Talk:Ozymandias/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Ozy man god

The concluding two sentences of the paragraph entitled "Analysis" seem absolute nonsense to me. Besides the obvious typographical errors in "Its broken and forgotton. Dias is greek for god so its Ozy man god.", another reason for removing these remarks would be the fact that they are incorrect. As far as I know, "theos" is Greek for "god". "Dias" might be derived from the genitive of "Zeus", which is "Dios", but I'm not sure of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.128.50.127 (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture: Incarnations of Immortality

I think in the 4th or 5th book someone promised Ozymandias to have the poem made in exchange for information or something when they were visiting him in Hell.

I am fairly certain that the sixth book of Incarnations of Immortality had Ozymandias as a significant character managing Hell. The new devil (Perry?), calling himself Satan, needed help managing the demonic realm, after finding out about the poem Ozymandias agreed, mostly so he could have power and authority again.

I'd add the info myself, but it needs more cross-checking to get the info straightened out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thornbrier (talk • contribs) 18:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In early 2000, at the height of the dotcom boom, the magazine of the student union at the University of Lund published a brilliant travesty of the poem to examine Mr.Jonas Birgersson, a computer whiz kid who had risen from obscurity to become head of the hottest property in the IT business of Sweden (he was sometimes referred to as "the Broadband Jesus" and a business legend some way outside of the country too). After the narrator told of how he'd received a tip by a web writer to visit the company website and check out its miraculous but friendly content, he beheld the face of Birgersson on the company flash page speaking the words ""My name is Birgersson, a king o'the web/ Look at my works, ye small, then follow me!"/ Just then my modem died. Alas, since then/ I've been unable to find the path to ascend/ going there: the web changing all too fast, my friend" (my translation) :D

"Just then my modem died" is effing brilliant to match Shelley's original reversal.

Less than two months later, Birgersson's Aladdin-like company and several other big, young web and telecom production enterprises/studios that had been bursting with loaned-up investor money, and which had been more overvalued than AIM or WorldCom (and never made any actual profit, but the business was hotter than hot) went into a spiral dip on the Stockholm stock exchange. Three years later, you could buy up shares in many of those companies for less than the cost of a stamp; in 1999-2000, they had seemed to defy business laws of gravity. Great timing in the publication of that one! 83.254.159.35 (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference no. 6

Hey the reference no. 6 is not in English and it does not translate in Google translate. I think it should be replaced for a reference somewhere else.--67eldorado (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The text in the article which reference #6 follows is already supported by a separate footnote, so reference #6 could just be deleted outright. I will do this shortly unless someone objects. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture

The summary for this edit should read 'Edit restored without explanation', but I wrote the wrong thing due to inattention. I'd be interested to hear what people think about the inclusion of material in the 'In popular culture' section. My view is that only significant and sustained engagements with the poem should be included. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Which Ramesses statue?

Lonely Planet says that the poem is based on the fallen statue of Ramesses II at the Ramesseum in Thebes, which I visited today. This article does not mention this possibility. Are the authors of this article certain that this is not correct? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• It is self-evident that Shelley did not see either a statue or a location before writing the poem. "The lone and level sands stretch far away" is hardly an accurate description of the location of the Ramesseum at Luxor. In light of this, the discussion on the page about which is the original statue, and whether Shelley would have seen it, is a bit misplaced. This is a Romantic poem, which takes its inspiration from an unseen (imagined) location and statue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.167.206 (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That description certainly doesn't fit. Dougweller (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The poem is likely inspired by descriptions of Kings Sesostris and Sethos in Herodotus' Histories Book II, which covers Egypt and its history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.207.170 (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I should add that the identity of Sesostris is thought by some modern historians to indeed be based on Ramesses II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.207.170 (talk) 08:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Which syllable is lost when the name is truncated?

I would guess the "a" (fifth syllable), but the "y" (second) is also a possibility. What is the correct pronunciation when the name is shortened? 70.172.215.4 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's the final "i", which turns into a yod: Five syllables /ˌɒziˈmændiəs/, four syllables /ˌɒziˈmændjəs/ (i.e. oz-zy-MAN-dyus instead of oz-zy-MAN-dee-us). --Trovatore (talk)

Hidden meaning?

