User talk:Phil wink

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

Hi Phil. Thanks for your input at

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.--Noe (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Zohn Ahl 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 Zohn Ahl, Cross and circle game, Race game, and Robert Charles Bell. 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:

1. don't repeat full citations over and over, making (I think) both Notes and References more legible, and reducing the scope for typographical errors;
2. multiple sources can easily be cited in one note, eliminating or reducing [1][2][3][4] in text (a feature I've already made use of even in these short articles);
3. refs are much less disruptive to text flow when editing;
4. 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;
5. 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. Phil wink (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Phil_wink's INITIAL NOTE, ORIGINALLY POSTED ON User_talk:Stumps:

I'm engaged in a total overhaul of

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. Stumps (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a very quick look at User:Phil wink/sandbox2 [see now Scansion -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! Stumps (talk) 10:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Stumps (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Systems of scansion. 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? Phil wink (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

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:

1. (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.
2. (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? Stumps (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Phil wink (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao! I think "All the works..." looks correct. Let me know and good work! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have answered your question on

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! Stumps (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. On the subject of poetry, what do you think about my proposal? Thanks! It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 18:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 <poem>...</poem> tags were placed on their own lines above and below the verse text, then (since the <br>'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. Phil wink (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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?. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. 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.
2. 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 Panchatantra, 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. Phil wink (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Halegannada 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 Hampi Kannada University.. 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. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No problem at all. Take all the time you need. I'll probably have time to get the Hitopadesha column done too, then. Phil wink (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, Thanks for your cooperation and all the help. [List of Stories of Panchatantra] (moved --pw) is up and launched if possible review it once. I have linked it in Content section of panchatantra article and linked it in Durgasimha article too. Thanks a Lot again! Lokesh 2000 (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From a fellow Wikipedian. Leonxlin (talk) 18:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Phil wink (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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, [x] 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. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my talk page. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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! Lokesh 2000 (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Lokesh 2000 (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice. Are you interested in creating some of these. I have been plodding through

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 {{

WP:FOUR) 15:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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 {{

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 List of Emily Dickinson poems and doing my taxes at the last minute. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

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.--

WP:FOUR) 23:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Early modern - Europe {{Edmund Spenser}} Lope de Vega

Middle Ages Amir Khusrow

Ancient - Europe Aesop {{Horace}} {{Menander}} {{Xenophon}}

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 The Knight's Tale, 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, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Phil wink (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Literary Barnstar
		Seeing as how I can't do much to help you get a , 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. INeverCry 17:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly, INeverCry. Now, to get working on that barn-shaped bookshelf so I've got somewhere to put it... Phil wink (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given your work on {{

I've made a couple minor changes, and posted some notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry/The Canterbury Tales task force#Another template, where we can expect to hear from MasterOfHisOwnDomain, and probably no one else. Phil wink (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 "

Here 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 {{Reflist}}. 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? Ogress 17:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 User:Phil wink/Notes and references. 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

WP:FNNR

which states (inter alia):

• 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"

So my practice has just been to use the first-named heading for each entity. I am aware that

WP:CITEFOOT

states:

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.

...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

WP:FOOTERS

states:

When appendix sections are used, they should appear at the bottom of an article, with ==level 2 headings==

... the previous use of Bibliography as a level-3 heading does seem to be substandard. I would defend myself against

WP:CITEVAR

's:

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.

... 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 wp:wikilawyering. 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 Brihatkatha, so I'm glad you're watching, as you appear to have much more experience in this vicinity than I. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PPS @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 Wikipedia 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 Kathasaritsagara and Bṛhatkathāślokasaṃgraha -- not my fault!), but maybe I'm just looking in the wrong spot. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDICSCRIPTS. Ogress 20:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi. Just wanted to give a thumbs up for the illustration you added to the sáhkku article! Great job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.19.208 (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I hope to return to the article some day and do a little more work, too. Phil wink (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil. It was good to see you at the meetup. I've proposed creating a property for Aarne-Thompson-Uther groupings at Wikidata. (diff/page) 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 template:Infobox folk tale, it may be possible to have a bot port the data. gobonobo ^{+ c} 01:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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. Phil wink (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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! Tom Reedy (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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."

--95.238.7.168 (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the list in {{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 Shakespeare's sonnets. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia.

