use those categories, drafts like Draft:Peace (poem) could be more easily identified in a separate Category:Draft-Class Poetry articles. Would people opposing implementing that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
New walled garden: Poetic encyclopaedist school, Yin Xiaoyuan, Shan Shui ss etc
Someone who knows about Chinese contemporary poetry might like to have a look at this group of related articles: I don't know whether they're promotional, or a hoax, or just a seriously undersourced group of notable poets. PamD 08:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Augustan couplet at RfD
The Augustan couplet redirect has been nominated for discussion at Redirects for Discussion. Your comments in the discussion (not here please) would be appreciated. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Split discussion
Please comment on the proposal to split Alexandrine at Talk:Alexandrine#Proposal to split article. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
New template
I've just created {{Verse translation}} which in many cases will make it a little easier to nicely display a foreign-language verse text and its English translation. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
New Article on David Gitin - up for deletion, please help
I started a new article for the poet David Gitin, and I'm having trouble finding online published sources that Wiki will recognize. David Gitin was part of the small press community in the 60's & 70's when he was most active, and none of those mimeo mags and journals are available now except in library archives. His letters to and from the most significant poets of the day are in major library collections across the country, but the letters are tucked in boxes in stacks. Within those letters are many quotes about his poetry, which I've included in the article - but I have no way to link to them. Many of the things he was involved with in the Haight Ashbury in the 60's are not well documented - Straight Theater, Poet's Theater, Bricoleur. What do I need to do to convince the moderators that rather than deleting the article, it should be public and available for those who can to add to the knowledge? BlueWind13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Full text?
The guidelines here allow for the inclusion of the full text of poems if they are in the public domain, but is this appropriate? I see this in many of Robert Browning's works, e.g. "Porphyria's Lover", "Johannes Agricola in Meditation", "My Last Duchess", etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it's only appropriate when the poem is short and can be put into its own little template box to the side, rather than given its own sentence in the text. Otherwise, Wikisource is generally the best location. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Formatting help
Why in the following verse is a gap produced between the third and fourth lines? Zacwill (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The ants about their clod employ their care,
And mites conceive the world to be a cheese.
And think the business of the world is theirs;
Lo: Waxen combs seem palaces to bees.
You have to close the <poem> and <blockquote> tags in the opposite order to that in which they were opened, so they are properly nested. Not sure why not doing that makes a gap though! --Deskford (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The ants about their clod employ their care,
And think the business of the world is theirs;
Lo: Waxen combs seem palaces to bees.
And mites conceive the world to be a cheese.
- I like to use
<poem style="margin-left:2em"></poem>. This helps close the gap:
The ants about their clod employ their care,
And think the business of the world is theirs;
Lo: Waxen combs seem palaces to bees.
And mites conceive the world to be a cheese.
- Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Zacwill (talk) 16:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Fix required for The Charge of the Light Brigade (poem)
In section The Charge of the Light Brigade (poem)#Later references subsection "In television", a user explicitly requested (in mainspace) in the second last bullet point that somebody should "fix" the point, presumably because they could not find references. Anyway, it would be good if somebody could help provide references for examples in that section while they're on it. Thanks in advance. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is Once upon a time there was a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
- supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
- opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect
Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.
What is this doing still here?
This unsigned comment is nearly seven years old. Why hasn't it been archived? It was originally posted in January 2010 by Ikip, who deleted and reposted it a couple times then and the next day, and it hasn't been touched since then. It was archived there in July 2010. So why is this still here as if it were current, unsigned and undated?
Ikip is now officially, non-sockily editing as Okip.
Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Tales of a Wayside Inn
Tales of a Wayside Inn tells two stories, in different paragraphs, about Longfellow's decision to call the book that instead of The Sudbury Tales. These would be best reconciled and combined.
Details in Talk:Tales of a Wayside Inn# Change of title. Whether you choose to discuss it here or there, add a "Discussion at..." note in the other place.
Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm already addressing this. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Kalidasa's Ritusamhara
I notice that the word samhara has been translated as collection or group and by extension, garland. Samhara as "destruction" has been very categorically rejected. I would tend to take the opposite view. The words for collection and destruction are close but not the same. The vowel shift in tatsama words from Sanskrit to Hindi can create this situation. The transliteration for the Sanskrit word for collection would be samahara (समाहार), and that for destruction would be samhara (संहार).
Kalidasa's poem dwells on the passing of the seasons - one making way for the other, and hence संहार samhara. The garlanding of the season's would have been समाहार samahara. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quayes (talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I have expanded this article but it needs a grammar review since I'm not native English speaker. Thank you! --Generale Lee (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Lines on the Antiquity of Microbes no longer shortest poem...
When someone searches the shortest poem online, the Wikipedia link that is given is no longer accurate. How can it be updated? JusSol (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Move discussion
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Couplet (Chinese poetry)#Requested move 2 April 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Improving articles
Hi all, very new to editing, so please excuse me if this is not the correct place to ask! I'm wondering what the best way to connect with more seniors editors is in general, especially when thinking about editing articles? Right now, I'm specifically wondering about strategies to edit articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Writers_House & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Filreis I've made notes in the respective talk pages for some suggestions but would love input. --Distancesarewhite (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Using the article talk pages is a good way to start. Consider also looking at the edit history of the page. If you see editors who have contributed a fair amount, you can reach out to them directly on their user page. Also, don't forget to be bold and just edit things yourself. If you really mess up, someone will help you. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
James Thurber
I've read a laudatory comment on James Thurber's poetry, but unfortunately this was/is utterly uninformative. The article James Thurber doesn't mention his poetry. Would anyone care to investigate? (See also my comment near the foot of Talk:James Thurber.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Robert L. Jones needs atention
The article Robert L. Jones appears to be about two different poets with the same name, none of which appear immediately notable. The first Mr. Jones probably has the greater claim to notability, having a book published by the National Poetry Series (Wild Onion, 1984). I've found one review of Wild Onion here, but I've been unable to find significant bibliographic coverage beyond blurbs in anthologies (e.g. here and here (both in Spanish), the second one indicating his life span was 1945-1996. The second Robert L. Jones is described in 2000 as a freelance writer with a doctorate in English from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. There should certainly not be one article for two different people, and hopefully more knowledgeable editors can evaluate the respective notability of these two, splitting them or omitting one if needed. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Poetry
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 18:02, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Reevaluating a Wiki
Hi,
I'm working on the Emilia Lanier Wiki page for a final project in a college level course. Consequently, I have become a huge fan of Emilia Lanier, and I want to make her Wiki the best it can be. I was wondering how and when I could have this group reevaluate it's rating. It's currently a C-Class, and I would really like to bring it up to an A or B-Class.
Best, CarefulCatBird (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- @CarefulCatBird, looks like this was resolved, but if you'd like more feedback, you can try the process at Wikipedia:Peer review or Wikipedia:Good articles. czar 02:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi czar, thanks for the recommendation! CarefulCatBird (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Langston Hughes
I'd appreciate more eyes at Langston Hughes, where a user with a conflict of interest would like to include information about a novel he wrote. At my suggestion, he has kindly opened a discussion at Talk:Langston Hughes#Harlem Mosaics Inclusion (COI) so that others may assess the content in question. RivertorchFIREWATER 21:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Should we delete personal relationships in navboxes?
Pls see Wikipedia talk:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Personal relationships.--Moxy (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)