This subject is featured in the Outline of poetry, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, comprise Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.

WikiProject Poetry	(Rated NA-Class)	PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WPPoetryPoetry articles
Poetry portal v • d • e This page is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Archives
1, 2

Contents 1 Rudyard Kipling FAR 2 Assessments 3 Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Poetry 4 Modernist poetry in English FAR 5 Philitas of Cos FAC comments requested 6 Assessing poetry articles 7 Forgot a term 8 Tagging and assessing 9 Help editing an article 10 Borges - review as good article 11 help with article assessment 12 article poet 13 Assessment standards 14 http://www.poetryfreedom.com/ 15 http://www.shmoop.com/ 16 Merge of 2 editions 17 Christian epic 18 Howl 19 template file deleted 20 Notable? 21 Something to do 22 Lyrikline.org 23 Template for deletion 24 Coordinators' working group 25 Annus Mirabilis (poem) 26 Decasyllabic quatrain 27 Project watchlist 28 Assistance needed on Ryan G. Van Cleave 29 Article alerts 30 Narrative Poetry article 31 Chaucer Articles 32 The Lost Leader 33 James Laughlin Award 34 Carol Ann Duffy 35 GAR pushes 35.1 Category intersections for developing a work list 36 Notability of Academy of American Poets? 37 GA Sweeps invitation 38 FAR for Samuel Beckett 39 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L(a 40 Articles for Deletion: Lists of prizewinners (Walt Whitman Award, Wallace Stevens Award, Lenore Marshall Poetry Prize) 41 Subjective or predjudical editing; Re; FOOTPRINTS IN THE SAND prose. 42 Featured list review notice 43 GA reassessment of The Absent-Minded Beggar 44 Harold Pinter 45 GA reassessment of The Botanic Garden 46 Dionisio Ridruejo 47 Walt Whitman reads Walt Whitman 48 GA Reassessessment of Joyce Kilmer 49 Djelloul Marbrook 50 Elvis's Twin Sister 51 New category Category:Inuit poets 52 Love's Philosophy 53 Billy Collins 54 A Question 55 T.S. Eliot and the BBC poll 56 I think I've been spamming, but I'm not sure. 57 Wake up call:) 58 Comic verse 59 the Poetry portal template

[edit] Rudyard Kipling FAR

Rudyard Kipling has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. 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 here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessments

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! --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Poetry

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. 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 Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, 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 copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

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 this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. 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 Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Modernist poetry in English FAR

Modernist poetry in English has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. 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 here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philitas of Cos FAC comments requested

I nominated Philitas of Cos as a featured article candidate; comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Philitas of Cos. Eubulides (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessing poetry articles

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 Hölderlin's Hymn "The Ister" is neither a poet, nor a poem, nor a poetic term or type. --Midnightdreary (talk) 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. Lithoderm (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forgot a term

I'm looking for a term. The case at hand: Francois Coppee often wrote poems in a specific form: 5 interlinked Alexandrine couplets one after another (5 couplets, ten lines). I would use the term stanza, 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 Verse? 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. A is putting the smack down (talk) 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 sonnet but it might be something else). --Midnightdreary (talk) 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: sonnet, quatrain, rondel, rondeau, ballad, etc. A is putting the smack down (talk) 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! --Midnightdreary (talk) 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 sonnet, quatrain, 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. A is putting the smack down (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging and assessing

Opinions requested!

1. Should our poetry project template be added to categories?
2. Should the template be added to the many, many "year in poetry" articles? For example, 1896 in poetry be part of our project? How do we assess them if so?

--Midnightdreary (talk) 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:)Mrathel (talk) 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.) Wrad (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrathel (talk • contribs) 17:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

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. Wrad (talk) 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:) Mrathel (talk) 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.Mrathel (talk) 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?Mrathel (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] Help editing an article

I have been working for about a week editing the article on Ode on a Grecian Urn, 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.Mrathel (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I have reviewed the Philip Larkin page, which has undergone many changes since its last assessment on June 18,2008, and I think it is close to being a GAC.Mrathel (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Great choice spending time on Ode to a Grecian Urn. I might drop by for some Wikipedia style edits, if that's something you need help with. Otherwise, when I get a moment, I'll look at the content too. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Borges - review as good article

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

[edit] help with article assessment

Last week, while our template was missing the C class, I assessed an article on artistic inspiration as start class, which upset a lively admin named user:geogre. 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.Mrathel (talk) 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. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

John Greenleaf Whittier 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 ratingMrathel (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wide range. Missing only a few cites. Has pictures. It could be a low B class. Ottava Rima (talk) 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! --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this one: Michael Palmer. 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? Mrathel (talk) 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 layout 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. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

How about this one: Alexandru Macedonski. 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 Mrathel (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And this for that matter Anatol E. Baconsky Mrathel (talk) 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 RS; I didn't really check it out deeply). --Midnightdreary (talk) 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? Mrathel (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the policy is purposefully ambiguous (see WP:REDLINKS. 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. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] article poet

