Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry/The Canterbury Tales task force

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A few notes

[edit]

Just some ill-digested initial impressions...

  • It seems to me we should remove the "succession boxes" currently at the bottom of the Tale pages.
  1. They are inappropriate since the work is unfinished, fragmentary, and no certain final authorial order can be assigned.
  2. They are unnecessary since this same order (the favored order, I believe, of most modern scholars) is present in the helpful Chaucer template.
 Done Phil wink (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it does not exist already, a synoptic view of fragment and order issues might be tabulated more or less like I did in List of Vetala Tales, where there could be columns for the Chaucer Society order (Fragments A, B, C...) and Benson's order (Fragments I, II, III... though I don't think Benson originated this), and the content of significant mss. (Yeah, I think everything's a table.)
  • Again, agreed that this is definitely worth a topic of its own. I would support a "List of Canterbury Tales" in the style of the example you've been working on. In the meantime, it would be good to address this in the "Genre and structure" section of the main article (it seems it just hasn't been covered yet...). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
Table in process; I'll solicit input from the group once it's in a somewhat presentable state. Phil wink (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Phil wink (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although perhaps a bit beyond this task force's purview, the Chaucer template is good now, but could be a lot better. Additional sections might include:
  1. Spurious or misattributed works (e.g. The Plowman's Tale which is in our purview)
  2. Influences (Roman de la Rose, Consolation of Philosophy...)
  3. Contemporaries (Richard II, John Gower...)
  4. Followers (John Lydgate, Robert Henryson...)
  • The articles listed under [[Category: The Canterbury Tales]] is more broad and includes some of those, so we could use that as a possible basis to branch out. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
 Done, but awaiting input from various groups before going live. Phil wink (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't had time to make a survey of what all the various articles are saying, but I trust we'll have problems with the concept of "Chaucer's meter" (at the moment I'm only addressing the "long line"). Suffice to say that
  1. "Chaucer's meter" is typically described as "decasyllables" or "heroic verse" or "iambic pentameter"... some authors use these terms synonymously, but others intend different shades of meaning by the different terms (and the shades may vary from author to author).
  2. Scholars are not in agreement which line Chaucer was writing (if there is a difference), or even if he was writing in any of these.
 Done Phil wink (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling on "Chaucer's meter" is that I should try to put together a brief summary of scholarly opinion on this topic so that when we have to talk about this, we can talk about it intelligently and consistently. The others deserve some consensus (as thin as that may be in our task) before we act, I think. Phil wink (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • All good points, thank you for raising them so succinctly and starting the discussion. We should definitely get some consensus before we launch into any major editing (another area would be the structure of articles, which is wildly inconsistent currently). Your input on metre would certainly be appreciated. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's "metre"?
    • But seriously, MOS:TIES (as I'm sure you're aware) suggests that all the articles under our consideration be written in British English (or perhaps Middle English?), so if I manage to contribute to an actual article, I'll be relying on you to clean up after me! I thank you in advance. Phil wink (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Existing article structure

[edit]

Here's how the articles are currently organized (2012-12-12). I've only taken a few liberties: a) I've moved the reported position of a few sections to correspond better with the others (marked with *); b) I've combined a few headings (marked with / & (x) ) to keep more compact. I've used what I see to be the "hidden existing consensus" as the column headings. We're obviously not locked in to this, but it's where we should start the conversation. Phil wink (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that's excellent, Phil, thank you. I'll take a more detailed look over the table tomorrow and produce a few thoughts that we could discuss such as what sections will include what, and much besides. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice there's also a seemingly well-thought-out structure at Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare#Proposed Items. This will not be exactly right for our purposes, but adds useful input. Phil wink (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great basis for our discussion, and something I will definitely use to start producing a project outline that people can comment on and appropriately change. Appreciated again Phil! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standardisation of tales within The Canterbury Tales

[edit]

Initial proposal

[edit]

The following is a proposed guideline to achieve standardisation in the writing and copyediting of articles pertaining to the individual tales that comprise The Canterbury Tales. (Note: All articles under the task force should use British spelling. See WP:TIES.) Not all headers will be appropriate for every article, and certain headers will be given greater emphasis across certain articles.

