Talk:Poor Susan

Infobox

I find it odd to have an infobox on a page about a poem; I find this on no other poem page (although I have not done an exhaustive search). I suppose it's one way to cleanly incorporate the text of the poem. However, I am baffled by the image. What has the poem to do with the image, or the image to do with the poem? If the two are unrelated, the image should not be used in this article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi WikiDan61. Thanks for your remarks. The Shakespeare "Sonnets" have an infobox all of their own and there are other examples I've seen of poems having infoboxes. I thought about getting someone to design one for Wordsworth's poems, but Wikipedia advice is to avoid doing this if the generic infobox serves as well. I have used it to associate an image with the text. WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE encourages the placement of images: "Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages which have few visuals", and there are many examples of such images in poetry articles.

Myles Birket Foster was a popular Victorian illustrator (who indeed illustrated an edition of Wordsworth's poems). The poem is about a country girl and his painting is a romanticised version of such a country girl painted in late Victorian times. English artists didn't generally portray maid servants or country girls in the kind of romantic setting Wordsworth is describing here in his day. You would have to turn to the social realist English graphic artists for that, and while that wouldn't be inamicable to the spirit of Wordsworth (he was much influenced by Langhorne's poetry for example) I don't see that's appropiate in this romantic vision.

If you can find a better image by all means upload it. Foster in fact did one for Poor Susan you can see at http://www.flickr.com/photos/angeljim46/6816021943/, but that's copyright and in any case not very fine, but you can see the theme is the same (i.e. a milkmaid carrying her pail).

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to comment and I trust this sets your mind at rest. DaftOldBat89 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I see you deleted the parameters in the WP Project template. I don't get a sense that you know a great deal about English romantic lyric poetry from your User page, but for your information "Poor Susan", as well as being (and remaining) an immensely popular poem of exquisite workmanship, is also one of the most typical of the Lyrical Ballads and an important example of Wordsworth's fascination with the imagination and memory. We (I mean we Brits) have Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare and Milton and then we have Wordsworth and Tennyson, which is a six-pack more I suggest than anything Silicon Valley and environs can come up with.

Wordsworth is under-represented on Wikipedia and I intend to redress the balance. DaftOldBat89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As for the image, I should also note that Birket Foster's Poor Susan in the Beauties of English landscape is actually pretty similar to the painting included in the article, so the painting seems more than relevant enough for inclusion. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 00:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, I'm not well versed in poetry of any nature (pardon the pun). I came across this page as part of my normal new page patrolling. I left out the default WPPoetry parameters because the WP:WikiProject Poetry page didn't tell me to add them -- simple mistake. That being said, is it the practice of the poetry project to tack unrelated images onto pages about poems simply so that the page will have an image? WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE states clearly that "images must be revelant to the article". If a painter had painted an image based directly on a reading of Poor Lucy, or if the illustration had actually ever been used to illustrate this poem in any of its publications, the image might be relevant. But the choice of a painting that "sort of reminds me of the same feeling aS the poem" seems hardly relevant, and somewhat blatant original research. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Good enough points for me: I've taken it out. I'll scan the etching when I get the chance. (The editor with whom you were discussing this is apparently a sock from a series of socks, so don't pay any attention to the odd sniping over some project template.) — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 14:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've replaced your scan, which was extremely poor, with OldBat's upload. I really don't see why her original upload of a beautiful Foster painting shouldn't stay, and I give notice now that unless I see convincing arguments to the contrary, I shall revert back to it. HiNatasha (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I suggest to use an infobox again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

done, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ceoil, did you realize that a link to the text is part of the discussed infobox? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

yes Ceoil (talk) 12:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

On my browser, the poem text is overlapping the article text now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

yeah; I've reverted back to your version. Would like to keep both the inbox and poem text; will search for a tidier template for the poem. Ceoil (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Cquote

I previously removed the cquote template with the edit summary: "not a pull quote (see Template:Cquote and MOS:QUOTES#Block quotations)". This was reverted with the edit summary: "It is <exact;ly> a pull quote. This is what pull quotes do - "highlight a key topic" see Pull quote. Please takeany further issues to the Talk page now per WP:BRD. Thank you." I agree with the quoted text, but the full sentence from the article quoted in the second edit summary is: "A pull quote (also known as a lift-out quote) is a quotation or excerpt from an article that is typically placed in a larger or distinctive typeface on the same page, serving to entice readers into an article or to highlight a key topic." That is, it is a quotation or excerpt from the article text itself, not a block quotation from outside the article. This is why in the other links in my edit summary it is stated that "This template should not be used for quotations if they are not repeated elsewhere in the main text." (Template:Cquote), and "Do not enclose block quotations in quotation marks (and especially avoid decorative quotation marks in normal use, such as those provided by the {{cquote}} template, which are reserved for pull quotes)." (MOS:QUOTES#Block quotations). — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 00:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the user who reverted me and invited me to this talk page is apparently a banned user, and since the guidelines dictate a specific usage of this template, I've reintroduced my reverted edit. — ^[dave] cardiff | _chestnut — 01:05, 9 June 2012 (UTC)