Talk:Philip Larkin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

From August 2008 to December 2008

Honorary degrees

The biography section mentions Larkin receiving several honorary degrees. What sort of degrees were these? I know they are customarily doctorates, but some clarification would be nice (not necessarily in the article, though that would of course be preferrable. Also, it is not quite clear whether the fellowship at St. John's was permanent.--Hinakana (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Larkin's career as a librarian

Someone kindly pointed me in the direction of this link, which is full of information about Larkin's notable acheivements as a librarian. If someone with specialist knowledge of this subject could suggest what should be included on the page that would be helpful, as would any further links. I'm definitely out of my depth on this subject and don't want to make a ham-fisted attempt! I've created a sub-section Larkin's career as a librarian; I think I've put it in the best place. almost-instinct 08:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've done the best I can out of that link. I'm not impressed! I'm hoping that Billy, when adding info from Blomfield's Larkin at Sixty, will obliterate my contribution. almost-instinct 09:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

ps Could someone please tell us more about GEAC? Was it the only kind of system available then? ie to what degree was being the first library in UK to have a GEAC system notable? almost-instinct 14:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It was a Canadian company which was then a market-leader in stand-alone computer systems for library circulation operations (later other modules - cataloguing, acquisitions, etc., were added). After Hull, it picked up a lot of academic and public libraries in the UK and also continental Europe, notably Holland. Its proprietary computers were specifically designed for fast processing of transactions and they had their own programming language called ZOPL. So yes, it was, at the time, quite a coup both for Hull and for Geac. The company expanded into various areas and was taken over in 2005. Some libraries are apparently still using their systems. More here. (Can you tell that I used to be in charge of a Geac library system?) --GuillaumeTell 15:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your restraint is admirable ;-) I was surprised there isn't a GEAC—or is it Geac?—page almost-instinct 15:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

uncited info

I heard a story about his time as Librarian at the Brynmoor Jones library, that if you wanted to find Larkin after 5pm then he'd be frequenting a particular corner of the campus bar. But then, name me someone who wouldn't be! CoolDream (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many anecdotes about Larkin, esp re. alcohol; many true; more uncitable; fewer notable almost-instinct 14:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Care when rewording prose

Please be very careful when you reword the prose, especially in the biog section. Already two errors have been introduced, one of them factual almost-instinct 23:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The "Refname" stuff was done by someone else, I can't remember when. The page numbers I did, so if in doubt, go with the page number, not the Refname almost-instinct 23:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Terribly sorry, I misinterpreted the meanings, but your rewording of the diary shredding and burning incident is now more precise than the original! --Red Sunset 00:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that Red, who is arguably a better copy editor than the next 1000 people you could meet, is reading the text. I am glad that Almost-instinct, who arguably knows more about PL than the next 1000 people you could meet, is also reading the article. I think that it is to be expected that copy editors will have some queries with the wording of the text, and some copy editors generate a formal list of issues to clarify on the talk page, which perhaps takes longer but protects the copy editor from vulnerabilities of the original text. Snowman (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW there's nothing wrong with my having used unspaced emdashes in the text; see WP:MOSDASH almost-instinct 08:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for raising the point that use of emdashes is in line with MOS. With regard to readability, I think I have improved that bit a little by not using any sort of dash. Snowman (talk) 10:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite so, there is nothing wrong with using emdashes according to WP:MOSDASH, but I have come across them so rarely compared to spaced endashes and personally think they look untidy – of course that's just my POV and I have no problem at all with them being reverted if that is Almost-instinct's preference. My only aim is to try and make small improvements to an already good article, but one which has areas of prose that don't flow smoothly. It is only to be expected however, that occasionally where there is room for interpretation of the prose, a factual error can occur during work on the wording (as demonstrated); but this highlighted a weak point that Almost-instinct, being knowledgeable on the subject, was able to then remedy and the result was an improvement to the article. I thank Snowman for his confidence and bow to Almost-instinct's knowledge, but this type of situation will be repeated involving other editors during GAR and GAN, and is part of the process that should ultimately lead to a better article. Good luck to all involved. --Red Sunset 20:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Since Red Sunset has invited me to revert the emdashes ... I will! I much prefer them, and I note that the WP:MOS uses emdashes throughout! almost-instinct 21:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Creative output section

