Talk:Edgar Allan Poe/Archive 8

Serial commas: Yay or nay?
Per this suggestion, might be good to see who likes them here and who doesn't.

I don't. They make readers imagine an unnatural pause. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe they are extremely useful for clarification, and for what I consider to be appropriate punctuation. It's logical and useful, and only creates ambiguity as a result of the structure of the sentence, or lack of other punctuation (such as the semicolon). I would counter that it is a natural pause. Read an ordered list aloud, or think up of one and say it, and most times you will pause exactly where the serial comma occurs. Regarding this specific instance, I think it's useful because section and subsection titles are meant to be brief; oftentimes, certain words like determiners are omitted for brevity of title. As a result, one might suspect that the title in question is not an ordered list, but a comparison of two groups—one with a single item, and the other with two. This is moreover exacerbated by the fact that serial commas are used consistently throughout the article (CTRL+F ", and"). The omission of one here will give the reader the impression that the omission was meaningful. Since it is not, we should retain the serial comma for no other reason than for consistency.


 * Needless to say, I'm in the "pro-serial comma" crowd. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 20:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * When I read an ordered list, the last "and" fills in for the comma and the pause in my head. With a comma and an "and", I get two pauses. If we're going for brevity, one break goes by quicker. Of course, yeah, we probably speak differently, too.


 * I know the serial comma is used throughout the article, not just the header. No need to CTRL+F (Command+F, in my language), it's in the first sentence. My question concerns all of them, for the same reason. If halving a pair of breaks speeds things up, halving many pairs makes for even faster reading. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm pro-serial comma. I'm likely responsible for having them there to begin with. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, reading operates differently than spoken word. When one reads, one typically follows the logical structure of the sentence, whereas with listening to spoken word one typically follows the speech pattern and inflection of the speaker. (In the cases of inner monologue, the latter usually occurs because it is verbalized speech in your thoughts.) At least, that's my understanding of it. As for reading ordered lists, it really depends on the type of speech and dialect, as well as one's native language (I don't think serial commas are common in languages outside of English). In formal speech, there is usually a pause, but in common parlance many verbal contractions are used. It depends on whether you are pronouncing "and" or something like "'n'". In the latter scenario, it is a quick enough syllable that the comma seems to delay it. When "and" is fully pronounced, however, I notice that a pause usually precedes in in an list, ordered or unordered. You may be pronouncing it differently for any of the aforementioned reasons. That's my guess, anyhow.


 * I think the serial comma should remain for clarity and dispelling ambiguities. Like I said before, it is logical punctuation and better defines listed items. To me, a serial comma is to a list as a semicolon is to a series of lists: it helps clarify what is what and ensures that no misunderstanding occurs. I honestly see more reason to switch consistency in an article which lacks a serial comma than to do so in an article wherein it is already present. Do you have a specific and valid reason for omitting all serial commas? Verbal pauses are pretty much irrelevant during reading, so no need to worry about the serial commas impeding the speed of our readers. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I support the serial comma here. Whether something "sounds right" or not is too dependent on what one is used to hearing.  The goal of clarity should outrank opinions about familiarity, and the serial comma here adds clarity.  Reify-tech (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree and I generally hate commas and leave them out whenever possible (see? ). I don't really see this as a case of pro or con serial commas.  There are probably several in the article that are not needed for any clarification.  However, I have to agree that in this case if a serial comma is not used in the header, then the confusion of a comparison between the first item and the last two items lumped together would be common among general readers.  The serial comma should be left in for clarity. Thank you! and Best of everything to you and yours! – Paine  23:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Those who care for it seem to care more than I don't. I'll bow out. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Baudelaire's short Biography of Poe
In his introduction to the french edition of Poe's "Histoires Extraordinaires" of 1856, Charles Baudelaire mentions Poe joining the greek army to fight the turks, ending up destitute in Russia and asking for assistance from an American official representative to return to the USA.

He also speaks of the very special relationship between Poe and his mother in law/aunt that went on beyond his wife's death

He also has no doubts about the manner, date and place of his death, in Baltimore on October 7 1849, which he attributes to delirium in tremens, after a night of suicidal drinking.