I was looking through the poetry articles, and I came across poet 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?Mrathel (talk) 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). --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --Midnightdreary (talk) 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 John Keats article should probably be higher in importance than say Lamia , 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 Mrathel (talk) 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 Wikipedia. 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. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, we have this section in our project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry/Assessment. It looks like a generic copy/paste job. May I recommend we start working on a working guide to assessment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry/Assessment? I think we all know where we are going with this... --Midnightdreary (talk) 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. Ottava Rima (talk) 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. Mrathel (talk) 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. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] http://www.poetryfreedom.com/

Hello, I am close to 3rr on Poetry 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? Lithoderm 00:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems you're right to keep reverting. Have you considered putting it up for semi-protection at WP:RFPP? --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Talk:Jane Eyre#New External Link and Talk:Mending Wall#Shmoop link). 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 wikipedia 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 User:Barriodude's favor is that he has not re-added the links without discussion. I leave you with some excerpts from Shmoop's analysis[1] of London, 1802:

“

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.

”

“

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.

”

“

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.

”

Lithoderm 16:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... well, I'm not sure this project is the spot to build a Wikipedia-wide consensus. I'm not sure where to go on something like that, but I'm sure there's a spot. Anyone know better? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed a link to this being added to the Ode on a Grecian Urn 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. Mrathel (talk) 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 Wikipedia talk:External links. (The site appears to be very US-centric which means that adding links to it would be problematic with regard to WP:GLOBAL. That's in addition to the points brought up above, of course.) --Bonadea (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have copied this discussion over to Wikipedia talk:External links, and will notify User:Barriodude. Lithoderm 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of 2 editions

I recently merged articles on the 1988 and 2003 versions of Collected Poems (Philip Larkin) , 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. almost-instinct 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. Mrathel (talk) 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. --Midnightdreary (talk) 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, Leaves of Grass. Is the same true for Larkin's book? --Midnightdreary (talk) 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. Mrathel (talk) 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 this review in the New York Review of Books of both vols etc Here's a quote from it:

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."

almost-instinct 18:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Very Well, I have undone the merge and stand smilingly corrected. Mrathel (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Christian epic

This 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. Ottava Rima (talk) 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. --Midnightdreary (talk) 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. It has moved 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. Ottava Rima (talk) 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. WP:OWN) and, of course, we also risk the dreaded original research label. --Midnightdreary (talk) 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. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Howl

So, the article on Howl 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? Mrathel (talk) 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 Howl article but that's about it, I'd suggest. --Midnightdreary (talk)

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. Ottava Rima (talk) 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. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I created an article for Howl and Other Poems using a bit of the information provided in the Howl 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:) Mrathel (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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?:) Mrathel (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It just takes time. It's up now. Wrad (talk) 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. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notable?

I didn't dig too deep into looking at the notability standards for poems, so could someone take a look to see if this poem is acceptable? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 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. --Midnightdreary (talk) 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. Ottava Rima (talk) 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. Mrathel (talk) 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:) Mrathel (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A while back I came across the page for Kate Gale 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 WP:DIRECTORY, 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 Mrathel (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Something to do

If Poetry project members are looking for something to do, the list of unknown-importance Poetry articles has gotten a bit long. Feel free to join in the assessing! --Midnightdreary (talk) 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?? Stumps (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

As I understand, the "top" articles aren't up to us but are already chosen under the WP:VITAL 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. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Ottava Rima (talk) 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? Mrathel (talk) 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. Merpin (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, Merpin! We can assess the GA nominee after it either passes or fails. Now, our next task will be emptying out this dreaded category: Category:Unknown-importance Poetry articles. Eep! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

To let you know, there are now no articles of unknown importance other than the ones that have yet to receive an assessment at all because I created or expanded them and do not wish to assess what I have worked on:)Mrathel (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lyrikline.org

About a year ago, a user from de.wikipedia started adding links to Lyrikline.org, cross-wiki (many languages). This user also registered here as User:Lyriker. 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, Lyrikline.org 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 User:Lyriker, 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 Special:Contributions/Lyriker 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 MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist that such links aren't "necessary," with citation of WP:LINKFARM. My opinion is that this is a misunderstanding of WP:EL, 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. --Abd (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've compiled a list of poets (over 500) with pages at Lyrikline.org, at User:Abd/Lyrikline poets. 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. --Abd (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to admin Beetstra and others who supported the whitelist request, the English-language pages at Lyrikline.org are now whitelisted on en.wikipedia, so they may be used in articles, see Chirikure Chirikure for the first addition. ("English" refers to the user interface, not the language of the poet.) I will start adding links to articles on poets; there is a list of hosted poets at User:Abd/Lyrikline poets, for reference. Because of wikipolitics, please suggest a link on an article talk page before adding it, wait a day, I'd say, at least. Please also consider WP:EL. Lyrikline.org not only hosts audio of poets reading their work, being hosted on lyrikline is evidence of notability, and there is a biography for each poet there; I'd consider lyrikline a reasonably reliable source. --Abd (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for keeping us updated, and for going the process to begin with. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've started -- very slowly -- adding links to lyrikline.org. If there is approval here, I or others could add links much more quickly. While there may be a few poet articles where a lyrikline link would be inappropriate, I haven't actually seen one yet, and I've looked at quite a few. I've been proposing the link on Talk, then I came back later and added it. This seems to call off the linkspam bloodhounds. The claim has been made by linkspam volunteers that external links should be discussed in Talk first. I haven't seen any evidence of this, but the reality is that if one is not a very well-established user and starts adding links to a single web site to a lot of articles, they will shoot first and ask questions later. (I.e., blacklist the site, though in this case, lyrikline.org is already blacklisted) and sometimes they block the user, sometimes without warning.) In any case, I can deal with that, but only if I have some general approval. What do you say? Approval here would mean that I go ahead and fairly quickly add lyrikline links to several hundred poet articles; with a possibility that a very few of these would be inappropriate. Some will be reverted rather routinely by recent changes patrollers, but that's not a problem, those reversions can be undone by anyone except me (or the one who added the link). I'm also fairly well connected now with the linkspam volunteers and probably there won't be any serious problem, but .... consensus is powerful. I asked about lyrikline in many places, but this project is the only one which showed any activity or response.

