| Revision as of 20:58, 22 August 2016 editAnagram16 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users790 edits Thanks for reviewing the article about Vitezslav Nezval's Edison← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:32, 27 August 2016 edit undoPoetryFan (talk | contribs)23 edits Final warning due to repeated insertion of unsourced / hoax material in poetry articles (Maryann Corbett, Wilbur Awards, Richard Wilbur Award -- see diffs)Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ] You may be '''] without further warning''' the next time you add ] material to Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-unsourced4 --> ] (]) | |||
| {{Usertalkback|you=watched|me=watched|icon=info}} | |||
| ==Running-fight games== | |||
| Hi Phil. Thanks for your input at ]. I like the term "running-fight game", and I've added it to ] and ] (but not to ], as I don't actually know the rules of that game). - I'd be most grateful if you'd improve further on any of those three articles, and perhaps write one about ] too.--] 20:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Good work == | |||
| Hi Phil. Just wanted to say that I can see you are doing a ''lot'' of work on articles that I watch these days, and it certainly looks good and serious to me (though I don't have time to read or check it all). Cheers, Niels.--] (]) 10:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, Niels. Your encouragement means a lot to me. I'm starting to get tuckered out, so I might just return to my cave for a bit once I get ] properly on its feet. But within a month or two I should have a surprise for you which I think you'll like. | |||
| :I would like your opinion on the citation system I've imposed on ], ], ], and ]. It seemed the best of the options I saw, but obviously personal preferences will vary greatly, and if it's something everyone but me is going to hate, better to roll it back early. The advantages I see are: | |||
| :# don't repeat full citations over and over, making (I think) both '''Notes''' and '''References''' more legible, and reducing the scope for typographical errors; | |||
| :# multiple sources can easily be cited in one note, eliminating or reducing in text (a feature I've already made use of even in these short articles); | |||
| :# refs are much less disruptive to text flow when editing; | |||
| :# automatic formatting of full citation -- admittedly the template is more complex than just typing, but once it's in use it's easy to copy and paste and just fill in new info; unfamiliar users don't really have to understand it, just follow its lead; | |||
| :# full citations (I assume) more searchable and bot-friendly. | |||
| :Also this system can still perfectly well accommodate full citations in notes, either if the editor is more comfortable with that method (in which case some later editor might want to "move down" the full citation), or if the source is more "tangential" and it is desired to reserve the '''Reference''' section only for "main" sources (a practice I personally would approve of -- I haven't done so yet because so far all the sources I've used I consider "main"). Please let me know what you think, or if you know of other editors who care about geeky stuff like this, maybe they'd care to comment. Thanks again. ] (]) 17:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Scansion == | |||
| ]'s INITIAL NOTE, ORIGINALLY POSTED ON ]: | |||
| I'm engaged in a total overhaul of ], which I believe you originated. My work is at <s>]</s> ] -pw]. I'm contacting you for 2 reasons: First, I look forward to any input you may have, if you're still interested in the topic. Second, I'm not quite sure how I should proceed in going live, and you appear to be knowledgeable in wiki process. My intent is that when the article is in decent shape, it should reside on the page ] which currently redirects to '''Systems of scansion'''. I think this is justified because "Scansion" is the simplest and most common entry that would be searched, and the new article is expanded sufficiently to merit the broader term. Then '''Systems of scansion''' should be blanked and become merely a redirect to '''Scansion'''. I think this is justified because, although I have retained almost nothing verbatim from the existing article, I have kept and even expanded all the systems to which it refers, rendering the current page redundant. I believe I can perform these particular actions myself, but I don't want to transgress procedure or wikiquette. Is there any particular process I should go through? Can you help me with it? Thanks. ] (]) 21:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for dropping me a note ... I haven't been finding much time for wikipedia recently, so this will hopefully provide a reason and a focus to get involved again. I'll have a closer look at scansion pages in the next day or so, as I find time. Look forward to collaborating. ] (]) 10:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I've had a ''very'' quick look at <s>]</s> ] -pw] and the basic idea and structure look very good ... I'm not sure how other editors set about putting work like this 'live' in the main article pages, but my approach is usually to make many