He also mentions his birthdate as 1813, dead then at only 37. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HervéAlphonse (talk • contribs) 16:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, Baudelaire was quite fanciful in his understanding of Poe. Poe himself is the source of some of the problems, including frequently lying about his age/birth year. He also made up the rather exotic story of joining revolutions overseas. None of that is true. As for the "very special relationship" with Poe's mother-in-law, you can thank Rufus Griswold, Poe's enemy, for creating that debauched lie. I have to admit, however, that many Poe biographers have offered their definitive theory on Poe's death; few of them match up to the others. Baudelaire's has no more (nor less) credibility than the others. Did you mean to suggest any of this information be incorporated in this Wikipedia article? I see nothing worth the effort in your post. Cheers, --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Writer, author, other qualifier?
Feel free to discuss the best way to describe Poe in that opening sentence. I personally prefer simply "author" or "writer". "Short story" writer is far too specific and, to be pedantic, strictly inaccurate. I don't see any reason, however, also to add "playwright" or "novelist" as those genres are less identifying. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "American author, poet, editor, and literary critic" is fine with me, especially to note as did David Levy that Poe's "short story" work comes up in the next sentence. Paine 03:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Midnightdreary, how is "short story writer" far too specific? It's no more specific than poet, playwright, or novelist are when used to described someone who writes poems, plays, or novels. Those are examples; I'm not suggesting we describe Poe as a novelist or playwright (he's not known for writing plays or novels.) I do suggest the description be: "short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic." Also, how is short story writer inaccurate? As I've already mentioned, the tales Poe wrote are a specific type, or subset, of the short story genre. Also, I’m not suggesting Poe be described as only a short story writer, but described, as I’ve said: "short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic." JoePeschel (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To directly answer the question you addressed to me: As I said above, I would not recommend adding "playwright" or "novelist". --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I would not recommend adding "playwright" or "novelist, " either. As I wrote above: “I'm not suggesting we describe Poe as a novelist or playwright (he's not known for writing plays or novels.) I do suggest the description be: ‘short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic.’”JoePeschel (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Short story writer" is overly specific. Poe certainly wrote short stories, but "short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic" omits other works covered by "author".  In the very next sentence, we note that "Poe was one of the earliest American practitioners of the short story", so this information is conveyed clearly.  —David Levy 18:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Since when is being overly specific a problem? If one objects to “short story writer” as being overly specific, one would have to object to “poet,” “playwright,” and “literary critic” for the same reason as each writes a specific type of work. “Poe was one of the earliest American practitioners of the short story" is merely the logical follow-up to the introduction “…short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic." As for “author” covering other works by Poe—those other works: a play, essays, etc., are not the writing Poe is known for. So, “short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic” is precise because it covers the sort of writing that Poe is known for. JoePeschel (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Being overly specific is problematic when it paints an incomplete picture of something significant.
 * A literary critic isn't necessarily a writer. I've explained why "poet" should be mentioned separately.  As Midnightdreary noted, no one has suggested that "playwright" be added.  —David Levy 01:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * David, just when is a literary critic not a writer? Even when a literary critic does a broadcast, that critic is reading his own script. If that script was ghostwritten or otherwise written by someone else, then the reader is not the actual critic. What is incomplete about writing “Poe... was an American short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic..." JoePeschel (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * David, just when is a literary critic not a writer?
 * Example
 * What is incomplete about writing “Poe... was an American short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic..."
 * Please see WP:HEAR. —David Levy 05:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Odd, that you think this little example of an instructor berating a student telling his pupil "you are not a writer, you are a literary critic" is an example of a critic not being a writer. It's clear that the instructor is technically wrong, but the student got the point that he should writing criticism not fiction.JoePeschel (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Barbara Dixson is female. Secondly, the phrase that you quoted doesn't appear in the book.  Thirdly, I'm providing an example of a profession (professor) in which a literary critic isn't necessarily a writer (in the relevant sense).  Obviously, Dixson is a writer.  —David Levy 14:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You’re right, no one including me has suggested that “playwright” be added. The example I used concerning “playwright” was to illustrate a point. That point is: if we call a writer of plays a “playwright (as we correctly do in other articles) then we should call a writer of short stories a “short story writer.” As for your contention that poet should be mentioned separately—I don’t follow your reasoning at all. You contend that “author” includes short story writer and any anything else that Poe wrote. So, why should be include “poet” if author already includes an author who write poems? We include “poet” because it is specific, just as “literary critic” and “short story writer” are specific, and, for example, just as “playwright,” “novelist,” “memoirist,” and “biographer” are specific and used correctly in other articles.JoePeschel (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, I previously explained why I believe that we should include "poet" (despite the fact that it refers to an author of poetry). Was that reply "so unpersuasive that [it] might as well not have existed"?  —David Levy 05:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * David, do you mean this bit: “The contextually applicable definition is "the writer of a literary work" (source: Merriam-Webster). This includes poetry, but "poet" is much more common in this context (to the extent that its omission would be misleading.) Apparently, for some odd reason, you think the word poet is more a common descriptor of poetry than “short story writer” is as a descriptor of one of who writes short stories. The term short story writer has been around 100 years, going back at least to first “Best American Short Story” collection. So yes, it was “so unpersuasive that [it] might as well not have existed”—how well you put that.JoePeschel (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Apparently, for some odd reason, you think the word poet is more a common descriptor of poetry than “short story writer” is as a descriptor of one of who writes short stories.
 * My point is unrelated to the frequency with which writers of short stories are described as "short story writers". It pertains to the infrequency with which writers of poetry are not described as "poets".  Someone reading that Poe was an "author, editor, and literary critic" might assume that he didn't write poetry, despite the fact that "author" allows for the possibility.  (To be clear, I'm aware that you don't advocate removing "poet".)  Conversely, someone reading that Poe was an "author, poet, editor, and literary critic" is unlikely to assume that he didn't write short stories (because writers of various types of stories are commonly described as "authors").  —David Levy 14:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I moved the message below from, which I received at my personal talk page, to this section, as I believe it is better addressed here, where all interested parties can discuss it. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 14:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

On the precise description of Poe and Others
I've seen no persuasive reasons (or any at all) why my corrections to the Poe article should have been reverted to something imprecise.

As I’ve stated previously, the terms “writer” and “author” are each ambiguous. They are general terms, nonspecific, and hence imprecise. Note: the Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) definition of writer:

1.a. A person who can write; one who practises or performs writing; occasionally, one who writes in a specified manner

and the OED’s definition of author is even broader:

1. The person who originates or gives existence to anything

It’s easy to see that “writer” is more a specific description than “author,” since an “author” could be the originator of a law or an even idea, while a “writer originates something in writing.