  1. Intro paragraph with graphic to the right (as recommended in the MOS). — The title of the tale should be given in full, bold, modernized spelling, in its most commonly used form. Include the Middle English in the form (Middle English: Title here) if it differs markedly from the Modern English. Follow WP:LEAD.
  2. Synopsis — Accuracy and a lucid style.
    1. Prologue — if applicable.
    2. Tale
      Wikipedia asks for plot synopses to stay within 500-700 words, with a ceiling of 900 words in special circumstances only. The summary is not to be subdivided. Sub-dividing synopses could make this section too long and some divisions are purely editorial.
    Key idea here: synopsis means to summarize the vital plot points of the tale, not to re-tell the entire plot in your own words.
  4. Sources — What works influenced the tale?
  6. Analysis
    1. Critical History - Have scholars' views about the tale changed over time, if so, how?
    2. Structure - What have scholars said about the plot structure?
    3. Language - ... about language and style?
    4. Themes and motifs — ... about themes and motifs in the tale?
    5. Other interpretations - Other critical readings where appropriate (e.g. Feminist, Marxist).
  9. Influences — Literary and cultural, if applicable.
    1. Adaptations and cultural references
      Only include those depictions or references which are specific to the tale being discussed. For instance, you would not say that The Knight's Tale is depicted in Pier Paolo Pasolini's 1972 film of The Canterbury Tales, but you would say that The Two Noble Kinsmen derives its plot from the tale.
  10. See also
  12. References — Unless specifically referencing a manuscript, direct quotations should use The Riverside Chaucer (see Resources on task force page).
  14. External links

Discussion

[edit]

1. Intro

[edit]
I'm skeptical about the utility of the Middle English title, as surely manuscript variants are legion; wouldn't picking one be arbitrary and give an... inauthentic air of authenticity? Phil wink (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, it's the same point you made about the use of the succession boxes really; it masks the complexity of the different manuscript sources. I would be willing to have them removed. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

2. Synopsis

[edit]
  • Some tales have divisions that I believe are authorial. Are they too banned as subheadings? Also, may I suggest that we encourage 300-500-word synopses for the tales, especially if we're dealing with prologues separately? These tales are not Les Misérables. Phil wink (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they are authorial, I'm not sure they're really worth including; if, as you rightly say, the synopses are going to be very short, then we should try to avoid splitting them even further. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
  • Frame. I feel the tale's frame -- the teller, the circumstances of the telling, and relatively non-controversial relations between this and other Canterbury Tales -- probably deserves its own heading, and I would boldly put it ahead of the Synopsis. The framing of tales is a significant element in Chaucer's art, and occurs at a quite distinct level from the tales. This raises the question: Does the Prologue synopsis go here or under the Synopsis heading? I say the Prologue goes with the frame. Although I decidedly prefer this term ("frame") if it is deemed too academic, one could possibly use Context within the Tales or something like that. Also, we may want to mention explicitly in the standards that in all cases associated Prologues, Introductions, and Epilogues are treated in the Tale article, not in their own articles. Even though we risk (say) a slightly over-robust Wife of Bath article, I think this is sound policy. Besides, in her case it would be fitting. Phil wink (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I used "Background" for Sir Thopas, which could be an alternative name? I'm leaning towards the separation of this from the Synopsis, but my concern is: if the majority of this section is comprised of discussing the Prologue, then why would call it something other than that. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
A Tale's Prologue will surely furnish the bulk of most Frame sections; however I think the other pieces of context are equally important. Although it's quite brief, The Miller's Tale#Prologue is a good example of how germane information outside the Prologue itself is folded in to the section (even stuff than hasn't even "happened yet"... the future requital of the story that is about to be told). What is wrong, of course, is the heading: the topic isn't the Prologue but rather the Frame -- of which the Prologue is a major part. Some challenges:
  • Because elements from various Tales and Prologues may be germane to one Tale's frame, there will inevitably be some repetition between the Frame sections of various articles. But I think this is for the good: just because someone is reading The Summoner's Tale article, we cannot assume that they must have just finished reading The Friar's Tale article.
  • It will be easy to put too much into the Frame section... we could include a whole dissertation on the "Marriage Group" in several Tales' Frames. This would be a mistake (this should reside in Analysis, or possibly its own main article). Where to draw the line? A rule of thumb might be that only "factual" information gets into the Frame. By "factual" I mean things that the pilgrims actually experience... the drunkenness or incompetence of a tale-teller, or the fact that a tale hits too close to home for a listener. The rest would be analysis.
Ultimately, I suspect we'll have to work out these details by failing a couple times, and then getting to a nice balanced point. Phil wink (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. Sources

[edit]
  • Dates of authorship. Often there's not too much concrete to say about dates of authorship, but it seems like this might be the place for it, if there's a discussion of any size. Otherwise where would it go? possibly in the Intro paragraph, if there's little to say? Possibly Sources and Composition? Phil wink (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. Analysis

[edit]
  • Suggestions not standards. My own feeling is that the subheadings here should be offered as suggestions, not as standards. These are probably as good as broad suggestions will get, but I wonder if some tales won't have analysis that is clearer and more useful if it's allowed to go its own way. Phil wink (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably true, some tales will have very specific points of analysis (e.g. Antisemitism in Prioress's Tale), so these should be some possible, non-exhaustive headers under which to discuss. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
  • Genre. I don't know if this rises to the level of being stipulated in the Standard Structure, but I think genre is very important to the identity and understanding of the Tales. I doubt it gets its own sub-head, but might it be a recommended inclusion in either Analysis:Structure or Analysis:Themes and motifs? Also it should probably get a mention in the Synopsis itself. Phil wink (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we expanded Sources to Sources and composition "genre" could conceivably go there too. Phil wink (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7. References