• https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/MOooB_L0PW0

--79.25.112.152 (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anagram16 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anagram16: Thanks for the speedy reply. (Remember to sign your talk page edits with ~~~~. Wikipedians like that.) So if I'm understanding you correctly, the verse form (if x=any syllable and |=caesura) is actually:

x x s S s | x s S s

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. Phil wink (talk) 06:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You understood correctly. Clearly the verse form is somewhat ambivalent. That's why it is so interesting. Gasparov is a very good source.(Anagram16 (talk) 08:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Thank You very much for reviewing my page on Sebastian Grabowiecki. I know, it is still too short for English Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. I just wanted to write something about an old poet of Poland. I think three poets did much for development of Polish poetry,

Mikołaj Sęp-Szarzyński

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 (Anagram16 (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

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 (Anagram16 (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@

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 Talk:Sebastian Grabowiecki ... 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 Wikipedia 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. Phil wink (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Let us go back to the article talk page. (Anagram16 (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

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 Political verse 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 Pan Tadeusz. There are many translations of first lines of the poem. Thanks for helping the text to evolve. (Anagram16 (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Phil wink, I noticed You reviewed the article on ottava rima. 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. (Anagram16 (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@

WP:BOLD. (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 Wikipedia 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. Phil wink (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

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. (Anagram16 (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

No worries. Have a good vacation (I assume). Phil wink (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. (Anagram16 (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For attention to the formatting of verse Alarichall (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed, @Alarichall! Phil wink (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil. This is just a message to let you know that I have recently initiated a 'support/opposition' section at the RfC discussing the issues surrounding the use of "quote boxes" (here). As you previously expressed a view on this issue over at the MoS talk page several days ago, you may wish to reiterate your opinion in a 'support/oppose' format. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Phil_Wink

Thank you for your feedback and patience. I would like to request politely that the next time you have a problem with me and my edits that you take up with me on my talk page or on a relevant article talk page first rather than going straight to

I promise to seek constructive dialogue and work harder to reach an accord with you and other users in a polite and respectful manner. I am fully aware that some of my language has been harsh and I would like to go further by apologizing for any hurt feelings or disrespect that you may have perceived in my actions. Thank you so much for your patience and I appreciate your attention to this message. PoetryFan (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, I should have figured that not everyone has all the fonts and characters that I do. Thanks for the reversion. --Thnidu (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: No problem, and I reiterate how much I regret having had to revert it, as your character is manifestly superior (I know what it was, even though all I saw was a box). But (because I'm a loon) I've previously tested quite a few potential scansion characters in different fonts, and found that even the "Unicode" fonts I had installed failed to render U+23D1. Maybe some day. In case you care (don't know why you should) my least-incomprehensible notes on the topic can be found at User:Phil wink/Quantitative scansion code#Typography. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an impressive survey and plan! --Thnidu (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: You're very kind. Sadly it was all for naught... or possibly nought... the property was implemented by editors with (I felt) little comprehension of my proposal, and I renounced Wikidata as precipitously as I embraced it. Phil wink (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do'Ha'bej ('That is indeed unfortunate', in Klingon.) --Thnidu (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning me at Classical versification. Although I am far more illiterate in Latin than You (to say nothing about Greek), I can help, if need be, as I know something about modern imitations of classical metres. Especially Czech poets experimented a lot with quantitative metres. It is an example of elegiac couplet by a Slovak poet writing in Czech, Ján Kollár:

Ai, zde leží zem ta, před okem mým selzy ronícím,

někdy kolébka, nyní národu mého rakev.

(Slávy dcera)

Ah, here lies this land, before my eye sheding tears

Once a craddle, but now a coffin of my nation.

(The Daughter of Fame)

(Anagram16 (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

My congratulations for Alexandrine and French alexandrine. I will wait for English alexandrine. Perhaps also other articles will be written about alexandrine in many literatures in the future and Your page will be a directory for them all. As far as I know, there are alexandrines in Scandinavian literatures, similar to German model, but I cannot tell You more about it. Alexandrin was used in Russian poetry, too.

