Talk:High Windows

message: I feel the article would benefit with either a picture of the author or a picture of the book itself. Does anyone have anything suitable? Burnt Face Man 15:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uploaded and put on the page :) MrMetalFLower 19:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone have a picture of the book?? 

message: Doesn't this article blatantly contradict Wikipedia's No Original Research policy? An encyclopedia cannot simply suggest interpretations of individual poems as if they constitute accepted fact. Someone has evidently put some time into this, but this isn't the place for such textual analysis.Gunstar hero 14:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Original research removed, but that leaves the article a stub. --MrMetalFLower 21:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added (unbiased) notes --MrMetalFLower 19:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've pulled the notes. I understand the spirit in putting them there rather than the random analysis we had before, but the problem is they were just too short and simplistic - it's very hard to say anything meaningful in a single comment like that. It's probably worth leaving any such content for articles on the poems themselves. Shimgray | talk | 22:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was pretty disappointed to see all that info. gone. As a former AS English Lit. candidate studying Larkin they were pretty useful to me as a source of alternative interpretation, as the main Assessment Objective in this section of the course is exploring different interpretations of the text. On the web it was one of the only concise and useful sources I found. I know there's a rule but as I imagine this Larkin site is heavily used by English Lit candidates might I suggest reinstating them. After all this is a site to help and inform people, what's the use of the rules if they detract from the original intention of the site?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.97.246.163 (talk) 14:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately that sort of thing's not allowed on here, it's an opinion or interpretation, which can't be in an encyclopedia. There's many other places that could helpy yew though. -- User:MrMetalFLower 18:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Original Research Policy? 

message: Should this page be called High Windows (book)? The two Whitsun Weddings pages are called (book) and (poem) Almost-instinct 15:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well certainly High Windows (book) should be a valid link - not pointing into mainly Mr Gates inferior offerings :-) Linuxlad (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to change the name of the page. But a signpost header might be needed, because their might be some confusion with "The High Windows" so I have added one to this page. Snowman (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In need of renaming? 

message: I don't recognise the order that the poems are in; certainly not the order that they appear in the book.
The correct order would be:1 3 24 15 19 137 12 4 17 16 1018 14 2 5 6 2111 8 23 9 22 20ie "To the Sea", "Sympathy in White Major", "The Trees", "Livings" etc almost-instinct 14:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The table was made from the "List of poems" page deleting all the other poems and that is the order they were in. I did not realize it was the wrong order.  I have changed the table so they should be in sequence on opening the page. Snowman (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order 

message: I am not sure the blurb for the book really belongs in the article; it seems there are far more credible critical reactions to the book that could replace it. Mrathel (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blurb?