Talk:Milton: A Poem in Two Books

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by William Blake task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Requested move November 2013[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. As a aside, do you know how many novels have an "A Novel" subtitle on their title pages? --BDD (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milton a Poem → Milton (poem) – Milton (poem) currently redirects to this title. Sources vary in usage, but are generally split between "Milton, a Poem", "Milton: A Poem", and just plain "Milton". Although there are some uses of "Milton a Poem" with no punctuation, this appears to be erroneous (and to some degree, results from copies of Wikipedia's own use of this unconventional style in this article title). I would also suggest Milton, a Poem, or Milton: A Poem as alternatives, but see no real reason to subtitle a poem with the words, "a poem". bd2412 T 14:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This was premature. The real title on the page is "Milton a poem". It looks nicer, see Jerusalem The Emanation of the Giant Albion.75 * 21:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move May 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Milton: A Poem in Two Books. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milton (poem) → Milton a poem – I suggest we move back to its real title, Blake uses weird titles some times. This looks like it will cause confusion with Milton's poems too. 75 * 17:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "original" title had no colon (or other punctuation) after Milton, which differed from sources generally. bd2412 T 17:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK then.--75 * 20:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the best title would be Milton (William Blake poem) to distinguish from a list of poetry by (bibliography of) Milton. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about Milton a poem (Blake)?Naah, to long. "Milton a poem" seems unambiguous with its oddness.--75 * 20:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:NATURAL and this web collection of Blake's poetry bearing out the spelling. It's a strange lack of punctuation, but Blake was a strange author. Dralwi k|^{Have a Chat} 21:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support - subject to the correct casing, which I think, looking at the reproductions of the original, was Milton a Poem. Imc (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per WP:SUBTITLE, it should be Milton: A Poem. Many books have no punctuation between a title and subtitle on their title pages, but WP style (and a number of others) call for a colon between title and subtitle and a capital letter to begin the subtitle. Deor (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't really see anything wrong with the current title. Milton: A Poem would be acceptable, but I suspect what it's really called is just Milton. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per wp:commonname as shown by the wp:rs and wp:v blakearchive.org, and per wp:naturaldis to avoid parenthetical disambiguator. The punctuation may be a bit "odd" and "strange" (yet very Blackean) to use the same words as Sɛvɪnti faɪv and Dralwik do in the discussion, and deviate from norms and standards, but as some bloke whose name is slipping my mind at the moment once said^{[citation needed]}, "to generalise is to be an idiot".^{[dubious – discuss]} ^walk victor falk^talk 19:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Milton: A Poem as the most easily recognisable. In my experience books on Blake don't use Milton a poem even if he did, and it will just puzzle those who don't now of it. Johnbod (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That capitalisation is an absolute no-no, it implies it's the poem's proper name and its wp:commonname. ^walk victor falk^talk 23:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the poem's proper name, and as much or more its commonname as anything else. So no-no to you too. Or do you just mean the "A" - I'm not too bothered about that. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the full name with title and sub-title is "milton: a poem in two books". ^walk victor falk^talk 00:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The previous title was Milton a Poem, not Milton a poem. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: So far as I can tell from looking at transcriptions like this one, the title was originally presented as:

MILTON

A Poem in 2 Books

In such cases, there is understood to be an unspoken semicolon after the first line. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:47, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Milton: A Poem, per WP:SUBTITLES, Deor and Johnbod. The subtitle is capitalized as a proper noun, and can be used to natually disambiguate the short article title Milton, which is preferable to the current parenthetical disambiguation. A look at an image of the original book shows that the title MILTON a Poem in 2 Books is contrary to Wikipedia style (MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, two rather than 2). Wbm1058 (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the article has a nice high-res copy of the page I just linked; see File:Milton a Poem copy D 1818 Library of Congress object 1.jpg. As with BDD, I don't have a major issue with the current title, and would be content with keeping as is, which would avoid the problem of how to deal with the stylisation of the subtitle, and whether to include just the first two words of the subtitle or the complete subtitle. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That cover makes "MIL" and "TON" look like separate words. bd2412 T 23:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, stylisation. Regarding the point in the previous RM that many novels have an "A Novel" subtitle – I don't know whether that's a strong point, given the example at WP:SUBTITLES Orlando: A Biography. I'd guess that "A Biography" is a common subtitle too. I recall an earlier RM disagreement over subtitles I participated in. See Don't Eat the Pictures. Perhaps a good compromise would be to keep the current parenthetically disambiguated "common name" title, but change the lead sentence to use the "official title" including the full subtitle. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Milton: a poem in two books the full sub-title is wp:naturaldis, and spelled in line with stylisation and capitalisation guidelines. ^walk victor falk^talk 09:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Capitalization says "Book titles, like names of other works, are proper nouns and thus "lowercase second and subsequent words" does not apply to them." Isn't a subtitle still part of a title? Per the example, it's Orlando: A Biography, not Orlando: a biography. Thus, Milton: A Poem in Two Books. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would support Milton: A Poem in Two Books as unambiguously referring to a specific work rather than a poem by Milton. bd2412 T 13:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am ok with Milton: A Poem in Two Books. It looks good, and it's correct. ^walk victor falk^talk 13:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd also support this. Deor (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.