The second thing is the verse of Jean de La Fontaine's Fables. This method of writing was very popular in Polish poetry in 18th century and still can be noticed in many poets' works (for example in Wisława Szymborska'a poems). In Polish usually metres 13(7+6), 11(5+6) and 8 are mixed together. If You want to know more about it, I can tell You about Polish irregular verse. (Anagram16 (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@Anagram16: Thanks much. Both articles should still be expanded a bit, but I didn't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. The biggest failure (I think) is that there is no discussion of the French Symbolists' continued weakening of classical propriety. If I have time, I'll get to that. Your assignment (should you chose to accept it) is: for every genus/species pairing, is there information in one that should be brought into the other? or are there contradictions that should be resolved? For example, I notice that Gasparov (referenced in Alexandrine) ends the Polish alexandrine with "s S s" whereas you (in Polish alexandrine) end it with "o S x". Is one wrong? or do they apply to different eras? Regarding Polish irregular verse: I don't think you should tell me; you should tell the world. Just a couple sentences in Polish alexandrine could usefully explain some of the "non-pure" uses to which it is put. At the same time, you might suggest (if germane) if there are particular genres or ... I don't know ... moods, that it has been especially used for. Just a thought. Phil wink (talk) 01:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a very quick answer. First let's talk about ending o S s or s S s. In the beginning, in Old Polish syllabic verse, it was o S s, but later (during the process, when even classical syllabic verse became half syllabo-tonic) s S s. Poets started avoiding SSs sequence. So Gasparov is not wrong. These sequences apply to different epochs. The second thing, I can write an article about Polish (and Czech) irregular verse, perhaps after I have finished "Sapphic stanza". It would be a difficult work, but results can be very interesting. In irregular verse some lines can be syllabic, for example 13(7+6) with caesura, some syllabo-tonic, for example iambic. In Czech literature Vladimír Holan(who can really be called "the great") wrote irregular verse based on alexandrine, for example - instead of 13(6+7) - 15(8+7) or 17(6+4+7), with 4-syllable segment inserted between half-lines of alexandrine. I will read Your articles once again. The only thing I am thinking about now is that there should be at least one-line quotations from Spanish and German, as there are no separated articles. (Anagram16 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@Anagram16: Regarding o S s --> s S s, this is just the kind of historical detail that makes the "species" articles valuable, so if you've got a bit of time, I think you should document this evolution in Polish alexandrine. Regarding irregular verse, although a whole new article would be nice, a couple of sentences in Polish alexandrine would not be out of place, will serve as an apt beginning, and (if the main article eventually appears) can later link to a fuller discussion. Regarding German alexandrine, I disagree: they are structurally identical to the Dutch alexandrines already exemplified (and indeed to the English of Poly-Olbion), so I think more non-English lines throw no additional light onto the topic. However, regarding alejandrinos, I agree: these are distinct from anything already in the article... I did try to pick out a quatrain from the Book of Good Love, but found no formal equivalent, and had trouble comprehending the syllable and stress structure of the original, so gave up making my own... perhaps some day. Phil wink (talk) 02:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Your point of view. I suppose that German, Dutch and all Scandinavian alexandrines are very similar to each other, but I can't be sure of that as I don't read in all these languages. There will be a lot of place for German examples in an article about German alexandrine. I don't know Spanish (and Italian), too and especially I don't know very well rules of treating two vowels as one syllable, which is basic for these languages. Because of that I am more interested in stanzaic forms than in metres. In Polish, Czech and Russian there is no problem with two vowels next to each other, for example Litwo, ojczyzno moja, ty jesteś jak zdrowie (Adam Mickiewicz's Pan Tadeusz, first line, means Lithuania, my mother-country, thou art like health). Perhaps it is horrible for an Italian poet to combine Litwo and ojczyzno. The change of o S s --> s S s during the centuries is common for all Polish syllabic verse. Of course S S s sequence was never fully prohibited, but strong