I've divided this into four sections. The last two, "Poetic style" and "Prose" are looking a little skimpy at present. I'm not sure "Juvenilia" is the best name for the first section. almost-instinct 13:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please suggest better names than "Juvenilia". Snowman (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines Juvenilia as "compositions produced in the artist's or author's youth" which would be accurate, but yet ... there seems to be overtones ... I dunno. Definitely in need of more opinion/suggestions here! A Girl in Winter and The North Ship (esp. the former) are perhaps too good to be tarred with the term "Juvenilia", but within the context of The Less Deceived, The Whitsun Weddings and High Windows perhaps its appropriate almost-instinct 13:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability

These are the contents of the "Fiction based on Larkin's life" section:

1. "In 1999, Oliver Ford Davies starred in Ben Brown's play Larkin With Women at the Stephen Joseph Theatre, Scarborough, reprising his role at the Orange Tree Theatre, London in 2006. The play was published by Larkin's usual publishers, Faber and Faber. Three years later Sir Tom Courtenay debuted his one-man play Pretending to Be Me at the West Yorkshire Playhouse, later transferring the production to the Comedy Theatre in London's West End. An audio recording of the play, which is based on Larkin's letters, interviews, diaries and verse, was released in 2005."

2. "In 2003, BBC Two broadcast a play Love Again – its title also that of one of Larkin's most painfully personal poems – dealing with the last thirty years of Larkin's life (though not shot anywhere near Hull). The lead role was played by Hugh Bonneville, and in the same year Channel 4 broadcast the documentary Philip Larkin, Love and Death in Hull."

3. "The writer and critic David Quantick parodied Larkin's poem An Arundel Tomb during his comedy programme One again on BBC Radio 4 in the same month, with the poet peppering his work with references to guns and other weaponry. In the sketch, Larkin answers the telephone to Kingsley Amis and agrees to meet his friend in the pub later."

4. "In his acclaimed play The History Boys (2004) Alan Bennett quotes from Larkin's "MCMXIV" and the character of the Headmaster, a geography graduate from Hull, refers to Larkin as 'the Himmler of the accessions desk'."

5. "In 1957 his friend Robert Conquest, of the group known as The Movement, played a practical joke on him. The story was the subject of the comedy radio play by Chris Harrald, Mr Larkin's Awkward Day, broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday 29 April 2008. It tells the true story of the joke that had Larkin fearing he might be sent to prison. In September 1957, a pre-fame Larkin prepares for another ordinary day and picks up his post. But one letter stands out: an official-looking envelope embossed with the words Scotland Yard. The letter reveals that there is an ongoing investigation into him, conducted under the Obscene Publications Act 1921. The letter informs Larkin that he might have to appear in court since it is alleged he has been buying pornography – and he knows all too well that he has. Larkin begins to fret about what to do – should he destroy the evidence under the gaze of a watchful landlady before the police arrive?

Eventually, he goes to his librarian job. As he leaves the library he freezes when Inspector Cough introduces himself and says that he is very interested in Larkin's literary tastes. Larkin begins to defend himself until it transpires that the men have crossed wires – one fears he is being quizzed about purchasing dubious magazines, the other thinks he is having a friendly chat about literature. Finally, Larkin prises himself free from the Inspector to dash off to a meeting with his solicitors, who ask him what journals he has been buying. After he returns to his lodgings his landlady knocks on Larkin's door – someone wants him on the 'phone. It's Larkin's historian friend, Bob Conquest, and he is laughing. He asks Larkin about the silly joke he played on him, the embossed envelope and so on. When it becomes clear that Larkin was completely taken in, Conquest offers to pay his solicitors' costs."

