Revision as of 23:04, 28 June 2023 editВикидим (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers20,338 edits →Illustrations in Catullus' Poems: 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 | ||
(30 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Talk header |
{{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 ]}} | |||
== 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) | |||
== RfC over whether or not James Joyce should have an infobox == | |||
== Disclosed COI == | |||
{{slink|Talk:James Joyce|Should the article have an infobox}} ] ] ] 20:41, 3 December 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) | |||
== ] == | |||
== Wikiproject == | |||
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) | |||
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) | |||
: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) | |||
==Dispute at Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär== | |||
== Project-independent quality assessments == | |||
The article ] was recently created by ], and I thank them for that. However, the (unsourced) translation is an utter misrepresentation of the German text. The mistranslation of {{lang|de|Wenn}} to 'When' is what caught my eye first. On closer reading, their English text has often no equivalent in the German. I gave more details at ]. | |||
While correcting the translation, I also made more that half a dozen other improvements – some quite substantial – as described in my edit summaries. Tamtam90 reverted them all, twice. I would welcome the input of other editors in this matter. -- ] (]) 00:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
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. | |||
== Disputes on article for "]" == | |||
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. | |||
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) | |||
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) | |||
==Informal discussion== | |||
== People in the year 2023 who write Epistolary poetry in the form of love letters which is a lost art == | |||
An informal discussion of article issues, a ], has been initiated at ] | |||
== WP:MAJORWORK vs. WP:MINORWORK == | |||
The Epistolary form of poetry is making a come back, and I happen to be one of the poets who writes them with a prominent poet and Professor in India. I live in the United States. We have written 130 Epistolary Poems so far, and although I am not familiar with how to write or change articles on Misplaced Pages yet, I would like to participate in any project that will enhance poetry Internationally. The Professor and I have an anthology coming out in about a month of Epistolary Poems and we are quite popular. It is a beautiful form of poetry and I would like to pursue any article for the sake of the art of poetry, (Especially Epistolary), and literature in general. Thank you. ] (]) 23:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
A difference of opinion about which applies arose for me recently, and MOS is not particularly helpful there. | |||
== Illustrations in Catullus' Poems == | |||
* ]: {{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. | |||
I would like to attract attention to the slow-moving discussion about the illustrations in ]: currently two videos are in the lead that replaced the original image of an old painting on the subject (cf. ). The discussion topic is broader that just this article, as other Catullus works are illustrated similarly (cf. ], ], ]). ] (]) 23:04, 28 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: | ||||||||
|
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.
- MOS:MINORWORK:
short
, example has 16 lines - MOS:MAJORWORK:
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 "Rap God" (208 lines) and Don McLean's "American Pie" (117 lines) are both minor works. According to @Bkonrad:, Auden's Spain (104 lines) is a major work, which I do not see. Paradoctor (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- For the record, I don't care all that much, but the disambiguation entry should match however the article on Spain (poem) is styled. Since it was initially published as a standalone booklet, I'd be inclined to treat it as a major work. older ≠ wiser 16:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, until Paradoctor's post above, I was unaware of the poem's length. I only saw there was a style discrepancy between the disambiguation page entry and the article. I defaulted to what was used in the article's style, largely based on seeing it had been a standalone publication. But it could well be that the article should be updated. older ≠ wiser 17:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- I like your new sig. Paradoctor (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Also, until Paradoctor's post above, I was unaware of the poem's length. I only saw there was a style discrepancy between the disambiguation page entry and the article. I defaulted to what was used in the article's style, largely based on seeing it had been a standalone publication. But it could well be that the article should be updated. older ≠ wiser 17:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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.