User talk:Reconsideration

Nationality links

In 1950_in_poetry the sentence on nationality links seems awkward to me. Is in really needed? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Since France or Irish would normally link to the nation article, I think it's worth a line. It seems to me it's important not to confuse readers even for a moment, if we can help it, and I think people familiar with the pages won't be distracted by the single line. I expect most people visiting any of the pages would not be familiar with them (there are links to these pages from other articles on poetry-related subjects). I just added similar sentences at the beginning of the "Birth" and "Death" sections, by the way, and for basically the same reason. Please tell me what you think of those. Also, I found some editors had added links to the year in poetry pages that linked to the basic year (1846) or nation. I think this just avoids confusion all around. Reconsideration (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I take your point. I just at the top of the articles is where the lead normally goes - ie; the introduction or summary of what the article (page) is about. I feel and instruction on how to read the page is ???? unnecessary. I suspect putting is lower in the article would be better. Regards and thanks for your contributions, Ariconte (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As for being at the top, I agree that we usually like to put only things important to the subject itself up there, but we do tend to put explanations of lists up there as well. Since these year pages are all lists (according to this, see #4), I took a look at WP:LIST (a style guideline) for some guidance. I think this section (Wikipedia:Lists#Lead sections in stand-alone lists) applies. (non-obvious characteristics of a list, for instance regarding the list's structure, should be explained in its lead section (example: List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach), or in a separate introductory section (example: List of compositions by Franz Schubert#How Schubert's compositions are listed).) The Bach list is the closest example. Since the nation/literature links are all over these articles, I'm not sure where else the explanation line would be effective. I'll hold off in adding the line to any more articles for another couple of days and mull over it more, since my user name is, after all, Reconsideration (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have learned some WP things about lists - I have never thought of before. Thanks. Looking at the 1950 article only (of course should be considered in regard to the whold group of * in peotry articles) would the Events section followed by the list format guide make a good lead section.... and I would consider putting it before the TOC. I will drop this now as you seem to be on top of it.... Regards, Ariconte (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Linking years

I noticed you linked every year of List of Australian poets, per MOS:UNLINKYEARS it's generally agreed that such linking is unnecessary. I personaly agree with this though there is certainly disagreement over the issue. Apart from arguably not serving much purpose, you may find you've wasted you time if the discussion ends up going the other way. I'd advise engaging in the discussion on the issue before making lots of changes one way or the other. Thanks Misarxist 07:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the length of this. Like everything else connected with organizing Wikipedia, the decisionmaking process on this is confusing, difficult and a bit obscure, but I did engage in discussions on this kind of thing on several pages. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#Year-in-Field links should be made in certain cases where I commented, and Year-in-Field links in tables and lists are just fine but should be identified, a proposal I made to try to get a show of support for this, which I think is already allowed in the guidelines. I also discussed the matter on a page with an editor who had removed the links at List of Canadian poets (which I restored).

Now, I may be missing something here because, as I say, it's confusing, but I think I'm covered: consensus on that RfC page seems to be not to make these things stricter and consensus also seems to be that the kind of thing I'm doing is not disallowed (not that people are commenting on my edits, but on these types of edits). If you think otherwise, please let me know (I'd appreciate hearing about what you think on this). The impression I get from both WP:EGG is that these kinds of links are not wanted for prose, but that for lists and tables, year-in-field links are acceptable under the guidelines but subject to consensus on individual cases (which seems to make sense to me). There are a number of MOS pages -- which I find are difficult to locate oftentimes. You almost need to be a lawyer to interpret some of this stuff, but it seems to boil down to what it says at WP:EGG. I'd appreciate what you think about this, too.

By the way, did you mean to say you disagree with the year-in-poetry links or agree with them on the List of Australian poets page? Please take a look at what I'm doing at the List of Canadian poets page, which is what I'm planning for the Australia page. I've done the same thing with the Bengali poets section on the List of Indian poets page. My reason for doing this is that someone who can't remember the name of a particular poet, but does recall something about that poet, can use these lists to figure out which poet it is that they're looking for. The year-in-poetry links help a bit with that, but mostly they help people who want to learn more about the context of the poet, often of more than one poet. It allows quicker navigation for someone interested in, say, Australian poetry, to find out more about what else was going on in poetry worldwide at a particular time, who the contemporaries were of some poets, and do it in some detail. I think at any level of interest, from the casual browser to the scholar, these pages are going to have some use as navigational aids. If I thought consensus on the RfC was going against what I was doing, I'd stop, so, again, if you have reason to believe it is, it would help me if you could show me why. Thanks for your note. Reconsideration (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, yr aware of the issues (more so than myself;) I suspect you're right about pipped links in this context. My objection is to what might be overlinking per se (cld be dealt with by links to 'yrs in poetry' in the see alsos) but this is as much a matter of taste (I'm pretty sure there aren't, say, server load issues involved) & I for one don't intend to revert over it or anything similar. The Bengali list is a very good job, sometime I'll get around to annotating Oz poets as I once promised to to save it from deletion. One very minor point, what do you think the change I made there?  Misarxist 09:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for William Buchan, 3rd Baron Tweedsmuir