many relatively small changes with good descriptions in the edit summary explaining why each addition or change improves that part of the article - if this is done relatively gradually then it gives other editors the chance to notice your changes and to discuss or fine-tune them. Having said that, I suspect that scansion is one of the quieter, least contentious corners of wikipedia, but you never know! ] (]) 10:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Having had a bit of a closer look at your draft article I think I'd like us to tackle it slowly - that is I don't think it's a good idea to simply replace the existing article with your text. Now and then there's something about the style of the draft that makes me feel uncomfortable ... not entirely sure what it is, maybe the voice is just a little bit too 'personal' (whatever that means ... sounds a silly objection when I put it into these words, so I haven't hit the nail on the head) ... as an example, the sentence "4-level scansion is generally a sign of a more linguistically-oriented prosodist at work" seems a little too sweeping. For now, I think the best approach might be to work through how we can incrementally change the current article, step by step introducing your structure and material. In the end the result might indeed be very close to what you have drafted solo, but I think the process of incremental improvement is a valuable one. ] (]) 11:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thank you, Stumps, for looking at my draft. But dear me, our viewpoints seem to be quite diametrically opposed. I can't tell whether this will result in productive tension, or just mutual slack-jawed amazement in how benighted the other person is. We'll try for the first. My first inclination is always to edit conservatively. For example, see my interminable picking away at our mutual friend ] (though here too, I eventually felt the need for a ] which would have been hard to achieve strictly incrementally). Same with ]. My draft is not complete, and it can be improved, but whatever a future "good" scansion article may look like, if you truly think that the current article is, on balance, a better foundation for that future than my draft, then I don't know how to proceed with you, because we're speaking in different tongues. I have no interest in taking apart what I view to be a stronger foundation to shore up a weaker one. Let's take the best we have and make it better. Having said that, it may be that storing this draft in my own name space has made it too "private", and I have no problem with making it more "public" without (yet) destroying ]. It think it is perfectly fair than any interested parties should be able to see both and to contribute discussion and edits based on what they like and dislike in either. How would you feel if I moved my draft to, say, '''Scansion/workpage''' or something like that, and put up a warning (much like my first note to you) on the '''Systems of scansion''' discussion page? Or is that just me ''pretending'' to compromise? ] (]) 04:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm very optimistic that we can work together to radically improve the article along the lines of your draft. I do have qualms about some of the content in your draft, but we can tackle that point by point, and I'm certainly not violently opposed to anything you've written! I have two possible approaches to suggest: | |||
| ::::#(favoured) you create your artcile '''as is''' as an article called '''Scansion''' and we post MERGE notices at the top of the two articles. This might be the simplest. I will happily work on modifying some of the language in your article, and migrating anything from the old article that I think is neglected in the new article (maybe there is nothing like that) ... I think this is my favoured approach ... that way as you keep working on your article it is in the public area where others can start to make their contributions. | |||
| ::::#(more arduous) we start modifying the current article step by step ... this could be started by posting the proposed section headings to the talk page and then refactoring the article to fit the new headings, and so on ... a lot longer road, but I do think this could also erventaully end up with something essentially the same as your current draft. | |||
| ::::What do you think? ] (]) 05:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I, too, prefer #1. Let's do it. I've never set up a merge before, but I'll attempt to do that in the next day or two, unless you care to do it (you'll only be preventing me from screwing something up!). I confess I'm morbidly curious to discover what about my writing makes you so queasy, but that is perhaps best left to the talk page. Thanks again. I'm off to bed. ] (]) 05:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ==Serlio== | |||