strong syntactic pause S | S s is very rarely. One word more about irregular verse. I think the important thing is that in modern Polish verse alexandrines can be mixed with hendecasyllables. As far as I remember, one translator of Dante's Divine Comedy used the metres 11(5+6) and 13(7+6) freely in his unrhymed tercets. I hope I will be able to finish Sapphic stanza soon. Then I will think about some new things to do for Wikipedia. (Anagram16 (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I found the article about Francisco de Sá de Miranda, a Portuguese poet and noticed there are no sources. I don't know, how it is possible. I thought that such articles are quickly deleted. Of course, it should remain in Wikipedia, but with many references, bibliography and external links. I can find some good, reliable sources and insert notes. Can I ask You for reviewing this after I finish? I am full of admiration for poets such as Francisco de Sá de Miranda, who are Founding Fathers of their native literatures. He is perhaps so important for Portuguese poetry as Thomas Wyatt and Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey together. (Anagram16 (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@Anagram16: I've put the article on my watchlist. Obviously we like lots of references for everything, but the big deal when it comes to policy is for biographies of living persons. Since poor old Frankie can no longer sue anyone for defamation, his article raises no urgent red flags. Also old articles tend to get less scrutiny than newly-created ones. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I think that information in the article was taken chiefly from old edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Perhaps we should sometimes go back to some older articles. (Anagram16 (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Good morning, Phil! Are You still active at Wikipedia? Now it is time for me to finish Sapphic stanza. You were interested in it some months ago. I hope I will complete the article in few days. (Anagram16 (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@Anagram16: I'm still around, but less active than I was earlier this year. If you like, I'll be happy to look over your article again. Let me know if there's any specific help I can offer. I believe that I worked on one or two translations for it over at User:Phil wink/Translation workshop, so feel free to use them, or comment if you think they can be improved. I recently talked to yet another Wikipedian who is unhappy with the "articles for review" process, so I encourage you to avoid this by NOT clicking on the "Submit your draft for review" button -- and instead using the Move feature (which I believe you'll find in the "More" tab along the "Read", "Edit" area). Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 05:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's good, You are still active. I was a little afraid when I read, You are a WikiOgre. I hope I can finish my draft in a day or two. I am not going to make it longer. I have been not too much active in last three months, either. (Anagram16 (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Happy New Year, Phil! From Europe. (Anagram16 (talk) 23:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@Anagram16: Happy New Year, yourself, from a once-great nation. Phil wink (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed You are preparing some articles about Chaucer. Great. If You want any information about Polish translations, please write.(Anagram16 (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Phil. A while ago I wrote the very brief article Partners (board game). It does by no means meet normal Wikipedia criteria wrt sources, and I really can't find any, apart from boardgamegeek. Take a look - it's a fine game, really. But I guess the article ought to be deleted :-(. ... I'll add my own translation/reworking of the Danish rules to the article talk page. --Nø (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nø: Hi. Nice to hear from you. I've only glanced at this, but initially your game sounds like partnership Sorry! (game) (including even the sneaky backing-up shortcut). If you can't get your article to the appropriate standard, possibly some content might find a place as a variation of Sorry!. In other news, the Board Game Studies Colloquium is in Copenhagen this year, so I'm toying with the possibility of travelling to your fair capital. (Plus, I'm not Muslim, so I should be able to re-enter my own shameful country with no trouble.) Phil wink (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They might even let you into Denmark without confiscating gold rings or other valuables. https://news.vice.com/article/denmark-will-seize-migrants-valuables-to-deter-refugee-flow