Was it appreciated at the time, that the sands of the desert are a moving sea, sometimes inundating the land in great waves, sometimes scoured away to the bare rock? Is it a recognized interpretation that all the works of Ozymandias might remain (so to speak, not literally :) ) somewhere beneath the sands of R'lyeh, one day to rise unscathed? Wnt (talk) 07:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Breaking Bad

Can people please stop adding Breaking Bad to the Cultural References section. Ozymandias is a very famous poem, and we're not trying to produce a complete list of references. As far as I can tell, Breaking Bad does no more than refer to the poem's title in passing. Celuici (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Although the title of one upcoming Breaking Bad episode is indeed "Ozymandias", AMC has also released a major promotional commercial for the show that has series star Bryan Cranston reciting the entire poem against a very striking visual montage. It has been seen by over 300,000 people on YouTube. A one-sentence mention of this derivative artwork is appropriate in the Ozymandias article. Rickyjames (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's still only a commercial though. The TV show itself may be significant, but the commercial is nothing but highly ephemeral. And indeed one person's striking montage is another's "cobbled-together footage and public domain text put together with limited effort". In ten years' time, are we really expecting this article to read: 'In 2013, the poem was recited in a commercial for Breaking Bad.'? I realise that there is a wider problem here that none of this section is sourced. But the Breaking Bad trailer reference seems to be far too trivial to merit inclusion. Celuici (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Breaking Bad commercial you are calling trivial has probably brought the poem to the attention of more people at one time than any other event in its nearly two centuries of being around. Do you think the London Examiner had a circulation of 300,000 back in 1818, or any of the anthologies that have included it since had first edition printings that high? I believe an event that has brought the poem to the attention to almost a third of a million people deserves a single measly sentence in its Wikipedia article.Rickyjames (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.81.165.188 (talk)

i agree with Rickyjames this is what draw attention the biggest attention to this poem and article, just look at view's statistics !! --hosam007 (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Celuici: Stop removing the paragraphs because you have some personal vendetta against Breaking Bad. The episode titled "Ozymandias" is the most prominent in the show's history, and the poem isn't just in the title; it's used as a metaphor for the fall of Walt's empire in the episode. It's extremely relevant to mention it here. The monkeyhate (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You're confusing me with another editor -- I haven't edited that section in over a month. Actually my position has now changed and I support including Breaking Bad in this section -- there are now plenty of sources to verify the significance of the reference, and it's clear that Shelley's poem has influenced the creation of a substantial new piece of art in a significant way, which is the criterion I always apply to these 'In popular culture' sections. Celuici (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The Breaking Bad bit should stay. It's really hard to deny that the show very much helped to (re-)popularize the poem. One might just look at the traffic stats for this article: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/ozymandias

• Before the trailer came out, daily traffic was between 1,000 and 2,500 hits per day.
• The publication of the trailer in early August increased traffic to almost 20,000.
• Finally, the broadcast of the episode saw traffic increase to 120,000.

And this is just for en.wiki.

The episode has drawn a lot of attention and is widely regarded as groundbreaking. And it does more than merely refer to the title. Apart from mirroring the poem's theme, the episode also prompted journalists and reviewers to discuss the poem in the episode's context.

• http://entertainment.time.com/2013/09/16/ozymandias-what-does-that-breaking-bad-episode-title-mean/
• http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/09/breaking-bad-ozymandias-recap
• http://www.bustle.com/articles/4841-a-poetic-breaking-bad-theory-for-the-yet-to-come-series-finale
• http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/recap-breaking-bad-season-5-episode-14-ozymandias-20130915

If comic books can be mentioned why not a TV show? 91.22.10.207 (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither should be mentioned here. They are relevant facts for their own articles, but just passing trivia for this page. Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

And what about the Woody Allen movies? It would be a double standard to leave them in. Or has Breaking Bad just become too popular and is thus not highbrow enough? Pretty ludicrous to think that way. 91.22.10.207 (talk) 22:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

They need to go as well. Trivia within context. This article is not supposed to be a list. For the record I think the 2nd half of this season is the best most gripping tv I've ever seen. Ceoil (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

For those of you arguing that Breaking Bad should not be on this article, you WILL lose this battle. It's too important and significant. 24.47.245.66 (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The point is not whether Breaking Bad is a significant TV programme. The issue is whether the programme's reference to 'Ozymandias' is significant and substantial enough to warrant a mention. Celuici (talk) 19:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree. I dont think it is, though the cultural reference section is more choeriant and less listy than it was three weeks ago. Its at a stage I could live with. Ceoil (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Misspelling

In Shelley's poem "Ozymandias" the correct spelling is "desert," whilst in Horace Smith's poem by the same name, the spelling is the archaic "Desart".

