Talk:List of poetry anthologies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	List of poetry anthologies is part of WikiProject Poetry, a WikiProject related to Poetry.
List	This article has been rated as list-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

I am a bit confused about what should and should not be included in this List. I see that there is also a List of poetry collections, but many of the books in that list I would also consider to be anthologies. My assumption is that a "poetry collection" would be a collection of poems from a single author. gK 03:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd agree and any listed there that are in fact anthologies should be moved here. Filiocht 08:30, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the obvious overlaps from the 'collections' page, with a net move of one to here. There are always going to be borderline cases; Lyrical Ballads had two authors, but belongs to 'collections', I'd say. Charles Matthews 11:18, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If this list is only for things that have articles, wouldn't it be better to use categories? --Chinasaur

No, in my opinion at least, it is not the case that the use of categories is an adequate replacement for lists. Charles Matthews 18:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Although it would seem like the newer Category capability of the Wikipedia should replace the large number of Lists that were already on the Wikipedia, there are three features of lists taht I think make it so that both are probably necessary. One of those features is the fact that Lists can be annotated, but Categories can not (although I hope that is one feature that does eventually get added to the Wikipedia). Unfortunately, too many lists on the Wikipedia are just lists without any other information -- no dates for the entries on a list, no reason why an entry is on the list, no explanation for the source of the information in the lists, etc.

On a List you can also categorize the data by using using new Sections, thus allowing you to have lots of organized information on a single page, where as with subcategories, you have to look at different pages to see each different subcategory. You could, for example, divide a list of Japanese poetry anthologies by Era.

The final feature is the ability to include things that are not currently in the Wikipedia, but probably should be. Then one can look at the red-colored links in a List to see what needs to be added to the Wikipedia. But this feature is highly dependant upon the quality of the List, and I've see too many lists (I'm not pointing at this list, but just lists in general) that mix the important and necessary, with the obscure and trivial. <end rant mode> [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 05:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, basically, and have made similar points in the past. Lists do have more functionality, and if it comes to subdividing a list it is much less work than changing categories on individual pages. Charles Matthews 09:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also agree with the value of lists as stated by others here. Filiocht 09:45, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

I guess that I should also mention that there are good points to using Categories as well. First is that they are easier to add to (although just like adding to a List, they do require that the person writing an article know that a particular category exists). Second is that when you look at a particular category, it only includes articles that already exist in the Wikipedia. [My list of some of the proplems that I've seen with Categories is much longer, so I will leave that until some other time.] [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 11:07, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I add categories all the time, often in passing. But to consolidate an area over the course of a few months a list is invaluable, and flexible. Charles Matthews 13:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The one big problem with lists that is relevant here is the ability of users to add vanity red links. I suspect that this has happened to List of poets more than a little. Filiocht 16:09, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Of course, the big, indiscriminate lists are really just a tool to get the ball rolling. I'm very much pro-minor poet, in a sense; certainly what you get in anthologies is a 'penumbra' of minor figures around the big names who are anyway going to be in WP. One interesting thing, looking round the Web, is how many people document their research from knowing just a poet's name, from a poem they happen to like: they do want to be able to look up the person (might be F. W. Bourdillon, who wrote just eight lines that have lasted). Anyway part of the interest of anthologies is that (i) they are always from a perspective, and (ii) the secondary figures include some oddities, but also get one into neglected areas (or people with other things in their life, though less so post-1950, I think). Perhaps, in reference to LCOTW, others might come up with views as to what anthologies are doing here on WP; so far I've mainly followed my own interests. (In parenthesis, the Georgian poets business is like draining a swamp, and I've been selective on the anthology side; but highly instructive in other ways.) Charles Matthews 16:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with all the points supporting lists, but my impression was that this list was mostly an organizing feature; is there some relevant information that it makes sense to add as annotation to this list? I would say that the most important thing about creating a list is that you specify its purpose and format in the heading. That way you can avoid the proliferation of irrelevant entries, etc. The only guideline that has been stated for this list is that it's supposed to be things that already have wikipedia articles; so I think it's natural that I wonder "why not use a category?". If there's some grander purpose in this list's destiny (perhaps something about minor poets??) you should fill everyone in about it from the getgo. --Chinasaur 02:43, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since a list I created was yesterday put on VfD, for no good reason, I want to be firm about this: please stop running down lists. At the very least they serve an excellent purpose of making the site easier to navigate. Charles Matthews 09:37, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No problem, I'm just pointing out that the less a list is like a category, the better it is. If it's completely like a category, just use a category. If you put your justification for this list not being a category into the article, then it will help the list to grow constructively and you won't have to worry about VfD. It would be nice if the poetry wikiproject also made it more clear where lists stand in their goals; I couldn't find any guidelines there. Okay, dropping it now. --Chinasaur 18:21, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

People always want 'added value' on lists; turns out they can be less keen on maintaining the 'overhead'. As for WikiProjects, I have yet to see one that really gets beyond the prescriptive bit; I've just gone ahead an added pages.

Charles Matthews 18:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)