Talk:Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Information about this edition | |
|---|---|
| Edition: | 1829 edition via 1933 facsimile edition |
| Source: | copied from transcription at https://www.eapoe.org/works/editions/atmpc.htm Scan: https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002041665 |
versioning[edit]
I started to fix these to transcripts from eapoe.org, a scan would be preferable. This lists notes the progress Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- "Untitled" ("Sonnet — To Science")
- "Al Aaraaf"
- "Tamerlane"
- "Romance"
- "To ——"
- "To —— " ("Song")
- "To ——" subpaged
- "To The River ——"
- "The Lake — To ——"
- "Spirits of the Dead" subpaged, see Spirits of the Dead"
- "A Dream"
- "To M——"
- "Fairy-Land"
Copied from eapoe.org transcription Al Aaraaf, Tamerlane and Minor Poems, 1829, title page and table of contents
AL AARAAF.
• Untitled [Sonnet — To Science] 11
• Al Aaraaf - Part I 13
• Al Aaraaf - Part II 25
TAMERLANE.
• [Prefatory Material] 39
• Tamerlane 43
MISCELLANEOUS POEMS.
• [Prefatory Material] 55
• Preface 57
• 1. To — — ["Should my early life seem . . . "] 59
• 2. To — — [Song] 61
• 3. To — — ["The bowers wheareat, in dreams, I see . . ." (To Elmira ?)] 62
• 4. To the River —— 63
• 5. The Lake — To — [The Lake] 64
• 6. Spirits of the Dead 65
• 7. A Dream 67
• 8. To M—— 68
• 9. Fairyland 69
discusision on versions and sources[edit]
- Do you think you should use the source box template so we know where this is all coming from? I noticed you found a few pages which were a concern because of a lack of source, but you don't provide the source yourself for texts you add. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- [Ahem!] I add them to the edit summary, which is good practice, please let me know if I don't. I sometimes note complications on the talk, eventually add the sources to the top level, and give a citation in the notes on the page. I had to remember to do this, because most of my work is verified and sourced by the Page: namespace. If I finish moving transcripts for this book of poems, I'll finish making a note.
Same goes for TAOP, I was advised to overwrite them with superior transclusions, but I prefer to give the versions and build on what has come before. I doubt it is worth the effort, but I prefer to be conscientious. Cygnis insignis (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't realize you had a system. Most people won't see the edit summaries, though - they'll go right to the template (which, for example, is listed on this page as "unknown"). I think a lot of the versions which have been moved to "no source" (or whatever it was) are okay to overwrite or delete once the valid version is added. That's my two cents. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- This page become largely redundant when a poem becomes a sub-page, the source is given in the header or on the page scan. The talk page apparently needs a template link to be useful, the edit summary provides the proper notation for changes over many years and wikisource talk pages are rarely used. The relevant bibliographic details are most useful in the header, this ought to be self evident. As it is, or was, sources for texts were considered trivial, you insisted on reverting the deliberate effort to resolve poems in this edition to their actual version. You may not like changes to 'your' pages, you can describe it as "insane", but this is unobjectionable. You engaged in a discussion with a user who changed a poem on the basis it linked from TAOP, 1927, you reverted me when I removed the link from this faux ToC. If anyone prefers a different version, they can add it and note the provenance. We do not have this work, but rather than delete a misleading, bogus inference that we do I have set about fixing it. Do what you want is the whole of the law, but be sure you have a sound basis for interfering with what others want to do. I'm operating in good faith and attempting to adhere to best practice. Cygnis insignis (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Add: the actual sources of the transcriptions are also given at the versions page. Cygnis insignis (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- This page become largely redundant when a poem becomes a sub-page, the source is given in the header or on the page scan. The talk page apparently needs a template link to be useful, the edit summary provides the proper notation for changes over many years and wikisource talk pages are rarely used. The relevant bibliographic details are most useful in the header, this ought to be self evident. As it is, or was, sources for texts were considered trivial, you insisted on reverting the deliberate effort to resolve poems in this edition to their actual version. You may not like changes to 'your' pages, you can describe it as "insane", but this is unobjectionable. You engaged in a discussion with a user who changed a poem on the basis it linked from TAOP, 1927, you reverted me when I removed the link from this faux ToC. If anyone prefers a different version, they can add it and note the provenance. We do not have this work, but rather than delete a misleading, bogus inference that we do I have set about fixing it. Do what you want is the whole of the law, but be sure you have a sound basis for interfering with what others want to do. I'm operating in good faith and attempting to adhere to best practice. Cygnis insignis (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't realize you had a system. Most people won't see the edit summaries, though - they'll go right to the template (which, for example, is listed on this page as "unknown"). I think a lot of the versions which have been moved to "no source" (or whatever it was) are okay to overwrite or delete once the valid version is added. That's my two cents. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- [Ahem!] I add them to the edit summary, which is good practice, please let me know if I don't. I sometimes note complications on the talk, eventually add the sources to the top level, and give a citation in the notes on the page. I had to remember to do this, because most of my work is verified and sourced by the Page: namespace. If I finish moving transcripts for this book of poems, I'll finish making a note.