I agree. I'll wait for rebuttals, and if it's not refuted with a valid argument, then I will revert it to desert. There is a warning in the text quoted, not to change anything, alleging that desart is the valid spelling. However, the two references posted, show both spellings, and the one that has stronger ties to the original soonet uses desert. Poems Published with Rosalind and Helen, 1819 shows desart: although nominally from 1819, this source is a modern reprint, and its time distance from the original work does not increase confidence in a correct spelling. Miscellaneous and Posthumous Poems of Percy Bysshe Shelley, which was printed in 1826, shows that the sonnet uses the spelling desert. A further search for the alternate spelling in the same source shows 13 instances of the spelling desart. It is unlikely that an original publication, closer to the date of the composition of the sonnet, and which is furthermore well aware of both spellings, would attribute an incorrect spelling just in Ozymandias. To conclude I propose to change the spelling, and/or even to paste the image from page 100 of the entire sonnet from the 1826 publication.--Gciriani (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The box quoting the poem has a disclaimer: "ACTUAL SPELLING FROM EARLIEST PUBLICATION". Actually that is false, since it is an edited reprint from 1876 as shown in the third page of the reference. The earliest publication we have available among the references presented is from 1826 with the spelling desert.--Gciriani (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Until a few weeks ago we were using an 1819 edition on Google Books which used 'desart'. The original version in the The Examiner is also on Google Books so it might be worth resolving this issue by using whatever spelling/formatting appears in it -- here's a link to the poem within it (p. 24 if this doesn't work). Celuici (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for The Examiner. I counted 12 orthographic discrepancies (in addition to desert/desart) between it and the one that is still being used in the article box: 2x line 1, 2x line 2, 1x line 6, 4x line 10, 2x line 11, 1x line 13. Some, of those in the Examiner seem to me plain copying errors, because they do not make sense: see for example the opening and closing of the reported speech on line 10, which should close on line 11. In some writing by Shelley that I bumped into, he seems to admit to errors, which he was hoping would be corrected in a subsequent publication. This is my rationale for upholding the 1826 publication. So I hope that using the latter is preferable to the Examiner's version.--Gciriani (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Chronological error

In the analysis it is said the Shelly was likely inspired by the 1821 arrival of the statue of Ramesses II. But the sonnet was written in 1818 was it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwig428 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

News of the discovery of the statue had already arrived, and it is the news that inspired the sonnet, even though the statue was not yet ready to be shipped.--Gciriani (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

When did the Younger Memnon arrive, exactly?

This article says the Younger Memnon arrived in London in 1821, while the main article on the statue says it arrived in 1818, much closer to the poem's writing and publishing. Although I suspect that 1818 is likely correct here, that is an informed guess, and I am not qualified to say for sure. Therealpirateblue (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Seriously, sparknotes and cliffnotes are not reliable sources. You can find better, far more respectable sources on Google Books and JSTOR that should be employed here to discuss the poem. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

On another note, I'd be glad to take a swipe at the article to improve it toward GA quality, but since I refuse to use cite templates, any revision work would be with manual citations. Per WP:CITEVAR, I would have to seek consensus among the article's contributors to employ manual citations in any revision of the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I would be happy to join you on this; as it stands the artcile is appalling. I'm encouraged that your inclined towards manual refs, never use templates, fully support you there. Ceoil (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ceoil:, I am familiar with your work on various poetry and literature topics and I look forward to our collaboration. I have reached out to you via e-mail.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Got it Colonel. I see you have a head start. Ceoil (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

revision ideas

Just an idea of a prospective outline for the article as it is revised. Subject to change. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Prospective Outline:

• 1 Writing and publication history
  • 1.1 Writing (the statue as inspiration, its history, Shelley's writing, the Shelley-Smith competition)
  • 1.2 Publication history (The Examiner, collections, notable later anthologies)
  • 1.3 Smith's poem
  • 1.4 Comparison of the two poems (side-by-side)
  • 1.5 Critical reception
• 2 Analysis and interpretation
  • 2.1 Scansion
  • 2.2 Themes
• 3 Its impact in literature

Discussion

• Versions (we have so far four orthographically-different version of Shelley's sonnet, none of which is identical to the one shown in the comparison; perhaps it makes sense pointing this out, with the major differences, and the notes relating to the changes, written by Shelley himself and from the various publishers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gciriani (talk • contribs) 14:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Gciriani: - I do agree it is necessary to discuss the various versions texts, but perhaps that kind of variorum analysis might be best to include as part of the discussion of the poem's writing/publication history. --ColonelHenry (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Translation of inscription unsupported, because link broken (or otherwise)

There are 2 references given under "Themes", supporting the translation of the critical inscription of the statue that leads to the central irony driving this PBS poem:

• Diodorus Siculus. "1.47.4". Bibliotheca Historica (in Greek). Vol. 1–2. Immanel Bekker. Ludwig Dindorf. Friedrich Vogel. In aedibus B. G. Teubneri. At the Perseus Project.

