Talk:Dylan Thomas

Copyedit

After some consideration, I have reverted an edit by Snowded who has described my edits on my talk page as "more colloquial, less encyclopaedic" yet feels "pub" is preferable to "public house". I completely disagree that I made it less encyclopedic. The article shows signs of having been written by multiple editors, lacks coherence which a copyedit would at least go some way to addressing. The paragraph about the pronunciation of his name is frankly a mess and jumps about all over the place. If it is reverted summarily again I will conclude the regular editors prefer the article in this state. The article has too many superfluous words and phrases, and is quite contradictory, "He shied away from school" doesn't tally with the quote, "Never was there such a dame school as ours, so firm and kind and smelling of galoshes".Flitterby (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought your edits were generally ok. The paragraph about pronunication of his name could be improved. There is a bit of a conflict between the ordinary guide and the IPA. It's the dark u sound, not the clear one. And those fellwo Swansea school children would never have called him "dull one", of course, but "dull 'un". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There were a few changed meanings in the above edit and some important details were edited out. I have tweaked accordingly and added some new refs. Yes, the article is a work in progress, but the end goal is to aim for engaging, brilliant and refreshing prose. Span (talk) 12:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

And as 2014 sees the hundredth anniversary of Dylan's birth, with funding already provided for celebrations by the Welsh Assembly, maybe it would be a decent joint project between WikiProject Wales and WikiProject Poetry to have Dylan Thomas as the Featured article on 27th October 2014. FruitMonkey (talk) 12:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a copyvio tag needs to be added as it closely mirrors this site.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.113.162 (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's the other way around. The entire site lifts directly from WP. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Working to FA sounds good. I don't think the article as it stands is so howlingly awful. A good place to start. Span (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think aiming for plain English would be an improvement. Flitterby (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

How about "plain engaging, brilliant and refreshing English prose"? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Influences

Does anyone have any cites or webpages that back up the claims in the infobox that Thomas is influenced by these: Arthur Rimbaud, D. H. Lawrence, Welsh Mythology, James Joyce, John Donne. In my biographies, none of these are mentioned. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This source [2] says: "Previous to this period, his most important prose pieces were his semiautobiographical short stories, Portrait of the Artist as a Young Dog (1940), which stylistically and thematically bear comparison to James Joyce's Dubliners and Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Both Joyce's and Thomas's works offer negative views of their respective backgrounds—Ireland and Wales—each depicting what “for artists,” as Kenneth Seib observed, “is a world of death, sterility, and spiritual debasement.” The most popular prose piece to issue from Thomas's later period is his play for voices, Under Milk Wood (1954). Again critics noted the similarities between Thomas and James Joyce. In Under Milk Wood and Joyce's Ulysses, each author captures the life of a whole society as it is reflected in a single day; for Joyce it is the urban life in Dublin, while for Thomas it is the Welsh village of Llaregyub." So similarity, but not necessarily a direct influence? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

[3] says: "By this time, Thomas was being hailed as the most spectacular of the surrealist poets. He acknowledged his debt to James Joyce and strewed his pages with invented words and fused puns. Thomas also acknowledged his debt to Sigmund Freud, stating: "Poetry is the rhythmic, inevitably narrative, movement from an overclothed blindness to a naked vision…. Poetry must drag further into the clear nakedness of light more even of the hidden causes than Freud could realize." (taken from Gale Encyclopedia of Biography) Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Also this [4] is quite interesting, particularly the quote given in Fitzgibbon. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Neither Enotes or About.com is an RS. Here are Rimbaud, Freud, Lawrence and Joyce, Donne (tracing a straight line between Donne and Thomas, not attributing direct influence), Welsh myth. Span (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, this is of great help. I'll revisit this tomorrow. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sickly child?

Do we have a quote on this? Ferris reports him as a strong athlete, "He ran in school races and cross country for years", at the age of 12 won an under-15s mile race (although with a 100yrd head start due to his age and size) which is backed up with a clipping (printed in the book) from the press that Thomas carried in his wallet for years. Even if he did suffer from asthma, do we think he was sickly? FruitMonkey (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also neurotic here: [5] ! Even has its own website: [6] !! Martinevans123 (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This article mentions he was sick as a child but got over it. It seems the author was reading some kind of biography (not just reading the WP article. [7] It also says that Thomas's mother wasn't totally sure of the year of her son's birth. This is hardly an RS but it would be interesting to see where the idea is from. The article says Thomas's "father was a frustrated and an angry would-be poet". Neurosis from the father, perhaps.Span (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There is strong evidence Thomas was very sick as a child. Selected writings of Dylan Thomas (restricted Google preview) says: "As a child Thomas was sickly. He suffered from severe lung haemorrhages, but had grown out of this by the time he went to Swansea Grammar School at the age of ten. However, he was left with scarred lungs and a tendency to bronchitis." Other biogs mention this and mention that he started chain smoking at 15, which didn't help. Dylan Thomas: a new life says "Throughout his childhood, he was considered delicate and sickly. He later described how this made him suitable for a career as writer, because 'the majority of literature is the outcome of ill men'. It too is on restricted view but it seems his mother was terrified that he would contract TB; a valid worry, I'd imagine. Span (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

David N. Thomas says "As soon as he was old enough, he was sent on long holidays to various aunts in the Welsh countryside. There were endless nagging fears about TB; though the closest Dylan ever came to it was visiting one of his New Quay friends in a sanatorium, " (p. 19) Martinevans123 (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It could well be that both facts are true. A sickly child until ten, then threw himself into sports. There are many examples of great sportspeople who were ill as children and were not allowed or couldn't partake in sports, and then when they recovered took up as many physical activities as possible. If he was poorly up until ten, he could well have developed a passion for running as a teen. (...and then found nicotine.) FruitMonkey (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Working article to GA

