Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2020 January 26

= January 26 =

poems
Most pages in the category Category:Poems don't insert the whole poem in the article. If you create an article on a poem, can you include the entire poem if its a long poem? 92.0.200.60 (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Clearly it's permissible, providing it is not in copyright; high profile poems such as The Raven and Kubla Khan include the full text. If you're considering writing an article about a poem or adding a poem to an existing article, though, I would point out that we have a project specifically designed to be a repository of non-copyright works called Wikisource. Matt Deres (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Some poems are just very long; The Eve of St. Agnes, for example, has 42 verses, each of nine lines, but is easily beaten by The Song of Hiawatha which runs to 22 chapters.   Alansplodge (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Conversely, "Ten Little Indians" has 1.5 words per titular folk hero. Only 1.3 if lumping plural and singular. Wikipedia even throws in a previously unheard bonus bridge, just to pad it out. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You may also ask why 'most' of pages about novels do not contain full text of books, why pages about films do not contain full movies or why pages about sculptures do not contain holographic copies of those. The reason is the same in all cases (apart from technical limitations) — Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an anthology of arts; it contains articles about pieces of art, not those pieces themselves or their copies. (The more because many of those pieces are protected by copyright.) --CiaPan (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * By that logic, our article about the Mona Lisa should not contain a picture. You haven't convinced me, but feel free to improve the article as you see fit. In fact, I'm pretty sure the reverse of your assertion is true; if we had the technical ability to include holographs of sculptures, we absolutely would include them - for the same reason we include copies of other artwork: it makes the article better. A picture is worth a thousand words. And we have short films and animations in all kinds of articles, though I'll agree in many cases the films themselves are linked rather than imbedded. But see The Great Train Robbery for an example of the movie itself being imbedded. Matt Deres (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * And it indeed does not. The Wikipedia page does not contain the Mona Lisa painting, nor even a (painted) copy of it. It contains a photograph of the painting, in quite low resolution (just about eleven by seven and half thousand pixels). This is quite a rough approximation of what the actual picture is. On the other hand, a poem's contents is its text. Pasting a text here makes a complete copy of the work of art, in contrast to depicting an oil painting with a photograph. --CiaPan (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Rugby Sevens
How are the 5th to 8th placed teams determined in Rugby Sevens?

Scotland came in 8th place in South Africa last December, with Argentina in 5th, Ireland in 6th, and Kenya in 7th places. May I be reassured that Wikipedia hasn’t lost the ability to properly record the results of Rugby Sevens Tournaments?

What I mean is that Scotland technically did better than Argentina if you look at the results closely of the Pool statue, as we had 8 points as opposed to their 7. Also, why isn’t Wikipedia recording the results of the 9th place thingy?

I can’t see how it is possible for Argentina to be above Scotland when the two teams hadn’t met at any point in this tournament? What in the name of goodness is going on here?

I look forward to your replies, I hope to hear from you soon. Pablothepenguin (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * You may want to specifically ask the editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union, who should be maintaining the rugby sevens articles. If you are referring to 2019–20 World Rugby Sevens Series and 2019 South Africa Sevens articles, my guess would be that it is because the official web site is also not clear on how 5th to 8th is determined either. Looking at the results of South Africa, apparently they got rid of the "fifth place bracket" (as seen on last season's article 2018 South Africa Sevens), but I am having trouble finding the current 2019–20 rules. The bottom of information page still links to the old 2018 rules! So it looks like we are left with just that little information there is on the standings page. Wikipedia cannot report what is not documented elsewhere. But again, I suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wherever the OP asks, it would help a great deal if they provide links so we can know WTF they're talking about. According to our article which has not been edited since December [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_South_Africa_Sevens&oldid=933372326] Scotland made 7 points (from 2 wins and one loss) in the group stage (not 8) with a zero net points scored difference. Argentina was also on 7 with a net 52 points scored difference. Ireland did have 8 points (finishing top of their group due to their better net points scored difference) as did Kenya (finishing second to Ireland), so you might debate their position but not so much Scotland. Our results are consistent with the official ones too [//www.world.rugby/sevens-series/stage/1955/pools] Scotland where not even in the 2019 South Africa Women's Sevens so I guess the OP isn't referring to that. Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, I see that Scotland did lose to New Zealand the tournament winners, while Argentina lost to France who were in third place, so I guess by that token you could say they were better. But OTOH, Scotland ended up with a -16 points scored differential after the quarterfinals compared to Argentina's +43, Ireland's 0, and Kenya's -2. (If I had to guess, this was probably how the placings were decided.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2020 (UTC)