Note that the only substantial concern I've seen would be linking to Lyrikline for a poet when there is no English translation of the poetry there. However, if the poet already has an article here, the lyrikline page will confirm biographical material (not always in English, but reliable source is reliable source, even if it isn't in English), and the page allows the reader to hear the poetry, read by the poet, and translations can be managed with Google. So I'm in favor of linking them all, for starters. If reverted, then, each one reverted would be looked at in detail and discussed (except for dealing with automated reverts done en masse, which are possible, that would be handled differently, starting by discussing it with the editor behind those reverts).

After that, I'd look at the possibility of creating articles on lyrikline poets who don't already have a page here. That's more difficult, but lyrikline would be a starter source, find one more and an article should be possible. (Note that copying the lyrikline bio would be copyright violation.) (My opinion is that lyrikline.org recognition establishes notability, but lyrikline also cites awards won, which could nail it.) This could result in several hundred new poet articles. Comments? --Abd (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's also occurred to me that I can add a suggestion to all those articles, on the Talk page, then wait a few days, then add a note that, no objection appearing, I'm adding the link, with that edit being almost simultaneous with the article edit. This would immediately clue in the linkspam volunteer or recent changes patroller that this is a discussed link. In any case, I await some response here, though I may try this trick with a few more links without waiting. --Abd (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Template for deletion

We had started work (what, a year ago?) on putting together an optional-use infobox for poem articles (Template:Infobox Poem). We didn't get too far in preparing it or implementing it and, so, it's now being nominated for deletion. If you have an opinion on it, go to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Poem). --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Midnight, are you going to handle this? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I sort of disagree with the concept of Project coordinators. But if we just need a representative, I can keep an eye on what's happening - unless someone else wants to be nominated. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Annus Mirabilis (poem)

This article is a collection of two poems that share the same name. Am I right to suggest that each have its own article rather than share one? Mrathel (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The second seems like it would be more appropriate for wikisource, but it is not in the public domain so probably not. It should be removed for quoting too much of a copyrighted poem. Stick with the Dryden unless the other is notable enough to deserve a page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made the page about the Dryden poem and suggested on the talk page that a separate article be created for the Larkin if enough sourced information is available. Mrathel (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Decasyllabic quatrain

I recently created this article to fill in a red link on another article I was working on, but to be honest, literary terms are not my forte. Does anyone have time to make sure I didn't say anything incredibly stupid?:) Thanks Mrathel (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it a look. :) Merpin (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, since this is often called the "Heroic Stanza", would it be advisable to redirect heroic stanza here instead of to quatrain where it now goes? Mrathel (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

sorry, that creates a bit of confusion, since a heroic stanza is sometimes defined as having an ABAB rhyme scheme but also can be AABB, which would make it heroic couplets, which was not indicative of the decasyllabic quatrain. I am really just driving myself insane trying to understand definitions of these words:) Mrathel (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering, is decasyllabic the same as pentametric? Merpin (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is pentametric with 4 lines per stanza.Mrathel (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessarily pentameter, as it could have variations in footing. I could find something later if you want. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Project watchlist

Hello. Are the project members interested in using a watchlist to keep vandalism and recent changes in check? I just reverted multiple instances of major vandalism to Sonnet 18, and this had been in place since February 20. Viriditas (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I would notify the Shakespeare wikiproject instead. They deal with all things "bard" related. We are buried in enough stuff now. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we do what we can. But, sometimes vandalism just falls through the cracks. Some of the most-watched articles can sometimes go days without anyone catching any problems. --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance needed on Ryan G. Van Cleave

