Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Poetry: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:30, 21 June 2023 editSummerRaines (talk | contribs)5 edits People in the year 2023 who write Epistolary poetry in the form of love letters which is a lost art: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:47, 31 December 2024 edit undoParadoctor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers33,697 editsm WP:MAJORWORK vs. WP:MINORWORK: fix 
(35 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|age=30}} {{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Poetry}} {{WikiProject Poetry}}
}}
{{shortcut|WT:POETRY}} {{shortcut|WT:POETRY}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 10: Line 12:
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Poetry/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Poetry/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Connected contributor (paid)
|User1 = Noah Hickman | U1-employer = BYU|U1-EH=yes|U1-otherlinks=COI declarations ]}}


== Wong Phui Nam ==

Hello, I have recently expanded the article ], which while not tagged I believe would fit within this Wikiproject. I would be grateful for any edits or input from those more familiar about writing about poets in an encyclopaedic style. Best, ] (]) 16:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

==Whack!==
{{Multitrout|For the state of the page ], as noted at ]|sig=] (]) 13:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)}}
:This project has been mostly inactive for about a decade now. Good luck with your fish. --] (]) 16:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


== Disclosed COI ==
== Featured Article Save Award for ] ==
There is a ] nomination at ]. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. ] (]) 01:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


Hi! I work for the BYU Library, and I'll be working on pages affiliated with this project. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns! ] (]) 23:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
== RfC over whether or not James Joyce should have an infobox ==


== Wikiproject ==
{{slink|Talk:James Joyce|Should the article have an infobox}} ] ] ] 20:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


Would anyone be interested in joining a sub project of ] on ]? WP's coverage of this is quite poor atm imo ] (]) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
== ] ==


==Dispute at Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär==
This article appears to be part of this project, but the talk page does include the project banner. Also, the article has no categories. ] (]) 06:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The article ] was recently created by ], and I thank them for that. However, the (unsourced) translation is an utter misrepresentation of the German text. The mistranslation of {{lang|de|Wenn}} to 'When' is what caught my eye first. On closer reading, their English text has often no equivalent in the German. I gave more details at ].


While correcting the translation, I also made more that half a dozen other improvements – some quite substantial – as described in my edit summaries. Tamtam90 reverted them all, twice. I would welcome the input of other editors in this matter. -- ] (]) 00:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
:Hi 76.14, you should ] to tag the article for both! I've done so here. <span style="background:#F3F3F3; padding:3px 9px 4px">]</span> 06:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


== Disputes on article for "]" ==
== Project-independent quality assessments ==


There are several disputes for the professor and poet ]. See the ] and ] if you want to catch up. There is a possible COI editor who is possibly very close to the subject and is very heated on the talk pages. They have repeatedly stated the involved editors do not know what we are talking about when it comes to editing articles for poets and authors, so I'm reaching out here and on ] to address this concern of theirs. Please take a look if interested and feel free to add to conversation/consensus. ] <sup> (]) </sup> 17:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Quality assessments by Misplaced Pages editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at ], but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent ] was approved and has been implemented to add a {{para|class}} parameter to {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.


==Informal discussion==
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{tl|WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
An informal discussion of article issues, a ], has been initiated at ]


== WP:MAJORWORK vs. WP:MINORWORK ==
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{tl|WPBannerMeta}} a new {{para|QUALITY_CRITERIA|custom}} parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. ] (]) 20:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)


A difference of opinion about which applies arose for me recently, and MOS is not particularly helpful there.
== People in the year 2023 who write Epistolary poetry in the form of love letters which is a lost art ==
* ]: {{tq|short}}, example has 16 lines
* ]: {{tq|long or epic}}, example has 10000+ lines
So, what about poems with 17 to 9999 lines? Where do you draw the line, or where do you place the grey area between long and short?