| Ciao! I think "All the works..." looks correct. Let me know and good work! --] (]) 19:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :There's a problem: I gave a glance to his Italian article, which is rather thoroughly, and didn't find any reference to the title you mentioned me. There's just ''I sette libri di architettura''. It seems your title is the typical case of Anglophone sources copying one from another (by the way, ''prospetiva'' should be ''prospetTiva'' (in the Italian articles they mention ''perspectiva'' in Latin within the Italian name), until an initial pseudo-error or -variation becomes standard. Ciao and let me know. --] (]) 07:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I found an original frontespice in Googlebooks saying "prospetiva", so I think in the end it's OK (for once I found an Anglophone source guessing an Italian spelling right!!! eheheheh). See you soon and good work. --] (]) 14:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Olson== | |||
| Hi, I have answered your question on ]. I'd be interested to know your view given the Butterick source. Best wishes <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">] (])</font> 22:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Scansion style (again) == | |||
| Thanks for letting me know about the new talk on scansion style. I haven't been active lately, but have good intentions to resume work! ] (]) 01:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi there. On the subject of poetry, what do you think about my proposal? Thanks! ''']''' <sup>'''] / ]</sup>''' 18:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :As poetry, your proposal is terrible; it doesn't even rhyme! But seriously folks... | |||
| :I'm quite hesitant to post more than I've already posted, since I'm not technical enough to foresee either good or bad consequences of bot actions or markup interactions. I'll leave that to the pros. Moreover, I'm not even a member of either of the WikiProjects involved, merely a stalker. My only point was that if the {{tag|poem}} tags were placed on their own lines above and below the verse text, then (since the <nowiki><br></nowiki>'s will also be gone) the poem text can exist as 14 lines that reproduce the sonnet's 14 lines verbatim without any intervening markup. Probably this is only of consequence to humans, but since the text ''can'' be left completely unadulterated on its own lines, I think it should be. | |||
| :If you think this clarification is useful, I can certainly post it on the discussion page. But if my agreement to your proposal seemed weak, it's because the issue is largely procedural and technical and because of my ignorance I would not want my opinion to weigh very heavily in the matter. ] (]) 15:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Panchatantra Stories List== | |||
| Phil, the list looks so great now. Thanks! I wouldn't have created such a good list without your contributions and guidance. Keep the good work going. when can we link this to main panchatantra article?. ] (]) 15:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Lokesh, thanks. And thanks for starting the whole thing. While the list certainly isn't done yet, I do think that it is now comprehensible and useful, so I guess we can move it into mainspace any time. I'll let you do the honors, since it's your sandbox -- but if you prefer that I do it, let me know. I recommend: | |||
| # Use the "move" feature (should be under the little triangle next to the "watch" star); this will preserve the history, and (I think) also bring the talk page along. | |||
| # Let's call the new page "List of Panchatantra stories". I think this is the simplest and clearest title. | |||
| :Then go ahead and start linking. In addition to ], you might as well put links in to some of the other related articles too. I hope you'll keep your book handy, because I think together we can still knock out those question marks. ] (]) 15:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Phil, sorry for not responding quickly, I was too busy in personal engagements so couldn't see your response. Also, I think the book I used seems to be not exactly matching with durgasimha's work. Devudu, did not state that he is translating durgasimha's work but he stated that ''There is one Panchatantra in ] that I'm bringning to modern Kannad''. I thought devudu is referring to Durgasimha's work because he is the only one who brought panchatantra to kannada back in 1025 AD. Recently I got the authentic translation and commentary on durgasimha's work published by . When I opened it I noticed story of Karataka and Damanaka as the first frame story. So I'm planning to rearrange the numbers for column D. Please bear with me in a few days we can move the page to mainstream wikipedia. ] (]) 04:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::No problem at all. Take all the time you need. I'll probably have time to get the Hitopadesha column done too, then. ] (]) 14:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Phil, could you please review the list one more time if you are free? I think I'll move it after receiving your comments. Also please check talk page on my sandbox. ] (]) 08:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Phil, Thanks for your cooperation and all the help. <s></s> (moved --pw) is up and launched if possible review it once. I have linked it in Content section of ] article and linked it in ] article too. Thanks a Lot again! ] (]) 05:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == A pie for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | From a fellow Wikipedian. ] (]) 18:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :Thanks, Leonxlin. How nice, on a day others are celebrating the downing of 68 hot dogs in 10 minutes, to receive instead this almost-as-American-as-apple pie. ] (]) 01:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Changing the piece about pentameter == | |||
