User talk:Mrathel/archive 1

Are you trying to update the page? Is there anything in particular that you feel it needs? I don't think that a generic urn image is helpful, especially when the turn isn't based on an actual real urn. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Full excerpts of poems are not produced like that on pages. It is not encyclopedic and they are transcribed over to wikisource. This one has already had that happened. Why are you putting it back in? Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll add in background information shortly, then I will dump quotes onto the talk page about themes and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved the image to the right for formatting problems and desized it. However, the size is okay (probably not that big, as it takes up half of my screen, but if it will be larger, perhaps move it to the poem section so it doesn't override the section headings. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could do me a huge favor and fix the same problem on Ode on Indolence. Style and format are still things I am picking up as I go along Mrathel (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I did what I could. Also, you should try to fix your expansions around a one day period (write things in microsoft word or something similar) so you could put it up for DYK. Getting an article displayed on the mainpage would attract people to help with copyediting and the rest. Thats why I am working on my Keats stuff in user space. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that. I have about 15 books or so checked out on Keats, and I am going to finish with the Urn and Indolence article sometime next week. I will do the Nightengale all at once in Word, then put it up for DYK Mrathel (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Drop me a line when you work on a page. I have about 40 or so on Keats, and a few dozen more on English Romanticism in general. I'll put together notes for you to use. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

From Gittings p. 311: "The four poems he now wrote in the next few weeks frame the most coherent block of verse that Keats achieved, and they are rightly the most widely known of his works. They are bound together by a unity of form and theme. All four are written in ten-line stanzas, whose scheme, with small variations, is identical: a Shakespearian quatrain, followed by a Miltonic sestet." (Indolence, Melancholy, Nightingale and Urn). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha, definitely. : ) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to wait until the first to work on Keats and some others again (my laptop should be fixed by then). However, it wont be that far away. I will see what I can do. If there are any other odes that need to be created, or are stubs, drop me a line with which ones. That way I can produce them together so we can have a nice DYK out of the bunch. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That sound work. Hopefully it will be fixed tomorrow. Once I get that back, I will have a lot more to put onto the pedia. By the way, I want to put together pages around the books he published (with individual pages on the major poems in the books). i would like to do each book at one time, so we have some organization. Keep that in mind. I will look this weekend to see which would be the easiest to go after and I can post some prep work for the pages so you can get a sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I did a small update, clean up, and some other things. Worldcat.org can be used to clean up the citations (get dates, publishers, etc). I have some more criticism to add, but I am going to put together a page on his Five Odes of 1819 and expand the other pages so they can all be listed on the main page together. I will slave away at that tomorrow. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm about to work on Nightingale, Psyche and Autumn. I have created John Keats's 1819 odes for a discussion of the set. The background section will be his biography leading up to the odes. The structure will contain the common elements. The poem sections should have three paragraphs of summary: the beginning, middle, and end of the poem. The other sections will contain shared information on the themes and the critical review (and a discussion of order, etc). There will be redundancies, but the focus will be on the set as a whole for that page. Also, could you create the summaries of Urn, Indolence and Melancholy? They should still be fresh in your mind. If you have a chance and create summaries for the others (and fill out the larger summary sections in Nightingale, Psyche, and Autumn) together, that would help a lot. I want to finish these six pages by tomorrow so I can list all of Keats's major odes for the DYK spot on the mainpage. I need to list them by Friday, so, that should give you a sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Take your time. I wont be putting in the request until tomorrow and I am 1 and a half to be finished. Once you put the summaries in, I will flush out more of the biographical background and find some of the common elements that are left out. Then we will have our pages mostly finished. : ) Ottava Rima (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to take up too much of your time right now (we can come back to it later), but I would like it if you could provide a one paragraph plot summary for each of the six poems listed. The main link will link to their specific pages, but the plot summaries would be useful so that people can get a sense without having to go in depth. :) Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You are doing an excellent job. Once we clean up some MoS things (dashes, some referencing, etc), we should have 7 wonderful pages on the poems. Then, I will upload some more images, put up some more information that is missing, and we can think about pushing them one at a time through FAC. They are already starting to look really good. I like how our combination is working out and I think that we balance each other out nicely. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What kind of difficulty are you having with the formatting? And do you have an instant messenger or rely on IRC? We can discuss any of those kind of things more easily through that. You can email me any contact information through the email this user function. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