Hi, I've been working a bit on a bio of Ryan G. Van Cleave, which is also heavily edited by User:Vancleave88. The bio was created by User:Trashcan2000 (the only 2 edits of this user). The articles makes several claims of awards, some of them check out, but I have no idea whether these are notable awards. Some other claims don't check out (for instance, that he is a "contributing writer" to Scene Magazine, but a Gsearch on that web site for "cleave" does not give any hits). I would appreciate if someone more knowledgeable in all things peotic would have a look at this article to see whether this person meets WP:N. Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be suspicious anyway. Clicking the link to his home page takes you right to a spot where he notes he's looking for a job. Sounds like a self-promotion and nothing more. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I saw that earlier today and it made me suspicious. --Crusio (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:34, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Narrative Poetry article

I would like to see, in the Narrative Poetry article, a very brief discussion of the styles of poetry used in relatively modern English when writing narrative poems. I know that Spenserian stanza, (such as Spenser's Fairie Queene) Ottava Rima (Byron's Don Juan) ballad stanza (Coleridge Rime of the Ancient Mariner) are used. However, I would like to see more analysis of how people have approached narratives, from a technical standpoint, and maybe even the advantages and disadvantages of some. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.35.109.154 (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! Just remember to use reliable sources and keep it verifiable, avoiding original research and the like. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! To often the poetry project, because it is run by us poemheads, tends to focus on poems rather than the important genres encompassing the poems. I would be willing to work with you if you need any assistance. Mrathel (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chaucer Articles

I have noticed that among the unassessed articles are many on the Canterbury Tales. I am not a masochist, so I don't enjoy Olde English and would not care to assess them all myself, so I was wondering if somebody wanted to help take them in shifts or maybe do them in tandem to make sure no valuable editor become a casualty :) Mrathel (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you guys know I have started assessing the Canterbury articles, and I want to say I hate you all for not helping:) Mrathel (talk) 10:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The feeling is mutual!! lol Actually, I've barely been getting on Wikipedia lately, I've been so busy. I might drop in to help with assessing later tonight. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Lost Leader

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poetry&action=edit&section=32 Could someone who knows more about this than me have a look at The Lost Leader? I stumbled upon it during new page patrolling and the article looks pretty bad. I had redirected it to the article on the author, but that has been undone. I'm not sure this is not OR and whether it is notable enough to merit an article separate from the poet. Thanks for the assistance! --Crusio (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The redirect is probably the best method of handling the problem since the article is made up almost entirely of non-wiki material, but I would try to resolve the issue with the user who may not understand the reason you have done so. I have posted on his talk page as well, and I think it is a simple matter of misunderstanding the basics of WP. If a response is not given, I would redirect again.Mrathel (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] James Laughlin Award

I have a question regarding this article and wanted the advice of others: when I went to assess it, there was a tag for notability, but I am having a hard time understanding that claim given the information on the page. I am not really familiar with the award to be honest, but the references seem sound enough, and there was no discussion on the talk page regarding the issue, and so I removed it and inquired on User talk:Collectonian about the tag only to have the edit reverted with no discussion her talk page, my own, or on that of the article.

In addition, I followed the award back to its founders, the Academy of American Poets only to find a notability and POV tag on that article as well, and again there was no discussion of either. I probably erred in judgement by suggesting that the topoic was clearly notabily but lacking citations, but I didn not think the POV was an issue because in order to claim POV you must at least give a reason why. However, both of those edits were reverted with no explanation. I feel confident in reverting the readdion of the POV tag but will leave the notability tag in place for the time being. If anyone can let me know if my reasoning is flawed, I would appreciate it:) Mrathel (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC) (after all that typing, i found i had a reply:)Mrathel (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Carol Ann Duffy

Currently ranked as mid-importance on the project's rating scale. Perhaps she needs re-rating? Just a thought. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Recently named poet laureate? Sounds like an update indeed! I'll take care of it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GAR pushes

I know we are all very busy these days, but I was wondering, as a means to keep more of our participants active in the project, if we could put together group efforts to push a B-class articles to GAR as a group on a regular basis. If only one article at a time, it might be something that draws the attention of editors interested in poetry while at the same time increasing the quality of articles in the project. Just a thought:) Mrathel (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you're on to something. I might even suggest aiming for bringing stubs up to higher quality articles (we might even get more participation in something like that; many are intimidated by things like GA/FA). --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a better idea; perhaps we can just focus on bringing up the quality of article in general, starting with stubs and moving up if we feel frisky. However, I do have a question regarding the template: Is it possible to tweek it so that we can click on individual assessment ratings so that you can pull up a list of high-importance stubs, mid importance C-class, etc.? That would really help us decide which articles to start with. Mrathel (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I tried to find that once myself, though I was unsuccessful. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I have been picking out stubs that I know can be bigger articles and have been pushing them to dyk, but perhaps we can have a list on the project page of articles that will be good for expansion then have editors sign their names beside them and collaborate either on temp pages or through talk pages?... just a thoughtMrathel (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Recently, I have taken the articles Gerontion,Not Waving but Drowning,A Supermarket in California, A Prayer for My Daughter, On being asked for a War Poem, and Politics (poem) up from stub and proposed them for DYK. I think it would be a good idea for us to list possible expansion/creation entries under current projects, as expanding articles like "Politics" reveals things such as there is no article for The Circus Animals' DesertionMrathel (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe what we can do is propose stubs as we find them for us to work on? Or, just find poem articles that have been difficult to tackle and post them up for help (Paul Revere's Ride (poem) has been awful for a couple reasons)? I think a year or so ago, we proposed focusing on general poem-related articles like sonnet and work on them together. Lots of possibilities, either way. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The only reservation I have about general poem-related articles is that they tend to be boring; I think letting users add what they find interesting to the list will generate higher productivity.Mrathel (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't disagree. Whatever we decide, I recommend we take advantage of the opportunity and invite all project members - including the several less active ones - to take part. It might get the editors who have already expressed interest in poetry articles to take a more active role here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category intersections for developing a work list