As a complete amateur and lightweight tourist in the area of board games, the colloquium isn't for me, but do let me know if you come to CPH anyway.

Frankly, I'm not familiar with Sorry! (only Ludo/Parcheesi is common here), and wasn't aware of the similarities - card mechanics and partnerships. Not having played Sorry! IRL, I suspect the inventor of Partners had some nice ideas when he thought up the way cards are dealt. You have a hand of up to four cards to choose from at each move, not just one card. Not knowing your partner's cards, swapping one card with your partner after each hand is dealt, and only being allowed to use your cards to move his pieces when all your own pieces are home, all gives the game nice strategic level, while it is still playable for children.

Unless someone attacks "my" article, I think I'll leave it as it is, though.--Nø (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for moving page about John Lydgate's poem. There is often problem with a/an/the, especially when it is in the beginning of the title. The article was needed because I put it on List of long poems in English. Have You seen that? Perhaps I should not have written this article as I do not read Middle English but no Englishman wrote it. (Anagram16 (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

@Anagram16: You're welcome. I did notice the long poem list a while ago, and I have to say I'm not a fan. Possibly you're making it better, but from what I've seen the list is so ill-conceived that I question whether it's worth improving. It contains such a small fraction -- and a very strange fraction at that -- of long poems in English that I think it totally fails to give anything like a reasonable overview of the topic. It has plenty of third-rate poems by obscure poets, and several with very questionable qualifications (e.g. some which seem to be collections of poetry not poems, and "Christabel" with 677 lines!), but not Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, or The Seasons or The Task? not a mention of John Dryden or Edwin Arlington Robinson? Moreover, whatever value it might have is severely undercut by silly notes (which someone must have thought funny, and have never been deleted) like "c. 2 lines". In my opinion, today, the list does more harm than good; if I were a deleter, I'd delete it. If you have the energy to turn it around, godspeed, but you've got a hell of a lot of work ahead of you. My first pieces of advice would be: (1) Don't respect the work of those who have gone before you. (2) Develop more specific, meaningful, and restrictive criteria. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've now fixed a few of the above gripes, but it remains a very flawed list. Phil wink (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks for Your work. I know the list is not perfect, but such lists can be useful for some people. There is a problem with some chosen books, as Cantos by Ezra Pound. It is not a poem, but a collection. On the other hand, some collections are really epic poems, for example Icelandic Edda or (in my opinion) Spoon River Anthology which is an epic poem about an American town. But the best for such a list are poems written in one measure that tell about a hero or a group of heroes. (Anagram16 (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Phil, thanks for Your improvements to the list of long poems. I do not want to waste Your time for making the list longer. Of course, Your opinion is very important to me and You will be welcome when/if anybody wants to put some works in it. I think we cannot find any good criteria for distinction between long poem/epic poem and verse novel. Sometimes it is hard, too, to distinguish an original poem from a translation. For example - John Keats's Isabella; or, The Pot of Basil is just a verse translation of a short story by Giovanni Boccaccio. But everyone (I suppose) regards it as an excellent original work. (Anagram16 (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Dear Phil,

I recently saw that you deleted all my discovered and researched contribute to the kubb history page. I am an researcher in old games and i work as a master/ prof at the university of amsterdam, but in an another discipline. in my spare time i like to research history of rare games. most of them are very new and not relevent to report. But the history of this game kubb was new for me. For the last 3 months i have been searching for sources, museams and information about this game.

Im sad to see that you deleted it all. Im stil renewing my sources and information about this. So i was a bit sad that all my work was deleted Abruptly. Why did you do this and what can we do about it that we can adjust or post this new information again? Glad to hear from you.

sincerly

Boebeltjebab

UvA Amsterdam

@Boebeltjebab: I will try to point out some particular problems with your contribution soon. But for now, I can only say that I found it to be wildly speculative and off topic, and that the very few references you provided did not in fact support the statements they followed. Possibly this works at the University of Amsterdam, but it will not at Wikipedia. You may wish to review WP:No original research, WP:Verifiability, and WP:Reliable sources for some applicable guidelines. Of course nothing on Wikipedia is gone forever, so I've moved your contribution to a personal space — User:Boebeltjebab/Kubb — so you can work on it further if you like, there. But I caution you that, in my opinion, most of what you've written can never be added to the article because it simply has nothing to do with Kubb.

It is usual on Wikipedia talk pages (both user talk, like this one is, and article talk pages) to sign your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end. This automatically stamps your UserName and the datetime (like at the end of this sentence), so editors can keep track of discussions... cheers. Phil wink (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm having a little bother with the above editor at the Aladdin article (this is the article for the original story)- I've been very patient (I think) but he's not letting up the tiniest bit. A bit of a log shot here, but I noticed you've edited One Thousand and One Nights and I would value your input on this one. No worries if you're not interested, of course. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Phil. Hope everything is well?

I just ran across this article that I thought you might be interested in if you haven't seen it already.

It popped up on Stephen Booth and my first thought was "This is right up Phil's alley!". :) --Xover (talk) 09:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Pierrot lunaire (book)

I can't figure out why you changed the formatting of the quoted poem in this article. Poems should be quoted in the style in which they appear on the page: the lines should not be rammed together as in prose. Can you please undo your changes? (I don't how to do this manually.) Thank you. Beebuk 02:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beebuk: Thanks for pointing this out. It should be fixed now. Please let me know if it still looks wrong on your browser. I assure you, that's not what it looked like when I left it; I would never leave verse in such a hideous state. It looks as though there has been some change in how the {{Verse translation}} template interacts with the {{lang}} template when its parameter is set to "fr" (I have not noticed this problem with other languages). I guess I'll have to search for more instances that have suffered this same effect! Phil wink (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the fix. All looks good now. I appreciate the quick response. Beebuk 01:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare's Sonnets

FYI, we're in the process of putting up a proofread copy of Shakespeare's Sonnets at the English Wikisource. Specifically, the Yale Shakespeare edition of 1923, which entered public domain this year. We have the first 50 sonnets done, plus the appendices. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Carroll Poetry

Hi. Don't know if you've noticed, but you misspelled the category name you created...surely it should be Poetry by Lewis Carroll? Unless you object i'm going to move the contents there and send the misspelled one for deletion? Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 15:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poety by Lewis Carroll has been nominated for discussion

Category:Poety by Lewis Carroll, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 15:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sweeping statements

Salutations. You recently deleted a revision of Sonnet 18 made by me with no reasonable explanation of your motives, rather reverting to a baseless accusation of bowdlerisation. I find this very distasteful. Isolated citation means very little unless its presence elevates the overall quality of a text. This should be obvious.