I have reverted a set of edits by Flitterby. The edits remove a lot of salient material and is taking us further from GA status not helping us to move towards it. To pick up a few points: "Thomas's last collection Collected Poems, 1934–1952" is changed to "Thomas's last anthology Collected Poems, 1934–1952". It isn't an anthology. Non-grammatical sentences are constructed "Their daughter, Aeronwy Thomas-Ellis, on 3 March 1943 (d. 2009). " "He was ill and had a history of blackouts and heart problems, he used an inhaler in New York to help his breathing." "The anthology was published by Fortune Press, in part a vanity publisher that did not pay its writers and expected them to buy a certain number of copies themselves." This sentence is changed to "Fortune Press, a vanity publisher". This is just plainly inaccurate and diverges from the source. The press was well respected for some of its publications. What is held to be 'simplifying' is changing the meaning, clouding the clarity and hacking the style. There are too many problems to go through them all. I do think that for a new editor, it is worth backing up and listening to concerns that have been raised. We are aiming to write a great, detailed and accurate article, specifically in an encyclopaedic tone. This is explicitly a formal tone. WP:TONE has more details on this. Please appreciate that all the editors are volunteering their time with the single intention of improving the article. Thank you. Span (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Goodness me what a tirade. There is nothing "great" about your reversion, I never see my work as finished as you obviously see yours. I was explicitly advised to be bold. You obviously prefer the article as it is. My tone is neutral and formal, I am encyclopedic not long-winded. I too am an editor volunteering my time and am certainly not making it worse.Flitterby (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone enlighten me as to why a tiled and rendered house is described s "red-brick"? Flitterby (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

When it was built it was a red-brick house, the back walls surrounding the garden still are, as they have not been rendered. Therefore he lived in a red-brick house. This journal article mentions the red-bricks. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We all respect your aims Flitterby. Your boldness is appreciated. We should obviously aim to be "encyclopedic". Please don't take any criticism personally. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am taking nothing personally, someone else is. Flitterby (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not a tirade, it's a request to back up and listen to other editors. The red brickness of the building is cited by a reliable source. Here are photos of the inside if you need visual evidence. [8]. "Augustus John, who was Macnamara's lover at the time" again gives the sense of chronology. It was a short lived affair. That is important detail that should not be cut out. Please check Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Span (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a tirade from where I'm sitting and the only editor demanding I "back up" (whatever is meant by that) is Spanglej. I have read what you have written but feel you could have corrected rather than summarily undone my edits. Your photographs of the house are no more evidence of a "red brick" dwelling than the photograph. This is my understanding of red brick. There might be a reliable source but the visual evidence rather disproves it. Still it's a good example of not to believe everything you read on wikipedia. I have taken the time to read disruptive editing, rather a threatening way to treat a fellow editor who is volunteering timre to improve an article rather than leave it in its current state.Flitterby (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

When Thomas was born at 5 Cwmdonkin Drive the red bricks from which it was made could be clearly seen. Unfortunately we don't have a picture from that time. It now has tiles and render on top of the bricks. But they are still there. It is still made of red brick. And it is still Thomas' birthplace. I think the description "red-brick" is useful as it conveys the "suburban ordinariness" of the house. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Concern over cite

The article from The Guardian is a bit of a concern for me. It is a mythologised idea of how Dylan and Caitlin met rather than how biographers have suggested it occured. I have reference that they met in the Wheatsheaf, but no where do I have a reference to it being full of smoke, or that Dylan Thomas walked over to Caitlin. If anything it would be Caitlin being introduced to Thomas by Augustus John, or she making herself known to him through John's name dropping of Thomas (there are some sources who argue that John wasn't actually there when they met). The writer is making up her own romanticized image of how this meeting occured, and although Ferris does state that Thomas spoke to Caitlin with his head on her knee, I have no proposal of marriage in two Thomas biographies or two Macnamara autobiographies. I'm not happy taking this article as read. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I take your point that this isn't mentioned in two biographies, but The Observer is a solidly reliable source. There is no evidence that the writer is making stories up. By the guidelines, if something is verifiable, it can stand. There isn't anything, currently, to flatly contradict what the writer has stated. Span (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The Independent supports the Observer. Span (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The Observer? as well as the Guardian? In wikiland, of course, verifiability trumps the truth - how poetic. We can certainly dispense with "the smokey fug" - added only to contrast with Caitlin's blue-eyed angelic beauty (no link to angel required). But in 1936, how many London West End pubs would not have been full of smoke?! As for the marriage proposal, I am less sure. I think four biographies ought to trump two newspapers, even broadsheets. And of course they are reviewing a real Hollywood film here, not real London on the 30s. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added the cite anyway. But I'm happy to have the discussion. I do think we should remove the 'rumours of an affair with John'. Caitlin only hung around with him as he was an artist, and after he raped her she stated that the sex was terrible and without passion or love. (Also no mention in biogs of this)FruitMonkey (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with Martin if the biogs gave contradictory evidence. As is, they just don't mention it. The newspapers are discussing Thomas's life. I saw the 'rumours of an affair' in a biog this afternoon, I just can't find it at the moment. Span (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The description in Vanessa Thorpe's Guardian article is framed thus: ".. a central part of the Bohemian mythology that surrounds the memory of.. " so even she admits it's a myth. As for Arifa Akbar - she says that DMT died of alcohol poisoning - more popular myth. So much for WP:RS! I can't help but feel a marriage proposal on the first meeting was somehow "made for cinema" - why should any of the biographers know when any proposal was made? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Because according to various biogs there was a party going on in the Wheatsheaf at the time and it was a pub of the literati in the middle of Fitzrovia. Thomas also seems to have loved to spin his own myths. Plenty of academic books say that alcohol played a role in killing Thomas including The Encyclopaedia of Literature in English , The New Encyclopædia Britannica and The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-Century Literature in English . That doesn't make it true, but it's more academically sourced than a 'popular myth'. Different sources suggest different scenarios, as ever. Span (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, until you read David N. Thomas' "Fatal Neglect" I think you might be forgiven for thinking that alcohol killed DMT. It certainly played a role - but it had played a role for twenty years. Yes, he boasted of 18 whiskeys, and he probably had 8. But that was five days before he died. He was a very sick man even before he left for America for the last time. And of course there was nothing in the post morten about alcohol. Apparently David N. Thomas had access to medical records not seen by any other biographer. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned that I can not find a proposal in any biography or autobiography. If we can't find them, where do the journalists get the source from? Could you state which biographies state that there was a party going on at the Wheatsheaf, as it will help me find these books to build on my understanding of this area. I've just ordered two more books tonight to help this article. Thanks. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

