Talk:Poetry

History Section of Poetry

The History section of the article, Poetry is missing some historical information on poetry (such as biblical poetry) and also has information that possibly should be in another section (such as information on poetics). The History section is under-represented and could use some love. The citations in this section are well presented and there isn't any missing citations that I can tell. EmilyReNew (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention

I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Poetry

When did people start writing poetry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.171.118 (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

-> WP:Reference desk. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:12, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

20240 24000

4th 4images 8th birthday gift 73.168.13.172 (talk) 09:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, what a funny comment I see, On the talk page of poetry.

"4th 4images 8th birthday gift", What kind of joke is this, good grief!

It's quite inscrutable, I must say, I can't make sense of it in any way.

Is it a code, or some secret plan?

Maybe the commenter had a weird day, And wrote it down before hitting the hay.

Or perhaps they thought it was witty, But to me, it just seems silly and gritty.

So let's all have a laugh and a giggle, At this comment that's such a riddle. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Poetry" lead illustration

Until 12 October 2022, the lead to the "Poetry" article featured, as illustration, Raphael's elegant fresco painting "The Parnassus", which represents the concept of poetry.

On that date, user:CactiStaccingCrane replaced Raphael's allegorical painting with a W.B. Yeats poem, "A Coat", painted on a Leiden building.

I submit that Raphael's allegorical painting is highly suitable to illustrate the concept of poetry and is preferable to a particular verse by an arbitrarily selected poet.

I propose that Raphael's painting be reinstated as the illustration in the lead to the "Poetry" article.

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Nihil novi, sorry with my late reply I don't agree with using allegorical paintings because it does not illustrate the topic directly. It is like putting pretty pic of goddess in an article about science or music for that matter. Sure, my poem on the wall image is not the best but it does illustrate the topic directly, which frankly is the most important thing a lead image should do. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

One may debate the indispensability of an allegorical illustration for the lead of the "Poetry" article.

However, placing an arbitrarily selected poem in the lead would be akin to using, as a lead illustration to the "Physics" article, a particular, arbitrarily selected law of physics.

Regards, Nihil novi (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

But that's exactly what the picture in physics is all about: random pics of physical phenomena that are representative tof the topic. Maybe we should make a collage of poems instead. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a crucial difference: "A picture is worth a thousand words."

Nihil novi (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

But it has to be the right picture. Showing pics of nice-looking guys chilling is not it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@Nihil novi ? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

For another Wikipedia article that illustrates a concept with artistic representations, please see "Virtue", which includes multiple such illustrations, including another lead Raphael allegorical fresco, of Cardinal and Theological Virtues (1511).

Nihil novi (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nihil novi Shall we discuss again? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Line endings are fundamental

The only thing common to all poems — which can be rhyming or blank, in verses or not, narrative, emotional or descriptive in content — is that the line endings are fixed in relation to the text. In prose, they are not generally significant. 2A00:23C5:5A8B:BC01:6922:957B:E71D:A58A (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The form and structure of a poem, Is not simply in its line endings alone.

For example, consider the haiku, A form so strict, yet beautiful too. Five, seven, five, its syllable count, A strict framework, without a doubt.

Or the sonnet, with fourteen lines, A rhyme scheme that often entwines. With fixed iambic pentameter, Its structure couldn't be any better.

And let us not forget the villanelle, With repeating lines that cast a spell. A strict form that must be followed, Its beauty cannot be swallowed.

So you see, my dear friend, Poetry's structure is not at an end. Fixed line endings are just one part, Of the art that comes from the heart. Alexandria Bucephalous (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Picture for "Poetry" article lead

There's a longstanding dispute between me and User:Nihil novi at Talk:Poetry#"Poetry" lead illustration on whether to include picture in the lead, which hasn't been resolved in 7 months. So, I will let the community decide:

• Option 1: no images.
• Option 2: File:Rafael - El Parnaso (Estancia del Sello, Roma, 1511).jpg.
• Option 3: File:LeidenWallPoemYeats (cropped).jpg
• Option 4: An image, but neither of the above

• 
  Option 2: The Parnassus (1511) by Raphael – atop Mount Parnassus, 18 ancient and modern poets recite in the company of the nine Muses.
• 
  Option 3: File:LeidenWallPoemYeats (cropped).jpg

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 (which I've just added) I'm not generally opposed to the concept of an image illustrating this article, but neither of those images are a good fit. The Rafael image leaves me scratching my head regarding the relevance, an image of a poem is relevant but the framing of that photograph makes it unclear what its meant to be illustrating and why. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, I don't really know what's the better alternative than these options tbh. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm, maybe you could suggest a better image then, that would be amazing CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I'll see if I can get time to have a look, but if I don't then my preference order is Option 4 (1st) > Option 1 > Option 3 > Option 2. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  CactiStaccingcrane(talk) 2C0F:F4C0:10B1:5890:9193:6DFC:F3AA:D488 (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option 3 / Option 1 (Summoned by bot). With reference to the foregoing discussion, I agree that a concrete exemplar directly illustrating the subject is broadly preferable to an artistic abstraction in an entirely different realm of medium. And, perhaps more to the point, I think such a direct representation is more consistent with the relevant priorities laid out in policy. As to the argument that it is just one of countless examples of the subject matter of this article, that is not really a compelling reason for eschewing it in favour of a painting: many (indeed, probably most) articles contain images of exemplars that are just one specimen from amongst countless possibilities, and we often have to make arbitrary choices, if image quality and clarity of representation are roughly equal factors between the options. Any number of other representations of poems would be equally acceptable, if the images can be found. And indeed, given the subject matter, this is a rare instance where the option of having no image would make a certain degree of sense as well. But I'd put option 2 at the bottom of this hierarchy. It just feels a little too weak in terms of illustrative potency and clarity for this context, imo. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 summoned by bot. However, I do agree with CactiStaccingCrane's sentiment and would support something like the alternative if it were of higher quality. ~ HAL333 13:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2. The allegorical fresco The Parnassus, painted by Raphael between 1509 and 1511, illustrating the concept of poetry, was added to the "Poetry" article lead on 29 October 2017, 02:35, by user:Katolophyromai.

