User talk:Thefairyouth154

Welcome

Hello Thefairyouth154, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Thefairyouth154, good luck, and have fun. – Cosmic Emperor 13:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnets heads-up

Hey, Thefairyouth154! By coincidence (honestly), I've just begun looking at Wikipedia's sonnet articles, and am about to post a discussion of some things I'd like to alter regarding meter and scansion (I'll post you a link to the discussion when it's up). I'm giving you a heads-up because it directly addresses some of the work you've been doing -- so first I want to assure you that, even though I'm criticizing some aspects, I do think your work is valuable, only that the model you had in front of you could have been better; second, that you may want to hold off on further edits, just until you have a chance to review my own recommendations (which, again, I'll post soon). Then hopefully you and I (and any other interested editors) can agree on a fruitful way forward. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion now posted at WT:BARD#Scansion and meter in the sonnets. Phil wink (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Phil wink: Thanks for including me in this! (And stopping me while I'm ahead.) Generally, I'm less familiar with the interstices of poetic stress/scansion, so I'm happy to work with whatever seems to be the best base format for the Sonnets.

(FYI, editors like it when you sign your talk page comments, even on your own page.)

I'm very happy to see your response. First, because I feared you might have just walked away. Second, because (based on the response at the Shakespeare Wikiproject) it looks like the Sonnets are on no one's radar right now ... and they're in a surprisingly bad state. I'm not sure how you like to work, so I'll just throw a few ideas out...

Scansion: As of this post, I've updated the Sonnet Structure sections up to Sonnet 71. If you want to do something else, I'm happy just to continue on my own. If you want to collaborate, we can divide and conquer, and I'll try to whip up a 60-second summary of how I think they should work. But the terrible truth is that I'll be reviewing your work, and perhaps you don't care to work under such opinionated scrutiny. (I should affirm here that I do not speak for Wikipedia, nor should you allow me any more deference than you think my work merits -- but of course, that goes for everyone!)
Other Sonnet stuff: If you want to work on the Sonnets in some other capacity, they need every kind of work imaginable! It looks like most of your edits have been very targeted systematic improvements (like all the images), but then you've also done some in-depth soup-to-nuts work (e.g. Urania, which I've only gone through quickly, but looks really kick-ass). There are several different lines of attack on the Sonnets which I might recommend, based on what kind of editing you like best.

Let me know what, if anything, interests you, and how you'd like to proceed. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 01:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to move on to another section of the Sonnets if you're working through the Structure sections – being in undergrad makes my Wikipedia work schedule a little inconsistent, and I tend to waffle between more systemic edits (like the Sonnet images) and in-depth ones (like the Urania article) depending on my work schedule for school (it's easier to do in-depth research/work when my school load is lighter). Are there any parts of the Sonnet pages that need to be overhauled that are suited to intermittent work? I know overall the paraphrase/summary sections need work, though even the good models for that section vary. Thefairyouth154 (talk) 09:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. I hate ... HATE paraphrases. When I see them all I can think is, "since you're too dumb to read a good poem by Shakespeare, here, read this crap poem by me." Yet I know that inexperienced readers need (and deserve) a way in. I've just posted a sort of test "Synopsis" at Sonnet 70 which (in my non-humble opinion) may serve as a better model than the others currently available. No doubt this example can be improved (please do!), but I think the structure and stance are right. This allows glosses and targeted paraphrases (both used here), but positions them as elements of 4 little linked and labeled prose summaries. Here, context not literally in the text ("The Speaker assures a young man...") can find a place if useful, and not every phrase needs to be slavishly sterilized in order, especially those which are reasonably clear on their own.

As for working with what's currently in the articles, my own opinion is that at least at the beginning, you should leave summaries/paraphrases/synopses in the

articles [that is, 18, 86, and 102] as-is. For the other 151 articles, except for deference to statements that are both decently-written and cited, you should feel free to bulldoze anything you can make better. There are a few bright points, but overall these articles, both short and long, are not a credit to this encyclopedia... yet. Phil wink (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry I've been gone for so long; I've been pulling together material for some other wiki stuff. When I get back to the sonnets, I'm definitely happy to do some paraphrases based on Sonnet 70's model/best aspects of the other models (on the featured pages). Thefairyouth154 (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnet Uniformity Act

Hi. Apologies for the slightly impersonal tone below, but I'm just copying the same message I sent to 2 other editors, who I've not "met" yet...

I recently dipped my toe into updating 1 little element of Wikipedia's 154 Sonnet articles and, well, it turns out that more than 1 thing could stand improvement. I've written up a little manifesto cheekily called User:Phil wink/Sonnet Uniformity Act. Ultimately, I'll post a link on WP:BARD, Shakespeare's sonnets, and possible William Shakespeare. But 1) I despair of getting enough feedback to achieve "consensus" worthy of the name, and 2) I hope to get a sanity-check from dedicated editors before completely exposing it.

Would you be kind enough to read my harangue, and comment? (Please comment at User talk:Phil wink/Sonnet Uniformity Act so we can maintain 1 discussion.) I may continue tweaking it a bit, but I think it's pretty much complete, apart from updates based on ensuing discussion. FYI, I've put out this same request to Xover and Tom Reedy. I'm much obliged for any insight you can contribute. Phil wink (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at this ASAP! It should be helpful in figuring out if there are any grunt-level things I can do for the sonnet pages. Thefairyouth154 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you find it useful. I did include a couple of priority lists at the bottom, but (at least in my mind) these are more priorities for content creation and improvement... and in some cases, destruction. I have thought of a couple other grunty tasks, though. 1) In my view (and I mention this in the Sonnet Uniformity Act) citation style should be unified (or at least more unified!) -- however, this is a sticky wicket as (a) in principle we are supposed to respect the original reference style and (b) even my opinionated self has not quite settled on how I would proceed ideally. 2) I haven't been perfectly consistent, but I think for the large majority of Sonnets 1-126, I made sure that something broadly like:

Sonnet X is one of 154 sonnets written by the English playwright and poet William Shakespeare. It is a member of the Fair Youth sequence, in which the poet expresses his love towards a young man.

...was right at the top. I have not been doing this at all for the "Dark Lady" sequence (127-152), so you might consider devising a similar couple of boilerplate sentences with maximum context and minimum text, and updating the lead paragraphs of these latter sonnets. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnet images

Hi again. Another request: You uploaded images to the Commons for almost all the Sonnets. I take it you skipped over the few that already had images in the articles. Would you be so kind as to upload the remainder too? I think they're better, and after all it would be nice to have a full consistent set. Unless I'm mistaken, the only images that remain from your set are 1, 18, 102, and 129. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll definitely do this too – this occurred to me as I was moving through the pages adding images, but wasn't sure how invasive I should be with existing images; it's helpful to hear that another editor is in favor of better-quality images. Thefairyouth154 (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Thefairyouth154. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]