They are currently going through DYK. After I put up a few new articles in some other areas, I should be able to start working with you to try and push them towards FA rating. I think it would be fun. I have a few books with a few more pictures and I am tracking down more. I will provide some other misc. criticism to add to the page on their individual talk pages so we can decide on what needs to be added. We should probably think about a PR in a week or two. That way we can get some outside opinions on what should be changed. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I tend not to think too hard about titles and if they are in quotes or italicized, because its completely arbitrary (unless its a really long work, then it must be italicized). I tend to look at an index and see how they describe it. Keats's odes tend to be italicized because of their relative importance in literary tradition. No more, no less. Its an honor thing, if that makes sense? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fixed. Wrad (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I agree with you generally. I have a limited amount of time, especially in the coming weeks, to devote here but will help in any way possible.--Yumegusa (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm 6 feet, 200 lbs.--so I guess that means no on both "stately" and "plump"--but it's always nice when somebody recognizes the character's name, Mrathel. I think you might be the second or third person in about three years. Buck Mulligan (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You reassessed this article which I had initially placed as High-importance. This is one of the most celebrated Norwegian poets. I'm no poetry afficionado but I'd say he's in the "top 10" among Notegian poets. Perhaps «Mid» importance? I'm leaving any reassessment up to you (or others). __meco (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Two albums on Subterranean Records is enough for notability under the music guidelines, isn't it? Twiin (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That was good work merging the collected poems for P Larkin. Commons does not accept fair use images. Your images will be deleted soon from commons, but do not worry about that. Fair use images can be uploaded to en wiki, providing they have a fair use explanation, such as on the book cover upload for "High Windows". I guess that it would be best to re-upload them to en wiki. Please note then they can only be uploaded to en wiki with a different name to the commons image names until they have been deleted from commons. Fair use images can only be shown on a page dedicated to the subject matter of the fair use image. Snowman (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A-ha:) I was so very confused about the book image rules, and I really appreciate the helpMrathel (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I am perplexed as to why you merged the two Philip Larkin Collected Poems without enquiring on the talk pages. If you had asked and waited for a response you could have found out if (a) this was a good idea OR (b) if this was a really stupid idea. Are you aware of the differences between these two books, aside from their similar titles? If I knew how to undo this unilateral action of yours, without putting this enquiry on your talk page, I would almost-instinct 00:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

They are not two versions of the same book. It was very foolish of Thwaite to give these very different books the same title. The first book was extremely contraversial in content, and in the ordering. The second book is almost the opposite. Yes, they are stubs, but I had hoped that by creating two seperate pages for two seperate books then people who know more about Larkin than I would contribute. As it stands now, people who might be tempted to contribute will think, oh as usual WP doesn't know what it's talking about almost-instinct 20:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have written something on the poetry page. I suggest that before you add anything else to the discussion you, at the very least, take a look at the 1988 version. I remain astonished that you are behaving so self-righteously in a discussion about a pair of books when you haven't even set eyes on one of them. Think about where angels fear to tread. almost-instinct 01:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"Its articles we are talking about after all". Have a look at the history of Philip Larkin over the last six months or so if you're bemused as to why I don't share your banal, easy-come-easy-go approach almost-instinct 22:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't forget wishing one of the poetry people a great holiday and happy time during the end of the year. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

On January 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles John Keats's 1819 odes, Ode on Melancholy, Ode to a Nightingale, Ode to Psyche, and To Autumn, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I condensed all five together into one template for convenience. :) 15:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm no John Keats expert but for some reason a little red flag went up in my head while working on another article. If you get a chance, take a look at the Analysis section of Poe's short story "Metzengerstein". There's a mention of Keats's "Ode to a Nightingale" and I was hoping you could confirm that this connection works. If not, let me know on my talk page or on the article talk page. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake - I sent you to the Analysis section when I meant Publication history. First, Poe very often gave nods to his European homies counterparts (and occasionally eastern ones too) so it wouldn't be so unusual. Second, the style the analysis notes is a very minor underscore of this story or, really, in Poe's method in literary themes. Let me know if you think this scholar was making too big a stretch. --Midnightdreary (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, thanks for taking a look. I think I have an idea on how to proceed on this; I think it's worth keeping, with better context. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I was able to determine consensus through the strength of the arguments presented by each side. The editors in favor of deletion gave somewhat shallow reasoning, while the keep "votes" were backed up by relevant policy. If you need further clarification, please do not hesitate to ask. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Per DHowell (talk · contribs), "'Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom usage guide' is meant to prohibit prescriptive usage guides, not descriptive lists of slang terms of a specific type like this one." –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I replied at Ottava Rima (talk · contribs)'s talk page with a pretty in-depth rationale. That should take care of any remaining concerns you have. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem! I realized afterward that "merger" wasn't the right word. I definitely agree that Howl deserves its own page (and a few other poems in the collection too, perhaps). I think Howl and Other Poems should be more specifically about the collection itself: publication, etc. The Howl subsection on that article should stay, but let's pare it down and make it more basic: the poem in the context of the whole collection. Then at the top of that section we can stick in a

tab, and the same for any other poems that get their own section, if you decide to make individual articles about them. :) Merpin (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO you did the right thing: the article was a mess as it stood. Sometime, once I've remembered to get my hands on some decent sources for the individual Larkin poems, I'll probably do something for Annus Mirabilis (Larkin poem). In the meanwhile I should probably go in search of the notability guidelines for poems! almost-instinct 11:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

