Talk:Billy Collins
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
Contents |
[edit] Title
I'm wondering about the section "...as the eleventh Poet Laureate of the United States..." This seems somewhat confusing, as really Billy Collins was the forty-second or forty-fourth Laureate in all but name alone. Further, even taking the starting point as the switching from the term Consultant in Poetry to Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry, Billy Collins was the fourteenth Poet Laureate. The calculation of eleventh seems to be leaving out the 1999-2000 Laureates, the only year to include more than one, of Merwin, Dove, and Gluck.
I'm not sure how best to rephrase this, but I do think the confusion should be addressed. I believe most people think of Poet Laureates as a tradition dating back to at least the early half of the 20th century; the way this is written, Frost would not be considered a Poet Laureate, nor would Kunitz. Indeed, William Carlos Williams, referred to as a Poet Laureate in the Life section, would have to be the negative-twenty-first Poet Laureate by the reckoning used. That just seems strange to me.
Kalisti 07:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Work Section
As to the above problem perhaps something like "the eleventh Poet Laureate (or the forty-fourth if poets with the former distinctio Perhaps the cover of "The Best Cigarette" would be public domain since the recording it? I don't know the details of that, however.
JKillah 15:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I will check if i have any suitbale photos that I have taken of him, but there should be a book jacket photo that can be used as others have here with the annotation "This work is a copyrighted publicity photograph. It is believed that the use of some such photographs to illustrate:
- the person, product, event, or subject in question
- in the absence of a free alternative,
- on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. --Ronkowiki 23:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reference Copy
Wasn't this entire article copied and pasted from reference.com? Fallen111 01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)fallen111Fallen111 01:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
No. It wasn't. Reference.com is using content from Wikipedia.
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Picniclightning.jpg
Image:Picniclightning.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Picniclightning.jpg
Image:Picniclightning.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] External link to interviews are not spam
NOTE TO shelfskewed... Apologies if we have broken rules but we do not believe we have done so... Does adding author interviews fall under the spam rules (they are Q&As with said authors)? For example, you have left interviews with other entities under said articles (Guernica, Powells, NPR, etc...) Again, since the magazine is not for profit and posting author interview with the article subjects is not spamming. Again, we mean no harm but honestly believe that said interviews with these subjects should be included among the links and since the authors are speaking for themselves are valuable for wiki users.128.172.155.42 (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.172.155.42 (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, we didn't mean to cause offense (or commit an offense). Per your instruction, we'll propose the external links on the subject discussion page. Again, apologies if we ruffle any feathers... and thanks for educating us on the issue.128.172.155.42 (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Critical Reception"
No offense to whoever wrote that section, but that's a little biased. Even if many scholars view him as "too accessible," I doubt their reasoning is as assanine and pretensious on its face as "the readers connect with the poems and understand them." Id like to see proof someone has actually used those words. Even if you dont agree with the "too accessible" criticism, it's probably unfair to say anyone who's ever made that criticism thinks poems should have no personal connection, a claim which the writer of this section makes-SF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.201.106 (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
