Talk:The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock at the Reference desk. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Merge request
editThe following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock in popular culture should be merged into The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock as the former article is poorly developed and of uncertain notability, while this article could easily handle what is there already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Support plausible. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, very strongly oppose, actually. The popular culture article was spun out of this one, and is only at its currently manageable size because I have kept it from being overwhelmed with trivial garbage. When it was a separate section here, it was crammed with garbage. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's an issue of management, not of notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- If it's not notable enough for a separate article, why would it be notable enough as a section, or sub-section, here in the main article? The notability is determined by the content, which, at this point, is notable. The question is still management whether here or there. Look back through the edit history and see how many times "popular culture" sections were created, deleted, recreated, etc. It is best to keep it separate and well-maintained than to continue that back-and-forth here. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't mind deleting it entirely, as previous bits of "in popular culture" have gone down the drain. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- If it's not notable enough for a separate article, why would it be notable enough as a section, or sub-section, here in the main article? The notability is determined by the content, which, at this point, is notable. The question is still management whether here or there. Look back through the edit history and see how many times "popular culture" sections were created, deleted, recreated, etc. It is best to keep it separate and well-maintained than to continue that back-and-forth here. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 16:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose, very strongly oppose the merger. I agree with TheOldJacobite. WikiParker (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose- The pop culture section is a laundry list of pop culture trivia that isn't encyclopedic. But since Wikipedia contributors love posting pop culture trivia, it's probably best to keep the laundry list separate. That way folks who are interested can find it (or continue posting to it), but it doesn't get confused with meaningful information about the actual poem.Jpcohen (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
As this discussion is clearly moribund, with the majority of responses opposing the merger, I am removing the merge tags. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 18:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but as an academic, a longtime contributor, and one who wishes Wikipedia to become something that can be offered as a convenient and reliable educational source, I have to suggest that the separate existence of this short pop culture article is wholly self- (editor- and Wikipedia process-) serving, and is not in any sense a service to encyclopedia readers. The foregoing decision-making regarding the course of the two articles appears to be an example where common sense was over-ruled by editorial fiat of a few most-opinionated parties, with truncation of discussion without seeking a wider consensus, or the opinions of those with the larger view of how Wikipedia wishes such articles to evolve. (For fear of what might result if the wider consensus was sought?) Do with this pair of articles as you please, they are your articles clearly. But it makes no objective sense — as the foregoing feeble "argument" in support of the status quo makes very clear — to have a short, clearly related, and utterly dependent article remain as a separate entity (however much easier its being separate might be for those involved). 71.239.87.100 (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Dark Star
editThe chorus of the Grateful Dead classic song "Dark Star" features the lines "Shall we go them you and I while we can" which the lyricist Robert Hunter lifter from The Love Song Of J. Alfred Prufrock" The song was originally recorded in 1967 but a 23 minute live recording of the song from 27 Februarybecame a favourite of Grateful Dead fans including Francis Ford Coppola when released on the album Live/Dead in 1969. Thisrecording is possibly an important reference point for later modern cultural references to the poem 2A02:8084:90C3:4C80:B86D:FBE5:33A5:E38D (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)