Top-importance/Start-Class poetry articles

Somebody asked previously for a tool that would enable us to list articles at the intersection of 2 categories, for example "Top-importance Poetry articles" and "Start-Class Poetry articles". I think the tool above does this; see also Wikipedia:CatScan. A quick use of the tool suggests to me that some of the "top importance" articles that haven't been worked much may not actually be of top importance. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Easchiff - that was really helpful! Using this tool, I can't help but notice that Samuel Taylor Coleridge needs serious help. How does that sound for our first quality improvement project? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! Mrathel (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Though it's still a bit premature (I'd love more input), I put together this template. Once we're satisfied with this little project, we can start adding it to talk pages of the members here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm in. Thanks for your initiative. Easchiff (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just drop me a line. I have plenty of references. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, well I am going to take a look at the article and start a discussion on the talk page with what action I plan to take on the article today. We can coordinate our efforts there to keep from clogging up the project talk. Mrathel (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to add the template to user talk pages. We'll see what happens. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Academy of American Poets?

User:Collectonian has challenged the notability of this organization, which she appears to consider to be some kind of scam. It was rated as "mid-importance" to this project. In the same spirit, she has recently merged the individual articles for the organization's awards (Wallace Stevens Award, Lenore Marshall Award, etc.) back into the organization's main article. I don't object particularly to that, but in this process she has deleted the lists of awardees. I put some hours of work into the James Laughlin Award article in an unsuccessful effort to prevent her from these actions; I also had a discussion with her on her talk page as part of this effort.

If you have an opinion about the notability of the organization, or of the value of the lists of prizewinners that used to exist in the individual awards articles that she's merged, please add this to the article's talk page. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have discussed this issue with this user in the past, and while I understand her arguments, I feel that the burden of proof as to it being as scam is on her and not the organization. I would like for a more experienced editor to take a look at this issue if you guys get a chance and let us know what the dealio. Mrathel (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Burden of proof can go both ways here. Just get a solid, meaningful mention of the award in an unbiased, third-party, reliable source - it's hard to argue against those. Similarly, if the other view is backed up with a similar source touting the award is a great fraud, there's little argument. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

As a personal note, too: I don't think you've lost much by losing the complete lists from the individual awards. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for both responses. I agree in principle with you, Midnightdreary. However, I thought that I'd proven the notability of the James Laughlin Award/Lamont Poetry Selection article adequately using third party sources, including one who considered it comparable to the Pulitzer. It took some effort on my part, but it wasn't enough. So I'm not sure whose standard we're applying, and I think some additional user voices on the talk page may be necessary. Regarding the awardee lists: not a major issue to me. I think they serve as convenient checklists for poets' articles. We might have a discussion on this page once the notability issue has been managed. Easchiff (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the "burden of proof" to which I refer is that the editor taggedAcademy of American Poets as POV because it didn't mention the scam involved... which I thought was odd, because at the time, there were no sources suggesting that such a scam exists. I have not paid any attention since that point, but I do feel that on the whole the issue is one that needs attention if a conclusion can not be reached in time. Mrathel (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the tags, and am looking into the list of winners issue; there are several ways to go, but the simple ones: (1) convert the individual award articles to List articles, or (2) Add external links to the lists of winners in the primary source. The latter is almost certainly acceptable. I'd prefer the former, which would show wikilinks to articles on winners, and will keep the content here, which is generally preferred to external links. Further, if every winner is wikilinked, it will encourage the creation of articles on winners who may not have articles. That's good all around, so I'll probably be editing those redirects if someone else doesn't beat me to it. --Abd (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian reverted my tag removal without adequate explanation, in my view. I reverted, but will, as always, defer to consensus. Please examine the article and help address issues which may be legitimately raised, or resist placement of tags without justification. --Abd (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV tag was removed ages ago. AbD, however, then removed the notability tag and basic clean up tags (like one nothing the lead is too short), which is such a blatantly obvious issue I can't believe he is actually arguing that it requires discussion. Its two sentences. It clearly does not summarize the article. Also Easchiff failed to note that all of the award articles except the Laughlin were direct copy/pastes from the AAP site, a clear violation of WP:COPYVIO. A list of the winners, alone, has no added value as it is just a repeat of the content on the AAP site. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