In my opinion (a) items three and four are non-notable (b) item five needs severely truncating. almost-instinct 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

PS according to a couple of results when searching Google the Guardian listed Chris Harrald as the author when it was broadcast almost-instinct 14:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I have put a ref to a BBC page where the authors name is used. I think this bit (5) is much too long and can be shortened a lot. Why not make this bit (5) a separate page so it can be reduced on this page? (I have not considered 1, 2, 3, and 4) Snowman (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about number five. I'm going to delete three and four. I really can't think of any notability in them. The existence of the tv and radio plays and programmes on Larkin indicate the depth of his roots in our current culture- no need to list jokes &c. almost-instinct 20:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr Larkin's Awkward Day now exists. Snowman, could you check that I've done it correctly? Thanks almost-instinct 21:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories added. Snowman (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Bibliography

SMR, you're quite right about those fullstops after the dates in brackets - but aren't they ugly? And purposeless. Are we obliged to have them? WP:CITE#HOW suggests not, as far as I can tell:

"There are a number of styles used in different fields. They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as articles are internally consistent. You should follow the style already established in an article, if it has one. Where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected"

I experimented using a cite book template, but it doesn't appear to be capable of producing this:

• Anthony Thwaite, ed (1982). Larkin at Sixty, Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-11878-X

so I gave up. Finally, as for red links I think they should probably go: I doubt that many of these authors will be getting their own pages any time soon. almost-instinct 16:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Like this:

• Thwaite, Anthony (ed.) (1982). Larkin at Sixty. Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-11878-X. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |coauthors= and |month= (help)

Please use Snowman which I think is better than SMR or SnowManRadio. See Template:Cite book for details of cite book. The trouble is the cite web, cite book and so on use full stops, so I was using the same for consistency. I anticipate many refs being changed to cite format soon. I added it to the page. It puts the surname first and puts a full stop at the end of the line. Is this the prefered format? Please note that the formats are temporarily inconsistent, but will be all made consistent soon after a little more discussion. Snowman (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The red links were experimental and can be unlinked. Perhaps give them a few days just in case anyone wants to make any new pages. Was the blue link I put in to "Robert Crawford (Scottish poet)" directed at the right person? Snowman (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I can answer this last question. It's a yes. Macphysto (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinions on the format of citing refs and book needed prior to doing a lot of work on fixing them. Suggest following the format of cite web and cite book, which looks like the way it is done on the "William Shakespeare". page Snowman (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As I see it there are three problems with cite templates in the Bibliography:

1. They take are longer and harder to edit than just making sure things are consistent
2. They don't have a field in which to indicate the "author" is actually the editor (putting "ed" in the forename field rather goes against the spirit of a template...)
3. That fullstop after the date's brackets

My feelings are that

1. Templates are good in principal
2. The one currently at our disposal isn't up to scratch
3. Using a sub-standard template when it non-essential does no benefit
4. WP:CIT currently does not require one, so if PL gets taken to FAC we'll still be in the clear.
5. In the meanwhile lets be consistent

I have a question: are bibliographies always one single alphabetical list? Or could a case be made for putting the primary sources together at the beginning like so:
Primary sources

• Brennan, Maeve (2002) The Philip Larkin I Knew, Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-6275-6
• Bradford, Richard (2005) First Boredom Then Fear: The Life of Philip Larkin, Peter Owen Publishers. ISBN 0-7206-1147-4
• Motion, Andrew (1993) Philip Larkin: A Writer's Life, Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-17065-X
• Thwaite, Anthony, ed. (1992) Selected Letters of Philip Larkin, Faber and Faber ISBN 0-571-17048-X

Secondary sources

• Booth, James (2005) Philip Larkin: The Poet's Plight, Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-1834-1
• Chaterjee, Sisir Kumar (2007) Philip Larkin: Poetry That Builds Bridges, Atlantic Publishers: India. ISBN 8-1269-0606-5
• Cooper, Stephen (2004) Philip Larkin: Subversive Writer, Sussex Academic Press. ISBN 1-8451-9000-9
• Corcoran, Neil, ed. (2007) The Cambridge Companion to Twentieth-Century English Poetry, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-5218-7081-X
• Crawford, Robert (2000) Devolving English Literature, Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 0-7486-1429-X
• Johnson, Matthew (2007). Ideas of Landscape: An Introduction, Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 1-4051-0159-8
• Powell, Neil (1980) Carpenters of Light, Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-0649-5665-2
• Sheppard, Robert (2005) The Poetry of Saying: British Poetry and its Discontents, 1950-2000, Liverpool University Press. ISBN 0-8532-3819-7
• Stojkovic, Tijana (2006) Unnoticed in the Casual Light of Day: Philip Larkin and the Plain Style, CRC Press. ISBN 0-4159-7549-2
• Swarbrick, Andrew (1995) Out of Reach: The Poetry of Philip Larkin, Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-312-12545-3
• Thwaite, Anthony, ed. (1982) Larkin at Sixty, Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-11878-X
• Tuma, Keith, ed. (2001) Anthology of Twentieth-Century British and Irish Poetry, Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 0-1951-2894-X
• Whalen, Terry (1986) Philip Larkin and English Poetry, University of British Columbia Press. ISBN 0-7748-0232-4

My feeling is that this would be a lot more useful to the casual/typical WP reader almost-instinct 11:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to go along with the scratch format in the list that you suggest and I am glad that I have only changed one. The surname goes first. Primary and secondary lists are up for a consensus. I have not seen any other pages with two lists. If in doubt, I am following the format of the William Shakespeare page. What is the difference between a primary and secondary source? Snowman (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Putting ed in the name is described in the cite book information and is not wrong and it is recommended to use this when quoting the whole book. There is a field for editor in cite book and is best used with the author of the bit sourced is different to the editor. Snowman (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that inline citations can be in cite format. Actually, I find cite template easier to use than scratch format, partly because the output is always consistent. Most readers will probably not look at the wikicode. Snowman (talk) 11:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Btw have I got the surname right for Chaterjee? Or is Sisir Kumar the surname?
• The benefits of a split list is that those who are relatively new to the subject will only be interested in those books in the first, shorter list - certainly we would need to draw attention to them somehow. Whereas the second, longer part of the list exists to substantiate our citations. I think I've seen splits like this in books, I don't know about WP. I tried to find a WP guideline on Bibliographies: there doesn't seem to be one. I can't think of a problem with our split. Basically the diff between primary and secondary is that the first is factual and the second is commentary.
• I agree about inline citations having cite format. One day - and sooner rather than later - someone on WP is going to have to come up with an improved cite template that allows for "ed" and things: putting all the books in the Bibliography section into a template just to then have to redo put them when an improved version is invented seems like a waste of effort almost-instinct 11:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Using this tool seems to confirm that Chaterjee is correct. Snowman (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not noticed an alternative spelling. I think "Chatterjee" is correct, based on a search, so I will change it. Snowman (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that a one-line explanation under the heading of what primary and secondary means might help the reader know what the two lists are. At least I do not think it is obvious. Why not have headings "factual" and "commentary" if that is what is meant? I do not known. Snowman (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that a few more cites are needed, and I note from above that it is work in progress. Snowman (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I've added explanations. Do you think that's clear enough? Btw I've found Chaterjee spelt Chatterjee as well. I've asked Macphysto, who came up with the source, about it almost-instinct 15:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if the "primary sources:" and "secondary sources:" could be removed leaving a more descriptive headings like: "Biographies, memories, and letters" and "Commentary and criticism". What is commentary? Could wait for more opinions. I do not know what is best, but I think this is going in the right direction. Snowman (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe - and by the looks of things Macphysto is far more qualified to say this than me - that primary and secondary are the correct terms. I vaguely remembered them from history lessons at school, when using evidence. Commentary is the usual term for academic discussion of creative output. But, again, better for Macphysto to say whether this is correct almost-instinct 16:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as the bibliography goes, I suggest the following categories: Works by Philip Larkin; Biographies and memoirs; Critical works relating to Larkin. According to this model, the letters would appear in the first section, the accounts by Motion and Bradford and Brennan in the second, and the rest in the third. Apologies for misspelling Chatterjee by the way. Macphysto (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

We have works with the main text and it is like this on the William Shakespeare page, so I am staying with "Works" being in the main text. Snowman (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

[after an edit conflict...]

