Talk:Philip Larkin/Archive 4

From January 2009 to October 2009

Citations for section on activities as Librarian
Currently this section is one long, single-sourced paragraph. I now have a copy of the second edition of Larkin's own account of Hull Library. Since his account stops at 1979, this second edition includes an account by Maeve Brennan of the Library from 1979-1985, ie covering the rest of Larkin's time as Librarian. My intention is to shorten the existing paragraph, to make it more of an overview, and to expand the details in, say, two or three subsequent paragraphs. I'm thinking that the best way of referencing this book in the inline citations would be Larkin/Brennan 1987, p.xx Do people agree? As you can see, I have added this edition to the Works section. As a matter of interest the proportion of Larkin/Brennan is 25pp to 9pp  almost - instinct 15:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A while ago I requested help from some WP Librarians on this section, and no one's commented on it. Could I get an opinion, any opinion, on which direction this section needs to go? Thanks  almost - instinct 12:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference to computerising the library's stock is, I think, a little misleading. He was presumably implementing a computerised catalogue, rather than digitising the holdings. Can this be made clear? Macphysto (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed info
(Its address was 32 Pearson Park, and the three-storey red-brick house had at one time been the American Consulate. ) I removed the above from the biog section as there doesn't seem to be any relevence to the information  almost - instinct 18:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is quite interesting, actually! Macphysto (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that it is worth a mention in the article. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Two to one, fair enough. I'll put it in, but hopefully a bit less clumsily  almost - instinct 11:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

B-class??
How is it that this article has not achieved a more favourable rating yet? IMHO it is better than some FAs. Macphysto (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To achieve GA status it should be formally nominated and reviewed. Anyone can nominate an article for GA. Newer FAs undergo a lot of examination. Snowman (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not nominate it for GA status as a first off step as it looks like it meets the criteria. Go to Good article nominations to nominate it. Keith D (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Before this article is put up for examination, something needs to be done about the section "Poetic style", which is still a bit of a joke (excepting the marvellous juxtaposition of the quote from "Going, going" and the photo of the Coventry ring road) Unfortunately I'm not remotely qualified to write anything on this topic, and don't have any sources that have much useful to say.  almost - instinct 12:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note it is a photograph of the inner ring road. Snowman (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: the article was nominated for GA by user Macphysto on 7 April 2009. See banner at top of this talk page. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Since some reviewer is bound to point this out, let's get it done now: when I moved the Bibliography over to templates I left two undone in the "Dramatised interpretations" section as I wasn't at all sure how it ought to be done. The whole of the template is at Template:Citation if someone wants to have a go  almost - instinct 15:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Poetic style
I am proposing to improve this section significantly in the next week or so. Macphysto (talk) 23:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the best news I've heard in ages. While you're at it could you cast an eye over the new paragraph that's appeared at the bottom of the Critical Opinion section, and see if there's anything that could be added to it? The IP who contributed made the reasonable point that dissenting voices weren't well represented. Given that there is such a large Critical Opinion section, IMO the Poetic Style section should be as free of opinion as possible.  almost - instinct 08:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made a start on this. It's impossible to talk about style in a completely neutral way, but I'm certainly keeping my own opinions out of it! Macphysto (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This is great stuff. Will you, in due course, be doing anything about the technical side?  almost - instinct 12:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - put this in the wrong place previously. What exactly do you have in mind? Macphysto (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * For example, a couple of paragraphs developing ideas about the "highly-structured but flexible verse forms" you've already mentioned. His use of form, metre, rhyme, enjambethingy &c. On a different note, if anyone has had anything useful to say about those more transcendent final stanzas ("Now night comes on. Waves fold behind villages", "Rather than words...", "I listen to money singing...") that, too, would be most useful.  almost - instinct 15:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any good published material in this area, and obviously I want to avoid incorporating anything sane but citation-free, as that would take us into the dreaded territory of Original Research. Macphysto (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Fay Godwin's photo of Larkin
It's hard to know what more can be said about this image. However, I found this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/may/07/photography.art If I could be sure which year the displayed photo was taken, it would be possible to add Larkin's comment on it, although that might strike some as a bit trivial. Any thoughts? Macphysto (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Kateshortforbob, did you mean that the caption should mention place & date & reason for photo being taken? As far as I'm aware the photo seems to have taken on the role of the standard image of Larkin, you see it everywhere. Well, not on bus-shelters, but you know what I mean  almost - instinct 09:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My thought about expanding the caption really came from looking at some other good articles; I had wondered if it would be possible to find out where the photo was taken, but I had a look around Fay Godwin's website and a few other places with no success. I was thinking about it further last night, and I don't think it's a major issue - as you say, almost-instinct, the photo seems fairly ubiquitous. That Guardian article is pretty funny, though, Macphysto. I had come across the Times version (which is much less detailed) and enjoyed reading it.


