Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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' Desertion Mrathel (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)

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)

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. -- AnmaFinotera (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 [1]. 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. -- AnmaFinotera (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. -- AnmaFinotera (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 Link WayneRay (talk) 02:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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:

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [2] Dlabtot (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

==comment== the intervention of that editor is regrettable. This is an Encyclopedia not a poetry book. It follows that we are concerned only with facts not aesthetic judgments. From this it follows that the poem should be given exactly as it was first published by Hunt in the Indicator 1819. Later manuscript emendations published posthumously, such as that in the Harvard manuscript, can be given in notes. The full story is given in the link cited on the page but we should do exactly the opposite to what they do when their main example is the Harvard one. Alf Heben

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Redirect for Lord Byron under discussion

The redirect Lord Byron currently redirect to George Gordon Byron, 6th Baron Byron, the English Romantic poet. This redirect is under discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Lord Byron. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessments

I have gone on a spree and have assessed all the articles on the list except for 5, which were either created or expanded by me. We should have a pretty good categorization of our articles at this point, so if you are looking for something to do, check out the stubs and start adding info:). I have noticed since the Coleridge collaboration the project has fallen into a hibernation, and I can see that getting large group to work together is probably less productive than I had hoped:) If anyone has an idea of what we can do individually to help the project, however, I would love to hear it. Cheers Mrathel (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright on Havisham

The Havisham article contains a full copy of the poem. According to the article, it was only written in 1998, so I was wondering what the copyright status on it was, and how to find out. Jhbuk (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely in copyright still. It should be removed ASAP! --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Anna Mendelssohn / Grace Lake

I'm afraid I know very little about poetry, so I would be grateful if project members could give a look over the article on Anna Mendelssohn (the poet sometimes published under the name Grace Lake) which I've just written. If there is more to be written about her poetry it would be good because this part of her life is probably more interesting than the events of 1971-2 which are better documented and so dominate the article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Capitalisation regarding poems

Where the first line of a poem - in this role, uncapitalised - also serves as its title, such as I wandered lonely as a cloud and many others, should it be capitalised? My own feeling was probably not, not least since they normally form a clause structure sufficiently complex that it would not be capitalised even if it had been the official title. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 20:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)