Arbitary break at moment when discussion expanded to include the Works section

I've changed the name of the sub-sections. Snowman: can we attach the Works and Bibliography sections? I now realise that the Works section could do with a lot of attention re IBSN numbers, etc. Should they all be in the same format at the Bib. section, ie each starting "Larkin, Philip..." If you get it into what you think is the right format then I can plug in all the details from the Motion book &c.almost-instinct 16:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the Shakespeare page - I note that rather than have a proper Bibl. they've put all the details in the inline citations, and then have a small further reading section. Personally I think our section is much neater (and doesn't go against any guidelines) We just need to move the Letters up the the Works section and then format the latter properly. almost-instinct 16:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

See William Shakespeare page as a pattern. I think "Works" is not part of Bibliography. It is better to use third parties as references. This looks like the start of a discussion. OK, "letters" is works. I do not know these books, Macphysto says that only two go in the biography section, and he sounds confident. I am neutral about which headings the books go under, because I have not even seen them. Snowman (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The "William Welberforce", also a FA, has a tidy way of setting out its Notes and References. Snowman (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I stick my oar in here? My view is that "Works" should be part of the Bibliography, and should be cited in similar manner. Furthermore, the footnotes really ought to be the penultimate section in the article, directly before External links. They look seriously weird where they are now. My headings would be as follows:

4. Bibliography
4.1. Works of Philip Larkin
4.1.1. Poetry
4.1.2. et seq - the rest
4.2. Biographies
4.3. et seq - the rest
5. References
6. External links

--GuillaumeTell 18:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC) (and ... expanding Larkin at Sixty and writing an article on GEAC are still on my to-do list ...)

Sounds fine to me, but I've a feeling there's some tedious little guideline about where footnotes have to go. I recall coming across a particularly exciting discussion on the topic. But the above is a solid plan and suits the material we're dealing with almost-instinct 20:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold. I predict that my title for the second sub-heading in the Bibliography section lasts under 12 hours almost-instinct 21:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Layout#Standard appendices and follow an appoved style. Snowman (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

All of a sudden I remember where my my antipathy to FAC/GAC came from: the combination of rigid rules and the imperative mood almost-instinct 00:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

From the cited guideline: "This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception" almost-instinct 00:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would be easy to follow the guidelines on headings in this article. I do no see any reason why a different system of headings should be used for this page. Also, it would be easy to provide a list of contents under each heading that followed the guidelines. A style consistent with the rest of the wiki would be helpful to the reader. Snowman (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that it would take an idiot to be confused by the format of the page as it currently stands. almost-instinct 10:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A reader would expect to find books listed in a "bibliography" section that are referred to in the text, and in a "Further reading" section a reader would expect to find books that are not referred to the text. The article is currently not in line with wiki guidelines and it would be quite easy to do the headings and listing according to wiki guidelines. One does not expect to find an exhaust pipe arising from a pavement. Snowman (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

All the books in the Bib are referred to the text, and all are mentioned in the refs, its not a further reading list. Anyway, at this first sighting of sarcasm, I'm out of this conversation. almost-instinct 13:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, at the present time the Whalen book and the Booth book are in the bibliography list and are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. Snowman (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: UserAlmost-insinct has removed the the Whalen book and the Booth book from the bibliography. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

To do

• More info on book: Garland, Patrick (devised). An Enormous Yes. Snowman (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The best info I've found about the Garland thing (not a book, I think) is here http://alanbates.com/abarchive/stage/larkin.html Macphysto (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure about format of "Works" section, might be different, because there are linked pages on wiki. I guess that the book details could go in, with isbn and so on. I am sort of starting at the bottom of the page and working up. Snowman (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Citations needed to cover apparently unsourced text. Snowman (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added some cn tags. Snowman (talk) 11:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Double check that books are in right headings and that "letters book" is correctly placed in "Works". Some of the books are not cited in the text and could go in "Further reading". The bibliography section could be renamed "Cited works". I thought bibliography was just for cited works. Snowman (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Article is vague about aspects of health. Monica - shingles affecting eyes, Larkin's eyesight problem, nature of Larkin's operation, Larkin's illness progress from before his operation and from the operation to collapse, any palliation treatments. I presume that she Monica had ophthalmic shingles. I am curious to learn more about Larkin's final illness and perhaps the tissue diagnosis, of which the article says only a little. Snowman (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

What would be notability of the medical details? The only source I have on these kind of details is in Motion, and he's not especially clear, it is difficult picking up the pieces of info from here and there. I certainly don't recall anything about tissue disagnosis. It is possible that the information isn't in the public domain- who has access to the medical records of the dead? No one was told by Larkin, because Larkin himself, according to his wishes, was kept entirely ignorant of his diagnois/prognosis. Maybe the Larkin Society has published something on the subject. Its worth pointing out here that every piece of biographical information that I included has some kind of resonance in the poetry; if I didn't include it there's usually a reason. Of course I am guided in my understanding of how biography relates to the work by the two biographies I used - Motion and Bradford - and the letters, selected by Thwaite. Furthermore, it may be that I have slightly old-fashioned attitude to medical details. almost-instinct 20:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

His eyesight problem is notable because it prevented him joining the armed services. This and other conditions or illness might also be understood better against a more factual back-light. Snowman (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, feel free to get a copy of Motion and tweezer out all the tiny threads of medical information almost-instinct 00:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• Use approved heading in an approved sequence. Look up "Further reading", "Bibliography", and "References" headings in MOS and follow guidelines of what is listed under each heading. Snowman (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Who exactly are these commands directed at? almost-instinct 00:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It is a general list of things to do that anyone can fix. Snowman (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This list contains some things which are an expression of your opinion, not things which can be stated plainly as "broken" ie in need of a fix. Since WP is collaborative please do not use the imperative mood — you have no more authority than anybody else. Maybe this list would have been better titled "Suggestions for future action". Note that you are rather dependent on those editors who, unlike yourself, are in position contribute content: treating them as subservient isn't going to help. Note also the difference between a guideline and a policy. almost-instinct 10:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I see the to-do list as things that can be worked on to make the article clearer or to bring it nearer to wiki guidelines. I have done quite a lot of work on the page on formatting, consistency, and illustrations. My opinion is that collaborating wiki editors should work with the wiki-guidelines. Snowman (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Swarbrick

I just found this quote from the archived talk pages: "I think that it's fine with the milder "falling-off" & the general cite of Swarbrick's book rather than a direct quote, actually" so I don't think a page number for that ref will be forthcoming almost-instinct 16:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Collected poems 2003 and 1988

What are the differences between these two volumes? Snowman (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The 1988 volume is entirely in chronological order, whereas the 2003 one keeps the poems within individual collections (e.g. High Windows) in the sequence in which they originally appeared in those volumes. For the 2003 collection many of the unpublished poems and juvenilia that appear in the '88 vol are dropped. The subject is discussed at some length by John Banville here http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18715 Macphysto (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Over and out

I've finally had enough of people who literally know nothing about Larkin or his poetry meddling with this page. Why should I waste my time responding to these inane questions and interferences? How many poems are there in XX Poems? Astonishing. I hope you all enjoy slowly dragging this page back down into the slime. Larkin deserves better than this. So does WP, for that matter, but I certainly can't be bothered trying to police all this ignorance any more. almost-instinct 22:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)