FM, The party is mentioned in The days of Dylan Thomas by Bill Read p84. Journalists often work via interviews and with primary material. Thomas was so tied in with the film, theatre and literature scenes on both sides of the Atlantic that he turns up lots of biographies about other people too. I think it likely that major sources clash on their telling of events, especially around his death. I suggest it's best to outline in the article when and if biogs differ rather than making out there is one clear and definitive narrative. It seems clear that this isn't the case. Span (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Martin, sure, I read reviews of Fatal Neglect. There was no doubt a context of alcohol. 'Fatty liver' was given as one of the causes of death. Dylan's hospital notes state ""acute alcoholic encephalopathy damage to the brain by alcohol". The book proposes just one theory. It's not our job to reach synthesis. We shouldn't be writing this with an axe to grind. Span (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

No axe to grind. I think you would need to read the book to get a different perspective on those hospital admission notes, especially the role of Dr Milton Feltenstein (a more recent celebrity death readily springs to mind). Thomas was having increasingly frequent blackouts and collapses in Britain for quite some time before October 1953. In short, it's not just "one theory", but an objective and thoroughly researched new analysis of all that went on in his final days. But we're straying way off topic here! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I still think it's best to frame it as new evidence presented by a revisionist author in the context of other biographers. No harm in that. Span (talk) 22:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems perfectly fair. But I have read fewer biographies that are more meticuluosly supported with sources than this one. I am really just trying to persuade you to get yourself a copy - it's fascinating! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What has been made apparent is that we have editors that want to improve and care about his article. I'm sure there will be future disagreement but if we just think about what we need to achieve, getting this article to GA status should be easily achievable in the near future. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Influences

Two influences I would like to discuss. First, Bob Dylan. Is he really an influence, or a guy that took the spelling of his name as it looked cool. Second, the Beat Generation. Kenneth Rexroth, was a friend and admirer, but influenced? Ginsberg wrote about meeting Thomas in New York in April 1952 in Journals: Early Fifties, Early Sixties, which fits in perfectly time wise, and he goes on about how he was a kindred soul. Also I've read how Thomas' performance poetry was an influence to the Beats. Any thoughts.FruitMonkey (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see mention of Bob Dylan remain at the Cultural depictions article - not really "influenced" in his work as far as I can see, apart from the name and a phrase in one song. I see that the Bob Dylan article doesn't even have Influences and Influenced in the info box. Not sure about Ginsberg at el. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dylan Thomas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 23:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements, though if there is a lot of work needed I may suggest getting a copy-editor. Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Pass. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Captions are acceptable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Prose is clear and readable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• References section. Appropriate references section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Query

• Most of the images are OK, but the lead image is problematic as it belongs to Getty Images, and there are other images of Thomas available. I think our lawyers may have a case if that was the only image available, but as there are others, Getty Images could reasonably ask why we are using that one. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that because Getty Images has expensive lawyers and the copyright owners of the others probably don't have any? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The thinking is that this aspect of Non-free media use: "No known free use images are known to exist. Photograph is not replaceable Thomas died in 1953" is unlikely to be true. The photograph is replaceable as there are many photographs of Thomas, and there is a strong possibility that a free use image exists. If a photo was published in USA between 1923 and 1977 and without a copyright notice, and the person is dead, it is in the public domain. There are also several other possibilities. A reasonable search should be conducted for an appropriate alternate image. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. A quick Google search that has been done has revealed that quite a few images have no copyright information attached or credited. What should be done? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You're better off using a photograph for which you have done a reasonable search for the copyright owner and found none, than using one which is copyrighted by a commercial company who are still earning money on the image, and may well ask Wikipedia to take it down. You could also write to the Dylan Thomas Society to see what they have. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just emailed Membership Secretary Huw Davie. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Broad coverage. Tricky criteria this one, as it is often quite subjective. I haven't really examined the article that closely yet, though I note that there is no mention of his time at New Quay. His time at New Quay is regarded as significant because of the work he produced there, and for its inspiration as the location for Under Milk Wood. Of minor, but passing interest, is also the shooting incident at New Quay. I think a few lines on New Quay would be useful, and I don't think that would be contentious. Somewhat more debatable: I am wondering if there is quite enough information on Under Milk Wood. It is mentioned, but almost in passing, as something he read while touring America. It's not to be expected that a Good Article is comprehensive, so I wouldn't be looking for a lot of information, but some sense of when it was started, where he wrote it, some of his thoughts on it as it developed. On the other side of coverage is Focus, and I note that there is quite a lot on his death. Indeed, the three sections from the American tours to Aftermath, take up a considerable portion of the article. While his death and tour is perhaps quite notable in America, his broadcasts are as notable in the rest of the world. He was known as a consummate broadcaster, and that was a large part of his popularity. Such is the power of his reading voice, that it would be worth getting a clip for the article. Have you looked on Commons to see what is there? Anyway - my thinking is that some of the material on the death could be cut back, and to compensate, some extra material on his broadcasts - perhaps a section - could be added. This is up for discussion, not a requirement. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope this helps, a section on New Quay and there it mentions Quite Early One Morning and its links as a prototype for Under Milk Wood. I know IMW needs more but maybe a start. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This gives me goose bumps all over. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

