Talk:Shakespearean sonnet

Does a sepaate article, deprived of the the context sonnet genuinely add to information? Or does it simply disperse it? A massive volume on Shakespeare's sonnets has been published recently. Wetman 00:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I can't see what we benefit from having two different articles. Merging and expanding the resulting article with sections to discuss the "two topics" will be the best method IMO. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞ ]] 00:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * They're two different subjects. Combining them makes about as much sense to me as combining an article on Colin Powell with an article on Secretary of State.  Look at Rubaiyat vs. Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam for another example.  Someone interested in the verse form and historical development of the Elizabethan (aka Shakespearean) sonnet is not necessarily interested in the rumours surrounding the identity of Shakespeare's gay/not-gay lovers, etc.  Not that all this is discussed in the existing articles, but it may eventually be added, and you get the idea.  --Chinasaur 22:55, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

i would say that this should stay; the shakesperean sonnet is a form beyond just sonnets by shakespeare, but i think it should be expanded, there is more there to write about; the shifts in mood and the resolution that they generally contain, and possibly mention other poets who have used this particular form with especial regularity. Heliotropic 21:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

just out of curiosity: did these words really rhyme in Early Modern English? e.g. love/remove, come/doom, love/prove. – Alensha 寫 词 20:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting this up for merging to sonnet.--Lkjhgfdsa 14:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)