| Hi, Phil. Thanks for asking my opinion. I have no special love for the Halle-Keyser theory and agree that it has too much prominence in the article. I think we need to be very brief with competing linguistic rules for i. p., which interested readers can learn about in the references, so I agree we should continue explaining it from the "traditional" point of view. I see an exception for Kiparsky's and Hayes's point, which I added to the article, because they seem to have noticed something that poets and critics didn't. | |||
| I'd also like to have something about alexandrines and short lines in long passages, about varying caesuras, and about the canon against "ten low words", but I don't know much about the history of those. | |||
| So no wisdom, but no objections either. —] ] 21:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, we'll see how this all works out. I'm glad you got the process started. | |||
| :I am the one who added the Duffell references. I found it at Google Books, and it did look good. | |||
| :The terminology I learned is that your "suspensory pause" is a "caesura", and your "compensatory pause" is a "metrical pause", as in | |||
| ::"One kiss, my bonny sweetheart, I'm after a prize to-night, | |||
| :: But I shall be back with the yellow gold before the morning light" | |||
| :That was from Lawrence Perrine, ''Sound and Sense'', an American textbook for about the last year of high school or the first of college. —] ] 19:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == RE:You still into kinky sextain? == | |||
| Replied . ] (]) 16:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Response your comment on my talk page. == | |||
| Hi Phil, | |||
| yes, I saw your review comments on panchatantra list not getting enought time to correct them. I'll try this weekend. Wish you All the best on your baital pachisi list. would be eager to see it once you put it live. Appreciate your enthusiasm. your recension section on the same article is wonderful! ] (]) 04:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: Phil, gone through the vetala list. It is very good. commendable job, but I noticed you haven't linked it aroud in other wikipedia articles. Please do. A link to this list is needed in Baital Pachisi article. Not getting enough time these days to come on wikipedia. Lot of office and personal work. Will do best to repair pachatantra list. ] (]) 06:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Templates == | |||
| Thanks for your advice. Are you interested in creating some of these. I have been plodding through ] this month. About 15% of the modern writer biographies have sufficient wikipedia development to have navboxes, but still need them. With the older writers, I bet the problem is worse. (P.S. I like what you did with Chaucer).--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 07:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :P.S. If I could suggest one writer from the vital articles that you contribute your superior organizational skills to creating a navbox for it would be {{tl|Aesop}}, especially as related to ] and ]. It may even take multiple navboxes, but you seem to be a navbox genius. He may be like Shakespeare where multiple boxes are necessary to cover him, but someone like you could really do wonders. The rest of the ones that I see needing templates are within the range of mortal editors like me. If that is too much and you are interested, I have winnowed the whole list down to about 25 remaining writers needing navboxes. I'll show you the list if you like.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 15:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, Mr. The Tiger, I'm blushing! In point of fact, apart from a couple typo-fixes and the 2 templates we've just been working on, the ''only'' navbox I've ever touched is {{tl|Chaucer}}. But I'm gratified that you like it, and I'm intrigued by the Aesop job. I'll look into it, although in the next days I'll be most obsessed with the continuing slog of ] and doing my taxes at the last minute. Cheers. ] (]) 20:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, if Aesop is not a high priority, consider some others. If you are so inclined, here are what I think are the remaining templates. I may have missed a few (especially Russian ones). If nothing else, I will look forward to your guidance.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 23:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Modern writers - UK and Ireland | |||
| Kingsley Amis | |||
| W. H. Auden | |||
| Robert Graves | |||
| Philip Larkin | |||
| Seán O'Casey | |||
| Modern writers - Western Europe | |||
| Antonin Artaud | |||
| Karen Blixen | |||
| Federico García Lorca | |||
| Tristan Tzara | |||
| Modern writers - Eastern Europe | |||
| Adam Mickiewicz | |||