On March 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article decasyllabic quatrain, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Victuallers (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this article. I agree that it is a fairly low-priority for the Poetry Project. I put quite a bit of time into it as a response to its tagging, and wrote a couple of comments to Collectonian, who'd tagged it. Her response was interesting. Anyway, I do find the lists of poets in award articles to be valuable, and spent some time on Henri Coulette's article as a side effect of working on the Laughlin/Lamont article. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, here is the IP's change in the text. If you look closely, you'll note that its actual purpose was removing the first part - no concern about grammar (the resulting phrase starts with a lower case) or sources (two of which are deleted). It's simply an attempt to delete info about Macedonski being of possible Serb or Bulgarian origin, while arbitrarily maintaining the Aromanian origin, even though more sources attest the former two (and some don't even bother with the latter). If you follow what the IP has attempted to do in other articles, you'll note that this is part of a larger jingoistic pattern (see the warnings on his talk page).

It seems you failed to notice an essential bit: while Bulgarians and Serbs are considered South Slav, Aromanians are not - they speak a Romance language, and Romanian nationalists tend to consider them "a kind of Romanians". As a Romanian, I can tell you that nationalists here display "embarrassment" over the "foreign" origins of prominent Romanians, even when these are well-attested or widely presumed, and even where those prominent Romanians were not themselves nationalists, so many will do their best to obscure these origins or make them look "more Romanian" (in this case, Aromanian - and the Aromanians themselves may be said to have fallen victim to the same logic).

That said, I realize that I shouldn't have snapped at the IP. But having had to put up with that sort of clear-cut vandalism for years, I may lose my patience now and then. Your own query is perfectly legitimate, but it also required a bit more care for details. Cheers, Dahn (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Alex Matthews is a prominent and influential blogger in South Africa but less information comes out of Africa. In the ongoing South African election, he has been interviewed by a number of television stations, including international ones. He was interviewed by Haru Mutasa of Al Jazeera English. I recommend visiting his website. System787 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a little. There is plenty more to be added, but that should fill in some of the major gaps right now. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The English caption on Wiki Commons was incomplete. The last sentence of the German caption is "Hier Kinder und eine alte Frau auf dem Wege in die Todesbaracke (Auschwitz-Birkenau)." Which roughly translated is "Here are children and an old woman on their way to the Auschwitz-Birkenau death chambers." -- Avi (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

On May 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gerontion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your greetings following my signup for the project. Collectonian's actions made me realize that those of us who enjoy quietly working on poetry articles may occasionally need a collective voice. I certainly admire Dennis' poetry. The poetry article I've worked on most seriously is Kay Ryan's. I find the lists of poets who've won the various awards useful - it's how I discovered Ryan, for example. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In a few weeks, we should sit down and talk about the Four Quartets pages and the Keats Odes pages. I think that we can get all 12 pages up to GA and FA level. Each page can be over 20k, so it would be reasonable. I think it would be a nice push to start off June/the summer. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to note that I have about 12 major sources left to expand the quartets pages, so they can definitely be improved. I will message you a reminder if I don't get a hold of you in a few weeks. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

On May 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Not Waving but Drowning, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

On May 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Supermarket in California, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

On May 13, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article A Prayer for My Daughter, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

On May 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article On being asked for a War Poem, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 13:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Poetry invites all members to participate in the current article improvement drive! Our goal is to improve the quality of important poetry-related articles. There is no set deadline and participation is purely voluntary. The current focus is: Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Suggestions for future collaborative efforts are welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry. Thank you for your support!

--Midnightdreary (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

be sufficiently notable?Rich (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I will be working on Coleridge's other pages separately and if you still want my help, drop me a line. However, I think Midnighdreary has made it clear to me that he does not have an understanding inline with what is standard on Wikipedia, on Literature articles, or on advance content. After looking over his featured articles, I am sadly verified in this. So Mrathel, you can contact me and we can discuss this together. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Care to create leads and Wikify User:Ottava Rima/Samuel Coleridge's early life along with all of the pages on the talk page? I plan on putting them forth monday as a large part hook and will share credit with you. After these are done, I plan on putting forth a set on Coleridge's conversation poems, a set on some of his political works and lectures, and a set on poems that he wrote with others. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

On May 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Politics (poem), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

On May 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Circus Animals' Desertion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 11:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to let you know I've made tweaks to Scientific opinion on climate change and Opinion and redirected Scientific Opinion from Scientific Consensus to Opinion based on our debate over at Talk:Scientific opinion on climate change - hopefully it's clearer now. Thanks and regards,--Jaymax (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "The" makes all the difference in the world. I appreciate your work. Mrathel (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mrathel. 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.