This link takes one to a Greek rendering of the text of the source work by Diodorus Siculus; no English translation appears.

• RPO Editors. "Percy Bysshe Shelley : Ozymandias". University of Toronto Department of English. University of Toronto Libraries, University of Toronto Press. Retrieved 18 September 2006. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)

This link takes one to the main home page of this UT poetry project, not to this poem's page, and not to any English rendering of the transcription; moreover, when one finds their way to the RPO page for Ozymandias, the English rendering of the inscription contained in a footnote does not match the English appearing in Wikipedia.

Bottom line, neither reference contains nor supports this English rendering of the inscription, as it appears here, either because earlier links are now dead, or because original sourcing was deficient; the inscription is therefore replaced by the inscription that does appear at the RPO Ozymandias webpage, and the citations are adjusted so they link directly to pages with relevant content. LeProf 50.179.245.225 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added a further citation—to the earlier 1933 Loeb translation—appearing at UChicago's Penelope site, which also precisely matches the translation appearing here. LeProf 50.179.245.225 (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Which Shelley's version?

To avoid an edit war over the two spellings desert vs desart, I think it would be good to discuss it here. There are four versions of the sonnet with competing orthographies, neither one of which is fully implemented in the article's version: the manuscript, the 1818 Examiner version, the 1826version and the 1876version. A previous talk presented some of the points but obviously it didn't attract enough attention from those who are concerned with the spelling. There are also comments by Shelley himself, and subsequent publisher that add to this picture. These comments suggest that in early versions there were errors and mistakes, and that later publishers edited the sonnet: we do not know yet if these editors introduced correct and/or authorized edits. My point of view is that although antecedent, we probably do not want neither the manuscript nor the Examiner versions because these have inconsistencies that Shelley himself recognized; the 1876 version is very similar to the 1826 version, but at the beginning of the book there is a comment by the publisher, which suggests that changes were made; so we are left with the 1826 version which has the spelling desert. --Gciriani (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I just put into position the content was already on the article at the beginning of a revision, so my formatting the section with the poem is by no means a reflection of my opinion on the matter. My intention at that time was to put into place a skeleton to revise the article around. The big problem is that English was still struggling with a system of consistent spellings inconsistently applied during the 18th and 19th centuries, something that was discussed in the book The Lexicographer's Dilemma. I have it on my to do list to check into the orthography issue and see if I can find any scholarly articles on the issue, but I don't have the time to dedicate to it for the next few days. I tend to think that we should go with the first published version, since later versions are often emended by editors and not by the poet (as in this case), but since this has a few more complexities and needs a little historical work before determining what course we should choose, I admit I have to consider/read a lot more before I put forth a position on that course selection.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• If you come across anything in the meantime regarding scholarship/articles/etc. that could help us decide on a course, send it my way.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal

I think we should go with the 1818 Examiner version of the poem for the following reasons:

• It was the first published version;
• It was published in Shelley's lifetime;
• It was the version that was published as a result of the friendly competition with Horace Smith;
• The 1826 and 1876 versions were published after Shelley's death and it is not certain whether any emendations to the poem were by his direction, based on what research, or just an editor's judgment;
• The holographic manuscript cannot be said to be conclusively final as a draft;
• We should include a section that offers a "variorum" of how the poem developed in many post-1818 publication as supported by sources;
• We should insert warning or advisory statements (whatever they call those, I'm not sure) in the text of the poem to prevent repeated editwarring over competing spelling. This was employed with success at the article on Kilmer's poem "Trees" with no further incident.