First of all, Shakespeare was straight. He had a wife and had three children and there is strong evidence that he was implicated in at least one extramarital affair, again with another woman. This is simply non-viable for anyone with homosexual propensities, particularly an upper-middle class man beholden to no lady (other than his mother, of course). That information, in conjunction with no recorded historical evidence, or even implicit corollaries, of Shakespeare ever having had any homosexual relationship, utterly precludes any imposition that he was gay or bisexual and unequivocally discredits even the proposition. What we see is a straight, married man, a father at that, in a normatively straight epoch, being classed as an LGBT paragon (when there is no evidence that he was even an advocate in any shape or form!) in total incomprehension of the facts and rock-solid epistemological basis of all contrary evidence, on the mere grounds that he wrote a few fairly ribald sonnets or contrived some interesting pictorial wordplay (from a contemporary perspective). And even that is only credible if one makes the (groundless) assumption that Shakespeare writes from a self-referential subjective point-of-view, rather than as some sort of fictional persona poem/monologue with some degree of internal focalisation.

Frankly, the brilliance of Shakespeare, particularly his poetry, lies in the fact that we can have no certainty as to whether he is relating or recalling his personal experiences, or he has simply projected some narrative voice for the benefit of his audience or patron. As Sonnet 18 in particular is addressed to some W.H., and Shakespeare was a highly-experienced poet, this, in fact, notionally lends greater credence to his having layered it to some extent to please this equivocal entity.

Furthermore, as I intimated earlier, this was not a time period of thriving homosexuality (either overt or covert), although I'm sure you can think of some such as Wilde etc. The Reformation had taken hold across Western Europe, with its own particular strain in England, and everyone was on vigil to ensure immediate sanction of any manifestation of Christian dissent. With this sonnet addressed to some esteemed nobleman in the prime of life, it would appear rational to deduce that Shakespeare addressed it with the object of meeting some personal need of his patron (e.g. having some romantic poet to brag about in his country house to his wealthy posse (or perhaps some lady-friend)). Making the logical presumption that the aforementioned fellow was well-educated, it would be simply inappropriate to write it directly to him as some conspicuous display of sycophantry. He would be so patently disinclined to it.

Moreover, if I even go so far as to cede all that and, thus, your veracity on the matter, you must understand that sort of behaviour was widespread back in his day and had very different social implications (see: Romantic friendship). The monarch, even after Shakespeare, was frequently said to have a 'favourite', a strong companion of either sex, but one whom they certainly would not be having sexual relations with. King David and Jonathan had a very close fraternal relationship, which is well-documented in Scripture, even with terms such as 'love' (which meant something very different to what it does today), that transcended the ages. Douglas Bush puts it best:

Since modern readers are unused to such ardour in masculine friendship and are likely to leap at the notion of homosexuality… we may remember that such an ideal, often exalted above the love of women, could exist in real life, from Montaigne to Sir Thomas Browne, and was conspicuous in Renaissance literature.

Unfortunately (for some), this means that Shakespeare was not a poster boy for LGBT relationships, which have been (in art and antiquity), and are particularly romanticised today, with the

advent of the LGBT rights movement

. This also means, more specifically, that terms describing the Fair Youth sequence as homoerotic, even when circulated among select scholars, are a misconstruction and, as such, out-of-place.

With that said, and in accordance to my due moral justice, you shall permit me to revert the page to my original edit.