[edit]
  • A system of both notes and references. Just to be explicit, I much prefer a system of both Notes and References as exemplified, oh I don't know, in Sestina. Except I really don't like the a b c reference style created by <ref name="name">...</ref>. I much prefer the editorial simplicity of just <ref>...</ref>, even though that may grow the Notes a bit. I recognize this is purely personal, and I can live with what the group likes. Phil wink (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do as well, but it struck me from your table that this would be very much against the current situation (from memory, only Sir Thopas which I edited had this setup). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
You're right; I see only 2 tales which currently have distinct Notes and References. WP:CITEVAR clearly calls for editorial conservatism. So change would require a good argument and a new consensus. Here goes...
  • The articles in our purview are fairly chaotically structured, so no matter what we decide on, some are going to change. Total conservatism is not an option if standardization is a goal (it is for me).
  • Most of our articles are poorly referenced, so accepting their existing citation styles as default may be too deferential.
  • Our "head" article, The Canterbury Tales (1 of only 4 to be rated as high as a "C") does use both Notes and References. It would not be unreasonable to follow its lead. Of the 2 individual Tales to follow suit, The Wife of Bath's Tale is also a rare "C". In our articles, excellence is at least somewhat correlated with the presence of short citation style using Notes and References.
  • If, on its own merits, any different citation style seems to be beneficial to the articles, now is the time to trade up.
As for positive merits of my little scheme, I've hastily written up a little screed — Phil wink/Notes and references — so as not to pollute this page. I don't think anyone should roll over for this just because I've bothered to type it up; and as I've said, I'll go with the group's consensus. But I would prefer to come to a reasoned decision, rather than just fall back on "what's there". Phil wink (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For something that was hastily written, that is very good! The rationale for this move seems sound, so if no-one raises any objections I think this would be a suitable change. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge there is no better choice than Benson. Probably the only other edition in the running would be Skeat which seems to be the most respected public domain edition. But yes, Benson. Phil wink (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contacting users for use of Benson. Assuming we choose Benson as our copy-text, please do not let this inhibit you from contributing if you don't have it. I have a copy and MOHOD either has one or has one near-by. So if you find a passage that helps an article and you've got some other edition handy, I say BE BOLD, put it in, and ask MOHOD or me to Bensonize it later. Phil wink (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy, indeed. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Original discussion
MOHOD's comments

This should be broadly acceptable. It is based on the guidelines for WP Shakespeare, but adapted for our purposes. Some decisions still need a consensus.

  1. Use of The Riverside Chaucer as the standard reference work for direct quotations.
  2. Only include those depictions or references which are specific to the tale being discussed. This was to avoid a situation in which every single tale refers to its depiction as part of the general Canterbury Tales films. This reduces repeated content (and workload) considerably.
  3. Prologue under the header 'Synopsis', to precede the synopsis of the Tale itself.
  4. the tale should be given in full, bold, modernized spelling,. Also italicised?
  5. Include the Middle English in the form (Middle English: Title here) if it differs markedly from the Modern English. Same rationale as the Adaptations decision; some Tales do not differ in the Modern English from the Middle English (e.g. Pardoner's Tale; Sir Thopas). Also, another important point is that the titles come from (only) the Ellesmere Manuscript (as can be seen here). Should we thus include them? Provide a note that explains this?
Please discuss. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 00:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phil's notes to standards first cut

First, thanks, MOHOD, for putting this together. I have several nits to pick, but this is a solid base.

