Talk:Petrarchan sonnet

The first and second paragraph of the "Background" sections repeat themselves wrt the rhyme scheme. Unfortunately I can't think of a better structure or I would've changed it myself already. --Rubik's Cube (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

I doubt this needs its own article.--Lkjhgfdsa 14:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, the format in the "Sonnets" article is much better 92.24.99.130 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

So it could be proposed to merge the article into sonnet. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This article makes little sense when showing an "example sonnet"... It labels the lines "ABBAABBA" etc, without actually looking to see if it fits the format. The rhyme scheme is actually ABABABAB etc. Just thought I'd mention it, maybe someone could find a better example sonnet? MissPengywin (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC) An example of a Petrach sonnet ending: CDCDCD, Is as follows: ‘A Time To Consider’: Time accountable we should consider, For it is the means by which we succeed, And if to its transitions we take heed, Many obstacles may we then deter. Here is a point to which, if we refer, And if success is to accrue indeed, It can then to our means truly concede; Enabling their success to thus occur. Do not sensible inspection forsake, Or forget that we should not be deceived. If we a method advisable take, Results advisable can be received. If then an astute existence we make, So might a winning outlook be achieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.186.224 (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Robert Canary's web page

I tried to access Robert Canary's web page, The Continental Origins of the Sonnet, but cannot. In searching, I have found several other mentions of it, some clearly derived from this Wikipedia article, others perhaps not. It may be accessible by the Wayback Machine, but that now requires subscription, and I have not worked myself up to that yet. The current reference in the article is invalid. J S Ayer (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Petrarchan sonnet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091004141628/http://oldweb.uwp.edu/academic/english/canary/sonnet_origin.html to http://oldweb.uwp.edu/academic/english/canary/sonnet_origin.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Name Change

I suggest the name should be changed to "Italian sonnet" as although Petrarch is the most famous writer of these sonnets it wasn't invented by him nor was it made famous by him. "Italian sonnet" is a much better title as the page is about all the Italian sonnets and not only Petrarch's. Italian is the most common name and Petrarchan is more of a nickname.

Mistress?

What on earth does this mean?

"The form also gave rise to an "anti-Petrarchan" convention which may have revealed the mistress to be ugly and unworthy."

My first guess is that it is a vestigial leftover from a previous version of the article. In any case an update or deletion seems to be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.15.52 (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)