( I just posted this on the article's talk page):I think we need to relax a bit and come to some sort of agreement. The lead section is blatantly short,the article needs to discuss the subject more and rely less on poets.org. That being said, I think it is not rational to suggest that notability is still in question with at least 5 non-trivial sources, assuming GF on the offline sources. I think a good idea would be to gather a consensus on which tags are proper and improve the article quality to meet guidelines on the rest. Mrathel (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

By the time this was written, I think, I'd taken out just the notability tag, left the other. Collectonian removed the "OR," I restored the most solid part, which is really hardly more than the bare quotation from the poet. As to the list of winners.... I'm not convinced that a list based on public information is copyrightable, but I'd certainly defer to people with more knowledge about copyright than I. It wasn't a copy and paste, I assume. It's useful because it shows what articles we have and what articles we don't have, which the original list on the Academy site doesn't have. In other words, this list helps us to build content. The original list has citations to other web sites. Up to me, I'd put both the link to the List article and a pointer to the web site, in the section of the Academy article. The are both useful, each in their own way.

To resolve possible copyright issues, the list can be reduced to the name and year won, and the work for which the poet won should be referenced in the poet's article. And these poets should all have articles, even if only a bare stub. Even if only to hold the name of the work for which they won. The list of judges could go. That, too, is useful for us, though, maybe we could put it here as a subpage. But having redlinks out where the general readership will see them is a good idea. --Abd (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My understanding has been that a mere listing of public information isn't copyrightable. If we take out the lists of judges, perhaps, we have pure public information that could be, if needed, compiled from other sources and would look the same. See [2]. I'll take the judges out and replace it with a list of judges at the bottom. More compact (each judge listed once only) and just as useful for identifying poets with articles among the judges. --Abd (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The list themselves, no, however, that is not what those articles contained. They also copy pasted everything else from those pages, which is copyrightable and is copyrighted. And as the awards are unnotable except perhaps the Laughlin one, there is no valid reason to have multiple articles simply repeating what is already publicly available on the original website. Wikipedia is not designed to simply be a mirror of other people's content. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, the list is boiled down, and your argument that this is useless (no valid reason) is contradicted by arguments above. This is not simply a mirror of other people's content, it is, in fact, an organization of and index to our own content. It shows the poets, links to our articles, it shows the judges and links to their articles, and it shows the Year in Poetry page. See how it looks now and see if your opinion remains unchanged. The old comment about copied content doesn't count any more, though if what I put in the Academy article was copied, that could be a (minor) problem. I'm getting the impression here of argument after argument being raised. Is that the case? --Abd (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, I think that your effort in merging the articles improved the total picture, and that you have earned thanks both for this work and for challenging the rest of us to improve the sorry state of the composite. I hope that you can be persuaded that the prizes and other activities of the Academy are sincere efforts to foster the development of poetry and to cultivate its readership; I acknowledge that documenting this significance to a skeptic is challenging. Easchiff (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and I believe that, at the minimum, there may be something more to the Academy than being the standard vanity type think like places like Picture.com and the like, which may indicate overall notability. I would, however, like to see more third party sources discussing it, as, to me, a notable organization within the poetry world should have significant third party coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The League of Canadian Poets (est. 1965) has an extensive web page on other "scams" but that may be The American Poetry Society or similar name which eludes. I will check further and find the link. LCP Vanity LinkWayneRay (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FAR for Samuel Beckett

I have nominated Samuel Beckett 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 06:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L(a

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L(a. Any comments would be appreciated. Zagalejo^^^ 21:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion: Lists of prizewinners (Walt Whitman Award, Wallace Stevens Award, Lenore Marshall Poetry Prize)

These three lists are nominated for deletion. If you have an opinion, please weigh in at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of winners of the Walt Whitman Award
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of winners of the Lenore Marshall Poetry Prize
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of winners of the Wallace Stevens Award

Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Subjective or predjudical editing; Re; FOOTPRINTS IN THE SAND prose.

As so often happens in human endevors the ability to shade articles in one direction or another to reflect favorably or unfavorably as it pleases the editor has become apparent in the handling of this subject. Of course to the actual author of this work the inequities are obvious and the curiosity lies in why such blatent and obvious false claiming is not only tolerated but actively supported over the truth which should be the aim of Wikipedia.It is further questioned why such scientificly respected evidence as the polygraph is arbitrarily discredited in favor of unsubstantiated claims of which at best only one can be true. The rest have to be lies. to find such subjective behavior in the Wikipedia editing staff gives rise to serious concerns over the authenticity of Wikipedia as a usable tool for research or anything else except as a vehicle to promote crime and mis information.Contributions/76.115.175.227 (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)burrell.webb