  • 1. Intro.... I'm skeptical about the utility of the Middle English title, as surely manuscript variants are legion; wouldn't picking one be arbitrary and give an... inauthentic air of authenticity?
Quite, it's the same point you made about the use of the succession boxes really; it masks the complexity of the different manuscript sources. I would be willing to have them removed. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
  • 1.5. Frame. I feel the tale's frame -- the teller, the circumstances of the telling, and relatively non-controversial relations between this and other Canterbury Tales -- probably deserves its own heading, and I would boldly put it ahead of the Synopsis. The framing of tales is a significant element in Chaucer's art, and occurs at a quite distinct level from the tales. This raises the question: Does the Prologue synopsis go here or under the Synopsis heading? I say the Prologue goes with the frame. Although I decidedly prefer this term ("frame") if it is deemed too academic, one could possibly use Context within the Tales or something like that. Also, we may want to mention explicitly in the standards that in all cases associated Prologues, Introductions, and Epilogues are treated in the Tale article, not in their own articles. Even though we risk (say) a slightly over-robust Wife of Bath article, I think this is sound policy. Besides, in her case it would be fitting.
I used "Background" for Sir Thopas, which could be an alternative name? I'm leaning towards the separation of this from the Synopsis, but my concern is: if the majority of this section is comprised of discussing the Prologue, then why would call it something other than that. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
  • 2. Synopsis. Some tales have divisions that I believe are authorial. Are they too banned as subheadings? Also, may I suggest that we encourage 300-500-word synopses for the tales, especially if we're dealing with prologues separately? These tales are not Les Misérables.
Even if they are authorial, I'm not sure they're really worth including; if, as you rightly say, the synopses are going to be very short, then we should try to avoid splitting them even further. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
  • 3. Sources. Often there's not too much concrete to say about dates of authorship, but it seems like this might be the place for it, if there's a discussion of any size. Otherwise where would it go? possibly in the Intro paragraph, if there's little to say? Possibly Sources and Composition?
  • 4. Analysis. My own feeling is that the subheadings here should be offered as suggestions, not as standards. These are probably as good as broad suggestions will get, but I wonder if some tales won't have analysis that is clearer and more useful if it's allowed to go its own way.
Probably true, some tales will have very specific points of analysis (e.g. Antisemitism in Prioress's Tale), so these should be some possible, non-exhaustive headers under which to discuss. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
  • 7. References. Just to be explicit, I much prefer a system of both Notes and References as exemplified, oh I don't know, in Sestina. Except I really don't like the a b c reference style created by <ref name="name">...</ref>. I much prefer the editorial simplicity of just <ref>...</ref>, even though that may grow the Notes a bit. I recognize this is purely personal, and I can live with what the group likes.
I do as well, but it struck me from your table that this would be very much against the current situation (from memory, only Sir Thopas which I edited had this setup). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

Other. To my knowledge there is no better choice than Benson. Probably the only other edition in the running would be Skeat which seems to be the most respected public domain edition. But yes, Benson. Phil wink (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assuming we choose Benson as our copy-text, please do not let this inhibit you from contributing if you don't have it. I have a copy and MOHOD either has one or has one near-by. So if you find a passage that helps an article and you've got some other edition handy, I say BE BOLD, put it in, and ask MOHOD or me to Bensonize it later. Phil wink (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy, indeed. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second proposal

[edit]
  1. Lead paragraph with graphic to the right (as recommended in the MOS). — The title of the tale should be given in full, bold, modernized spelling, in its most commonly used form. Follow WP:LEAD.
  2. Frame — How is the tale positioned within the surrounding material of The Canterbury Tales?
  3. Synopsis — Accuracy and a lucid style.
    1. Prologue — if applicable.
    2. Tale
      Wikipedia asks for plot synopses to stay within 500-700 words, with a ceiling of 900 words in special circumstances only. The summary is not to be subdivided. Sub-dividing synopses could make this section too long and some divisions are purely editorial.
    Key idea here: synopsis means to summarize the vital plot points of the tale, not to re-tell the entire plot in your own words.
  5. Sources and/or composition — Does the tale have a significant source? What influences are there on the tale? Composition refers to its placement within a genre or theme, and should be included even where there is no apparent source.
  7. Analysis — Since the tales differ widely in their content these are suggestions not standards, and should be included where appropriate to the tale.
    1. Critical history — Have scholars' views about the tale changed over time, if so, how?
    2. Structure — What have scholars said about the plot structure?
    3. Language — The language of the tale and its poetic style?
    4. Themes — Are there signficant or persistent themes in the tale?
    5. Other interpretations - Any important critical readings, where appropriate and not covered within the previous headers.
  10. Influences — Literary and cultural, if applicable.
    1. Adaptations and cultural references
      Only include those depictions or references which are specific to the tale being discussed. For instance, in the case of The Knight's Tale one would exclude the depiction of The Knight's Tale in Pier Paolo Pasolini's 1972 film of The Canterbury Tales, but include The Two Noble Kinsmen.
  11. See also
  12. Notes
  13. References — Unless specifically referencing a manuscript, direct quotations should use The Riverside Chaucer 3rd. ed. (see Resources on task force page).
  15. External links

Amateur's comments

[edit]

I joined to help, but I am in no way an expert on Chaucer. Here are a few points I would like to make:

