Talk:Howl and Other Poems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Yes, well the writing on the Background and Other Poems sections is pretty poor, and the information is largely unsourced, but its a good start. I plan to add ref's when I get some free time Mrathel (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Howlandotherpoems.jpeg[edit]

The image File:Howlandotherpoems.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Howl[edit]

I understand the necessity to have a separate section for the "other poems," but this article is largely about Howl. I recommend either trimming this article down to just information relevant to the volume itself and the "other poems," or merging Howl into this article. The latter is less desirable as I think Howl is notable enough to garner its own page.


(Please respond on the Howl talk page)Merpin (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering how longit would before this came up again. The truth is that in order to have reason for the merge, u have to assert that one topic is not notable. Can you say that Howl the poem is not a notable subject for a wikipedia article? Can you say that Howl and Other Poems, a book of poems containing "Howl" that was the cause of a widely-publicized obscenity trial, is not notable enough to have its own article. I agree that the content of both is simular, as I didn't spend much time on these after separating them, but the point remains that if you don't believe that either article is notable on its own, you can feel free to start an AfD. But there are more than enough sources for each from non-trivial publications to justify both articles.Mrathel (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree that they're both notable, but Howl and Other poems contains a lot of the same information as Howl. Could we just excise the duplicate info from this article? Merpin (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)