 * I am intending to complete the remaining sections of the review today. I have some notes which I will put on this review page for discussion; however, there are also a number of smaller issues (possible wikilinks, tweaks to sentence structure etc.). I was wondering if you would prefer me to list them on this page also, or edit the article directly (to which further alterations/revisions can be made)? -- Kateshort forbob  10:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If they're not straightforward corrections/links that you don't want simply to do yourself, feel free just to list them and whichever one of us is appropriate will sort it out pretty quickly. It's probable that funny-looking sentences should come here first - chances are that I'll have been trying to imply sometime and failing - I'm certainly going to be around a fair amount the next few days. I'm pretty sure that the Godwin photo was taken in Hull University Library, but can't remember the specific occasion. I think it's mention in the Motion biog, but I no longer have that to hand. Maybe Macphysto does?  almost - instinct 11:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the photos in the Motion & Bradford biographies, with no success, and some of the plates in the copy I have of Larkin at Sixty seem to have been torn out (!). It's likely mentioned in one of them, I just can't find it! I suspect you're right about Hull, but I'm not too worried about it: it's no big deal. -- Kateshort forbob  11:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If I had it, I would look up Fay Godwin in the index of the volume of Larkin's collected letters  almost - instinct 13:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, I hadn't thought about that. I've just had a look for it (knew that subscription to LibraryThing would pay off!) Sadly nothing definitive, although it may be one of a set he described as making him look like "the Boston Strangler" - or maybe not.... -- Kateshort forbob  14:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, my caption for the infobox image should have more specific details, and I will be delighted if relevant information is found. However, it may not be critical for the GA review. Snowman (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Snowman that this is not critical at this point in time. Macphysto (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Other photographs
There is a colour photograph here. I think that the Fay Godwin photograph is difficult to trace and there is a series of correspondence between Godwin and PL listed here. One appeared in The Times on 9 August 1982. Snowman (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

An absence I regret
When writing the biog sections I really should have included the information that during the 70s (IIRC) Larkin joined some social groups with a business rather than academic orientation. This may (or may not) have some relevence. Could someone with Motion or Bradford to hand (I forget which is the better source for this) look this up and add a line? If the dates work, I would have thought putting it straight after the Gunner correspondence in the 3rd section of the biog would be the best place for: all part of the same general drift, I think. I also wish that I had included Larkin's comments about what he found and didn't find when researching the Oxford Book of 20-C Eng Verse. The failure to find great seams of unheralded poetry was another early-70s disappointment ("The view is fine from fifty, experienced climbers say, so overweight and shifty, I turn to face the way that led me to this day...") Where such a quote should be placed would need some thought.  almost - instinct 11:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Business"? He was a member of the MCC of the RSPCA, but that hardly counts. What sort of thing are you referring to? Macphysto (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added some info about the Oxford Book. Macphysto (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In Hull he joined something like the Rotarians, or some other shrine to the poetic muse. I can't remember where I read this. In Bradford? Great bit on the Oxford book. Pithily put.  almost - instinct 15:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find a reference to this. It can be added later if found, but surely is not germane to the present task of getting the article up to GA standards? Macphysto (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Diaries
Were they "personal diaries" that were burnt? Can something about the nature of the diaries be added in the main body of the text where it appears in the detailed part of the article? Can the significance of this be explained more and how it affects what we know about PL now? Snowman (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just added a bit about the diary burning in the introduction. Is that ok? Snowman (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems fine to me. Macphysto (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be unusual to have a five paragraph introduction on the wiki. I have moved the expanded section on diaries to the relevant section - it would need a ref. Apart from that, and perhaps a few other minor points to tidy up, I think it is approaching GA, so I would like to see if the reviewer has any points that he or she needs clarifying or improving. Snowman (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm unwatching this page and the GA review.  almost - instinct 22:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What's happened here is fair enough... but I think it's just common sense to recognize that the destruction of his diaries would have had the effect suggested, and I don't see that it's a case of "citation needed". A citation cannot be provided, so it would make sense to delete the relevant half a sentence rather than grub around for some corroboration. Macphysto (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I had assumed that you had the ref, because you added the lines yourself. I only put the cn there to remind you about the ref. Please modify it and make the cn unnecessary. Snowman (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have stated the obvious so that it does not need a cn, which I removed. Snowman (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