  1. We should avoid making any of the ledes a text for insiders (Look at the discussions on math articles such as addition, multiplication and e or just about any one on musical theory, e.g., meter - you will see how frustrated non-specialists feel when they go to an article to get the basic facts and are barraged with further references, complicated language etc. Please, let's avoid this false garden path.)
  2. This course syllabus, http://chaucer.lmc.gatech.edu/chaucers-tales/, is understandable and has useful references.
  3. I think individual tales should be in quotation marks, while the collection should be in italics, following standard school and scholarly practice.
  4. Above there seems to be a reference to a movie (in discussing images). What movie - or what is being referred to if not a movie? I didn't get a hit when I search Wik for "The Canterbury Tales (film)". Kdammers (talk) 02:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your notes, Kdammers.
  • You are 100% right about the lead text, and I suspect I am the task force member most likely to offend you. So if you see it, please complain. Really.
  • Clearly Work Title and "Portion Title" are completely normal and accepted. Why then do I insistently think of either The Knight's Tale in The Canterbury Tales or else The Knight's Tale in The Canterbury Tales? Anyone? Is it something to do with the tale titles being more non-authorial "functional" titles than "naming" titles? Just as I don't think one would say the "Induction" to The Taming of the Shrew but rather the Induction or the Induction... (somewhat similarly, not "Act II" of Taming of the Shrew, but Act II)? Or the Overture to Fidelio, yet "Leonore No. 3"? Does this have any actual justification? Am I crazy?
Thanks for the input, Kdammers. It doesn't matter if you're not an expert on Chaucer, your contributions are just as valuable. I agree completely on making the lede very approachable, and they can get bogged down in technicalities (having written the Sestina article, I found myself having to avoid this path).
As for the whole "Title" or Title or even Title, I felt a bit like Phil. I found the Manual of Style and went with the whole "Okay, italics for work of art ...". But then "Ode on a Grecian Urn" is in quotation marks. However, because Benson doesn't use any quotation marks (and this is the edition we're using for our direct quotations – short of some major objections), and that he's not unique in this style (Harvard also uses it), I propose that we use the form The Canterbury Tales and The Individual Tale. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Titles or occupations?

[edit]

Should occupations be capitalized when they are referring to the character? I noticed that this is done at least in the Franklin's and Miller's tales.Kdammers (talk) 06:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My authorities, in order consulted:
  • Phil's intuition: Yes, capitalize, because it stands for the name; like "I made cookies with Mother."
  • WP:MOS: Silent; disappointing.
  • Chicago Manual of Style (14th): Ambivalent. It seems it would capitalize for direct address (7.17) "Hey, Nun's Priest, when you say...", but seemingly not otherwise. Alternatively, it capitalizes "commonly accepted epithets" (7.29); examples include "the Wizard of Menlo Park" and "the Sun King".
  • Benson does capitalize, e.g. "Chaucer's portrait of the Parson...". I am very hesitant to let our authority on the text become our authority on all matters textual, but here I've gone again.
So I still say "yes", but (I think) with good but not great authority. My suspicion is that, if nothing else, "tradition" would demand capitalization. Phil wink (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would intuitively say capitalize as well. As you say, it's a bit disappointing that the MoS says nothing of this – and it couldn't help us on how to stylize the tales … MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benson edition

[edit]

MOHOD, I notice that my edition of the RC is

  • Larry D. Benson, ed. (1987), The Riverside Chaucer (3rd ed.), Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, ISBN 0-395-29031-7

...which you'll see is from a different publisher than yours. I assume (but don't know for sure) that both have precisely identical content. However we may have to compare pagination etc. at some point, just to be sure. Phil wink (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is apparently a re-print of that edition, which I also assume indicates they're identical in terms of content. I don't have mine on me at the moment (the joys of splitting time between University and Home!) but I will check as soon as I have it to hand. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaucer himself

[edit]

I haven't had a great deal of time to go through this project; what's everyone's take on covering Chaucer articles? Chaucer's influence on fifteenth-century Scottish literature and Influence of Italian humanism on Chaucer could use some work, and I'd be interested in helping out with those two. dci | TALK 02:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My own feeling is that, given the small size of our "compaignye of sondry folk", it would be wise to keep the "official" scope of our task force to just the Tales. Nevertheless, all things Chaucer naturally impinge somewhat on each other, and it would be foolish to discourage related chat; we're all friends here, right?
  • On the first article, I notice that there is a related article: Makar. It strikes me that the article you mention would better be called just Scottish Chaucerians (Chaucer's influence being an inevitable part of that article). It also strikes me that the bulk of Makar should really also be under Scottish Chaucerians (which indeed now redirects to Makar), though it includes essentially a tiny appendix on some 21st-century people who also happen to be called "Makaris". Possibly the depredation of both articles to form a Scottish Chaucerians article will be seen as treading on the thistle, but that's what would make sense to me. At any rate, I think some re-arranging of one sort or another is in order.
  • On the second, I've merely glanced at it, but will say that the litany of Howard's (hardly) inconceivable coincidences casts a bit of a tinfoil hat pall over the article, in my opinion. But I'm not an expert.
Since you're interested in the Chaucer milieu, perhaps you'll be interested in an essay on Chaucer's meter, which I hope to finish fairly soon. I'll link it on this talk page when I'm done. Phil wink (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did think about this, and concluded that it could be best to stick with the current scope until we have brought things to a good standard (itself a major undertaking) and then formally change the task force to Chaucer — which includes a greater amount of articles. But thank you for bringing this up; if anyone has an alternative ideas, it would be good to hear them. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaucer template