He was such an awesome reader of his own work. There is a recording, and I'll need to dig out my books to recall which one, in which there was an air raid on London while he was doing a recording, and he simply lifted his voice to cover the noise of the planes overhead. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've now beefed up the poor second half of the 1940s into its own section which focuses on his Broadcasting for the BBC. I hope this addresses your concerns. (nothing on commons) Cheers, FruitMonkey (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Fail

*Layout. The List of works is split across several sections, and mixed with Further reading. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made a quick and crude edit to those sections, though it needs tidying up as some publications appear to be duplicated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• NPOV. Phrases such as "His passionate musical lyricism caused a sensation in these years of desiccated Modernism", "regarded by critics and historians as one of the most innovative English language poets of the 20th century", and "Thomas' reputation was such that he was embraced as the 'poetic herald' for a group of English poets, the New Apocalyptics" (while his work itself did influence that group, it was his work, not his reputation), are too inclined to praise. I don't think this is a major problem in the article, as the Critical reception section appears to be fair and balanced, but it's worth adjusting those sentences, and keeping an eye out for others. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

These sentences have been addressed. FruitMonkey (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping the new lead now leans more in the correct direction. FruitMonkey (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• This is a full, detailed, well presented, clearly written and well cited article which looks very promising. I like Dylan Thomas and have some knowledge of his life and work, so I shall enjoy this. A few things which have stood out at first glance: a) the lead is going to need development, but that is common to almost all GA reviews; b) there is a statement in the Early life section that "the front bedroom where Thomas was born had a view of the 'sea-city'" - this is cited to a source I cannot see, though appears to be a mistake as the front bedroom faces away from the city, and at the time when Thomas was born, overlooked a girls school; c) the opening sentence of the lead says Thomas "is regarded by many critics and historians as one of the most innovative English language poets of the 20th century" - in my study of Thomas, opinion has been divided, and this appears to be a strong statement to be making. I checked the source given, and I couldn't find where it said that, but it did confirm my own reading - both informally as a reader, and formally at Swansea University where I took a Dylan Thomas option, that opinion is divided as to Thomas' merits and importance as a poet. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• "writing fewer works in later life" - I've not yet got my books down from the loft to check on composition dates, but I'm fairly sure this statement is inaccurate. He continued to write until his death, and his major work, Under Milk Wood, was written in his final years. As well as the poems, he also wrote scripts, stories, radio broadcasts, and various pieces of hack work, which have gradually emerged over the years. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Certainly Under Milk Wood seen as a major, if not the major, work was still being hastily finished, and re-written, just before he died in New York. But deciding this might be a bit tricky - do we count individual poems? or published works? or numbers of lines/words, or what? A clear statement from a reliable source is what is really needed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, what is needed is greater research. A good amount of Thomas' major works, including his poetry (such as "Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night"), was written in his later years. I haven't got my books down yet to check dates, but that he wrote some of his best work in later life, and that his death cut short a promising career is what I remember as being understood. I am not suggesting that what is put into the article is that he wrote major works in his later life, but that the statement that he wrote fewer works in later life needs checking carefully, and a source found for it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm just checking through some books, and found this, which is illuminating:

LAST POEMS: The five poems that follow Fern Hill in Thomas' Collected Poems, together with the Author's Prologue to this volume, constitute the only separate pieces, since the appearance in 1946 of Deaths and Entrances, which the poet has wished to preserve.

The frequency of composition has therefore been lowered to an average of one poem per year. But it would be difficult to say whether this fact signifies a diminution of poetic capacity. During this time Thomas was engaged in much other work; some purely commercial and some of literary importance. Besides lecturing in America, he produced a filmscript The Doctor and the Devils, a verse-and-prose play for broadcasting entitled Under Milk Wood, as well as further miscellaneous writings.

The six poems which remain from these years are substantial compositions, and longer than most of Thomas' pieces. What these facts seem to indicate is, that while inspiration of a worthwhile order came less seldom to the poet, its duration and strength--when it did visit him--were of considerable proportions.

— Dylan Thomas, Derek Stanford, page 129

A summary of that would be worthwhile. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Worth checking at WP:EL that all the External links are appropriate. The first link is to a Wiki, and appears very dubious. This is not a GA requirement, but is something worth doing as this article is going through a review. There are a lot of links, and some appear to be doing the same thing as this article, giving an overview of Thomas. Such articles are not appropriate for an external link - especially in a Good Article, which should be providing the same information - if there's anything in those articles that is not in this article, then bring it over, and close the link. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I must admit I am not sure how much, if anything, that first link (to [9] adds. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've been rather diverted by other stuff recently, but should be able to devote some time to this now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• After failing to find my books in the loft, I ordered some from the library, and picked them up today. I'll study the article again with the books beside me and see where we are. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Pass

This has developed very well over the past month, and much of my concerns have been addressed. This is an accessible, useful and reliable guide to Dylan Thomas and his work. There are still areas to further work on, but that is part of ongoing development, and the article as it stands now meets the Good Article criteria. I am still a little uncomfortable about the use of the lead image, though it does appear to meet our free use criteria. Two of the most iconic and famous images of Thomas are the first public reading of Under Milk Wood (the one with the fag in his mouth as he stands at a lectern pointing with a pen), and the one of him and Caitlin in Browns Hotel in Laugharne - I've not seen a copyright notice on either of these images, and it may be worth thinking about using one of those.

I see that New Quay now has a mention. For further development toward comprehensiveness, a summary of other places where he lived might be useful. Public perception appears to be that he lived in Swansea and Laugharne only - though he did live in various other places, including Oxford, and had some short periods of living in Italy (where Caitlin returned after his death). The readings in America and his death there are significant topics - though I feel that coverage of these events tends to dominate this article, and it would be useful to have a stand alone article on the tours and the death, and to move the bulk of the material to such an article, leaving behind an accessible summary per WP:Summary style. The external links section is very long and appears to contain links that do not meet WP:EL, so that needs attention.

Well done to everyone involved in working on the article. And keep up the good work in driving it forward toward Featured Article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

How important is Thomas ...and should we really care.