Now, we call a “writer” or “author” who writes poems a poet, as we do Poe. We call a “writer” or “author” who writes literary criticism a critic, as we do Poe. We call a “writer” or “author” who writes plays a playwright. We call a “writer” or “author” who writes essays an essayist. We call a “writer” or “author” who writes novels a novelist. Likewise, it only make sense that, for the sake of precision, we call a “writer” or “author” who writes short stories a short story writer.

Further, the short stories Poe wrote are often referred to as tales; and tales, like fables and parables are each a different type, or subset, if you will, of short story. JoePeschel (talk) 02:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I see little point in discussing the matter with someone who intends to ignore others' arguments and cherry-pick definitions that suit his. —David Levy 16:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * David, I didn’t ignore anyone’s comments, as those comments didn’t exist when I originally posted mine. As for cherry picking—I used the first definitions in the OED. JoePeschel (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn’t ignore anyone’s comments, as those comments didn’t exist when I originally posted mine.
 * I'm referring to the edit summaries. You needn't agree with the multiple users who've reverted your edit, but I'm baffled as to why you've claimed to have seen no reason at all.
 * As for cherry picking—I used the first definitions in the OED.
 * Multiple definitions exist, with context establishing the relevant usage. Someone reading the lead is unlikely to interpret "author" as "the person who originates or gives existence to anything", which simply would't make sense.  The contextually applicable definition is "the writer of a literary work" (source: Merriam-Webster).  This includes poetry, but "poet" is much more common in this context (to the extent that its omission would be misleading).  —David Levy 18:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know I need not agree with other users and I did not. The reason: they gave no compelling reason to concur.JoePeschel (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe the point is that the fact that you disagreed with another editor and did not find their reason compelling to concur requires only one revert, after which discussion here on the talk page should ensue rather than to edit war. Your arguments might have gone farther had you brought them here rather than to battle with others over such a thing! Paine  22:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Paine, I changed the original article to read “short story writer” instead of “author” because it was more specific. Even others here on this Talk page have said “short story writer” is more “specific” than “author.” Midnightdreary reverted my edit because, he says, "author" is more appropriate -- in addition to tales, he also wrote a novel, a play, etc.” So what? Poe is not best known as a playwright or a novelist. Whether the disagreement was settled on the Poe page or on the Talk page is a moot issue. Here we are and nothing is settled.JoePeschel (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No, nothing is settled. Why?  Maybe the issue can be settled to everyone's satisfaction; however, you have not helped to move this process along by edit warring.  It is why you have received all this resistance.  I still think "author" is better as an opener; and then, as the next sentence does, go into more detail such as "what kind of author?" – ah, an "author of short-stories".  So another reason you get so much resistance is that there are several editors who don't see the need for such a specific description in the opener.  If you disagree with that, then you have a "dispute".  Please see WP:DISPUTE. Paine  11:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Paine, When another editor reverted my correction of “author” to “short story writer,” that editor caused what you call a “war.” Every term but “author” in that introductory sentence is specific. Why include a descriptor as general as “author” in a sentence that includes that the very words “poet,” “editor” and “literary critics”? The generalized term simply does not go with the specific terms in the rest of the sentence. I did not suggest “writer of short stories”; I suggested “short story writer”—it’s one word shorter. JoePeschel (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You stated that you'd seen no reasons at all (apparently in an attempt to justify your edit warring). Opining that a reason is unpersuasive is not the same as denying its very existence.  —David Levy 01:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * David, the reasons were so unpersuasive that they might as well not have existed.JoePeschel (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:DISRUPTSIGNS (particularly 4b). —David Levy 05:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I agree that “writer of a literary work” is the meaning of “author” in this context. But the term “author” is very broad and all sorts of people can legitimately be called “authors.” I’d hate to include Poe in that same group of folks, like Rosie O'Donnell, who are called “authors.”If we are going to say “poet,” “playwright,” and “literary critic,” we need to include “short story writer,” which Poe is arguably best known as.JoePeschel (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have yet to see anyone suggest he be listed as "playwright". Why keep mentioning it? Look, "short story writer" is inaccurate because it makes it appear we are ignorant of his play, novels, essays, sketches, and other prose writings not considered a "tale". On the other hand, neither "writer" nor "author" is not inaccurate. For further information on his authorship and/or writings, there's a whole article beneath that one sentence. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I’m sorry my example of “playwright” confused you. I gave “playwright” only as an example of what we call one who writes that specific form called a play. We call poet someone who writes that specific form called a poem. We call “literary critic” someone who writes that specific form called literary criticism. So, “short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic” is the most accurate description.JoePeschel (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * An incidental point: It is hard for any one person to generalize "what Poe is known for". Perhaps in our individual experiences, he is known best as a short story writer, but I have interacted professionally with scholars from other countries who know Poe first and foremost for his novel. I add that just for further criticism of the reasoning presented here for "short story writer" as the best and sole acceptable descriptor. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It’s not particularly difficult determine what Poe is known for. I think we can all agree that he is known for his short stories, poems, and literary criticism. I’ve never encountered any right-headed literary scholar who recognizes Poe “first and foremost for his novel.” Who would that be? As for short story writer being “the best and sole acceptable descriptor”-I’ve never said that. I’ve said he should be described as “short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic”; if you wanted to add novelist, that’s fine.JoePeschel (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I'm not sure Joe Peschel understands the level of discussion, debate, and consensus that is required for an article to reach featured status. The wording of this article's lead is the result of a very long process that accounted for every one of your concerns, such as they are. As another editor pointed out above, you should read WP:HEAR. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 14:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Kevin, You should follow your own advice and read WP:HEAR. I’ve no idea how the Poe article reached the status you ascribe to it. The article’s lead, “…Poe…was an American author, poet, editor, and “literary critic…” is flawed. It should read, “…Poe…was an American short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic…” The phrase “short story writer” is precisely accurate, as precise and accurate as “poet” and “literary critic”; the phrase fits with the other descriptive elements of the lead sentence. Now, a few other contributors here contend that “short story writer” is “far too specific,” which seems incredibly odd, since those other “editors” don’t see a problem with the other accurate descriptors: “poet” and “literary critic.” To reiterate: “short story writer” is no more “too specific than “poet” and “literary critic.” It seems the other editors want to use “author” as a catch-all phrase that includes everything Poe ever wrote. But if we use “author” as such a catch-all phrase, then we would not need to write: “poet, editor, and literary critic,” since “author” includes “poet,” “editor,” and “literary critic,” and would be redundant. The idea of removing “poet, editor, and literary critic,” though, seems intuitively wrong-headed. Instead, we should eliminate “author” and replace it with “short story writer”; thus, again, “…Poe…was an American short story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic….” My guess is that the resistance to the proper replacing of “author” with “short story writer,” is the result of some need to maintain a poorly reasoned status quo. JoePeschel (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Evidently, WP:HEAR didn't do the trick, so please see WP:THETRUTH. —David Levy 18:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent, idea, David! I agree Kevin should do that.JoePeschel (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To move right along: Consensus thus far has indicated that "short story writer" is not a good usage for this article. I'm not sure why one editor absolutely refuses to acknowledge this. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Midnightdreary, I’m not sure why you and David Levy, Hallward's Ghost, Paine absolutely insist on ignoring my explanations for using “short story writer” as the correct replacement for the absurdly broad catch-all phrase “author.” There are plenty of similar bios that correctly use “short story writer” as a descriptor. So, I’ve moved this argument on to a resolution page.JoePeschel (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It's become difficult to continue assuming good faith on your part. I can't help but wonder whether you're purposely engaging in the behavior proscribed on the project pages linked above.  —David Levy 00:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If it is your choice to continue the process of dispute resolution, then that is of course one option. You are learning what I learned in one of my first major discussions about a change I wanted to make to an article.  You are learning about consensus and how it is the heart of Wikipedia editing.  If you want to change something that turns out to be controversial, then you must first garner a consensus among the community of contributors.  It is consensus and only consensus that either maintains status quo or makes changes to improve this encyclopedia.  Thus far, you have not garnered a consensus to alter this article's lead. Paine  01:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I admit that I came here from the DRN because it caught my eye. I expected that the "overwhelming consensus" would be just that.  Maybe I am getting the wrong end of the stick, but I would have to agree with JoePeschel that, in context, "short story writer" would be a better term than "author".  I believe that most articles on authors either refer to their subject as "author" or give a list of the genres of literature in which they are most noted (as is done here).  I'd have thought "poet" should come first, then the rest of the list.  Of course Poe is an "author", but to use the term in the context of this list is tautology. Deb (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Deb, quite a to-do over a one-word replacement, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edgar_Allan_Poe&diff=685268128&oldid=684639271

It seems other editors want to include a catch-all phrase like “author” or “writer” to cover every thing mentioned in this bio that Poe ever wrote. But it’s unnecessary to use such a general, all-inclusive descriptor in the first sentence, and such a descriptor doesn’t fit in with the specific “poet” or “literary critic.” To “author” followed by “poet” and “literary critic” is redundant. Better stick with the specific and write: “American sort story writer, poet, editor, and literary critic” “novelist could be added too. If that sentence seems too long, break it up thusly:

"Poe was an American short story writer, poet, editor, [novelist,] and literary critic. He is widely regarded as a central figure of Romanticism in the United States and American literature as a whole. (I'm not particular about the order of these precise descriptors.)

Anything else Poe wrote could be introduced much later in the bio—something like Poe also wrote This, That, and Other.

Other Wikipedia bios appropriate omit the “author” catch-all and they lose nothing for that. Moreover, other encyclopedias see no need to use a catch-all phrase in the ledes of their Poe biographies. JoePeschel (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Other featured articles on authors that actually use the term "author" or "writer" who worked in multiple genres: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., Nathaniel Parker Willis, Stephen Crane, Maya Angelou, Samuel Johnson, etc. I'm afraid there is no obvious majority. I also disagree extremely that "poet" would come first for Poe. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I recognise that there are examples of this tautology, but Stephen Crane and Samuel Johnson are both inappropriate examples as they conform to the norm, ie. neither of them couples the word "author" in the same clause with more specific terms. I can also well see that there might be disagreement as to which of Poe's preferred genres might come first.  But I can't see what the argument is for not including "short story writer" and "novelist" in the opening list in preference to "author".  Articles don't become set in stone just because they have been GAs or FAs. Deb (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Other encyclopedias also see no need to use the word author in their bio of Poe:

Encyclopedia Britannica

"Edgar Allan Poe, (born January 19, 1809, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.—died October 7, 1849, Baltimore, Maryland), American short-story writer, poet, critic, and editor who is famous for his cultivation of mystery and the macabre. His tale ‘The Murders in the Rue Morgue’ (1841) initiated the modern detective story, and the atmosphere in his tales of horror is unrivaled in American fiction. His ‘The Raven’ (1845) numbers among the best-known poems in the national literature."