- Whoa, whoa... I never claimed these were "my" pages. In fact, of all the pages you've edited, I've only created
onetwo of them, one which was just a placeholder until it could be improved. I assumed we were on the same team here. I was only asking a simple question about why the source templates aren't being used. I didn't expect a personal attack in response... --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)- "I noticed you found a few pages which were a concern because of a lack of source, but you don't provide the source yourself for texts you add." Let me suggest that this is not a good way to engage a user who you have repeatedly reverted, insulted, harried, and dismissed. You have been snide and disruptive, you've challenged me to produce an explanation on the same matters over and over and not taken five minutes to digest any answer given to you. Let me also point out that every one of my edits in your walled garden has been an improvement, has stood, and has not been challenged by anyone but you. This is not a blog, a social network, an online war game or amateur debating site. This is a library, where I volunteer to improve content that anyone can benefit from, and willingly help those who want to do the same. The direct consequence of this is that sources that could back and improve the articles you develop elsewhere: Have your responses, reverts, and deaf inquisition been appropriate, or beneficial to that sites purpose?—No. Is reasonable for me for me to suppose that you fallen into the tendency of 'owning' pages of wikimedia?—I think so. That insult is incomparable to the time you have demanded and wasted, and the insults you have dealt to a busy volunteer's integrity. I am likely to keep indulging someone who behaves like this without cause?—Not likely, but lets see what happens next. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- I'm only here to help; I'm not sure where I said this was a blog, social network, game, et al. I should start with an apology: I'm sorry. Early in our interactions, I made some inappropriate assumptions about what you were doing (bear in mind that many of the pages I watch are ripe targets for vandals and ne'er-do-wells). I acted prematurely. As our interactions continued, you may have noticed, I was less of an obstruction. In fact, I have been reaching out in an attempt to collaborate. I didn't expect such a hostile response when I said, Why don't you add your source info here? I really meant no harm; I really meant, "Why don't you add your source info here?" To which you answered, which I accepted, but again noted a minor concern (without making any actions to undue your work). Suddenly, I got these long, angry responses (I was quite surprised!). I could excuse myself for my actions one by one, explaining the logic behind them, but, instead, please rest assured that they were in the best interests of Poe. I hope you are considering how little I have done to obstruct your most recent actions. I meant no insult. Again, I apologize. Let's work together. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
- "I noticed you found a few pages which were a concern because of a lack of source, but you don't provide the source yourself for texts you add." Let me suggest that this is not a good way to engage a user who you have repeatedly reverted, insulted, harried, and dismissed. You have been snide and disruptive, you've challenged me to produce an explanation on the same matters over and over and not taken five minutes to digest any answer given to you. Let me also point out that every one of my edits in your walled garden has been an improvement, has stood, and has not been challenged by anyone but you. This is not a blog, a social network, an online war game or amateur debating site. This is a library, where I volunteer to improve content that anyone can benefit from, and willingly help those who want to do the same. The direct consequence of this is that sources that could back and improve the articles you develop elsewhere: Have your responses, reverts, and deaf inquisition been appropriate, or beneficial to that sites purpose?—No. Is reasonable for me for me to suppose that you fallen into the tendency of 'owning' pages of wikimedia?—I think so. That insult is incomparable to the time you have demanded and wasted, and the insults you have dealt to a busy volunteer's integrity. I am likely to keep indulging someone who behaves like this without cause?—Not likely, but lets see what happens next. Cygnis insignis (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)