On 18 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Buchan, 3rd Baron Tweedsmuir, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 05:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK nomination

FYI, i nominated the article Jwalamukhi, which you created, for DYK. --Soman (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Jwalamukhi

On 29 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jwalamukhi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

your contribs to 1912 in poetry

You added a series of refs to 1912 in poetry, comprising <ref name=skdhil/> with no text for the ref. Please provide some. --Auric (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Year such-and-such in so-and-so

If you could please add the lines

== References ==
{{reflist}}

to all the articles of this type you are working on, that would be The Right Thing To Do, because without it, the first reference on the page will trigger a "broken references" error. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Swedish poets

Can you copy more from here and red link the missing ones in List of Swedish poets. I will aim to get them blue linked when I can Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I've been compiling similar lists like List of Danish composers. The main reason is to I can root out the red links and work towards ensuring we have the same articles as the foreign equivalent. If you can contribute in this area by generating lists using categories on the national wikis e.g List of Estonian poets copied and pasted from here etc then we will be working towards getting them onto here. Regards Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it only takes me around 2-3 minutes to start each list, so I don't mind doing it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There you go List of Estonian poets. No. Copy and paste the category on the foreign wiki quickly bullet point them and wiki link them and its done! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Reconsideration. You have new messages at Fahadsadah's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It's not just that year in poetry

It's the 1500s. How do you get rid of it?--Abce2|Howdy! 00:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Now

Better do that now. The thing you posted it on is for reporting users. I tried fixing it myself but I could not find the vandalsim. It's taken care of now, or at least the reporting part. Admin just now took care of it. Looks like you can post it there. --Abce2|Howdy! 01:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For noticing what was in plain sight. Hope I got this right. --Abce2

Yeah, but you noticed it. Koala!--Abce2|Howdy! 01:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Robbed blind

Feel free to take and use what you can. And thanks for the heads-up. As you can see by the red links all over the place I have a lot of work to do. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

DOB / DOD issues

You're absolutely right regarding the birth / death dates for poets like what was seen with Girolamo Fracastoro. I have run into similar issues with painters and other artists, where different authoritative texts have different dates. I believe your suggestion is sound, and is similar as to what I have done in the past when there were discrepancies. I should have been more careful since I am not as strong on the poetry history side (this was one of my first ventures into poetry years). Thanks for the feedback - and kudos to you with all the time and energy you've been putting into improving this area. Keithh (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Literary Barnstar
		For the sustained work on poetry pages - an effort which unfortunately too few people will recognize Passportguy (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Danny Deever

I am conducting a reassessment of this article as part of the GA sweeps process. There is one minor issue - some citations have been tagged with page needed. My review is at Talk:Danny_Deever/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Reconsideration. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Mary Tofts

Thank-you for that Pope ballad - I've copyedited it slightly, but I think its an excellent way to end the article. Its presently being reviewed at GAN. I plan to have it at FA soon, so if you're interested please keep an eye on it. I have lots of original documents I can use to bolster its content, once the review is finished. Parrot of Doom (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Have you seen the review page? Another article I'm working on, that I think you'd be interested in as it involves Pope, is here. Feel free to rip into it, its a bit of a mess right now. Parrot of Doom (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a page number for [1]? I'll need it for FAC. Parrot of Doom (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

See also

I hope you bothered to get consensus for adding see also sections to many, many pages. They are frowned upon at GA and FA, and are supposed to be integrated. The articles themselves are unnecessary, especially with the categories that we have. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

You can ask SandyGeorgia about the general reaction to See Also sections in FAs and GAs. It has come up a lot, and the Layout section does not reflect current consensus on the matter. Your actions are producing a mass change without consensus, which is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"So you're talking about the "See also" sections in". No. I am talking about you randomly adding see also sections to GAs and FAs simply because you want to draw attention to your article in a highly inappropriate manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)