Talk:Sonnet 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Perhaps this should be on Wikisource? Mak (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I've often wondered about the issue of including poems on Wikipedia, but many(ing To His Coy Mistress by Andrew Marvell) are included with quite a bit of information. If the poem has enough notability, and enough can be said about it, then it should stay. Also, this is Shakespeare we're talking about. For now, I plan to create a skeleton on each page, and enlist the support of WikiProject:Poetry members. Adambiswanger1 04:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I put that there when the page consisted only of the poem, but now I think there's enough flesh to justify it. Sometimes people actually get confused as to which wiki project they're on, and start making a ton of Wiktionary entries and stuff, so I wanted to make sure that wasn't happening either :). Nice article. Mak (talk) 04:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Whoah. Just saw the template. That's a huge task. You don't think it'd be better to group them somehow? I don't know anything about the project, and I do write articles about separate musical pieces/operas, but I just wonder if there's enough to say about each of these sonnets, which wouldn't just be repeating what the others say? Perhaps talk about it on the project page? (I haven't looked there yet). Sometimes it's hard to tell when there will or won't be enough to say (and people always disagree). Mak (talk) 04:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added to Sonnet 1. If others create the 'skeleton' for each page I would be happy to add some more 'flesh' is that methaphor makes any sense.
It's a big project. But them how else will wikipedia become truely great? 195.93.21.137 09:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC).
I've added a page for sonnet 18 and sonnet 130, surely two of the most important ones. Can someone sort out the numbering on the massive nagivation box the numbers are wrong towards the end. Francium12 10:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've tried to get a concensus as far as how much analysis can be done on each without breaking original research rules. Here's what the help desk said: [1] Adambiswanger1 18:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a fine line between having an article which tells you what the sonnet 'means' and one which gives an editors opinion. Just use your common sense and go for "orthodox" interpetations
Comment - As far as "orthodox" goes, I actually own a Monarch Critiques of Literature edition of all 154 sonnets, and it includes summaries, paraphrasings, and historical commentary regarding each sonnet (and in the case of paraphrasings, each line). I don't bring this up to suggest plagiarizing the book; however, if we do write original commentaries, I'd certainly be willing to "validate" them against the ones provided in this book. That's not to say that its opinions are "correct," but they are certainly mainstream - they were authored, edited, and/or revised by five University profressors with Ph.D.'s in English literature. I sincerely hope, despite the proposed deletions, we can get this off the ground. I know I'll be helping. --Sean Parmelee 01:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds ideal for adding footnotes as well. It's always good to have footnotes. Sam 01:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- That sounds great. I would stay away from paraphrasing, though. That can be offered as an external link. AdamBiswanger1 01:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
8 down, 148 to go! The way I look at it is is 154 editors wrote one article it would be finished. There must be some Shakespeare lovers whom can be recruited to the task Francium12 20:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sonnet 94
What is Sonnet 94 actually trying to say. I've read it and and the sparknotes interpretion (http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/shakesonnets/section6.rhtml) and it seems a little difficult to understand. Can anyone add to this one? Francium12 21:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I added some stuff to make it more clear. Hope it helps. Adambiswanger1 19:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