[edit]

I've done a preliminary expansion and redesign of the {{Chaucer}} template at Template:Chaucer/sandbox. By no means do I think this is the best it can be; I'm just floating some ideas and examples. Let's talk about what's missing, poorly categorized, or not germane enough to be included... or if the original's better. I expect that as we move forward with this project, we'll improve our understanding of the topic's structure. Also I think this should ultimately be vetted at the Poetry project as well; but I'm discussing it here first. So I expect this to germinate for a while before going live. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more comprehensive. May want to offer it at the other related projects (Middle Ages?) for some opinion. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of tales and pilgrims

[edit]

Merry Christmas. I've begun a [List of Canterbury Tales and pilgrims] [now Order of The Canterbury Tales -pw]. It is still in process and certainly not well-enough documented (I'll be working on that in the coming days). Because working with tables in Wikipedia can be a pain, I make these requests:

  • Please let me know as soon as you can what structural changes you'd suggest for the table. Corrections, additions, documentation... all that can be done whenever, but for things like adding columns it's a big advantage to get them resolved up-front.
  • For the table only, I'd prefer that instead of making changes, you inform me of changes to be made. This is not an "ownership" thing; it's just so much easier for me to go back and fix something in my local spreadsheet and re-load the whole table, than to fiddle around in wikicode. (In case you care, I happen to use the Copy & Paste Excel-to-Wiki converter, which is quite slick.)

I also purposely haven't linked it to anything yet, as I want a little more time to double-check and document some facts, and make the page more explanatory before making it any more "public". Thanks for your indulgence. Phil wink (talk) 06:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you put it there, but I am not sure the "Tale" column really serves much of a purpose; it's non-authorial, as you say, and some tales can't be condensed or given a label so it would only be half useful at best. We could try to include the briefest of synopses to serve the same purpose is necessary.
Ah, I can see a purpose for it – "Myself" as the only teller who tells more than one tale would need to otherwise be distinguished between Melibee, Sir Thopas and the Retraction. But I still think there might be a better way that an entire column. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see your concern, but in addition to the Thopas/Melibee distinction, I'm always a little miffed that the stories' traditional names give no clue whatever to the content. So it's hard to remember (for me anyway) whether "Chaunticleer and Pertelote" is the Second Nun's Tale or the Nun's Priest's Tale. Would the column gain any legitimacy for you if it was, say, Tag (Genre): "Palamon and Arcite (chivalric romance)" / "A False Flood (fabliau)" etc.? There may be uncertainty on genre sometimes, but my sense is we can usually nail it.
Alternatively, perhaps we could have an overall CT summary page that just gives the quickest possible run-down of what's in all the stories... like an old-fashioned table of contents? "The Knight's Tale, a chivalric romance, in which..." This seems really useful to me, but inappropriate in The Canterbury Tales article itself, certainly inappropriate in the navbox. Maybe appropriate either in the table, or before or after the table, or in yet another "list" page? My sense is that this purpose (friendly entry/overview) is almost the opposite of the bulk of the current table ("specialist" mss. stuff) so probably we need 2 distinct list pages for these jobs. Thoughts? Phil wink (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed the offending column from the table since, even though I think the content is valuable, I agree that this table is not the best place for it. Phil wink (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page moved to Order of The Canterbury Tales the better to represent its focus. Phil wink (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaucer's meter

[edit]

I promised myself I'd finish this dang thing THIS YEAR, so here's my essay on Chaucer's meter.

If parts are incomprehensible, let me know and I'll try to fix them; it's sometimes hard for me to tell where I am on the scale between "obvious" and "impenetrable cant". Clearly because of its tone and POV, it's thoroughly unacceptable as an article, but if the group finds it useful, parts of it might be revised and re-purposed into a Chaucer's metrical milieu-type of article. It seems to me that an article comparing the continental meters, the native meters, Chaucer's & Gower's meters, and the 15-century English and Scottish meters along historical lines might be useful (and to my knowledge there isn't one now). Happy New Year! Phil wink (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fine piece of work. You'll have to forgive me if it takes me a few days to get through it all and to then start contributing properly to the WikiProject as I should — while I'm away from university my routine collapses, and being without any Chaucer material doesn't help either! As an aside, that content would be perfectly condensed into a "Style" section under Chaucer (which I've noticed doesn't exist as of yet). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mini style sheet: initial proposal

[edit]
Initial proposal: updated section now on main page

English ties

[edit]

All articles about Geoffrey Chaucer and his works should be written in British English (per MOS:TIES). Dates should be displayed dd mmm yyyy — that is, in the form 17 April 1387 (per WP:STRONGNAT); the template {{Use dmy dates}} should appear near the top of all articles.