An idea
Why not have the captions written by someone who knows what they're talking about? The following contains three factual errors: "The Brynmor Jones Library, Hull University is a three storey building of red-brick constructions with many windows. It is near-by to the new library, which is a seven story building with external walls of grey concrete". The Brynmor Jones library was contructed in two sections, one of in brick and one concrete. These two sections together they make the Brynmor Jones library and are both part of "the new library". To be fair, you have correctly identified the shiny bits as windows. Do you not embarrass yourself?  almost - instinct 23:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just want to get the work done; I had left a few alt text on images to last hoping that someone else would add the alt text to the photographed places I was not familiar with. Alt text was requested by the reviewer. I think you are referring to the alt text and not the captions. I have amended the alt text. Anyway, I think it is corrected now. Snowman (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that two editors have made further amendments to the alt text, so it is probably about right now. Snowman (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Knowing how to make sentences
"In March 1955 Larkin was appointed librarian at the University of Hull, a position he retained until his death due to oesophageal cancer in 1985" So he kept his job because of cancer? 92.3.170.247 (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, "due" is an adjective, here modifying a noun, namely "death"; it does not modify the phrasal element "a position he retained". So the ignorance of sentence-making is... yours. Macphysto (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha ha! Fair enough! 92.3.170.247 (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Leicester job
I'm just having a look through the article and making a few small improvements. I notice that the Lead says that he was an assistant librarian at Leicester, but the following para says sub-librarian. Which was it? Also, the lead says "[asst/sub] librarian at" whereas subsequent paras say "[asst/sub] librarian of". The former is the correct formulation (I speak as someone who used to work in a UK university library - not the ones at Leicester, Hull or Belfast, though!). --GuillaumeTell 16:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that it was assistant librarian at Leicester, sub-librarian at Queen's, Librarian at Hull, but pls someone with a copy of Motion check. I'll make the text consistent with this. If I recollect incorrectly both places will need to be changed. If I'm right nothing needs to be done  almost - instinct 17:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We have Librarian capitalised, but assistant and sub- not. Is this correct?  almost - instinct 17:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd lose the upper case "L" in "Librarian". This is what Motion does. Macphysto (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I've added "the" to try to indicate that to those who don't know that this meant he headed the library. There's probably a more elegant way of expressing this  almost - instinct 08:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * May I double check that in this sentence about The Less Deceived"At first the volume attracted little attention, but in December it was included in The Times' list of books of the year"the absence of capitals is deliberate? To my eye it should be either both italicised and capitalised, or neither  almost - instinct 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It should definitely have caps. Macphysto (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DONE  almost - instinct 13:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What about caps for "librarian" and "assistant librarian" and occupations in general? Snowman (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See 3rd & 4th lines of this thread  almost - instinct 14:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have just rechecked. The Guardian uses lower case for occupations (except Prime Minister, and King and others). I can not find anything to the contrary, so I assume lower case is ok on the wiki for occupations. There may be a specific wiki guideline, but I can not find it at the present time. Snowman (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1st line of WP:MOSCAPS: "Wikipedia's house style avoids unnecessary capitalization"  almost - instinct 14:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Similarly, The Guardian style rules say lower caps for most occupations. Snowman (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would Guardian house style be relevant to this page?  almost - instinct 14:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] I'm afraid that the revised version "the librarian" seems to me to imply that he was the only librarian at the U of H (as he was, I think, in his first job at Wellington). A librarian is just a librarian, but the librarian is the Librarian: the capital L distinguishes him from the underlings (assistant librarians, sub-librarians et al). --GuillaumeTell 16:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with GT. I think the definite article should be removed. I'm going to make that change. Macphysto (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Motion (p. 244) writes, "Late in September Graneek placed on Larkin's desk a copy of an advertisement for the job of librarian at the University of Hull". Macphysto (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From the text it is not clear to me what his role was in the library. Would it be useful to add somewhere a little phrase saying "became librarian in charge at the UoH Library", or "with overall managerial responsibility" to emphasis the seniority of his job. Snowman (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the best way to put it would be to describe his job as that of University Librarian. The current Librarian has a grander title but University Librarian (with caps) is part of it - see and scroll down to Library Staff. --GuillaumeTell 21:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That would cover it, yes. And caps would be correct because it's an official title. Macphysto (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed in the biog section  almost - instinct 09:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to venture some constructive criticism of the section on Larkin as librarian, currently single-sourced. I've got another, better source, but need help working out what should be done  almost - instinct 09:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as something that does not prevent the article being GA, but is worth developing in due course. I think the section as it stands is at the very least useful and informative. Macphysto (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Larkin's flat
The captions to the picture of the Pearson Park flat both say first floor. The text, however, talks of the top-floor flat of a three-storey house. High windows implies top-floor to me, and the picture looks like a three-storey building. Indeed, the original of the picture [] shows the front gate, which makes it clear that there were three storeys, so it looks as if the captions need changing. --GuillaumeTell 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Motion (pp. 276-7) says it was the top floor of a three-storey property, and adds "The worst problem was the noise of other tenants on the two floors below". Macphysto (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for noting my difficult in analysing the building partly obscured by foliage in the photograph that I mentioned in my edit summaries. It seems to me that the ground floor is not clearly shown. Perhaps those with references at hand might like to do the amending edits. The photographer might be able to help and provide further photographs. Snowman (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Update; I see that it has already been amended. Perhaps, the caption might need a reference for GA. Snowman (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why does the caption need a reference? There is a reference in the text where the nature of Larkin's residence is mentioned. The ground floor is not "clearly" shown in the photo because there's a hedge in front of the property, but it is obvious from the photo that it's a three-storey property. Macphysto (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rethink: with supporting text in the article, the caption is probably OK as it is without a reference . Snowman (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

