Talk:Harmonium (poetry collection)

message: I will post it on wikisource,along with many others, in the next few days. Then I will figure out how to add the linking template thingie to 'source. --Lacatosias 17:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted poem 

message: Do you think you could take time out of analyzing Stevens' poetry and a actually bother listing the contents of this poetry collection? Or is that crude act of mere bibliography beneath you? I mean, it's not like it's an encyclopedia entry or something...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.99.228 (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey Critics, How About a Table of Contents? 

message: Someone who signed in as `midnightdreary' vandalized the poem "The Jack-Rabbit", replacing the authentic poem by a spoof version.
I have returned the authentic poem.Rats (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism alert 

message: I've reverted to a longer version. the article had been severely truncated, and no explanation was offered here. It looks like vandalism to me. Rats (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: Seeing as though most of the poems in this collection have their own articles, I figured it would be beneficial for those reading each of the articles in sequence to have a template that would include all the poems in the collection. I would like to add one to each of the individual poem pages (is there a fast way to do this?), though since the list is long it should probably be on autohide, which someone with more knowledge of templates may be able to take care of.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Harmonium
Retroviseur (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: By comparison with the Wikipedia article on "The love song of J. Afred Prufrock", the "Harmonium" page seems to be of acceptable length. So the "length" flag has been removed.
Rats (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long? 

message: The "tone" guidelines stipulates that formal tone should be used: "Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner." I think  the tone flag should be removed until it's clear that the article violates this stricture. If there is unintelligible argot, etc., then of course it should be removed. That can be done without setting the tone flag.Rats (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tone? 

message: I found nothing in the "headers and sections" guidelines to indicate that a flag was warranted in this article.Rats (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  too many sections? 

message: The bald reference to the page on layout guidelines didn't help me. Some specific recommendations would be helpful.Rats (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First section before TOC here is terrible. Way too long and full of information that, if it even belongs in this article, should appear elsewhere.70.174.155.35 (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  reorganization? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:American Smooth (book) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 18:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress