Talk:End Poem
A fact from End Poem appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 June 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Did you know nomination
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- ... that Julian Gough wrote in Minecraft's End Poem that "you are love" (quote pictured), and then put the poem into the public domain after a psilocybin trip prompted him to heed that message? Source: "I wrote a story for a friend" (Gough); Guy Who Wrote Minecraft's Ending Poem Makes It Public Domain After Taking Shrooms (Vice)
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Taxi Driver (Alexander McQueen collection)
- Comment:
I'm aware this can't be promoted until the proposed merge is resolved, but we're creeping up on 7 days, so nominating this now. I may have an image to add soon; we'll see.Update 1: Image added. Update 2: Merge discussion closed.
Converted from a redirect by Tamzin (talk). Self-nominated at 04:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/End Poem; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- @Tamzin: New enough, long enough, and plagiarism free, but I'm troubled by the state of the sourcing. I'll defer to you on Chatfield 2012 and Gault 2022, but I'm still concerned by Gough 2022 (pushing the limits of WP:PRIMARY/non-independent and what that kind of source should be used for), Thielenhaus 2017 (the fact that even the Video Games WikiProject won't stamp the source as fully reliable is troubling), and Creswell 2022 (CBR writes a lot about a lot, but frequently doesn't constitute much due weight). But the hook checks out, and it's definitely interesting. Image licensing checks out (glad you got through the hoops), used in the article and is clear at shrunken size. Nice work so far! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- @leek: I agree Thielenhaus and Creswell aren't great sources, but they're primarily cited for commentary, and reliable enough to that end in my opinion. I removed the one potentially contentious statement that was cited to Creswell (that the poem confuses fans). The other two statements cited to Creswell—that the poem displays with glitched text and that its contents are largely unchanged—are both easily verifiable in primary sources. As to the use of Gough 2022 as an ABOUTSELF source, are there specific statements you take issue with? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Tamzin: Thanks for the tweaks – several of Gough 2022's citations seem to be supporting claims about third parties? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- @leek: This good? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- yep! Super fun article, good to go :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- @leek: This good? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Tamzin: Thanks for the tweaks – several of Gough 2022's citations seem to be supporting claims about third parties? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- @leek: I agree Thielenhaus and Creswell aren't great sources, but they're primarily cited for commentary, and reliable enough to that end in my opinion. I removed the one potentially contentious statement that was cited to Creswell (that the poem confuses fans). The other two statements cited to Creswell—that the poem displays with glitched text and that its contents are largely unchanged—are both easily verifiable in primary sources. As to the use of Gough 2022 as an ABOUTSELF source, are there specific statements you take issue with? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 07:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
End Poem and advertising stunt
[edit]Given that Wikipedia is about highlighting real world events, should it not reject this PR stunt? For should a poem, aimed at advertising a product, be allowed?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.239 (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- The End Poem exists apart from its use in Minecraft and is discussed in the article as a piece of literature. I don't think this article is a PR stunt, but needless to say, Wikipedia is about more than
highlighting real world events
. 〜 Askarion ✉ 20:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Not a poem?
[edit]The page currently describes the End Poem as a poem. I'm not sure that this is correct; it seems like a prose dialogue to me. Dingolover6969 (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)