“Non-fiction” section
I've always wondered what the "by contrast" part of this sentence is doing there: "Larkin was by contrast a notable critic of modernism in contemporary art and literature". Am I missing a point?  almost - instinct 09:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that they add little. Moreover, as they appear in the first sentence of a new section they are likely to confuse many readers. I have therefore deleted those two words. The "contrast" (with Larkin's arguable embrace of a small number of Modernist strategies in his poems) is not strong, and anyone who comes to this section from the previous one will see the contrast, such as it is, while anyone coming to this section without having first read the previous one would simply be flummoxed by the words "by contrast". Macphysto (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was missing the point, but my doing so illustated my own point ;-)  almost - instinct 10:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination...
The article now seems very close to GA level. As the person who began this process, I feel I should announce (confess?) that after Friday I shall not be in a position - because of commitments elsewhere - to do any work on the article for quite some time. It seems to me that it would make sense to decide soon whether the article meets the necessary criteria. Macphysto (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At this juncture, I also think the article is at or near to GA status. Snowman (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its worth pointing out that there are at least four possibly unresolved issues from the GA reviewer's list. They are all marked "IS THIS SORTED?" in bold  almost - instinct 13:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation bot
Does anyone know why this bot is making nonsense edits to the page?  almost - instinct 14:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At any rate I've put on a "deny" tag which will prevent it from happening again  almost - instinct 14:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