The opening of the article has been challenged by SilkTork, who has graciously picked up this article for GA review. For a starter the cite accompanying the statement does not back up the statement. The only book I have that explicitly uses the words "one of the most innovative English language poets of the 20th century" is the Welsh Academy Encyclopedia of Wales ...and I don't blame them for doing so. Is it a case that we just write what more general books state (not biographers) rather than giving an opinion, of 'greatest', 'most' and 'important'. What is certain is that the critics are divided.

• The Macmillan Dictionary of Biography (1985). "His poetry rich in vivid and original imagery, technically ingenious, frequently obscure, has been praised as part of a 20th-century neo-romanticism."

• Chambers Biographical Dictionary "...critics have praised his striking rhythems, his original imagery and his technical ingenuities"

• Encyclopedia Britannica "...whose work is known for its comic exhuberance, rhapsodic lilt and pathos."

• The Cambridge Biographical Encyclopedia "All his work, whether in verse or prose, shows rhythmic drive and verbal flamboyance."

Any views on changing the opening line to reflect some up these statements, or keep to the status quo? FruitMonkey (talk) 12:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest that our efforts should be first directed to Critical reception, or a Long term appraisal section, or whatever, and the content or conclusions of these should then be summarised in the opening section. I see nothing wrong in noting divided opinions at the start. Nor the irony that Wales' most famous poet wrote in English. All the above sources seem perfectly valid, in a general sort of way and perhaps could be used; although we should aim for actual literary criticism rather than other encyclopeadic summaries I guess. I think we are very fortunate in having a GA reviewer with an interest and direct academic involvement in the subject (at a University that ought to have know what it was talking about!) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

...is a Welsh poet, noted for creating work rich in original imagery with striking rhythm and technically ingenious verbal flamboyance. His place as one of the great poets of the 20th century has long been discussed by academics; but this has not prevented his poetry, prose and image as the 'doomed poet' endear him to the general public who find his work accessible and melodic. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• I just noted the recent amendment, and feel it is a move in the right direction. Though he wrote in English, he is recognisably a Welsh poet. And while there will be sources that place R. S. Thomas or D. Gwenallt Jones as more significant Welsh poets, there will also be sources that place Dylan Thomas very highly. Be useful to get sources for whatever lead summary is decided, as statements like that are best cited in order to reassure readers that it's not just the opinion of the Wikipedia editors. I suspect, however, it may be easier to get a decent source that says Dylan Thomas is the most famous or most popular Welsh poet rather than the most important or best because opinion is and has always been divided about him. Some sense of that divided opinion would be worth mentioning in the lead - I recall you have it in one of the sections. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Father in the Army?

Do not go gentle into that good night says: "Thomas watched his father, formerly in the Army.. " but there is no source to support this claim. So I have added a tag there. If the army connection is true, one might perhaps (more) expect to find it mentioned in this article. I wonder does anyone have a supporting source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I have not come across any mention of D.J. being in the forces. There may be some confusion as he once worked for the Great Western Railway where his position was simply listed as "guard". He was into his late 40s come WWI and as a school teacher he was in a protected profession anyway. I say remove. FruitMonkey (talk) 19:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Even if he had been in the army, at some time during his younger years, he is still generally known as a "school teacher". So the point about "increasing frailty" made in that article is not easy to maintain. Perhaps a thread should also be opened on that Talk Page to make sure before removal? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Dates of children

Shouldn't the dates of birth and death of Thomas's children be supported with reliable sources? In the text? In the info box? Or in both? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

They already were. All births and deaths were cited with reliable sources in the text, they don't need the infobox cite (something I'm not a fan of, I like clean infoboxes). The only one missing was Colm's death today, which is now cited. FruitMonkey (talk)

That seems very complete. Many thanks for adding. It seems that he died at the weekend. Here's a Wales Online link [10] which has some more images that may be of interest. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead paragraph edit

The last sentence of the first paragraph of this article reads, "He became popular in his lifetime, and remained so after his death, partly because of his larger than life character and his reputation for drinking to excess." This is not a direct quote, and if you look at the actual text that this is taken from (an Introductory essay), this is not what the author actually wrote.

However, the author is somewhat dismissive of Thomas, and his essay is pretty personal. He essentially says, I knew him a little and I didn't like him. It's extremely subjective, and with or without a reference tag, I think it should go. Still, if it stays, I think it should more accurately reflect what the author actually wrote. Any thoughts? Jpcohen (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this appraisal given later in the article? Who made it? How was it published? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The introductory essay, from a compilation of Thomas' work, was published in 1962 by William York Tindall. The reference only notes page 4 of the essay. Since there is no direct quote, I had to guess what the editor who added the sentence was referring to. But you can access it through the ref link. Tindall never actually states that Thomas "became popular in his lifetime, and remained so after his death, partly because of his larger than life character and his reputation for drinking to excess." I'm uncertain as to how representative that statement would be of critical consensus on Thomas now. I don't think people would still be reading Thomas' work today if his posthumous popularity was in large part a result of his larger-than-life personality and his drinking (as opposed to his actual writing). Jpcohen (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree that his "larger-than-life personality" led more to his prominence in the public eye - his socialising, radio broadcasts, lecture tours etc - than his drinking per se. If that is the only source it looks a bit like synthesis. But I'd be interested in what other editors think. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I think the lead section was a summation of the information that was provided in the Critical Reception section, but I can now see where the editor is coming from. We could always reword, but it was true that Thomas was "popular during his lifetime, and after his death remained so", a feat not managed by many poets. So I believe that should stay, and these facts are backed up in the article. The Encyclopedia of Wales states that "He achieved early fame with [his poetry] ...which made his reputation and began the legend - which he encouraged - of the roistering, drunken and doomed poet". Which I feel are similar words but more damning. But if a full stop could separate the lines into "...became popular in his lifetime, and remained so after his premature death in New York. In his later life he acquired a reputation, which he encouraged, as a roistering, drunken and doomed poet." This way we keep both points that he was popular (which I think we all agree on) and that he picked up a bit of a reputation as a forlorn poet. Any thoughts? FruitMonkey (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that would be a big improvement. And thank you for the explanation. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Added Fruitmonkey's suggested change (it looks like a good one to me). Perhaps I should add the Encyclopedia of Wales as ref and add some quotes, too. Jpcohen (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Fruitmonkey: do you know the page number in the Encyclopedia of Wales for the entry on Thomas? Thanks! Jpcohen (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Harold Nicolson at the BBC