http://www.britannica.com/biography/Edgar-Allan-Poe

'''Encyclopedia of World Biography 2004 ''' "Edgar Allan Poe was best known to his own generation as an editor and critic; his poems and short stories commanded only a small audience. But to some extent in his poems, and to an impressive degree in his tales, he pioneered in opening up areas of human experience for artistic treatment at which his contemporaries only hinted. His vision asserts that reality for the human being is essentially subterranean, contradictory to surface reality, and profoundly irrational in character. Two generations later he was hailed by the symbolist movement as the prophet of the modern sensibility."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Edgar_Allan_Poe.aspx

The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed.2015

"Edgar Allan Poe, 1809–49, American poet, short-story writer, and critic, b. Boston. He is acknowledged today as one of the most brilliant and original writers in American literature. His skillfully wrought tales and poems convey with passionate intensity the mysterious, dreamlike, and often macabre forces that pervaded his sensibility. He is also considered the father of the modern detective story."

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Edgar_Allan_Poe.aspx#4

World Encyclopedia 2005

“Poe, Edgar Allan (1809–49) US poet and short-story writer. Much of his finest poetry, such as ‘The Raven’ (1845), deals with fear and horror in the tradition of the Gothic novel. Other works include the poem ‘Annabel Lee’ (1849), and the stories ‘The Fall of the House of Usher’ (1839), ‘The Murders in the Rue Morgue’ (1841), and ‘The Pit and the Pendulum’ (1843).”

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Edgar_Allan_Poe.aspx#5

New World Encyclopedia

“Edgar Allan Poe (January 19, 1809 – October 7, 1849) was an American poet, short-story writer, editor and literary critic, and is considered part of the American Romantic Movement. Best known for his tales of mystery and the macabre, Poe was one of the earliest American practitioners of the short story. He is considered the inventor of the detective fiction genre as well as contributing to the emerging genre of science fiction.”

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Edgar_Allan_PoeJoePeschel (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't recall suggesting this article was set in stone and apologize if I implied it. I was merely pointing out recognized, high quality articles that I felt did not conform to the standard you mentioned. I do think we need representative terms here, but none of us (so far as I know) believe Poe should be qualified as a novelist or playwright in the opening line. Can we take that off the table, at least? Also, should we be on the dispute page for this discussion at this point? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Really, Midnightdreary? not set in stone. You certainly acted liked it was…till now. Yeah, we can omit "novelist" and "playwright" in the lede.JoePeschel (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't really think we should be on the dispute page. I would agree with some of the comments above that it's not really the right place for resolving this kind of issue and I'm not involved in any case.  But I do think we need wider participation in the discussion if the dispute - if that's what it is - is to be amicably resolved.  I'll put a note on the dispute page to that effect if it helps. Deb (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: What would people say to an opening sentence similar to the one in the Samuel Johnson article, eg. "author who made lasting contributions to American literature as a poet, short story writer, novelist, editor and literary critic" ? Deb (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a counter suggestion: "Edgar Allan Poe was an American writer who particularly wrote short stories, poetry, and literary criticism." I know it is still not all-inclusive and it risks the tautology mentioned above but it may, perhaps, alleviate one editor's concerns while still satisfying those of others. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with that structural change with slight alteration: "Edgar Allan Poe was an American author who wrote poems, short stories and literary criticisms."  I think that's almost what the lead sentence in its present form tries to convey; however, this change gives it much more clarity. Painius  15:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There’s really no need to include “author.” As I’ve said, the lede does not need a catch-all phrase to cover everything this article will go on to say Poe wrote. I’ve given examples of Poe bios from other encyclopedias. As for: "Edgar Allan Poe was an American author [or writer] who wrote poems, short stories and literary criticisms"—the sentence is unnecessarily wordy, probably because of a desire to hang onto “author” or “writer.” "Edgar Allan Poe was an American poet, short story and literary critic” seems fine.JoePeschel (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Overall, the Poe article is not badly written; it could use some editing: tightening and general clean-up. I’m only interested improving the article.JoePeschel (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, at least you agree it's "not badly written." Since it has reached featured status, I assumed that was a given, but I guess not. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think, to be sure of that, you'd have to check what changes have been made since it obtained feature status. All wikipedia articles are subject to change and can deteriorate as well as improving if no one is keeping an eye out (although obviously, in this case, lots of people are).Deb (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggested wording
[references omitted for clean talk page formatting] —David Levy 19:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I much prefer Levy's version. And with that, I take my leave from this "discussion" that is starting to seem like a bridge to nowhere. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