One or more further comments
After all the recent activity, I'm having another read-through of the article. I'll put any further thoughts under this heading.
 * However, he was allowed to stay on at school, and two years later earned distinctions in English and History, and passed the entrance exams for St John’s College, Oxford, to read English. Several things:  1) Was there more than one entrance exam?  2) Was it/were they St John's exams or U of Ox exams or both?  3) The "to read English" at the end seems tacked-on and ungrammatical.  4) There are an awful lot of commas in this sentence. 5. Why is St John’s College, Oxford in the above sentence a redirect to ... St John's College, Oxford (or am I missing something tremendously obvious?) --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 21:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * History does not record, but 1) Probably there was. 2) University-wide, but he'd have been applying to St John's and the exams would have been marked by dons at St John's. 3) Propose a felicitous alternative, please. 4) Hardly. 5) This is now amended. Macphysto (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Brideshead Revisited image of university life had at least for the time being faded... 1) Does the ref explicitly refer to Brideshead? 2) I don't think that the wikilink to the BH article is going to give anybody who's never heard of the novel/film/various TV adaptations, etc., any insight into what on earth this is is all about. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 21:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) No. 2) I'd just as soon scrub it. Macphysto (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't help wondering where I got that phrase from... Very unlike me to dream up anything remotely poetic. (The point made was that the traditional aspect of university life - three years of getting pissed and doing precious little work - was not to be enjoyed. I think it vaguely non-contentious to suggest that such an approach has made something of a come-back, post-1945)  almost - instinct 23:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Status
I have looked over the article again, in light of all the work that has been done in the last few days; I believe that the comments I noted in the original review have been addressed, and that Philip Larkin certainly meets the criteria for a good article. As a result, I am passing Philip Larkin as a good article. Congratulations and thanks to all the editors who have worked on it! -- Kateshort forbob  22:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Patrick Garland
As a matter of interest, why is it notable that the Monitor tv programme was produced by Patrick Garland? Forgive me, this is well off my area of expertise. Thanks,  almost - instinct 10:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not my area of expertise either, but a television producer has an important role in organising and, I think, shaping the programme. I imagine that a programme created entirely by Larkin and Betjeman would have been rather different. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 13:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I see your point. Ta!  almost - instinct 13:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Link
I just removed this link from the mainpage:



Potentially it could be quite interesting, but right now its a bit underdeveloped. Maybe as 2010 gets closer it will be worth putting back, but right now IMO its not up to scratch.  almost - instinct 11:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Image: "Coventry's inner ring road"
Is there a reason this article includes a photograph of "Coventry's inner ring road" by dint of its covering the site of one of the author's previous residences? Pretty big stretch, that. For that matter, the many photos of buildings in an article about a human being is a bit off-putting. Is the man known by the buildings he frequented? I think not.

I propose we come up with better illustrations for the man's life, and at least 86 the heinous, ugly roadway picture.Nickrz (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Yes there is a reason why this article includes that photo. Look at the quotation from "Going going" in the main text which goes alongside the picture.
 * 2) "Is the man known by the buildings he frequented?" Yes: (a) librarian of the (notable library) at Hull Uni (b) High Windows
 * If you want to calm down a bit, we can probably have a sensible discussion. Yours, in great admiration of the photos provided by others for this page,  almost - instinct 21:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing like a little passive-aggression to scare other editors away from your darling fiefdom, eh? The photograph adds nothing to this article and its relation to the text you cite is tenuous at best. Good thing his other houses still stand or we'd have a gallery of tarmac or ruins.Nickrz (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh! FWIW, I agree that the Ring Road photo is a waste of space and that there could be fewer pictures of buildings and more of Larkin (if available), plus other people (Amis?  Monica Jones?), other things (book jackets?  Bicycle clips?  Ambulances? The Bodies?), whatever. --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 00:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Nickrz - so your opening salvo was pure charm and manners was it? Btw you missed the phrase "in my opinion" from the statement "the photograph adds nothing to this article". Again, if you want to find a different intonation we can have a sensible discussion.
 * Guillaume - if any non-copyright photo of Larkin can be found, great. I've no idea how to find any. People coming on the talk page and slagging off other people's efforts doesn't magic them into existence. No picture has ever been removed from this page as far as I'm aware, let alone one of Larkin. The editor who very kindly went and found some pictures for the page was doing so because one of the requirements for FA is that there should be pictures. I'm not going to disparage his efforts.  almost - instinct 13:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I did a small part of work towards the illustrations on the page. Images of some of the places where Larkin worked are on the left of the page, and images of some of the places where he lived are on the right of the page. As far as I am aware, only one fair use image can be used of Philip Larkin in the article, when there are no "free" use images available. This fair use image must be of low resolution and the fair use rational must be explained - see the infobox image file details. Incidentally, I did not take the image of the inner ring road specially for this article, but it is one I took when I was enthusiastic about having a new camera a few years ago. We could have my photograph of the grammar school that he went to in Coventry - I have just added it to the PL cat on commons. Snowman (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really resolve the problem, though, does it? Surely a photo or two of book covers would add variety, and so would those pictures of PL's cronies that can be found elsewhere in WP.  How about High Windows and Kingsley Amis? --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 15:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The images that you refer to are copyrighted, and fair use only extends to articles with headings (or perhaps sections) about them. As far as I am aware, there is no fair use rational that would allow the use of either of these copyrighted images on the PL page. Here is some information on copyrights from wiki commons that might help in your search for suitable images. Snowman (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