Not sure what this is referring to, frankly, but thanks for the heads-up. You apparently aren't aware, however, that none of us here are "Wikipedia editing staff". We're just volunteers that do this for fun. And as far as the authenticity of Wikipedia as a usable tool for research, well, umm... duh. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find a page called "Footprints in the Sand prose". Regardless, Footprints has many possible authors and all of them are very poor poets and probably not the actual author. Which author are you claiming to be? And polygraphs are 100% far from "scientifically respected" and are easily gamed. Apparently, if you happen to be the only person who is claiming anything legal about it, the only true evidence says a 1940 copyright, which would place you far out of the running and makes you look rather foolish. Regardless, it was a crappy poem ripped off of many better hymns and poems about the same thing dating all the way back to the 17th century. Who cares. The "poem" isn't even that notable and the sources barely fit reliable sourcing guidelines. I would AfD if I actually cared enough. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, it is not a poem and there is no reliable source that shows it to be one. It is more oftenly printed (in its various versions) in paragraph formed. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This is an actual "Footprints in the Sand" poem and shows exactly how boring and uncreative the one the IP is being legal about is. The phrase was popular ever since Robinson Crusoe used the idea and Defoe picked up on the idea from sermons that he heard. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured list review notice

I have nominated List of cultural references in The Cantos for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Gimme danger (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GA reassessment of The Absent-Minded Beggar

I am conducting a Reassessment of the article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have one small concern which you may find at Talk:The Absent-Minded Beggar/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

GAR resolved as Kept. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Pinter

Hello, everyone. There is a longrunning debate about referencing and MOS style at the Harold Pinter article. Both ref tags and parenthetical references are used together, and the result is that the article is, IMO, very difficult to read. The article also appears to overuse quotation marks around one or two-word phrases. The footnotes are very long and often contain references to multiple sources, and there are often three or more footnotes in a row plus an in-line parenthetical cite, for assertions that would seem to need only one reference. Editors at the current peer review have suggested various kinds of simplifications, but one of the article's editors strongly disagrees with any attempts to simplify the footnotes and reference style. There is a lot of useful information and research in the article, but here is a situation where style is overwhelming substance. Can anyone help? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GA reassessment of The Botanic Garden

I have conducted a reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have a few concerns about the prose, which you may find at Talk:The Botanic Garden/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the Temple of Nature myself, but if no one shows up to work on this, I can. Just drop me a notice on my talk page. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Awadewit is on it. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dionisio Ridruejo

I recently created an article for Dionisio Ridruejo and in the course of researching it I discovered that he was apparently a well-known poet. My own interest was only in his political career as I know next to nothing about poetry (especially in Spanish) but the article looks incomplete without any information on his work. As such this is a request for some knowledgable person or persons from here to look into adding the relevant information. Apologies in advance if this is not the right forum for requesting such help. Keresaspa (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Walt Whitman reads Walt Whitman

"America", read by Walt Whitman

An 1890 recording of Walt Whitman reading the opening four lines of his poem "America", from his collection Leaves of Grass.

Just thought I'd share. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Very cool; thanks! Easchiff (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] GA Reassessessment of Joyce Kilmer

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number of concerns and as a result have de-listed the article. When these issues have been addressed, it may be re-nominated at WP:GAN. If you disagree with the delisting and the assessment at Talk:Joyce Kilmer/GA1, you may ask for a community reassessment at WP:GAR. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Djelloul Marbrook

I ran across Djelloul Marbrook while checking for stray markup code, and there may be multiple issues at play here. Much of the article is promotional (review blurbs), the non-blurb part of the "Far From Algiers" section is copied from a bookseller site, and the article has been edited by someone with the same name as the article subject. I'm way out of my depth with modern literary figures, and I was hoping someone here might know what to do with it. My first instinct was to cut everything below the "Summary/Context" section, although there is potentially some useful biographical material in the "Far From Algiers" biographical information. J. Spencer (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Elvis's Twin Sister

There was an AfD on Elvis's Twin Sister which wound up being kept despite no sources to prove notability. Nobody is claiming the poet is not notable, but there is nothing provided in the AfD nor in the article to prove notability, but attempts at tagging the article for lack of notability keep getting reverted. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You win some AfDs, you lose some AfDs. If the article was not notable the AfD would have been delete... C'mon just go and annoy someone else?  Francium12  10:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I din't win or lose anything, because I didn't participate in the AfD, I personally have nothing to prove in this discussion, I just want sources. WP:V is a policy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The page isn't notable, the sources aren't reliable, and I doubt that Carol Ann Duffy really deserves an article even though she gets one by default for Poet Laureate. The actual poem page is filled with original research and should have been deleted. Just relist it later and maybe some people with sense will remove it. You could just call for a notability clarication and get some standards set up to not allow poems without sufficient appearances in multiple scholarly sources in more than just a mere mention. That would end this nonsense quite simply. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but agree that notability of this poem is tenuous at best. Just because it exists doesn't mean it deserves an article, regardless of who wrote it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New category Category:Inuit poets

Just a heads-up, ran across a few recognised poets while reading up on Inuit history. I put a note at the top clarifying that qualifying persons must be recognised as original poets, as opposed to the first Inuit who happened to recite a commonly-known verse to a Western anthropologist. Just thought folks might find it an interesting aspect of poetry. The book I cite as source in the articles probably has several other Inuit poets who meet WP:NOTABILITY. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Love's Philosophy

