Unicornwhite
Welcome! edit
Hello, Unicornwhite, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
- The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! We're so glad you're here! Sadads (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Videos edit
Sorry to keep reverting the videos; I am not the only user doing so; however, the consensus seems to be, for these poems, that the videos that keep getting added to the poem pages are not directly encyclopedic because they a) interpret the poems in a new way that is non-standard and b) they misrepresent the meter, diction and other element of the poem. For the relevant policy, see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Content, which says that "Media with contemporary art interpretations of concepts should not be used to illustrate articles unless they have historical significance. For example, artistic renderings with ambiguous meaning made by Wikipedians rather than notable artists are best left out of articles." If you think these are being misinterpreted, please use the relevant articles "talk" page to reach consensus that the videos are educational and do add encyclopaedic value. If you continue to revert all of the changes without discussing the videos on each individual article, I may be forced to temporarily block you for disruptive editing. I would suggest adding them to the Ankit Love page in a image gallery. Each blue link links directly to the relevant policies and I have added a welcome template above that links to other help locations, Sadads (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- hey thank you for the welcome! I understand that you want to keep the content of the encyclopaedia to highest possible quality, and am certainly up for discussion to arrive at wether content is of an encyclopaedic nature or not. I noticed that you also blocked my alternate account, just want to clarify all so to avoid issues and confusion in the future, I wanted to have alternate accounts to edit and discuss in different topics, but can discuss that more specifically on my alternate user Sharoetry (talk · contribs) After the issue with usernames is resolved I will discuss first in the specific articles prior to reverting edits, the specifics highlighting of the encyclopaedic value of the content. I do appreciate what you mean in regards to "media with contemporary art interpretations of concepts should not be used to illustrate articles" however interpretations of poetry and especially classical poetry have been open for centuries, and so is not a contemporary art. Matter of fact there is little academic consensus of the correct way of performing or reading a piece, if there is a guideline of the appropriate way of conducting a poetry reading I would be curious to see it. Matter of fact if the correct historical context be considered as the bench mark for poetry recordings then it would almost impossible to ascertain how a particular author of the said piece would find the performance appropriate. In case of the Shakespearean piece some would believe the "correct" interpretation to be that of the Victorian revival of Shakespeare and not the actual Elizabethan style of performance. Hence, poetry readings by their sheer nature have a degree of flexibility, they are not prose for a reason, thus an accurate recital which portrays a certain theme or character relating to the piece does indeed serve as an education asset, and opens up the subject to greater audience, informs and encourages debate and furthers understanding about the topic, exactly what an encyclopaedia such as wikipedia is supposed to do I feel. Unicornwhite (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Though I appreciate your argument towards the subjectivity of interpreting and arranging poetry (I am actually looking extensively at adaptations of Blake's poetry right now in research). However, there are more "standard" modes of reading for clarity, communication and less sentimentality. Good examples of strong encyclopedic material include the readings at Librivox, like https://librivox.org/the-tiger-by-william-blake/ . Remember, the Ankit Love readings certainly wouldn't meet consensus on clarity and style among academics or educators, and aren't particularly notable in and of themselves, to need to be highlighted. Wikipedia provides a powerful tool for disseminating information and media; however, it shouldn't be leveraged simply for the goal of communicating one eccentric type of poetic performance. Including the videos on the Ankit Love page and within the media galleries on Wikimedia Commons would be more than appropriate. As for adding the videos to the original pages, please talk about those changes on the talk pages associated with each article, to try to reach WP:Consensus on their value. Each poem article's editing community needs to reach that consensus of inclusion, especially for media that is radically non-standard. Wikipedia relies on encyclopedic practices that tend to exclude the most avant-garde of interpretative methods, Sadads (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Good luck on your research, sounds exciting! And thank you I have had a listen to the recordings you have linked to, so you would say that recordings in that style would have a place on wikipedia? Acceptance and conformity of a recording though should not necessarily be limited to fit what is considered as standardised mode of reading poetry across the board, but also consider the context of the specific work and academic understanding of the writer's intentions. For example if a reading does cary a relationship to the initial writer's intention, wether it be a choice of a certain degree of sentimentality or use of certain diction then perhaps it should should not be considered avant garde straight away, as it could have a stronger relationship the writer's original intention more than the "standard" recordings, which consequently would make it meritorious for inclusion. But I shall continue discussions on the appropriate pages so matters can be more specific on a case by case basis once we resolve the alternate account issues, as I would prefer to use that pseudonym specifically for poetry and literature edits. Thanks again for all the info and guidance. Unicornwhite (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Though I appreciate your argument towards the subjectivity of interpreting and arranging poetry (I am actually looking extensively at adaptations of Blake's poetry right now in research). However, there are more "standard" modes of reading for clarity, communication and less sentimentality. Good examples of strong encyclopedic material include the readings at Librivox, like https://librivox.org/the-tiger-by-william-blake/ . Remember, the Ankit Love readings certainly wouldn't meet consensus on clarity and style among academics or educators, and aren't particularly notable in and of themselves, to need to be highlighted. Wikipedia provides a powerful tool for disseminating information and media; however, it shouldn't be leveraged simply for the goal of communicating one eccentric type of poetic performance. Including the videos on the Ankit Love page and within the media galleries on Wikimedia Commons would be more than appropriate. As for adding the videos to the original pages, please talk about those changes on the talk pages associated with each article, to try to reach WP:Consensus on their value. Each poem article's editing community needs to reach that consensus of inclusion, especially for media that is radically non-standard. Wikipedia relies on encyclopedic practices that tend to exclude the most avant-garde of interpretative methods, Sadads (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)