--JoePeschel (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your preference has been conveyed quite clearly. I've proposed a compromise, indented to avoid commingling the catch-all "author" and the specific "poet" by shifting the latter (in the form of "poetry") to the following sentence, paired with your desired mention of short stories.  —David Levy 20:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The DRN and consensus
The "moderator" at the DRN has no experience editing this article, and is of little value in contributing to this discussion. That noticeboard actually seems quite pointless, and of little use other than trying to stir up a bit of trouble. The discussion here has led to a local consensus, which should be (and is) binding regarding the wording of this article's lede. I have seen one editor agitating for his preferred wording, while other editors have (mostly) patiently explained why that wording is not best. At some point, such discussions end, and local consensus holds. I contend that point has arrived. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 06:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is important to use the correct jargon: the term local consensus refers to something bad because it refers to a situation where, for example, some fans of a topic agree among themselves to add external links throughout an article whereas in fact a local consensus cannot override established procedures. There is no need to prolong the agony—all that is required is to respond to new points raised on this talk page, or to revert any edits for which there is no consensus here. People are welcome to invite (in a manner consistent with WP:CANVASS) others to participate in order to test whether the consensus evident on this page is merely local. Johnuniq (talk) 08:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that "local consensus" had any bad connotations. I apologize. My meaning was simply that consensus amongst people who actually know what's going on in this situation (read: not the DRN "moderator") is fairly clear. I am only a Poe dilettante, but at least one of the regular editors of this page seems to be something of a scholar in the field. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 16:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hope everyone is now happy with the compromise. Deb (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because Peschel didn't actually use the version Levy put together up above, that he claimed in his edit summary to be using. I have modified his change to reflect what he CLAIMED in his edit summary to be inserting. It's becoming harder and harder to assume good faith when Peschel does something like this, after agitating against consensus for days and days. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 20:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Joe requested that modification in the DRN discussion (and indicated that this would resolve the dispute). Painius and I agreed (and no one objected).  —David Levy 20:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need to "resolve the dispute" by agreeing to what someone insists on. Imagine how that would work out on articles which are really contentious—one or two obsessive contributors cannot block consensus. However, the fact that a high level of cluelessness has been demonstrated is not relevant for what wording should be used in the article, and what happens on this page in the next few days will determine the agreed wording. It is likely that the current "writer, editor and literary critic" will be accepted as several editors followed the DRN discussion, however for the future please bear in mind that discussions on another page like WP:DRN have no weight other than to serve as an indication for what will be agreed here. Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No argument from me. I reverted to "writer" strictly because its replacement with "author" stemmed from a misunderstanding.  I'm not suggesting that such wording (or the rest of the lead, or any part of the article) is off-limits to normal editing.  As always, the content's inclusion remains subject to consensus.  —David Levy 23:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So now we're having "discussions" where "moderators" accuse people of "personal attacks" (where none existed) on a talkpage other than the one designed for discussions of article content? If we're really conducting our discussions about article content in such a way, then you guys do your thing. I won't be participating further at this article, as decisions about such things should be made here, not at some pointless, navel-gazing noticeboard. Wow. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 22:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. But from a pragmatic standpoint, I didn't consider the inclusion of "author" important enough to prolong that unpleasant experience.  If it's important to you, feel free to revert to it on that basis.  I undid your edit strictly because it stemmed from a misunderstanding, not because I believe that "writer" is locked in and mustn't be changed.  —David Levy 23:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's ludicrous that we've let another editor simply bully his way through what was already a consensus-based wording, simply because he didn't like it. That's no way to go about editing an encyclopedia. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 03:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have serious concerns about DRN, where the volunteer who ultimately handled the case described it as "one of the less-than-common successes for this noticeboard" on the talk page. (They seldom go this well, apparently.)  I noticed that the process was nominated for shutdown in March 2013, with three of four criticisms (all of which were supposed to be addressed) describing its current problems with uncanny accuracy.  —David Levy 05:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps part of the problem, as noted by several editors, is that DRN is not the correct venue for the type of dispute opened there by a fairly new editor. And yet, how is a new editor to know this?  A new editor goes to WP:DR and quickly makes it down to WP:DR to find that the very first suggested venue is WP:DRN.  In the past IIRC, that section began with WP:3O and DRN was farther down after 3O and RfC.  Looks like someone along the way decided that DRN should be placed first on that list.  Maybe this discussion should be on the DR talk page(?), because it appears that we do new users an injustice by placing DRN at the top of the list for resolving talk page disputes. Pleasant pathways, Painius  05:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think adjusting the order of items at WP:DR would help much. WP:3O is only useful when there are only two editors in a disagreement, and properly setting up an RfC is too tricky for a new user. and we should not encourage an RfC for every quibble. The actual problem is that the people monitoring DRN are pretty clueless (in fact, that's why they're monitoring DRN). I've seen several cases where someone has got in a dispute where it is screamingly obvious they are going the wrong way, yet they have been welcomed at DRN and others invited to repeat the obvious, in detail. Of course a minority view may be correct, so some time should be given to check each case. However, the DRN people seem unaware of the fact that exhaustively proving that an obviously mistaken reporter is in fact mistaken has a detrimental effect on other good editors who are not here for a debating class. Please don't waste any further time on this by commenting about DRN or at DRN because nothing would be achieved. We can't solve all problems. Everyone should just focus on the article wording—if you're happy with it, fine. Otherwise, change it, and forget about DRN. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is probably some of the best advice ever given on WP, Johnuniq; however, it's too late . I've already brought this up at WT:Dispute resolution noticeboard.  Do you really think RfC is too tricky?  My first RfC went pretty smoothly, and I truly think that if this fairly new editor had opened an RfC here on this page, they would have been quite astounded by the sheer number of objectors; I could be wrong. Pleasant pathways, Painius  06:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good luck, maybe my doom-and-gloom will be shown to be wrong! Re an RfC: the main problem is that we would drown in RfCs (and people would give up checking them) if one were opened for every disagreement. Often a new user will word an RfC incorrectly by putting their case in the question or otherwise slanting the issue: that's what I meant about a properly set up RfC. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! and I've seen experienced editors, even admins, begin RfCs and RMs with very non-neutral statements. Pleasant pathways, <b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Painius</b> 07:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to witness this display of sour grapes. You could have had a proper discussion here, and that was what I would have recommended Joe to do, rather than going to DRN.  Nevertheless, you eventually had a constructive discussion in a more open forum where a compromise was ultimately reached.  The wording of the introductory paragraph now is better than it was, partly because some contributors have been prepared to see both points of view instead of sticking to the position that "there are more of us than there are of you, so get lost" - which was what was being said previously. It's not like there were dozens of people desperately keen to keep the word "author", and it's noticeable that one or two contributors adopted a more open-minded attitude once within the DRN environment, which led to this conclusion. To suggest that one person can "bully" four or five others into submission is laughable. Deb (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We can show differing viewpoints all day long whether or not the DRN discussion was "constructive" or destructive to a lead sentence in a featured article that has been agonized over for a long time. Where we all seem to agree is that DRN was a jump of the gun, and that the initial informal discussion on this talk page should have become an RfC.  One editor who won't back down against four editors is actually somewhat compelling to me, because I've actually been through that a few times.  An RfC for an article like Poe's would have probably produced several more editors and would have resulted in either upholding the status quo or a new consensus.  DRN, in my view, should only be used as a last resort after an unsatisfying RfC has ended.  So who put it at the top of the list at WP:DR?  I was the one who pointed JoePeschel to that policy, but too late I find out that someone has put DRN at the top of the list above even WP:3O!  So it wasn't JoePeschel's fault if that editor went there, read that, and decided to take the content dispute to DRN instead of opening an RfC here on this page.  How can DRN possibly show anyone what the true community consensus is?  That takes an RfC.  As for one person bullying several?  That editor had help going against the FA consensus – help from DRN, which did not bring out the long-term consensus.  It's not designed to do that; it's designed to settle disputes for which consensus cannot be determined. Pleasant patways, <b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Painius</b>  16:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I've explained repeatedly on DRN's talk page, I originally proposed exactly the same wording (which Joe eventually accepted, contingent upon the replacement of "author" with "writer") here. It's in the section directly above this one.  As you can see, Joe ignored it and reiterated his desired wording.  So no, there wasn't "a more open-minded attitude once within the DRN environment, which led to this conclusion".  There was an editor who refused to even discuss alternatives to his preference, found an apparent opportunity to get the answer he wanted, and finally agreed to fall back on a previously rejected compromise when his intended outcome again failed to materialize.  DRN didn't host "a constructive discussion".  It prolonged the dispute, thereby diverting multiple editors' time from improving the encyclopedia to rehashing arguments and struggling to comply with an inexplicably esoteric format that appears to exist for reasons unknown even to its enforcers.  —David Levy 17:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You've certainly been at this longer than I have, David; however, I can see the value in DR as a last resort if there is a close !vote and good rationales on both sides at an RfC. I could be way off base, but it looks as if someone at DR got bored for lack of disputes and raised the level of DRN so that new editors who are involved in the first levels of dispute will choose DRN over RfC.  Until that has been revised in the manner I described on this talk page (and it looks as though that won't happen in the near future), I won't point editors in the direction of WP:DR and in the future will find a better way to advise contributors like JoePeschel. Pleasant pathways, <b style="font-size:85%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">Painius</b>  06:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not condemning DRN's very existence (though I believe that the process is in need of improvement). My point is that this particular case shouldn't have been accepted (and certainly shouldn't be celebrated as a "success" or cited as an example of the forum fostering cooperation).  —David Levy 08:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. It resulted in a compromise in spite of your and another editor's best efforts to prevent it from working.  Congratulations or something.  If you had spent half the time trying to work collaboratively that you spent attacking me and one other editor, the result would probably have been the same but more pleasant.  Congratulations or something.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What on Earth are you talking about? I proposed the compromise.  I did so on this talk page and was ignored by the DRN case's initiator.  Then I proposed it again at DRN, per your request.  Then I agreed to a modification that the case's initiator requested.  When a misunderstanding led to that change's reversal, I explained the situation and reverted from my preferred terminology to that of the case's initiator.
 * After all of that, you allege that I sought to prevent the compromise – the one that I proposed twice – and attacked editors instead of working collaboratively. I'm flabbergasted.  —David Levy 07:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2015
Some information in here is not completly correct,

