	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Poetry Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I don’t quite understand the three words ‘William to Cole’ in the first sentence of this article. Is this somebody’s name, a typo or something else? Ian Spackman 15:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added Expert-subject and refimprove tags because this entry sometimes reads as first-hand research. Statements appear without references and I don't know where to find those references. Without the expertise, it's hard to know what to cut and retain both value and meaning.

I'm confused about whether Hereafter foloweth a title boke called Colyn Cloute and Hereafter ... why come ye nat to Courte? are two separate works or a single one. The original article gave them a single set of quotations. If they are two works, they should have their own quotes. Curdigirl 3:38, 8 January 2017 (CST)

I added a link for the Replycacion work to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_as_a_March_hare because it is noted as an historical source within the development of the idiom. This may not be appropriate - please review and determine whether it belongs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curdigirl (talk • contribs) 21:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colyn Clout and Why Come Ye Nat to Court are two different works. Henrik Thiil Nielsen (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rechecking for Jan 2017 CopyEditors Guild Backlog Drive

Notes - aiming to fix formatting on works, poems versus longer works. For my working memory:

Italics: See Manual of Style:Titles Italic type (text like this, marked up with pairs of apostrophes as text like this) should be used for the following types of names and titles, or abbreviations thereof: - Long works or epic poems

Shorter poems: "Colyn Cloute" (Bartleby) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curdigirl (talk • contribs) 08:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had seen a Wiki MOS indicating that italics and apostrophe's should be used when the original work itself uses lower case (as in much older works): as in "The Adventures of the Super furry Brown fox, who hath of late stolen some chickens from Farmer John's coop" which, I applied to John Skelton, since some of the article works were listed that way (myself being unfamiliar with whether these were minor or major works.)

I am now unable to find that reference and simplifying by referring to the overview noted above. Curdigirl (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Curdigirl[reply]

I'm rechecking this work to correct formatting of works noted in-line. Unfortunately, I've located The Encyclopaedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, Literature and General Information, Volume 25 and that work appears to have been copy pasted into the text of this article. I'll have to comb through and eliminate what was copy pasted. Curdigirl (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Curdigirl[reply]

Requested move 1 January 2022

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved until such time as a clear primary topic re-emerges. -- Aervanath (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per page views [1] Joeykai (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC) }}— Relisting. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 15:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support the footballer has 1,103 views compared with only 1,010 for the poet. The artist gets 79, the sculptor gets 23 and the author 11. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant support. The poet is probably more important historically, but has faded into relative obscurity. BD2412 T 07:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I was going to close this, but it seems to me that the poet is clearly primary. Although the page views are fairly equivocal, there's really no contest on long-term significance grounds between a historic literary figure whom people are still writing full-length books about centuries after his death on the one hand and a run-of-the-mill American football player whom no one will even remember a decade or two from now on the other. I would add a hatnote specifically referencing the football player, but the page should not be moved from its current title. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ: I will lose no sleep if this move does not happen, but I would note that there are multiple people on the disambiguation page, and the question is whether there is a clear primary topic out of all of them, collectively. BD2412 T 21:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but none of the others have even a fraction as many page views (or anything approaching the long-term significance) of the poet, so their impact on the primary topic is basically negligible. In a search of Google Scholar results containing "John Skelton" in the title, almost all of them refer to the poet – a clear sign that in the grand scheme of things, he's the most significant by a long shot. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant support per BD2412 and per statistics in the nomination and those presented by Crouch, Swale. There are seven men listed upon the John Skelton (disambiguation) page as opposed to the 15 listed upon the Jonathan Edwards dab page, but the basic concept is the same — both John Skelton (poet) and Jonathan Edwards (theologian) have pages of text in the old Britannica Macropedia, but not consensus as to their historical primacy in the 21st century. Neither Talk:Jonathan Edwards (theologian)/Archive 1#Requested move in 2007 nor Talk:Jonathan Edwards (theologian)/Archive 1#Requested move 22 August 2016 succeeded on behalf of Edwards' primacy and there does not appear to be consensus for the retention of Skelton as primary. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I probably share in the reluctance, but there is certainly not a primary topic when it comes to pages that readers are looking for. Were this a case where, say, the the poet had a strong majority of views but perhaps not enough to meet our typical primary topic standard I would argue that the relative long term significance would keep him the primary, but that does not appear to be the case here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.