From 1941 to 1946 Nicolson was on the Board of Governors of the BBC. Here's an extract from his diary entry for 12 September 1941: [11] (from Literature belongs to gentlemen by Peter Womack (Critical Quarterly Volume 55, Issue 3, pages 26–43, October 2013). I think this quote might deserve inclusion in the article! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I do like it, it's also one I haven't come across which is good to put into the article as it shows we are not just confined by the usual and more narrow sources. I have also been interested by the fact that a recent editor stated that the "Land of my Father's" quote were words of a character and not Thomas. That also needs to be researched a bit further as either we are misrepresenting, or Thomas used it beforehand and then thought it was too good not to use in his writing? FruitMonkey (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it seems he used it for Owen Morgan-Vaughan a character in his screenplay for the 1948 British melodrama The Three Weird Sisters. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC) look! (...if you dare) hahaha!!

Spring, summer, autumn, winter

Our guidance is to avoid using the Northern hemisphere's seasons as time markers as not everybody lives in the part of the Northern hemisphere which experiences seasons. Instead we use months which mean the same to everybody, regardless of where they live. If the month is unknown we can use "early", "mid-", "late" which is also unambiguous. The exception if if the season has actual significance outside of parochial laziness; the autumn harvest, a summer holiday, a winter battle etc. --John (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The guideline says this:

"Using seasons to refer to a particular time of year, for example, winter 1995 is ambiguous. This is because northern and southern hemisphere seasons are six months out of phase, and many areas near the equator instead have wet and dry seasons."

If it's not completely clear that Thomas wasn't actually in an area near the equator at any time in his life, then we should probably make it clear. It should be clear exactly where he was - in Wales, in London, in New York.... wherever. These are places that have seasons, in fact they all have the same seasons. But to satisfy this MoS guideline "summer at Blaen Cwm" has to be rendered as "mid-1944 at Blaen Cwn" and "spring in London" must be "early 1950 in London", etc., etc. I'd agree "winter" is more problematic as, in the Northern hemisphere, it straddles the year end, but I see no particular problem with spring, summer and autumn. But let's hope all those readers living in Kampala and Mogadishu can now understand the article properly. Apologies for such appalling "poetic laziness" on my part. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC) p.s. how did this article ever get to GA status with such a confusing array of seasonal idiosyncrasies?! The editors involved should be topic-banned at the very least, I say.

I did wonder that. It's a common failing and is just as jarring in the context of Wikipedia as if an Indian writer wrote "in the monsoon season of 1945". --John (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Jarring?! If he or she was writing about a person or an event in India, I'd actually find that better English. What's next, The early-1623's Tale or maybe "Holy early-1944"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

In the Indian example if the context was one where the presence of the monsoon was important then we could use it. We would be wise to include the month as well though as it is likely that many readers would not know when the monsoon season was, and indeed it can differ in different areas as can our northern seasons. When I lived in California, November was still autumn ("fall") but now I am back in Scotland it is definitely winter. I think if it is part of a quote or a title I that it is fine. "Holy Spring" is a good example of one that needs to be left in, so I left it in. --John (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to see if Ferris gives the actual dates or months. I'd be interested to see the reaction if you changed "Holy Spring". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is it worth making a point of the pronunciation of his first name? Many people insist on pronouncing it the Welsh way (DULL-an), but I'm sure he said on several occasions it should be "DILL-an". – PeeJay 08:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Severity of alcohol problem

The Beeb has published an article questioning the severity of his problem -including casting doubts on his medical treatment. This isn't my subject but I'd be delighted if someone else used it. JRPG (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That's if you can call it "treatment"? Maybe we need a reader tick box at the bottom of the article for "Drinker / Poet / It is hard to split the two"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we have covered everything the BBC brought up here in this article. To be honest they may have come here first to get an overview. FruitMonkey (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Visual poetry

Should mention be made of Thomas' use of visual poetry, especially "Vision and Prayer" (November 19440: [12]? There is quite a detailed study of the poem, by Matthias Bauer, here. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Cause of death

Is it true that his death was actually due to his heavy smoking, and not an overconsumption of alcohol? (217.42.28.60 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC))

As the article says: "A post mortem gave the primary cause of death as pneumonia, with pressure on the brain and a fatty liver as contributing factors". Years of smoking must have contributed to the susceptibility to pneumonia. And indeed there was no reported cirrhosis of the liver. So, yes such an etiology seems quite likely. But it's impossible to draw any direct link. There are more immediate factors which may have precipitated Thomas' death, like the New York smog, and particularly the phenobarbitone administered by Reitell and the injections of f morphine sulphate, given by Feltenstein. But the exact sequence of events is still not totally clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Bob

Should be areference to Bob Dylan(who[in his memoir]called Thomas an influence and the reason he changed his name from Zimmerman)?