Capitalization and emphasis

[edit]

Titles of major works are capitalized and italicized; titles of short works are capitalized and enclosed in double quotes (per WP:Manual of Style#Capital letters & WP:Manual of Style#Italics; see MOS:CT for capitalization details). For convenience, all titles are given below as categorized and spelled in Benson (1987), and with the recommended emphasis:

MAJOR WORKS SHORT WORKS
The Canterbury Tales
The Book of the Duchess
The House of Fame
Anelida and Arcite
The Parliament of Fowls
Boece
Troilus and Criseyde
The Legend of Good Women
A Treatise on the Astrolabe
The Romaunt of the Rose
"An ABC"
"The Complaint unto Pity"
"A Complaint to His Lady"
"The Complaint of Mars"
"The Complaint of Venus"
"To Rosemounde"
"Womanly Noblesse"
"Chaucers Wordes unto Adam, His Owne Scriveyn"
"The Former Age"
"Fortune"
"Truth"
"Gentilesse"
"Lak of Stedfastnesse"
"Lenvoy de Chaucer a Scogan"
"Lenvoy de Chaucer a Bukton"
"The Complaint of Chaucer to His Purse"
"Proverbs"
"Against Women Unconstant"
"Complaynt D'Amours"
"Merciles Beaute"
"A Balade of Complaint"

In all cases, the initial "The" is part of the title, but may be removed for grammatical purposes:

Green tickY Correct: The Canterbury Tales; Geoffrey Chaucer's Canterbury Tales
Red XN Incorrect: The Canterbury Tales; the Canterbury Tales; the Canterbury Tales; Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales
Green tickY Correct: "The Complaint unto Pity"; Geoffrey Chaucer's "Complaint unto Pity"
Red XN Incorrect: The "Complaint unto Pity"; the "Complaint unto Pity"; "the Complaint unto Pity"; Chaucer's "The Complaint unto Pity"

In some cases, these works have alternate titles, which may be used, if appropriate.

These are all just instances of basic WP:MOS standards. The following special conventions apply to The Canterbury Tales.

Conventions for The Canterbury Tales

[edit]

Short form

[edit]

If the main topic of The Canterbury Tales is already firmly established, the shortened form the Tales (with uncapitalized, unitalicized, and grammatically removable "the") is acceptable, but should not be overused.

Green tickY Correct: the composition of the Tales occupied more than a decade; Boccaccio's Decameron and Chaucer's Tales (Tales = the whole work)
Red XN Incorrect: the composition of The Tales; the composition of The Tales
Green tickY Correct: the composition of the prose tales (tales = subset of the Tales)
Red XN Incorrect: the composition of the prose Tales

Pilgrim's titles

[edit]

Naturally the proper names of the Canterbury pilgrims are capitalized. But they are almost universally known by their titles which should also be capitalized; here "the" is not part of the capitalized title. Note that persons who are not on the pilgrimage do not receive special capitalization for their titles:

Green tickY Correct: the Wife of Bath's first husband; Oswald the Reeve tells a story about a miller.
Red XN Incorrect: the wife of Bath; the Wife of Bath's First Husband; Oswald the reeve; Oswald the Reeve tells a story about a Miller.

Individual tales

[edit]

Individual tales (and prologues, introductions, and epilogues) are capitalized, but neither italicized nor enclosed in quotes. As with work titles, "The" is part of the title, but grammatically removable. When any of these 4 key words is used alone in place of the full title of a specific tale (or prologue, etc.), it is capitalized.

Green tickY Correct: The Wife of Bath's Tale
Red XN Incorrect: the Wife of Bath's tale; the Wife of Bath's Tale; The Wife of Bath's Tale; "The Wife of Bath's Tale"
Green tickY Correct: as the Wife of Bath makes clear both in her Prologue and her Tale
Red XN Incorrect: as the Wife of Bath makes clear both in her prologue and her tale
Green tickY Correct: The tale of Palamon and Arcite, based on the Tesseida of Boccaccio, is related by The Knight in his Tale. (Correct but awkward: "The story of Palamon..." would be an improvement.)
Red XN Incorrect: The Tale of Palamon and Arcite; The Tale of Palamon and Arcite; ...related by The Knight in his tale.

Presumed authorial units

[edit]

Like individual tales, the 10 Fragments (numbered I-X) and 9 Groups (lettered A-I) are capitalized, but not italicized or enclosed in quotes. The 2 parts of Group B are indicated with superscripts (Group B1 and Group B2).