For comparison, the Eminem song "]" (208 lines) and Don McLean's "]" (117 lines) are both minor works.
This form of poetry is coming back and I happen to be one of them who writes with a prominent poet and Professor in India. We have written 130 so far and I am not familiar with to write or change articles on Misplaced Pages, But, I would like to participate in anything that will enhance poetry Internationally.and we have an anthology coming out in about a month. It is a beautiful form of poetry and I would like to pursue any article for the sake of poetry and the art of literature. ] (]) 23:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
According to {{ping|Bkonrad}}, Auden's ] (104 lines) is a major work, which I do not see. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">]</span> (]) 16:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:For the record, I don't care all that much, but the disambiguation entry should match however the article on ] is styled. Since it was initially published as a standalone booklet, I'd be inclined to treat it as a major work. ] ≠ ] 16:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::Also, until Paradoctor's post above, I was unaware of the poem's length. I only saw there was a style discrepancy between the disambiguation page entry and the article. I defaulted to what was used in the article's style, largely based on seeing it had been a standalone publication. But it could well be that the article should be updated. ] ≠ ] 17:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I like your new sig. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">]</span> (]) 17:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:Typically the secondary sources will have some kind of consensus, so I look for that (simpler than hoping to find a rule that is always accurate!). I also tend to find standalone publications (like booklets) are more often treated as “major” than parts of works (like poems within a collection or songs within an album), and format has a bigger impact than the raw number of lines. ] (]) 22:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:: {{tq|secondary sources}} I'd really be surprised if the sources were a) consistent with each other, b) aligned with our purpose of distinguishing "minor" and "major" works. Maybe more to the point, I suspect most sources will use "major" and "minor" as descriptors of impact, not of length, which is what MOS uses as criterion. I don't think sources will work for us there. "American Pie" is certainly not a minor work in McLean's discography.
:: Same issue with publication context/format. MOS doesn't mention it.
:: {{tq|simpler than hoping to find a rule that is always accurate}} Good thing, then, that I didn't ask for that, wouldn't you say? <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">]</span> (]) 22:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:: It would be good to have some definition like the film industry provides. ] defines a short film as having a run time of no more than 40 minutes. The Canadians use a different definition, but that needn't worry us, we can use and mention these definitions as context would have us. Maybe ] or some publisher's association promulgates a definition of "short poem"? For prose, I dimly recall reading a definition that distinguishes between short story, novelette, novella, and novel in terms of word count.

Latest revision as of 22:47, 31 December 2024

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

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


Disclosed COI

Hi! I work for the BYU Library, and I'll be working on pages affiliated with this project. Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns! Noah Hickman (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Would anyone be interested in joining a sub project of WP:Anthropology on oral tradition? WP's coverage of this is quite poor atm imo Kowal2701 (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Dispute at Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär

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

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

Disputes on article for "Barrett Watten"

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

Informal discussion

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

WP:MAJORWORK vs. WP:MINORWORK

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

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

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

For the record, I don't care all that much, but the disambiguation entry should match however the article on Spain (poem) is styled. Since it was initially published as a standalone booklet, I'd be inclined to treat it as a major work. olderwiser 16:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, until Paradoctor's post above, I was unaware of the poem's length. I only saw there was a style discrepancy between the disambiguation page entry and the article. I defaulted to what was used in the article's style, largely based on seeing it had been a standalone publication. But it could well be that the article should be updated. olderwiser 17:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I like your new sig. Paradoctor (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Typically the secondary sources will have some kind of consensus, so I look for that (simpler than hoping to find a rule that is always accurate!). I also tend to find standalone publications (like booklets) are more often treated as “major” than parts of works (like poems within a collection or songs within an album), and format has a bigger impact than the raw number of lines. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
secondary sources I'd really be surprised if the sources were a) consistent with each other, b) aligned with our purpose of distinguishing "minor" and "major" works. Maybe more to the point, I suspect most sources will use "major" and "minor" as descriptors of impact, not of length, which is what MOS uses as criterion. I don't think sources will work for us there. "American Pie" is certainly not a minor work in McLean's discography.
Same issue with publication context/format. MOS doesn't mention it.
simpler than hoping to find a rule that is always accurate Good thing, then, that I didn't ask for that, wouldn't you say? Paradoctor (talk) 22:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
It would be good to have some definition like the film industry provides. AMPAS defines a short film as having a run time of no more than 40 minutes. The Canadians use a different definition, but that needn't worry us, we can use and mention these definitions as context would have us. Maybe PEN International or some publisher's association promulgates a definition of "short poem"? For prose, I dimly recall reading a definition that distinguishes between short story, novelette, novella, and novel in terms of word count.
Categories: