Talk:End Poem

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Tattoo quoting the End Poem

• ... that Julian Gough wrote in Minecraft's End Poem that "you are love" (quote pictured), and then put the poem into the public domain after a psilocybin trip prompted him to heed that message? Source: "I wrote a story for a friend" (Gough); Guy Who Wrote Minecraft's Ending Poem Makes It Public Domain After Taking Shrooms (Vice)
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Taxi Driver (Alexander McQueen collection)
  • Comment: I'm aware this can't be promoted until the proposed merge is resolved, but we're creeping up on 7 days, so nominating this now. I may have an image to add soon; we'll see. Update 1: Image added. Update 2: Merge discussion closed.

Converted from a redirect by Tamzin (talk). Self-nominated at 04:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/End Poem; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• @Tamzin: New enough, long enough, and plagiarism free, but I'm troubled by the state of the sourcing. I'll defer to you on Chatfield 2012 and Gault 2022, but I'm still concerned by Gough 2022 (pushing the limits of WP:PRIMARY/non-independent and what that kind of source should be used for), Thielenhaus 2017 (the fact that even the Video Games WikiProject won't stamp the source as fully reliable is troubling), and Creswell 2022 (CBR writes a lot about a lot, but frequently doesn't constitute much due weight). But the hook checks out, and it's definitely interesting. Image licensing checks out (glad you got through the hoops), used in the article and is clear at shrunken size. Nice work so far! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
  • @leek: I agree Thielenhaus and Creswell aren't great sources, but they're primarily cited for commentary, and reliable enough to that end in my opinion. I removed the one potentially contentious statement that was cited to Creswell (that the poem confuses fans). The other two statements cited to Creswell—that the poem displays with glitched text and that its contents are largely unchanged—are both easily verifiable in primary sources. As to the use of Gough 2022 as an ABOUTSELF source, are there specific statements you take issue with? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
    • @Tamzin: Thanks for the tweaks – several of Gough 2022's citations seem to be supporting claims about third parties? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
      • @leek: This good? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
        • yep! Super fun article, good to go :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

End Poem and advertising stunt

Given that Wikipedia is about highlighting real world events, should it not reject this PR stunt? For should a poem, aimed at advertising a product, be allowed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.239 (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The End Poem exists apart from its use in Minecraft and is discussed in the article as a piece of literature. I don't think this article is a PR stunt, but needless to say, Wikipedia is about more than highlighting real world events. 〜 Askarion ✉ 20:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Not a poem?

The page currently describes the End Poem as a poem. I'm not sure that this is correct; it seems like a prose dialogue to me. Dingolover6969 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

There isn't any agreed-upon definition
of "poem",
and in particular
there isn't any real dividing line
between free verse and prose.

Reliable sources
call the work a poem, though,
so
for our purposes
it is one.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

"And the universe said I love you because you are love" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect And the universe said I love you because you are love has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 17 § And the universe said I love you because you are love until a consensus is reached. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

GA?

@BarntToust: I'm really grateful for all the improvements you've made to the article. I'm wondering, do you think the article's ready for WP:GAN? The prose is good, the sourcing is good, and we discuss the topic in a pretty holistic way, including reception and analysis. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin, I absolutely think so! You can get a co-nomination going as soon as you'd like. Thank you for starting out this article. Have a good one! BarntToust 00:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@BarntToust: Are you done with your expansion? Because whenever you're done I'll do another pass for copy-editing, ref tweaks, and probably a little lede reworking, and then conominate. (BTW, lots of replag right now, so if any of your edits seem to not go through here or on the article, wait like 30 seconds.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 00:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin, I believe I'm done with my expansions. I probably will check over and do passes of copyediting as well, whenever I get a chance. BarntToust 00:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

ah, a source from RTÉ, an Irish public broadcaster. Now's all done. BarntToust 00:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@BarntToust: I've pared back some of what you added to the lede as a bit over-detailed, but I think kept the overall thrust of it. I also added some more about reception and analysis. Does it look good to you? WP:Bold-refine welcome. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin currently in the body, there is no content that says that Gough considered Microsoft's continued use of the poem copyright violation. You have that claim in paragraph 3 of the lede. That needs to be somewhere in the body. Preferably in the penultimate paragraph of Ownership and copyright status. BarntToust 01:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

To note, in the same section, paragraph 2 it says that during the buyout of Mojang Gough didn't want to enter a legal dispute. BarntToust 01:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I've primary-cited Gough's claim of DMCA violations, backed up by expert Glyn Moody's concurrence that there was copyright infringement (in-text attributed, since it's an opinion piece, but it establishes that it's not something only Gough thinks). Not sure I follow your second point though? By my reading, the lede, the body, and Gough's essay all agree that Gough generally, persistently, did not want to go to court against Microsoft. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin Oh yeah. I was trying to differentiate between Gough not wanting to go to court due to the buyout, versus him believing their continued use was copyright vio. Hope that clears it up. Thanks for getting input by an WP:EXPERTSPS! BarntToust 01:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of SPS, I've tried to reduce cites to Gough 2022 as much as I can. It now stands at 9, but they're all either Gough talking about something that another source also talks about, or cited to talk about the blog post itself, with the sole exception of the slowed-down scrolling fact. So I'm comfortable defending those 9 cites to a GA reviewer if it comes up. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds a-ok by me! I think any concerns about bold claims are taken care of in that regard. I don't expect any concerns by a GA reviewer over that. BarntToust 01:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Besides that, everything looks great to me! BarntToust 01:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hold on, @Tamzin, the following need archive urls and archive-dates: <ref name="colbert">, the tweet attached to <ref name="corden">, <ref name="mcgrath"> and <ref name="moody">. The empty perameters are all already attached at the end, but need the archives. BarntToust 01:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I can get those tomorrow if you haven't got them by then. BarntToust 01:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

All right, I think everything's good as can be planned for WP:GAN now. Great work, @Tamzin! BarntToust 02:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:End Poem/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominators: Tamzin (talk · contribs) • BarntToust (talk · contribs) 02:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh this seems like a fun one. Will take this on at some point soon. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey great to see this get picked up this quickly! For many people it's the holidays, and that's an IRL busy time, so there's no rush. BarntToust 00:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)