| France Prešeren | |||
| Modern writers - Asia | |||
| Lu Xun | |||
| Modern writers - USA and Canada | |||
| Pearl S. Buck | |||
| Allen Ginsberg | |||
| William Carlos Williams | |||
| Early modern - Europe | |||
| {{tl|Edmund Spenser}} | |||
| Lope de Vega | |||
| Middle Ages | |||
| Amir Khusrow | |||
| Ancient - Europe | |||
| Aesop | |||
| {{tl|Horace}} | |||
| {{tl|Menander}} | |||
| {{tl|Xenophon}} | |||
| == Returning to Chaucer == | |||
| Hey, I have returned to being able to work on Chaucer again and hope to be able to get some significant editing in within this month. I'm going to start on ], because it's first chronologically in the Riverside, and any help would be welcome. It will be good to finally put to good use the style guidelines we developed! Cheers, ] (]) 12:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi, MOHOD. Glad to hear you're back on pilgrimage. Realistically, there's little chance I can do any meaningful work on this until the yonge sonne hath in the Ram his ''whole'' cours y-ronne. But I do hope to get back in the saddle too. ] (]) 23:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Barnstar == | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="top" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Literary Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Seeing as how I can't do much to help you get a {{icon|FA}}, I figured I could at least give you this well–deserved literary barnstar as a token of appreciation for all your great contributions to our coverage of Dickinson, Chaucer, and others. ] 17:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :Thank you kindly, INeverCry. Now, to get working on that barn-shaped bookshelf so I've got somewhere to put it... ] (]) 16:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Template:The Canterbury Tales == | |||
| Given your work on {{tl|Chaucer}}, I thought you might want to look at {{tl|The Canterbury Tales}}.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 18:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I've made a couple minor changes, and posted some notes at ], where we can expect to hear from ], and probably no one else. ] (]) 21:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Very true. I've given my opinion, for what it's worth (I admit to not being the best when it comes to making editorial decisions…). Cheers, ] (]) 15:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi, Phil. Well, the semester is over, and the student appears to have abandoned the article, as is usual with these class assignments, in my experience as a 3-time "]". The good news is that she made quite a bit of progress during the semester. You know far more about Calderon than I do. Would you kindly go through the talk page and the article to see if there is anything else that you can address in the article? If you would be so kind as to let me know when you have finished with the article, I'll give it a last glance and then unwatch it. Thanks for all your help, happy New Year, and all the best! -- ] (]) 05:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Notes and References == | |||
| you changed "References" and "Bibliography" to "Notes" and "References". However, those are cites, not notes, which use a different format and are usually running commentary: the section includes <nowiki>{{Reflist}}</nowiki>. I see (on Indic pages, anyway) it's common to use References to refer to the cites and Bibliography to the list of books used in the cites. Is there a MOS somewhere? ] 17:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : Hi, Ogress. Over the years, I've tried to cobble together a sensible system from the welter of options available. I generally try to follow the pattern I've outlined at ]. I assure you, this is '''not''' a prescription I wish to impose everywhere, just a way of trying to get my own head around the issues, and to explain my biases (whether right or wrong) if anyone asks (someone asked!). But I'm happy to be schooled. If any particular standard exists for Indic articles, I am completely unaware of it. | |||
| : For the question at hand, I think the specific MOS that I'm basing my practice on is ] which states (inter alia): | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| * For a list of explanatory footnotes or shortened citation footnotes: "Notes", "Endnotes", or "Footnotes" | |||
| * For a list of full citations or general references: "References" or "Works cited" | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| : So my practice has just been to use the first-named heading for each entity. I am aware that ] states: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| If an article contains both footnoted citations and other (explanatory) footnotes, then it is possible (but not necessary) to divide them into two separate lists, using the grouping feature described in the Grouping footnotes section of the footnotes help page. The explanatory footnotes and the citations are then placed in separate sections, called (for example) "Notes" and "References" respectively. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| : ...but I am not a big fan of separating citations and explanatory footnotes, unless sheer numbers require it (no articles I've done serious work on, Indic or otherwise, have been this note-intensive). I will say that since ] states: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| When appendix sections are used, they should appear at the bottom of an article, with <code>==level 2 headings==</code> | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| : ... the previous use of '''Bibliography''' as a level-3 heading does seem to be substandard. I would defend myself against ]'s: | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| : ... by noting that the article only had 2 citations, in 2 wildly different styles. I hope you won't take this all as intransigence or ]. I am genuinely interested in developing logical, useful, and economical citation practices out of the bewildering smorgasbord on offer, and I'm happy to continue the conversation here, or elsewhere if you like. I just wanted to try to show that my biases are not totally nuts! | |||
| : '''PS''': If I'm not too lazy, I do hope to do a total rewrite of ], so I'm glad you're watching, as you appear to have much more experience in this vicinity than I. Cheers. ] (]) 20:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :: '''PPS''' {{reply to|Ogress}} Also, it looks like you've dealt some with naming conventions. I've typed quite a few Sanskrit names in recent years (a language I don't know even a little!) and my only rule is: copy the source. As far as I can tell, this is usually (by no means always) IAST. But overall, the transliterations Misplaced Pages gets from me are a mongrel bunch! Any advice? I've looked around a bit, and my sense is there's very little germane guidance (witness the articles ] and ] -- not my fault!), but maybe I'm just looking in the wrong spot. Thanks. ] (]) 20:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah I struggle to standardise things as well, but not so thoroughly as you do. I guess I just dislike "notes" when they are properly citations. I also find that almost all actual "notes" should be deleted or, more rarely, included in the text as they are typically random commentary and rarely useful information that should be right there. | |||
| :::Yeah, I support ]/] firmly for premodern stuff that is not common English (i.e. Mahayana and the ''Ramayana'') but for some reason people insist on using this ad-hoc romanisation instead. ''Sometimes''. Some people really loathe IAST for some reason, others hate the ad-hoc romanisation. Sometimes the IAST/LoK form appears because it's the scholarly standard and thus the ]; good examples are many Buddhist terms and Jain terms as well. There's a ], btw, but it is directly contradicted in many places. One thing I like to remember is ]. ] 20:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Sáhkku illustrations == | |||
| Hi. Just wanted to give a thumbs up for the illustration you added to the ] article! Great job! <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :No problem. I hope to return to the article some day and do a little more work, too. ] (]) 19:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ==Aarne-Thompson at Wikidata== | |||
| Hi Phil. It was good to see you at the meetup. I've proposed creating a property for Aarne-Thompson-Uther groupings at Wikidata. (/) Could you check and see if it looks okay? My understanding is that the updated ATU classifications retain the type numbers that were in use prior to Uther, but I was unsure whether it would be confusing to allow both ATU and A-T classifications. Since there's already an infobox parameter for "Aarne-Thompson Grouping" at ], it may be possible to have a bot port the data. ] ] ] 01:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|gobonobo}} Thanks, and {{done}}. I'll chime in again if I think of anything else, or if anyone raises questions or objections that I may be able to help with. ] (]) 05:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Account creator granted == | |||
| ] | |||
| After reviewing your request for the ], I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things: | |||
| *The account creator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period. | |||
| *The account creator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the account creator right will result in its removal by an administrator. | |||
| *This access has been added for the purpose of assisting people at your event, and may be removed after 2016-03-07. | |||
| If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note {{#ifeq:{{{1|}}}|<!-- nothing -->|<!-- also nothing -->|on ]}} if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the account creator right. Happy editing! — ] <sup>]</sup> 21:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Shakespeare Sonnet edits == | |||
| Hi Phil. I just now got around to reviewing your edits on the sonnet pages. Good job. I really like the way your design of the sonnet boxes. Cheers! ] (]) 01:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Intro by W.H.Auden == | |||
