Talk:Stanza/Archive 1

Information

I have put some information about Stanza file (found on Internet). If you have more info about this, i would be pleased to hear from you dimitri. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.63.225.129 (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

clearly, a search for 'stanza' ought to reveal the poetry article as primary. the 'stanza file' section is extremely esoteric, and if not moved to its own article probably ought to be combined with som related programming article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.144.210 (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

NOTICE: A verse is refered to in poetry as a single line, where a stanza is two or more grouped together by rhyme scheme, meter, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.59.19.90 (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Less obvious manifestations

Less obvious manifestations of stanzaic form can be found as well, as in Shakespeare's sonnets, which, while printed as whole units in themselves, can be broken into stanzas with the same rhyme scheme followed by a final couplet, as in the example of Sonnet 116:

    Let me not to the marriage of true minds             |\
    Admit impediments. Love is not love                  | \
    Which alters when it alteration finds,               | / All one stanza
    Or bends with the remover to remove:                 |/
    O no! it is an ever-fixed mark,                      |\ 
    That looks on tempests and is never shaken;          | \
    It is the star to every wandering bark,              | / All one stanza
    Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken. |/
    Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks  |\
    Within his bending sickle's compass come;            | \
    Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,      | / All one stanza
    But bears it out even to the edge of doom.           |/
    If this be error and upon me proved,                 |\
    I never writ, nor no man ever loved.                 |/  A couplet

comment: :::the analysis of a shakespearean sonnet is all wrong. a sonnet is, in its origins, a single strophe canzone, even though there seems to be a contradiction in terms, since a strophe, to be a strophe, must recur at least once. the basic form of the italian sonnet is section A, section A repeats; section B, section B repeats. In shakespeare, we have (in these terms) AA:AB where AB is itself a section B. In a shakesperean sonnet the quatrains are cola, not stanzas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.37.234 (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

the analysis of a shakespearean sonnet is all wrong. a sonnet is, in its origins, a single strophe canzone, even though there seems to be a contradiction in terms, since a strophe, to be a strophe, must recur at least once. the basic form of the italian sonnet is section A, section A repeats; sectin B, section B repeats. In shakespeare, we have (in these terms) AA:AB where AB is itself a section B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.54.37.234 (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Error: Emily Dickinson poem

hi, the poem by Emily Dickinson as it appears on this page is incorrect. The actual poem reads:

(see, for example, Bartleby: http://www.bartleby.com/113/1022.html )

I had no time to hate, because
The grave would hinder me,
And life was not so ample I
Could finish enmity.
  
Nor had I time to love; but since 5
Some industry must be,
The little toil of love, I thought,
Was large enough for me.

I made the correction, but it was reversed by user Kunalforyou. Not clear why. S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.165.142.204 (talk) 07:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Help! Overzealous Editors are ruining Emily Dickinson!

Help! I've tried several times now to correct the Emily Dickinson poem in this wikipedia page, but overeager editors (including bots), like Kunalforyou, Qzd, Materialscientist, and ClueBot NG (so far) keep undoing my correction. At this point, it feels like harassment by the zombie mob. Can anybody help me save this poem? Thanks, SShrinkydink07 (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Shrinkydink07: Thanks for correcting the word. It was changed by an IP editor at the end of October last year. There's no reason for anyone (or any bot) to change it again. I understand how frustrated you may be about "eager" editors undoing your correction, but please read our guidance on assuming good faith (and our policy on no personal attacks) and consider redacting your comments such as the above, and those including "...you need to start being careful about the way you use the tools you have been given." We're all human (except ClueBot NG) and are prone to making the occasional mistake.  —SMALLJIM  11:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Smalljim, thanks for your help. Shrinkydink07 (talk) 11:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)