Mini style sheet: Discussion

[edit]

Above is my first whack at a style sheet, incorporating some of the stuff we've discussed earlier. Please comment on anything you disagree with, is right but insufficiently clear, or can be improved in any other way. Phil wink (talk) 05:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking great. One thing perhaps is just to point with capitalization that the individual tales are treated separately from short works. Otherwise some people might make the mistake of assuming that the tales are short works, and not go on to read their separate section, and enclose them in double quotes. So maybe: "titles of short works (excluding the individual tales, see below) are capitalized"? Not sure if you think this is more obvious than I do. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps change the title of "Capitalization and emphasis" to "Chaucer's [other?] works" since it only covers the style of those? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other improvements or additions you'd like to make Phil, or would it be alright to transfer this to the task force mainspace? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I'd like to add specific instructions on citing Benson, referring to Fragment #, etc., for quoting Chaucer's text, but just haven't gotten around to that yet -- and there's no reason for this to delay transfer to the mainspace. Phil wink (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was wondering whether a note on Benson would go in "Resources"; I mean, technically, it's not related to style. But, as you point out, it's not immediately essential — your work is a great basis for the project to work from. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another template

[edit]

TonyTheTiger has recently created {{The Canterbury Tales}}. It has some good content which does indeed seem to belong there, rather than in {{Chaucer}}. However, the overlap between the 2 templates is fairly great, which bothers me in principle. (This level of overlap does not occur, for example, between the 2 extensive templates {{Shakespeare}} and {{Shakespeare tetralogy}}.) An easy solution -- but also I think a bad one -- would be to include the list of CTs only in one template. Should these somehow be "better integrated"? Should everything thrown into {{Chaucer}} (e.g. how often would one expressly want only one of these templates on a page)? Or is this just fine, and my jimmies are rustled for no good reason? Phil wink (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are aware that I have created templates for a few hundred works (See towards the bottom of my User:TonyTheTiger/creations#Templates_Created section. In fact recently we agreed to remove a lot of content from {{Dante}} when I created {{Divine Comedy navbox}}. In general, when the number of links for adapted and derivative works is non-trivial, the work-specific template stays. This is an unusual case because the source work of the derivations and adaptations has so many linked parts. Nonetheless, all the related stuff probably does not belong in {{Chaucer}}. You would also have to add all the adaptations and derivatives of all his other works as well. His template would get bloated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Going to have to agree with the "bad [solution]" that the individual tales should be included in only one template, and that should be the new one. The Chaucer template would then only have The Canterbury Tales. The individual tales pages would then have both the templates. Not sure I've added anything to the discussion, but that's my opinion. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you said two different things. You said "the individual tales should be included in only one template, and that should be the new one" and then you said "The individual tales pages would then have both the templates". I think the individual tales (authored by Chaucer) should be on {{Chaucer}}. I also think the individual tales should be on {{The Canterbury Tales}}. Yes there would be 25 tales with two templates where they are appropriate subjects. They are works of Chaucer and parts of the Canterbury tales. There will be about 50% overlap, but people looking at Chaucer's works will see his works where they are enumerated and people looking for Canturbury tales content can find all related content in one place.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the contradiction in my reply. I meant that the Canterbury Tales template would be the one that lists all of the tales, and that the Chaucer template would only include the general "The Canterbury Tales" header as it is one of his works. Then each tale page would have both templates because they belong to a) the Canterbury Tales, which is b) a work of Chaucer's. Otherwise there is too much overlap. That doesn't solve the dilemma you raise when someone looks at Chaucer's works and isn't able to see the breakdown of the Canterbury Tales. But then it does mean that two templates can be conveniently used in each tales page. If you understand me. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First having a navbox on a page that does not include that page begs for the navbox' removal from that page. What is the problem with 50% overlap? Over time as WP gets more detailed more Chaucer-related works will have articles and this percentage will be lower. By including the tales on both templates people can navigate to the tales as desired from other Chaucer or Chaucer-related works.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can only give my opinion, and that was it. I suppose you're right in that the percentage overlap should decrease over time, although basing present actions on the future is always a precarious business. As ever I'm happy to cede to the majority view. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will deploy the new template. Feel free to do what you will with the main template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goal idea

[edit]

I'm very slowly getting back into an editing stance, and I haven't totally forgotten this task force. Here's a little goal idea:

Of course, our goals can be whatever we choose them to be, but I think the above might be reasonable. As I've currently done them, these graphs must be manually adjusted. They can be automated (see WP:MILITARY for an example) but it looks like this might require more categorization than is really appropriate for our little set of articles. Phil wink (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poetry/The_Canterbury_Tales_task_force&oldid=1238827538"