More Patrick Garland
An IP has changed "produced" to "directed". I've lost track of the various permutations this credit has been through. Could someone confirm that either "directed" or "produced" is correct, preferably with a source!? Will go looking myself later on  almost - instinct
 * Source easily found! http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0307559/#producer  almost - instinct 10:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some comments: Garland apparently has variously produced or directed (maybe both together sometimes) programmes on TV (and stage performances).  The IMDB is about as accurate as Wikipedia, i.e. not always accurate.  I see that the IP you refer to is one of Kingston Communications's - i.e. is in the Hull area.  Also, have you seen this, where it says "directed"?  I suspect that this is a more reliable source than the IMDB.  (I also think that the word "iconic" should be banned.) --<b style="color:forestgreen;">Guillaume</b><i style="color:blue;">Tell</i> 13:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

God, I hope I wasn't responsible for "iconic". Hadn't realised that IMDb was unreliable. What do they use as their sources, I wonder. Ill-informed people sitting at home typing away at their laptops? ;-) Anyway, thanks for the warning, will go and do more searching  almost - instinct
 * Looking at the various bits and pieces I could find I'm thinking it more than just possible PG both produced and directed the programme. It seems he was a producer for Monitor; no other name is ever given in ref to either production or direction for this edition. Until proved otherwise and/or someone points out why it shouldn't be like that, I'll put it as "produced and directed" and use both sources.  almost - instinct 08:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The recent BBC4 broadcast of the Monitor 'Down Cemetery Road' film identified Robin Keam as 'Producer', though it didn't credit any other personnel. However, the copy I have of the original broadcast names Patrick Garland as 'Director'. Further, Patrick Garland came to Hull in November 2003 to give a talk to the Larkin Society. In that talk (copies of which the Larkin Society issued on CD) he named the programme's "kind assistant" as Anne James, and the cameraman as Charles Parnell. Finally, for now, the Larkin Archive database at Hull University lists "Correspondence between Humphrey Burton (Editor of 'Monitor') and Philip Larkin..." I hope you find this information useful. Allriskinrev (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds lovely and conclusive! I'll delete the producer bit. Thank you very much  almost - instinct 14:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

More on "silverlarkin"
An IP has readded the link to the silverlarkin website Since I removed it last month more content has been added; I'm not so experienced as to where the line is drawn with external links, and would very much like to hear other people's opinions on it  almost - instinct  15:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello everyone. I've just registered with WP as I'm the IP who readded the link to the silverlarkin website, and I wanted to let you know. I readded it because at present the Larkin Society's own website -- which should be providing any available information on the Larkin 25 commemorations -- has been inactive for some months, though this should be resolved in the very near future. And although there will shortly be a dedicated Larkin 25 website, this is still not yet available. Consequently the silverlarkin website is the only website where this information is currently available. As you will see, I've changed the link so that the silverlarkin News page opens, rather than the Home page. This way relevant information is presented immediately without visitors having to seek it out. I'm not yet conversant with the WP protocol for adding messages, so if I've made any mistakes in the way I've posted this, I apologize. I don't want to tread on anyone's toes, so if you still think the link should be removed, I won't try to reinstate it. --Allriskinrev (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The link is about Larkin, so it is probably a relevant external link, but I can understand if someone questioned it. If anyone wants to look up the wiki guidelines on external links there are some at WP:EL. Snowman (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)