81.107.32.22 (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied your rant to the article's talk page. In the mean time, it may be helpful to read up on WP:Verifiability, not truth. Phil wink (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patolli

Thanks for spotting that - yes, it doesn't look like a tables game, so the navbox doesn't apply. Bermicourt (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnet

Hi,

WP:UNDUE), which would be better left to the articles on the poets themselves rather than in one dealing with the development of the form over the various linguistic areas. I've begun by deleting the sonnet in the Catalan section and rewriting the text to keep it on-topic. But before I look at the English section I'd be grateful for your thoughts on what else needs to be done. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@Sweetpool50: I've re-skimmed the article (because re-reading it would be ... sheesh!), and I really don't know what to say. Yeah, I still think it's too long... but that's an easy complaint to make, and harder to fix without doing damage. The problem (if shrinking is desirable) is that the current proportions seem pretty good. The sections on Italian and English should be the biggest, because Italian is the foundation, and this is English WP... and so they are. After that, the sections that should probably be a little longish are French and Spanish... and so they are. There should be at least 1 full sonnet in the article and it should be originally in English... there are 3, but they're the ones that should be there: 1 English/Shakespearean, 1 Petrarchan, 1 Spenserian. You could justify deleting the Spenser because, as significant and interesting as it is, basically no one copied it. The American section might be trimmed a bit (is any American sonnet, other than "The New Colossus" actually notable?), especially the paragraph on 19th-century anthologies: does that really rise to the level of inclusion? Possibly some of my frustration at length derives from my memory of the article, rather than the article itself today. I recall the days when there was an entire non-translated Urdu sonnet, whose only value was to show that other languages used the exact same form we'd already seen. This kind of overkill was easy pickings, but the pickings aren't as easy any more.

Since you seem to have ambition to continue improving the article, I'll be bold to pass along a few random suggestions:

1. I don't think linking headings is generally considered correct.
2. Ideally, probably every language section should include not only what rime schemes are used (many do note this), but also what meter sonnets are written in ... and is that typically or exclusively? Or at least a suggestion, such as: "generally following the Petrachan form".
3. On Vikram Seth: it should be clarified that The Golden Gate is not written in regular sonnets, but in Onegin stanzas.
4. Don't you think the little asterisks on Shakespeare's sonnet are an irritation? I bet we can find one that doesn't need any. Also, although I'm very much in favor of using either <poem>...</poem> or {{Poem quote}}, if we are going to include the rime indicators, then should we perhaps tabulate it? E.g.:

Let me not to the marriage of true minds	A
Admit impediments, love is not love	B
Which alters when it alteration finds,	A
Or bends with the remover to remove.	B
O no, it is an ever fixèd mark	C
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;	D
It is the star to every wand'ring bark,	C
Whose worth's unknown although his height be taken.	D
Love's not time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks	E
Within his bending sickle's compass come,	F
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,	E
But bears it out even to the edge of doom:	F
If this be error and upon me proved,	G
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.	G

This may not have been super-useful to you, but sorry, that's what came out. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick come-back. It will be useful for the future. At present I'm making notes on Spanish/Ibero American sonnets. Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hi Phil, no worries on amending my userpage (I just noticed you edited). Thanks for the clear template idea. I use 80% zoom out on wikipedia, so to me the templates already looked arranged in a nice order Danial Bass (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Backgammon modern rules

Fair point. Bermicourt (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnet 19

Hello

I only just saw that you undid an edit I made on Sonnet 19. In line 5 you have "fleets", as I realise does your source text. I'm afraid your source text, which is an edition that is more than 100 years old, is wrong. The Quarto has "fleet'st", which John Kerrigan for Penguin renders as "fleet'st" and Wells for Oxford also renders as "fleet'st". Grammatically, only "fleet'st" or "fleetest" or "fleetst" makes sense, as the verb is conjugated in the second person singular. I fleet, thou fleetest, he fleets. Unfortunately printing errors like these have a tendency to percolate, so you see it replicated on several – though fortunately by no means all – websites, but I don't think that is a good reason for perpetuating them.

All the very best and many thanks Sogngion Sogngion (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coma Berenices

It appears you are only partially right about your revert. I had my doubts as well, but if you look at the History section, where it says: "Callimachus called the asterism plokamos Berenikēs or bostrukhon Berenikēs in Greek, translated into Latin as "Coma Berenices" by Catullus". The situation thus is not as clear-cut, I would say. What do you think? -- Kku (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:principle of least astonishment. Now if that article had an entire section devoted to this book, I would feel perfectly comfortable linking to that section, because the result would be both clear and germane to the reader. But that's not the case here, so I wouldn't. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

April 2024

Hello, Phil wink, I saw that you made a draft for a new article at User:Phil wink/sandbox7. Short term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable. But in this case, you haven't edited your draft for a long time. If you wish to improve the draft yourself, please do. Otherwise, you may consider donating it to WikiProject Abandoned Drafts (a participant can help). Thank you. Shadow311 (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]