David090720 (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Are the images reversed?
I am by no stretch of the imagination any kind of an expert on Poe, when I clicked on a link under your image of the Annie Daguerreotype I noted that both images on that link, the ones of the "annie" and "stella" images, are reverse images of those in your article. Someone, I suppose must have made a mistake, either you or whoever did the work on the link. http://www.eapoe.org/papers/misc1921/deas109a.htm

Just trying to help. Please keep up the great work you do! You have become the best source of information I have ever seen, or ever expect to see. Tom G. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.133.159 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 5 January 2016
 * Thanks. I'm not any kind of expert either, but someone will fix any problem or comment here. I'm just clarifying by formatting your comment and noting that clicking the eapoe.org link given above shows the image known as the "Annie Daguerreotype". My guess is that it looks different from what is shown at the top of this article because our image is a cropped version of the full picture—that is, it shows only a part of the picture. Johnuniq (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Daguerreotypes like those of Poe are, by definition, mirror images, unlike modern photography. Sometimes they are displayed as the artifact they are, other times they are edited such that the subject would appear as if you were looking directly at him/her. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistent numbers
Was the circulation of the Southern Literary Messenger increased to 3,500 as this article says, or 5,500 as the linked article says? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.80.112 (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One is cited to a source, the other is not. I would trust the former. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Delete or replace this reference?
The link in a reference called "homepage", presently no. 148, contains no information about Poe. It is a GoDaddy place-holder. If it can't be replaced, it should be deleted IMO, but I'll leave that decision to "the regulars". --Hordaland (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * and thank you! Good catch, Hordaland!  The "poeboston.org" should have been "bostonpoe.org", so I replaced that and used the title at the website.  Keep 'em comin'!  Wikipedian Sign Language  Paine   21:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, the original URL was correct. The web site is just no longer active. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains it – thank you very much, Midnightdreary, hope good times are yours evermore!  Paine   03:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2017
45.59.13.210 (talk) 15:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC) Edgar didn't Talk with Allan....Allan is his middle name

