Talk:List of years in poetry

message: I'm starting a done/to do list here, as I notice there are now at least four people periodically and systematically adding to the "years in poetry" pages. Sam 21:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To - Do List 

message: For anyone contributing to these pages, I've found this to be a useful source for English-language poetry: 
http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/timeline/
Noroton 00:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very useful.  Someone there has a particular interest in early women poets and has given me some reading.  Sam 02:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've begun adding info for the Victorian Era (1833 on) from that time line and from the years in literature page, and will, little by little, close the gap to 1869. That should give us good templates to keep filling out for these years. Sam 18:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great. The "What links here" toolbox function will become useful as I add links to years in poetry from other articles. I find I'm slowing down on editing years as I do some other poetry-article editing that leads to deepening of some of the 20th century years-in-poetry pages. You're doing great work here, and I'll be adding to those new 19th century pages, and eventually, I hope, to the 18th century ones and even late 17th. Noroton 17:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, "Awards" or "Awards and honors" don't really work as a section earlier than 1905 or so, do they? I don't know of any awards in existence or that we can get data for before about that time (I think the Nobel or Pulitzer in literature may be the earliest that we know of). Perhaps we should drop that section. Even if there were only one or two awards a year, that could be folded into "Events" I think. Any thoughts? Noroton 17:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have yet to use that category; there should be some (like becoming an "Immortal" in France and some of the awards of the French Academy, or Poet Laureate, or some of the old court poets), though the information on them may be hard to come by, but putting them in Events should work. Shall we leave it out in anything pre-Nobel?  Sam 21:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's leave it out then. Noroton 23:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful source

message: Last night I had an idea and opened up the first and last volumes in my collection of the "Britannica Book of the Year" books. I found them chock full of mentions of poetry published in each year and awards given out. I typed in this information into the 1957 in poetry and 1981 in poetry pages, which are now very long. I think all the information added to the articles is worthy of inclusion, although I always suspect we're adding some poetry that might best be forgotten as bad, hardly read even when it came out or both.
The longer lists in the '57 and '81 articles really beef up the non-English areas considerably, although those areas are still far from adequate to cover even the significant poetry from non-English literatures: There's no Indian, Arabic or Eastern European poetry in either article, I think, and Russian poetry is either absent or barely mentioned on the list of works. This is a reflection of the limitations of the Britannica Books and of our own time as contributors.
But we can expect the list to get even longer at some point. Much, much longer than even these two lengthened pages are now. And the lists in these years can give us a good idea of what much of these articles eventually will look like.
At some point it just might be worth bifurcating into separate year articles (a) English language poetry from (b) poetry in other languages, and it might even be worth thinking about now, before many links between articles on non-English poetry subjects are created to these pages. My initial preference is to keep it all together, but that's mostly for emotional reasons (I guess I like the feeling of cosmopolitan breadth in the broader subject, and I'm hoping that with all languages combined a reader might discover more fruitful connections). There's a good case to be made for separating the two subjects: Keeping them apart will make it a bit easier for people to scroll and find what they're looking for. I'm also not certain about how interested people are in poetry from languages other than their own, so all the foriegn language information could be distracting or, much worse, might obscure parts of the page that people would find very useful if they saw them sooner.
I'd appreciate thoughts from other contributors. Noroton 18:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting source: Britannica Book of the Year

message: In response to having several pages tagged for lacking context, needing expansion, or various other things, I've come up with introductory paragraphs for both individual years and century pages - see 936 in poetry and 10th century in poetry.  Does anyone have any thoughts on these?  Think they are useful or not?  I'm going to start using them as I create new pages (I'm mostly working on medieval poetry at this point). A Musing 14:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction to pages 

message: I noticed, while adding a number of new entries, that capital letters tend to be used after a semicolon. Isn't this wrong?  Exceptions will be my edits, as I didn't notice until too late !  Rwood128 (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semicolons 

message: As I am not familiar with mass-editing (and don't want to in case I mess something up), but would also like consistency, I'm just going to put my complaint/request here. I notice that the lead of all of the articles states "...nation's poetry or literature (for instance, Irish or France)." It seems odd to me that one of the examples is an identifier (Irish literature) but the other is just the country (literature from France) - which one of these would be changed in order to make it consistent, if either? Samario: Talk page 09:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar fix on [year] in poetry articles