| It seems a pity that the Signet 1965 edition of the Sonnets, edited by William Burto, is not mentioned anywhere. I have a copy in front of me now - in the introduction, W.H.Auden famously says: "... That we are confronted in the Sonnets by a mystery rather than by an aberration is evidenced for me by the fact that men and women whose sexual tastes are perfectly normal, but who enjoy and understand poetry, have always been able to read them as expressions of what they understand by the word love, without finding the masculine pronoun an obstacle." | |||
| --] (]) 17:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| :If you're referring to the list in {{tl|Shakespeare sonnets bibliography}}, I've laid out my criteria for inclusion on its talk page; inevitably some good editions are excluded, but I've tried to develop the best and closest-to-objective criteria I could. If you're referring generally to the Sonnet articles, I'm mostly leaving content, and especially criticism, to others... I encourage you to add any germane information you have! Although the particular quote you've provided would probably fit in better at the general article ]. Cheers. ] (]) 18:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for your prompt reply. Here's a link to the complete text of his introduction, followed by a furious mud-slinging blog. On second thoughts, it might be better to let people discover this for themselves rather than have it referenced in Misplaced Pages. | |||
| ::*https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/MOooB_L0PW0 | |||
| ::--] (]) 09:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==Polish syllabic verse== | |||
| Polish 9-syllable metre is at the same time syllabic and syllabotonic. Why? Because it is usually divided by the caesura in 5+4. Both segments (half-lines) have feminine ending, so it is either iambic sSsSs//SsSs or choriambic SssSs//SsSs. Another feature is that in Polish (and Russian) 4-foot iambic lines there are not always four accents. On the contrary, it is believed to be better, to leave one (or two) strong position unaccented: for example sSsSs//ssSs to avoid monotony. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 05:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :{{ping|Anagram16}} Thanks for the speedy reply. (Remember to sign your talk page edits with {{code|<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>}}. Wikipedians like that.) So if I'm understanding you correctly, the verse form (if x=''any'' syllable and |=caesura) is actually: | |||
| <pre style="border:none;background-color:transparent;margin-left:1em"> | |||
| x x s S s | x s S s | |||
| </pre> | |||
| :If Polish speakers commonly refer to this verse form as occurring in "iambic" or "choriambic" varieties, then I guess it's fair to note this, but to me this looks like a classic syllabic, ''not'' syllabotonic, verse form, even if it's syllabic with an iambic tendency. (But of course that's just an opinion; clearly the verse form is somewhat ambivalent.) I wonder if simply displaying the above scansion might be clearer. That might help avoid problems of nomenclature. I'll let you judge. Let me know if you feel you need any help, but it certainly seems that you're closer to the subject, so I'll leave you to it (though I reserve the right to come back after re-reading my Gasparov!). Cheers. ] (]) 06:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::You understood correctly. Clearly the verse form is somewhat ambivalent. That's why it is so interesting. Gasparov is a very good source.(] (]) 08:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)) | |||
| :::Thank You very much for reviewing my page on Sebastian Grabowiecki. I know, it is still too short for English Misplaced Pages, but "the longest journey begins with a single step". On the other hand, there are many such one-sentence long articles on - for example - Welsh Misplaced Pages. I just wanted to write something about an old poet of Poland. I think three poets did much for development of Polish poetry, ], ] and Sebastian Grabowiecki. They were really Founding Fathers of Polish lyric poetry. You can compare Grabowiecki to Thomas Wyatt, Henry Howard (Surrey) or Portuguese poet Francisco de Sá de Miranda. They all gave to their native literatures a new (although adapted form the Italian) form - the sonnet. Together with Sęp-Szarzyński Grabowiecki began tradition of writing sonnets in Poland and this is his ''monument more lasting than bronze''. Perhaps You know the sonnet by Philip Sidney: Now that of absence the most irksome night, Grabowiecki wrote (or translated form Italian) a very similar one. | |||
| :::Thank You once again (] (]) 00:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)) | |||
| ==Sebastian Grabowiecki== | |||
| Great thanks for your attempt to translate. I see, You and Google translator had problem with ''dawasz''. It is and old form of second person singular of the verb ''dawać'' (to give) - compare Latin Do, Dare, Dedi, Datus with the same root. Today we say ''dajesz''. Grabowiecki wrote: Jesus You gave us power, which allows us to enter life. I don't know, if this poem was ever translated into English. Jerzy Pietrkiewicz (Peterkiewicz) translated many poems (especially written by Catholic poets) but I haven't got his anthology and now the greatest library is closed for some weeks. | |||
| Grat thanks once again | |||