An editor has repeatedly changed the penultimate line in this poem from "what is all this kissing worth" to "what is all this sweet work worth". When challenged, the editor cited "The Poems of Percy Byssshe", at page 555--edited by Edmund Blundsen (Collins) and "A Treasury of great Poems", at page 725--edited by Louis Untermeyer (Galahad Books, New York). I don't have immediate access to these volumes, so I suppose it is possible that they contain this alternate line. The advice of other editors would be appreciated. Dlabtot (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Published by Leigh Hunt, "The Indicator", December 22, 1819. Reprinted by Mrs. Shelley, "Posthumous Poems", 1824. Included in the Harvard manuscript book, where it is headed "An Anacreontic", and dated 'January, 1820.' Written by Shelley in a copy of Hunt's "Literary Pocket-Book", 1819, and presented to Sophia Stacey, December 29, 1820. is all this sweet work Stacey manuscript; were these examples Harvard manuscript; are all these kissings 1819, 1824. [3] Dlabtot (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Collins

There seems to be a dispute / edit warring over the inclusion of a former professor as one of the influences of this poet. Your input at Talk:Billy Collins would be appreciated. Regards, decltype (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A Question

Hello poetry project people, this seemed like as good a place as any to ask this, what ever happened to that Wikipedia poetry project to make the World's Longest Poem? --( fi ) 02:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] T.S. Eliot and the BBC poll

Today in my home country, the United Kingdom, is National Poetry Day, and T.S. Eliot has been declared the Nation's Favourite Poet. I have left a message on the talk page for Eliot about this. The article's introduction could do with a clean-up, and perhaps this information could be inserted in the introduction. Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In case you are curious, the Top 5 poets in this poll were:

T.S. Eliot John Donne Benjamin Zephaniah Wilfred Owen Philip Larkin

[edit] I think I've been spamming, but I'm not sure.

I'm not sure where to ask this question about external links on poetry pages (till recently I just edited articles and added references) but this seems like a good place to start.

Lately, I've been attempting to improve the articles on various non-Anglophone poets and poems by adding links to translations written by me and published on my blog: http://poemsintranslation.blogspot.com

After a quick look at WP:EL, I realized that what I was doing could constitute spam. Wikipedia policy clearly prohibits blogs and personal websites and, as such, links to my blog are in violation of the letter of the law on WP.

However, my blog does not make me any money (not that I didn't try,) and does not even include any personal information that could suggest my actual identity. So it's not self-promotion in the slightest. Its primary purpose is informational as I explain in this entry. Moreover, WP does encourage users to write their own translations of relevant source content where none is available in the public domain (c.f. WP:OR#Translations), which suggests to me that such links may not be in violation of WP's spirit.

Advice? Suggestions? Szfski (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This matter is being discussed at WP:ELN#Am I spamming WP?. It may be useful to add replies at that location to keep discussions in one place. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wake up call:)

Hello Friends; I have been busy and have not been paying much attention to the project in recent months, and i can see that our unassessed list has grown quite long in that time. If you have a free moment, knocking out two or three at a time will go a long way towards catching us up. Thanks. Mrathel (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comic verse

I created Comic verse as a redirect to a section in English poetry, a section I think that needs expanding. I created a few other redirects e.g. Comic poetry that then redirect through this. I added a courtesy note on the English poetry article that Comic verse links there. All other redirects go via Comic verse.

But I am not entirely happy with this. There may be a better subject or category explaining comic verse. For example, Sir Arthur Sullivan's libretti in the Savoy Operas were mainly in comic verse. Limericks, double dactyls, McWhirters, clerihews, etc, are all, to my mind comic verse, as are Lear's poetry and Lewis Carroll's (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson).

This needs a bigger expansion and perhaps there is an article that deals with it, but I can't find it. Hence the redirect. If there is a better article, I should be glad to know of it. Griff Rhys Jones edited "The nation's favourite comic poems" and I have plenty of other sources, I will quite happily make an article of it, but I imagine one has already been made but I can't find it.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I think an article on Comic Verse would be entirely legitimate, as it is a clearly notable subsection of poetry in general. I have done a few quick searches and have found enough articles to put an article together pretty quickly. However, its not really something I have studied, so I am not sure I am comfortable writing it. It would also make a good category as well, but again I would have to do some research before diving into such an undertaking:) Mrathel (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] the Poetry portal template

So I was looking at various articles and there is no standard way/guideline to including a link to the Poetry Portal. Some use the {{Poetry portal}}. Others {{Portal | Poetry}} with some including the little graphic and others not. Is there any consensus to use one over the other, and what the guidelines are? andyzweb (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what role, if any, this group plays with the poetry portal, which might explain it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure of the portal relationship either. It might be an issue to take up there, as I am sure the question is something they would find more pressing than we. Projects and portals tend to act like stepchildren in a dysfunctional family. :) Mrathel (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That confusion alone might explain why there hasn't been an effort to link to the portal in a consistent manner. I doubt it's even maintained (anyone know better?). --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)