Talk:The Sonnets

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Should this be split into an article per sonnet? I think it'd help accessibility, along with searchability. Also, while authentic, I don't think the roman numerals are very practical. Tiefighter 16:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. I'll start working on that soon. I've got a few more projects like that I'm currently in the middle of. Zhaladshar 16:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm working on it currently. I've done individual articles for 1-50, and I'm currently modifying this page to link to them. I'll see if I can get the rest done tomorrow. I think I've seen the word "sonnet" enough for today. Tiefighter 27 June 2005 15:05 (UTC)

I'm moving all of the current pages to a different format (Sonnet ## (Shakespeare)) to more fit how Wikisource is set up. The current method, while not wrong, sets up a sort of pseudo sub-page which is not really needed for individual works, but is really only used for large lists of works by one author. (This page is a sub-page, as is Author:William Jefferson Clinton/Presidential radio addresses and Author:Arthur Conan Doyle/Sherlock Holmes--none of which contain an actual work). Zhaladshar June 27, 2005 15:24 (UTC)
Done and done. I've also updated the Template:Sonnets to link to each sonnet, like the suggestion at my user page. Tiefighter 28 June 2005 07:51 (UTC)

All done. That took far too long for my liking :) Tiefighter 08:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Good work - thanks for doing it :-) --Christian S 09:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Wrong links[edit]

All the links point to a soft redirect page - I don't have time right now to change them myself, but I'll try and do it eventually. If someone wants to do it first, go for it. :D --Greeney 08:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone has moved all the Sonnets from Sonnet [nr.] to Sonnet [nr.] (Shakespeare). Does one make redirects or change the links in this article? 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think redirects are the way to go. The sonnet pages themselves have been properly crosslinked. (the AWB run I refer to above). What needs fixing is this page itself as the links there are not correct. I would also suggest that you do a trial to see what links to these moved pages with "whatlinkshere" but I fixed the page. ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


These sonnets need to be reviewed. They are mostly correct, and I am thoroughly impressed by whoever put them on here, but there are, unfortunately, errors. For example, I picked Sonnet 40 at random and had to make these changes. The corrections are mostly punctuation changes, which is not too bad (though still significant, especially since this is poetry). However, line 11 used to contain a completely incorrect word, which did not even have the right number of syllables.

I'm going to review these sonnets using this edition. Would somebody like to join me using perhaps another edition (or stop me before it's too late)? Thank you.

dto 05:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

And we might as well start using <poem> for these poems (see m:Poem Extension and The Sonnets/1). —dto 05:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. No edition preserves the punctuation of the original 1609 edition, so the best that can be done is to stick to one edition, I guess. After looking through many different editions, I still find this edition to be a relatively good one. —dto (talkcontribs) 20:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[Thread continued from Author talk:William Shakespeare]. I would like to improve these, but I may as well make several changes as I go. There would seem to be the need for discussion of the structure. The format at Sonnet 38 seems good, but I wonder about the merit of the template and footer - the text is a bit lost. I made this suggested edit and reverted it, for the purpose of discussion on titles and 'clean' text. Perhap a second edition is worth exploring further. Cygnis insignis 14:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we should stick with the format at Sonnet 38, it makes the most sense and follows WS:MOS. I agree the text seems a bit lost, but I don't think getting rid of the navigation template at the bottom of each page is a good idea. There are a lot of sonnets and that makes it easy to move from one to the other. Right now I think it is more important to fix the broken pages. - Epousesquecido 23:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree it should be fixed, I meant to suggest that creating a parent (again?) would fix it temporarily. I had trouble finding a relevant section in the MOS on templates, other than the header, can someone point that out to me. I had been under the impression that navigation was maintained by the header and title page. I was genuinely surprised to see another template in this space, though I am a newbie. Are there other similar examples of the use of nav boxes? I am preparing to create a much larger work, the answers I find here would help that enormously, apologies if I should just get on with it. I would personally find it loathesome to go through the pages more than once. When this is combined with a short and unstable page history, there seems every chance I could be wasting my time in changing them. Cygnis insignis 00:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I took a pass with AWB to fix the navigation header issues, once done the navigation should be right. However there still are some issues, for instance the use of >br< tags is inconsistent sometimes they are in a big blob in the text, and sometimes the lines are properly broken. Also some have the poem tag and some do not, some have the russian interwiki link in the wrong place, etc. In IRC Pathoschild indicated to me he will be having his bot do a pass too (it will put the lines of the template in identical order for all template invocations, something I, with my limited AWB skill, did not do)... maybe those all will be corrected. So i'd hold off on hand fixes for just now. ++Lar: t/c 01:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I suspected that automation would be possible, I will have to take advantage of that in the future. With regard to the second template, I was considering it's merits in another work, can someone show me where the guidelines on this are located, or the section of the MOS? Cygnis insignis 01:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Original edition[edit]

Hello there. I have two points:

1. The main page for the sonnets says that the original edition used roman numerals for the sonnets. Look here to see that they don't. This should be changed.

2. The original 1609 edition has major problems for modern readers, but it is the main source. Shouldn't it be used to help decide on issues of punctuation? Perhaps a transcription of the original should be included alongside a modern-spelling version? 21:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)