That may have some real significance to the life of Bob Dylan, but it has none to the life of Dylan Thomas. And it doesn't really fit at Cultural depictions of Dylan Thomas either, although Bob is mentioned over there a couple of times. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

It's no accident that Bob Dylan chose the name he did. Several aspects of both Dylan Thomas' actual work, of the man and the myth seem to prefigure the idea of the wayward, flamboyant rock'n'roll bard (Dylan, Jim Morrison, Van Morrison, you name 'em...). Verbally exuberant, dramatic, mysterious and heavy with imagery, folksy and enigmatic. A lifestyle that celebrated freedom over both drink and women (in what was still an age of austerity). And of course the mythologization of his (self-)destruction. The guy is a clear link between the traditional idea of the doomed poet and rock'n'roll/counter-culture aesthetics - surely someone must have commented on this, in literary studies or in the rock community? 83.251.170.27 (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Van's very much alive, thank you, and very much the "family man"! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

He is (I've seen him in concert a couple times) but there were some stretches in his career in the 60s and 70s when he's supposed to have been drinking so heavily that it put his career on hold (the mid-seventies for example). Everybody knows he used to be a bit too good a drinker... ;) His general artistic persona is fairly close to some aspects of Thomas's, and the only reason I didn't cite someone like Brian Jones is that he is more of a myth than a widely acknowledged artist on a level with Dylan Thomas.

Jeff Buckley is another singer/poet in the same vein, also highly gifted, a magnet to his fans and gone in an early, somewhat enigmatic death. This kind of character makes a key part of the myth and style of rock culture. 83.251.170.27 (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

All this is unimportant. This is the article for Dylan Thomas the poet. If it is not about Thomas, post it on the articles that it relates t0. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

...and how anyone relates Jeff Buckley to Dylan Thomas in the manner of the deaths needs some head space. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

If you'd read more than just the first and last lines prior to your own in this thread, Mr. FruitMonkey, it is just conceivable that you might have got it. Ah um, you do run into Old Nobodaddy sometimes on these pages.

I'm discussing the wider influence of Dylan Thomas - both his writing and the kind of personal reputation he built - into rock music and rock mythology, and the parallels seem so close that I was suggesting that somewhere within the masses of books and media coverage about Thomas through the last several decades, there could be some kind of analysis in this vein. Never noticed the tradition of glamourizing and mythologizing the death of a young artist within rock, did you? In short, I'm talking about his legacy and style, and not the particular data of his death or its clinical causes. But perhaps it was premature to bring it up here, seeing that the article doesn't even have a section about his legacy yet. 83.251.170.27 (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

There was mention of this a long time ago, but it was moved to Cultural depictions of Dylan Thomas as it was deemed as too trivial for this article. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

How he eats an egg.

I left a message on the talk page of the editor in question stating my opinion. Some of the information, maybe about made friendships is valid. But others, mostly uncited are not. How he approached an egg is not really important to this article or to the person as it could well be apocryphal or Thomas pulling someone's leg. Does it help us understand Thomas in a better light? Not in my opinion. I find most of this addition trivial. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree. The nervous breakdowns I can accept. But the eggs may be a step too far? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC) [13]

The story about Thomas and Warner taking trips to the cinema, including the egg incident are all cited: p. 120 of Lycett's biography. It's an interesting anecdote, and is the sort of thing that I think would get people more interested in checking out primary sources. I have now also added an additional reference from, and note about how this incident is related to his mother's coddling of him, mentioned previously in the article.

And I've removed it, as per WP:WEIGHT. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC) p.s. try and sign your posts, with four tildes, thanks.

I don't think I've assigned it undue weight. We might disagree on the value of anecdotes in illuminating an individual's life, though. This particular story is also included in the Discover Dylan Thomas site, one of the external links on the Wikipedia page. Thanks also for the tip about the signing. Jonathanjong (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure folks can go and look at the external links at any time. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but if the argument is that we should leave out all information that they can find elsewhere, all pages would be blank. The idea is to be informative and interesting to encourage further investigation, isn't it? Jonathanjong (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes but your additions are trivial on such an important article. Just because something seems interesting doesn't mean it's important. Editors have worked heavily here to make a constructive article which has been fought by others. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

FruitMonkey, why do you think it's trivial? It's a story I've seen told in a few different sources, in each case used as an illustration of the effect that Thomas's upbringing had on his life. It's not just a funny story. I'm not sure it's even that funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanjong (talk • contribs) 23:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, it's not that I'm not listening to argument. I'm counter-arguing here. You just keep asserting that it's trivial: this is a proposition against which I am pushing.Jonathanjong (talk) 23:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Has a biographic source stated that this egg issue is because he was mothered? FruitMonkey (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, quoting his wife, it's in Hilly James's The Three Lives of Dylan Thomas. If I add this citation, may I bring that part back?Jonathanjong (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

There are two lines in James' 2014 The Three Lives of Dylan Thomas: [14], which say this: "They had moved to a village on the outskirts of Gower, where Dylan surprised Caitlin with his impeccable behaviour once back in the family home, but she was shocked how Florence mothered him. She had coddled him so much that he didnt even know how to take the top off an egg." Yes those quote marks place the comment with Caitlin, but it sounds like pure hyperbole, that she was using just to make a point. So not convinced just by that, I'm afraid. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

That reference provides the link to his mother. The reference I provided--Andrew Lycett's Dylan Thomas: A New Life reports the incident to which I actually refer: at Warner's house. So, the egg appears at least twice in Dylan's life. The Lycett source establishes the incident; the Caitlin quote in James's biography provides the significance. The information also then appears in the Discover Dylan Thomas website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.54.27 (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"... the egg appears at least twice in Dylan's life." wow. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC) .. don't forget to sign in, Jonathan

Erm. That doesn't seem like a very constructive comment. My point stands: it's a window into Thomas's life. If there are no actual arguments against me including the information, I'll put it in. Jonathanjong (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Erm. That doesn't seem like a very convincing argument. It's a very small, quaint and misted-up window. I agree with FruitMonkey that it's a bit trivial. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Didn't seem trivial to a few biographers and the folks who put together the Discover Dylan Thomas site. I hope someone else will chime in too.Jonathanjong (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Biographers have hundreds of pages to fill to make a book. Often with vague tripe that others have not covered. This is an article that sums up his life for others to understand the artist as best as possible. We have already stated that he was mollycoddled, do we really need to try to place this flabby statement into the article? IMO it doesn't take our understanding of the poet further. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not just book length biographies that use the anecdote: websites do so too, as an illustration of the coddling. Biographical wikipedia pages don't just state descriptions like "Thomas was mollycoddled". They tell a story about the life of the person, especially those that illuminate those succinct descriptive claims. IMO, the story does this job. Before, we just have a claim--"Thomas was mollycoddled"--with no supporting example.Jonathanjong (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Nancy eight years older