Raphael, The Cardinal and Theological Virtues

A similar allegorical fresco, The Cardinal and Theological Virtues, dated 1511, also by Raphael, painted in the same Vatican City Apostolic Palace, embellishes Wikipedia's "Virtue" article.

Both Raphael frescos nicely illustrate their respective concepts and add allure to pages that otherwise would present a dry appearance.

The allegorical nature of these illustrations carries a universal quality and avoids the arbitrariness of a particular quotation from a randomly selected poet.

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

A few thoughts there, Nihil. First, even if we put aside the kinda OTHERSTUFF element of the argument, I'd argue the comparison to the virtue is something of a false analogy: the concept of "virtue" does not lend itself to having exemplars that can be physically represented: virtues are intangible things, perceived really only in abstract conception. Poems too are intangible in a sense, but being products of natural language, they can be written down and thus have examples represented by an image. There's absolutely no reason to think that the local editors who settled on a painting for the virtue article (out of whatever line of reasoning or lack of other good option) would find a similar rational to do so here: the same paradigm just doesn't apply.

Second, and probably even more critically, I just don't see how a painting with no subject matter or thematics other than presenting a smorgasbord of famous poets actually "illustrates" anything about poetry itself. Third, there's nothing wrong with choosing an "arbitrary" poem for this article, anymore than there is with choosing a particular image of a particular butterfly for an article about that specimen's species. You can still choose from among options of a common sort by picking a higher quality image or particularly demonstrative content (a poem with a more obvious meter that can be described in caption, as just one of a thousand possibilities). Fourth, I don't really think the 'dryness' of the imagery should be a compelling factor here: in terms of encyclopedic clarity, often the dry image is the way to go. Just food for thought! I mean, it's a beautiful work and I'm a sucker for a work featuring the muses, but as a lead image for this topic, I just don't see it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1, no image. The Raphael painting, to my mind, fails MOS:PERTINENCE; it looks like it's just there for decoration, rather than to aid the reader's understanding of what poetry is. The Option 3 image is too visually distracting; it takes me a moment to work out what I'm looking at, and then the angle of the text, set side-by-side against the text of the article, has an unsettling effect. Perhaps a different illustration of the text of a poem would work, but I don't think any image is necessary here. The Literature navbox adequately performs the stated function of a lead image – i.e., showing the reader that they're at the right article – and also meets the need for a bit of visual refreshment, which I think is the real reason most people want to see an image in the lead. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that these images are just decoration and the navbox is better/more useful in its place. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's a compelling summary of the factors here: I already gave tacit support for no image as an option in my !vote, but I'm going to update the header to reflect that I think there is parity between options 1 and 3. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Option 1: Poetry is an intrinsically abstract concept, as an art genre, and no single example or depiction is going to be adequately illustrative or representative. Better to let the readers simply read the lead summary unencumbered by distractions. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1: For the same reasons given by Iskandar above. Any image would likely just distract. Also, the navbox technically already has an image—the clip art–like picture with the books and the scroll. That seems adequate to satisfy any sort of subconscious visual need that a reader may have. Pillowcrow (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Not option 2, which is more confusing than informative. It is not at all obvious what it has to do with poetry until you read the description, and even after reading the description I don't feel that the image has increased my understanding of poetry very much. I agree with User:Snow Rise that it's better for the lead image to illustrate the subject directly than to include a painting that is only abstractly related.

Option 3 provides value in illustrating what a poem is for a reader who's not familiar with the concept. It shows the general look of poetry – the fact that its form typically has more of a pattern than prose. But I'm not sure much value is added by showing a poem that's written on a wall instead of on a piece of paper. An alternative might be something like File:Sonnet 100 1609.jpg, File:Hope is the thing with feathers, 1891.jpg, File:036 Poems from Senzai wakashu.jpg, or File:Dongqichang Dufu Shi.jpg. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1, per Iskandar's arguments. Option 2 requires some effort to understand how it is related to the topic and Option 3 isn't a great picture and is a bit Anglo-centric to boot. Alaexis_¿question? 08:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 I think this article would be less appealing to readers without a lead image. The Raphael is an attractive and highly relevant image. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Article lead change

I am proposing changing the second sentence from this:
A '''poem''' is a [[Composition (language)|literary composition]], written by a [[poet]], using this principle.
to this:
A [[Composition (language)|composition]] written in poetry is called a '''poem''', and one who writes poetry is a [[poet]].
(or, anyway, something like that.) Apmh 16:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)