❌ - Allan was his Foster-father - Arjayay (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edgar Allan Poe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071215130930/http://com.miami.edu/parks/philapoeauthor.htm to http://com.miami.edu/parks/philapoeauthor.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edgar Allan Poe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070518202036/http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/allam/17841865/lit/poe.htm to http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/allam/17841865/lit/poe.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

"The Tell-tale Heart" and Luna Shadow's "Cry Wolf"
I am a new member so presumably unable to edit this article myself. I thought the Poe in popular culture section could be expanded. Specifically, to include the song "Cry Wolf" by Luna Shadows, which has the lyrics:

"Your tell-tale heart, baby/ Beating like a drum/ Pounding out your chest now/ Repeating on the one/ Tear the floorboards, baby/ Do it just for fun/ Because you buried it once/ Now you're digging it up/ And going down with the sun"

https://genius.com/Luna-shadows-cry-wolf-lyrics

Which clearly is referencing Poe's short story "The Tell-Tale Heart."

I would also like to look for other allusions to Poe in popular culture, including those of Alexis Kennedy, creator of Fallen London, and lead designer on Sunless Sea and Cultist Simulator--for example.

Thanks for any and all responses/contributions!

-SoundingSea — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoundingSea (talk • contribs) 04:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * That might be better suited to The Tell-Tale Heart than this article, but I question whether it's noteworthy. Have independent secondary sources discussed it? If not, it's essentially trivia. Also, be careful about linking to lyrics sites, which may involve copyright violations. Rivertorch   <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   16:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Leaving UVA, leaving Richmond; Royster and Shelton
Will someone more knowledgeable clarify the existing sentence: "Poe gave up on the university after a year, not feeling welcome in Richmond, especially when he learned that his sweetheart Royster had married Alexander Shelton." Reason: UVA was not in Richmond. Poe learned about Rosyter after leaving Charlottesville and returning to Richmond. The sentence is confusing. Gerntrash (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding this! I went in and made a clarification, per your request. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Midnightdreary! Gerntrash (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikiprojects
Would it be an idea if the space heading notes here listed the WikiProjects that this article might be of interest to? Vorbee (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2018
Cavan” to “County Cavan”, as well as adding a link to “Ireland”. In the categories section, after “Category:American people of English descent”, please add “Category:American people of Irish descent”. Thank you. 213.205.251.242 (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I'm unsure if Ireland should be wikilinked. Feel free to explain why you think it should. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  16:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2018
In the “Early life” section, please change the link “David Poe, Jr.” to “David Poe Jr.”, without a comma. 213.205.251.198 (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ per MOS:JR.  JTP (talk • contribs) 15:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2018
Please change

into

. Thanks. 2001:569:78C9:1B00:CC0D:30DA:24B4:7DB (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There is no article called other uses of the name and to change it to this would be confusing. The standard name of disambiguation articles that list other uses of "X" name is "X (disambiguation)", as is already the case here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. My sense of it is that the dab links are already as complicated as they need to be, if not more so. Feel free to make the case for how this change would improve navigation for readers, but there's no need to make a formal edit request; the change won't be made without consensus. Note: you changed the original wording of your request when you reopened this request at 17:05 on 8 April 2017. Please don't do that—it's confusing to anyone who happens along afterwards because it makes it looks as if the editor who responded replied to the new request, not the old. Instead, if you want to reopen a formal edit request, either write the new request at the bottom of the thread or just open a new request. I have copied the text of the original request below, for the record:

Please change

into

. Thanks.


 * Again, there's no need to reopen this request, but discussion can continue. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  18:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Daguerrotypes
The captions read: ‘1848 "Ultima Thule" daguerreotype of Poe’ and ‘1849 "Annie" daguerreotype of Poe’. What is meant by these two classes of photograph? Valetude (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See this page, linked from the "Annie" daguerreotype file page. I'm not sure it's helpful to have this information in the captions, since no context is provided. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  02:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for this, Rivertorch. I think the caption in the infobox can't really be lengthened without upsetting the style. So I've taken the liberty of inserting a short section on the daguerreotypes into the article, and trust I haven't offended the wiki rules about Featured Articles. Most interesting to read about what must have been some of the earliest photographs of any American writer. Valetude (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I took the liberty of making several tweaks. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  15:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree "photographs" needs its own subsection, especially as there are other images of Poe and highlighting just those two seems to be cherry-picking. I think info on the image's page would be much better. And they are hardly broadly notable; plenty of folks were being photographed in this period as well. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure it needs its own subsection either, but the problem is that the "Ultima Thule" and "Annie" designations in the captions had no explanation or context and were therefore meaningless. We probably shouldn't expect readers to click through to the one of the two images that happened to have an explanatory external link, and then follow that link. If this article doesn't say something about the meaning of "Ultima Thule" and "Annie", then it shouldn't mention them at all. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  22:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point. So, would a more sensible solution be simply editing the captions to remove that esoteric trivia? --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. I wouldn't object if you did that, but I have to say I found that esoteric trivia rather interesting! <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b>  FIREWATER  21:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)