Talk:Sapphic stanza in Polish poetry

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sapphic stanza in Polish poetry article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Poetry Low‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poland Low‑importance

	Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Initial notes[edit]

@Anagram16: I've begun reviewing the draft article, and made some fairly large changes. Even though I've already applied them, you should consider them suggestions -- not at all definitive. A couple overall notes:

I removed a good bit of the "Renaissance" because I thought it was too tangential. And as you'll see, I've moved some up to the new metrical section. I do not think it was bad to include this in "Renaissance", but I felt we needed an early, concrete answer to "but what is a Sapphic stanza?", and this was my solution... I'm certainly open to others.
I notice some tendency to call things and people "great" or similar potential WP:Peacock words. I don't really doubt this is correct, but it is not really encyclopedic. Generally, these should be totally removed, or demoted to a comparatively colorless "notable" etc., or some reference should be provided showing that some reliable source says they're "great" (and then usually, we can also use the source to explain why they're great).

Looking ahead, once you're ready to move this to the mainspace, there are 2 ways to do it: you can click the button on the template at the top of the page ("Submit your draft for review!") -- or you can go to the "More" menu near the top of the browser and select "Move". (I think you'll be able to see this... it may be dependent upon a user setting. If you can't see it, I can do this for you when the time comes.) I have never personally used the "Submit your draft for review" button, but an acquaintance of mine says "that's where new articles go to die." So when you're ready, let's go with "Move". Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished my first-round copy editing. I've left a few notes for you right in the text of the article, including a bunch of empty <ref>...</ref> that need to be filled. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I will read very carefully all the text. Some explanations about great. You are right, the word was used very often, because I wrote about the most important poets. Now I am going to write about minor authors, too. Perhaps the word "notable' will be very useful instead of great. I just wanted to inform English readers about hierarchy of Polish poets. The second thing, these two or three translations with no source - they are mine. Of course I didn't even try to write verse or rhyme in English. I think it is still too early to talk about moving the draft into the main space. Some sections seem to be too short. There are many sources to be quoted. I will do it, when we agree that the article is finished. Your opinion will be crucial. Then I will use More/Move buttons. I wouldn't like to publish an unfinished text. There are too many articles with serious errors at many Wikipedias, let English Wikipedia will be free of them. (Anagram16 (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Regarding "great": That's a pretty good reason, but if I thought it sounded like peacocking, others will too. Perhaps a way to make the valid distinctions you want to make is: for the top 3 (or 4? or 5?) you might refer to them as one of the Three Bards -- or poets might be distinguished as "influential" or "major" and more specific would be even better, say, "major baroque poet" or "a major figure in Polish Romanticism". These (at least to me) sound less like "I think he's totally awesome!". Regarding translations: understood: I'll just assume that any unattributed translation is by you; feel free to remove my little "???" in those cases. I like it so far... can't wait to read more. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Kazimierz Wroczyński's poem at the Internet Antologia współczesnych poetów polskich at Archive.org, p. 580. and saw that the scheme is SsSsSsSSsSs (SsSsSsS+SsSs). Another thing, there is a typo in the second line of the first strophe. There is nuży (that means tires, makes weary) and should be mży (covers like a little rain), the typo was corrected by Lucylla Pszczołowska. Nuży is disyllabic while mży monosyllabic, which is important, at least for us two. Perhaps I should write one or two sentences about Wroczyński's experiment with metre of longer lines in his Sapphic stanzas. Your question brought my attention to this unusual rhuthm. Thanks a lot. (Anagram16 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for watching Olbrycht Karmanowski. I have made it, because it was a red link after I had put the poet's name into Polish Sapphic stanza. (Anagram16 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Lament XVI[edit]

Note first attempt at User:Phil wink/Translation workshop#Lament XVI. Phil wink (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]