| (] (]) 23:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)) | |||
| :{{ping|Anagram16}} Thanks. I figured it must be an archaic form. I'll revise. Best to respond to article issues on the ''article'' talk page -- that way, future editors have easy access to the discussion. Also, I'm watching your user talk page at the moment, so if you respond there, I'll see it (as you see, I like to keep conversations together -- but this is not a rule, just an editor preference). If you are ever responding to another editor on ''your own'' talk page (as I'm recommending) and you have doubts about whether they'll notice it, you can use the handy {{tl|ping}} template as I have done in this post, and they'll get an alert (as I trust you have, just now!). As I said, I'll shortly update my translation at ] ... once this is done, would you be so kind as to review it there, and note any further improvements that should be made? Or else give it an OK? Thanks. Oh, and regarding the use of published translations, my sense is that Misplaced Pages has somewhat incoherent guidelines, and I myself have some self-contradictory impulses. But in this case, I think if we can put together an English quatrain that you accept as a reasonable verbal and formal equivalent, that will be better than using a non-public-domain text. ] (]) 00:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ==Thanks== | |||
| Let us go back to the article talk page. | |||
| (] (]) 10:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)) | |||
| ==An Answer== | |||
| Dear Phil wink. | |||
| I understand Your point of view. In Poland we sometimes translate poems using exactly the same metre (for example Japanese haiku (5+7+5) or Greek ] 15(8+7) sSsSsSsS//sSsSsSs). But usually we use feminine rhymes, even if there are only masculine rhymes in the original text. Only poets of the ''Młoda Polska'' (''The Young Poland'') period (1894-1914) used masculine rhymes almost all the time, especially in translations. Of course, as there is no quantity in Polish language, we cannot fully imitate ancient Greek and Latin metres. You are right, that main features of verse should be illustrated (as much as possible) in such a text, as the article, we write together. | |||
| Please, look into the article on ]. There are many translations of first lines of the poem. | |||
| Thanks for helping the text to evolve. | |||
| (] (]) 15:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)) | |||
| == A proposal == | |||
| Dear Phil wink, I noticed You reviewed the article on ]. I just wanted to insert one or two sentences on Polish literature. But now, when you have made a new section for all literatures, I think some things should be added about the use of the stanza in other countries. If You only want, I can write about ottava rima in German, Czech, Slovenian, Swedish and Finnish poetry. The text can be up to A4 page. I think, I can manage writing teh text in two days. You once wrote You read in German. (] (]) 10:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)) | |||
| :{{ping|Anagram16}} ''Any'' improvement you can make to ''any'' article is appropriate. Although there are cases in which it's good for editors to coordinate, in general you should just be ]. (In contrast some actions, like splitting up an article or merging 2 articles are potentially more controversial, which is why I fully explained my plan on the talk page ''before'' taking action ... even though -- as predicted -- I seem to be talking to an empty room. But we'll talk more about this soon.) I've never made a "final" or "perfect" edit in my life (and no one else has either) so please don't hesitate to improve things I've done. It happens that I have a little more ''experience'' at Misplaced Pages than you do, but I don't have any more ''authority''. English is really my only language. I know just enough French, German, and Latin to be illiterate in them! I only meant that in these languages I can squint at a line of verse and know pretty well how it's supposed to sound, even if I don't understand all the words. Cheers. ] (]) 13:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == About August == | |||
| Phil, I may be sometimes absent from the Internet for some weeks in August. Please, don't get angry, if You find your letters unanswered quickly. (] (]) 22:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)) | |||
| :No worries. Have a good vacation (I assume). ] (]) 22:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Richard Wilbur articles == | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ]. | |||
| The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. | |||
| Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.<!-- Template:afd-notice --> ] (]) 18:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
| == Edison == | |||
| The awkward sentence is corrected. I also added a good article on Karel Čapek's translations. It is unusual that a writer, known for his prose and drama works, made the best and most influential poetry translations. (] (]) 20:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)) | |||
Revision as of 18:32, 27 August 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Misplaced Pages. PoetryFan (talk)