Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Poetry (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Request for comment on Biographies of living people[edit]

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

  1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
  2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced article if they are not sourced, so your project may want to pursue the projects below.

Input sought[edit]

I've made a comment at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Creative professionals guidelines pertaining to notability criteria for writers. I think members of this project (particularly those interested in contemporary poetry and living poets) could bring valuable perspectives to the discussion. Cynwolfe (talk)

The Nasobame[edit]

I’ve discovered a minor problem: The dewiki, barwiki and lbwiki articles on The Nasobame are all about the fictitious animal itself, which is described by the poem. On the other hand, the enwiki article is about the poem itself. This is a problem because it’s now unclear whether the Wikidata item should be about the poem or the fictional taxon. I suggest that the enwiki article be rephrased to be about the animal as well, for instance by changing the first paragraph to:

The Nasobame (German: Nasobēm) is a fictional animal first described by German writer Christian Morgenstern (1871–1914) in a short nonsense poem, Das Nasobēm, usually translated into English as The Nasobame. The poem was written around 1895 and published in his book Galgenlieder (1905).

The Wikidata item Q7753113 would then be about the fictional taxon, and there would be a separate (new) item about the poem. WDYT? —Galaktos (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneGalaktos (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Immediately reverted by ‎Rhododendrites, because screw discussions. Fine. I’ve moved the link on Wikidata, because Q7753113 is still about the animal, not the poem (which is Q19149635). —Galaktos (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
@Galaktos: You changed the subject of an article without even mentioning it on that article's talk page, because screw discussions. If you had done so I could have told you that the fictitious animal is almost certainly going to correspond to Rhinogradentia, sometimes referred to as Nasobames, covered at length by Gerolf Steiner's equally fictional Harald Stumpke. In Stumpke's account, people named the animals after the poem (and Steiner himself was inspired by it). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
No, they don’t correspond. The Nasobame (Nasobema lyricum) is one particular species (or even just one animal with a child), the Rhinogradentia are an entire (fictional) order of mammals (including the Polyrrhina family, which includes the Nasobema genus). That’s why dewiki has separate articles on them (notice that de:Nasobem is about the animal, with a description of its body, occurrence, natural enemies, etc.).
Also, Talk:The Nasobame just describes the project as under the scope of this WikiProject, a stub, and low priority. Even on this talk page the topic went for a month without any reaction, so the chances that anyone would have seen a mention on the article’s talk page are nil. —12:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galaktos (talkcontribs)
Look at the sources used in de:Nasobem. One is Morganstern himself; the other two are about Rhinogradentia. One of those two is the fictional account in which fictional people name the fictional animal after the animal in the poem (and the other is one of the textbooks that mistakenly [or humorously?] included the order as real).
So there's no article about the poem, but there's an article about the subject of the poem. The sources the articles rely on are either about Rhinogradentia or about the poem. You are correct that the articles exist this way, but it makes no sense. It's similar to having an article about a Grecian Urn someone wrote an Ode to once without having an article about Ode to a Grecian Urn and citing sources that either talk about the poem or about Grecian urns in general (when there already exists an article about Grecian urns). That may not actually be a helpful analogy. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, re: so the chances that anyone would have seen a mention on the article’s talk page are nil - So you think I noticed your change to the article within minutes but wouldn't have responded on the talk page? It's on my watchlist because of Rhinogradentia. Look, I don't have any problem with a bold edit -- certainly if that edit brings articles in line with the way things are organized elsewhere -- but just don't give me this "because screw discussion" nonsense as though it was me who didn't use the talk page before making a significant change. Not everybody who watches articles within a particular WikiProject also watch the WikiProjects themselves. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
re: Not everybody who watches articles within a particular WikiProject also watch the WikiProjects themselves – your edit summary clearly references mine, in which I also mentioned this talk page. —Galaktos (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
You're right. I didn't notice the end of your edit summary. Sorry to be accusatory. "because screw discussion" clearly put me on the defensive. Refocusing on the content, can I request that if we're to continue this discussion, we take it it to Talk:The Nasobame? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Alright, let’s continue there. Sorry that I was so rude here. I should probably have stepped away this for a few hours before reacting, to “cool down”. —Galaktos (talk) 10:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)