Just a few thoughts.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I do not oppose your ideas, but here are my observations: many people will be upset by the original version, as it makes the poem less readable; it seems like we are developing original scholarly work rather than reporting in an encyclopedic style.--Gciriani (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Gciriani: - Would it be preferable then to take a version from a public-domain source in the early 20th c., like the Harvard Classics series (1909-1914) [1] which has the modern orthography? Was Ozymandias in the 1919 Oxford Book of English Verse? I wouldn't object to either of those. And if it avoids the edit warring problems we've seen and likely will continue to encounter, all the better.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Also, if we discuss the orthography and support it with sources, it isn't original research. It would just add another piece to the comprehensiveness of the article's discussion of the history and evolution of the poem.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

@ColonelHenry: - I just entered in possession of a 1933 complete collection of Shelley's work. HUTCHINSON, Thomas (editor). 1933. The Complete Poetical Works of Percy Bysshe Shelley. Oxford Standard Edition. New York: Oxford University Press. The spelling is desert. The most interesting comment though, is in the editor's preface, which you can read for yourself here. A point made is:

"To have reproduced the spelling of the MSS would only have served to divert attention from Shelley's poetry... Shelley was neither very accurate, nor always consistent, in his spelling. He was, to say the truth, indifferent about all such matters ... Irregular or antiquated forms such as ... 'desart' ...can only serve to distract the reader's attention, and mar his enjoyment of the the verse. Accordingly Shelley's eccentricities in this kind have been discarded, and his spelling revised in accordance with modern usage."--Gciriani (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Gciriani: - I absolutely LOVE that. That should be the coup de grace and determine our steps forward.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@ColonelHenry: - Although my printed issue of the book is from 1933, it reads exactly the same as the 1909, which is the one I linked. I see from your Wikipedia background that you are use to work on literary topics. Therefore, since my background is technical, I let you propose the further steps: new section?--Gciriani (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Gciriani: Let's use the Hutchinson version with its modern spellings and usage, I'll put that in tonight once I can take a look through Hutchinson to render the poem exactly as he does. I'll compare it with other leading modern editions to bolster that position. And I'll add that quote about the orthography issues and modern usage in the body. I assume we're agreed on this and we have explained our reasoning. If anyone has an issue with our use of Hutchinson, we direct them to the talk page. Good work on finding that source and quote.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@ColonelHenry: - I compared the two and found 4 differences on lines 3, 8, 10 and 11 [Hutchinson vs Benbow]: line 3 [... vs .]; line 8 [, vs blank]; lines 10 and 11 [' vs "]. The Hutchinson edition also references Locock's Examination &c, 1903, p.46, which reads:

• "Line 3 in the MS, begins Stand in the desart ... There is a comma in the middle of line 8. Line 9 reads - 'And on the pedestal this legend clear. '

So we found even more variorums (I just learned the word variorum reading the commentaries, I hope I'm using it correctly).

Support votes

Oppose votes

Agree entirely with @Gciriani on presenting an academic version of wide use, and not presenting (or be seen as presenting) original research. Note, I believe variora is the traditional plural of variorum (though both of these are appearing). See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/variorum. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.245.225 (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

One of the sentences does not make logical sense "Smith's poem would be first published in The Examiner a few weeks after Shelley's sonnet." Jason smit (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It makes sense, but maybe should be reworded if enough people get confused. It's not saying Smith's was published first, it's saying when Smith's was published for the first time. 98.243.94.83 (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ozymandias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130305043103/http://www.cliffsnotes.com:80/study_guide/literature/id-245.html to http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/id-245.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"King of Kings"?

There seem to be lots of strong sources that give "king of kings" and "King of Kings". I don't know if the poet used both in various drafts (poets' versions often change over time) but the manuscript pictured in the article is written "King of Kings". As explained in the article, it is a title taken by certain monarchs, somewhat synonymous with 'emperor' and therefore seems appropriate to capitalise. If Shelley did have various versions, perhaps with other published changes, it might be worth noting in the article. Span (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted because it's lower case in the version cited in footnote 1, which is where the rest of the poem is taken from. The manuscript has some other variations, such as the ellipsis after "Desart", which don't appear in the version that we have in the article. It would be good if we could decide which version we are going to use, then produce a consistent transcription. I dont have much preference which. Celuici (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense and I agree we should stick to a version given in reference. I've added a link to the reference previewable on Google Books. Span (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Anna calm down......the sonnet is correct... and what perch means is that he used to be having the highest power and authority and was the greatest emperor of all time. Diesumbreaker (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Spelling

Is 'desart' correct in the poem? I suppose it is a spelling error for 'desert'.

Yes it is correct -- 'desart' is an historic alternative spelling. Celuici (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It's desert.

Diesumbreaker (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)