Yes, Nancy was born in September 1906: [15], so she would have been almost exactly eight years older than Dylan, not nine. It seems that Nancy "was very motherly ... very motherly to him" and "... she was very fond of him, in an indulgent way.” Here's another source about Nancy, but not sure if she deserves greater menrtion in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dylan Thomas. 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/20160305105148/http://dylanthomas100.org/english/places-of-interest/cwmdonkin-park to http://dylanthomas100.org/english/places-of-interest/cwmdonkin-park/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dylan Thomas. 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/20141029034513/http://www2.swansea.gov.uk/_info/DTCollectionNet/DTViewInterpretation.aspx?ID=205 to http://www2.swansea.gov.uk/_info/DTCollectionNet/DTViewInterpretation.aspx?ID=205
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623170252/http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/178640 to http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/178640
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114132602/http://www.dylanthomasprize.com/ to http://www.dylanthomasprize.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304025218/http://dylanthomas100.org/english/timeline/ to http://dylanthomas100.org/english/timeline/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Paul Ferris 1989?

The article references the Paul Ferris work on DT, citing 1989 as its year of publication. I recall reading the Ferris book in 1982. Was there a later reworking of it? Hanoi Road (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems it was first published in the US in 1977: [16]. Was that the edition you read? This is the 1989 one: [17]. Not sure how different it was. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Trying to get Dylan's' image to appear in the hover panel over his link on Notable Resident/People lists

For example in Laugharne Notable Residents a photo of the subject appears when hovering over this inserted link John_Powell_(judge) but not when DT's link is inserted Dylan_Thomas How can the article format be edited to achieve this? I've had a couple of trial attempts at modification but only generated fierce warnings on the previews!Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

After many trials I seem to have accomplished this edit but the two images at the beginning of the article now are very similar - also if I transfer the one from its info box that contains a citation in the caption - which seems to be regarded as a bad thing - but another more cheerful photo could be substituted?

Dylan Thomas with his mother and wife Caitlin on Gower beach

Dylan Thomas with his mother and wife Caitlin on Gower beach

Dylan at Browns Hotel, Laugharne with his wife Caitlin

Dylan at Browns Hotel, Laugharne with his wife Caitlin

Dylan Thomas with son Llewelyn, daughter Aeronwy, Mrs Florence Thomas, his mother, his son Colm and his wife Caitlin at Laugharne, 1953

Dylan Thomas with son Llewelyn, daughter Aeronwy, Mrs Florence Thomas, his mother, his son Colm and his wife Caitlin at Laugharne, 1953

I've selected one but here are two of many other possibilities for the infobox if the current image in there is switched to the top - comments invited. Apologies for my multiple minor edits, as a novice the only way I found to check whether the hover image was displaying on other pages was to save the changes with each attempt. There must be a way of using the infobox image but I couldn't find it and the properties of the original pic prevented it working in the hover image elsewhere. No idea why otherwise I would have used it and kept the caption unchanged.Sirjohnperrot (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sirjohnperrot: I have reverted your recent edits because the images you added and those shown above appear to be clear copyright violations. I have tagged them as such on Commons. I have restored the fair-use image File:Dylan Thomas photo.jpg; including this image in the article will prevent it from being deleted as an unused non-free image. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sirjohnperrot and Verbcatcher: I've removed the orphan tag from the non-free image to further prevent it from being deleted.

I believe the general rule is that the link preview picks up the first image it finds on the page, but there are sometimes idiosyncratic conditions where this does not work. But it seems to be working now, so no further changes should be required. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC):

Thanks Jmcgnh - but unfortunately we seem to back to square 1 on my Chrome browser at least. A photo of the subject appears when the cursor is hovering over this inserted link John Perrot but still not when over the Dylan Thomas link. How can that target article format be edited to achieve this? Now reverted but after many trials I seemed to have accomplished the change at the cost of inserting an extra image at the beginning of the article. Both pics were very similar - from the same portrait session in New York in 1952 - but if I transfer the one from its info box (which contains a citation in the caption - which seems to be regarded as a bad thing) it didn't work when moved outside. In the end I modified the caption to fit the new photo and substituted another relevant photo in the infobox. The edit has been reverted and both the photos I added removed as copyright violations. I don't understand either process and would value your further assistance Sirjohnperrot (talk) 09:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot, it's hard to guess why it would work for me and not for you. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

OK - any suggestions on where else to look for a solution? I'll repost the help tag on Dylan Thomas Talk with this reply anyway. Also hopefully might get help on a different aspect of the subject of links. Despite many readings of the guidance eg Help:Link#To_a_section the redirects in the Laugharne article to its internal sections on the Corporation and the Charter don't seem to work. Help appreciated to correct this problem as well - also @Verbcatcher: where did I go wrong with my image uploads whic you deleted?Sirjohnperrot (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot You seem to be talking to jmcgnh and verbcatcher. You just need to use the {{ping}} template for that, not the "help me" template. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 16:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot, links to a section within the same page still need to name the page. So instead of [[#Corporation§Corporation|Corporation]] you'd want [[{{PAGENAME}}#Corporation|Corporation]] or [[Laugharne#Charter|Charter]]. (The use of PAGENAME only works on the page itself.)

As for the photos, taken after 1923, they would clearly still be subject to copyright, so - even if they are available on the web somewhere - they are not eligible for uploading to Wikimedia Commons. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot, as to hints about how to debug the 'not displaying' problem, the first step is probably to close your browser and clear its cache, then start it again to see if that has fixed the problem. I would also try with a different browser to see if there was a different result. Your goal is to find two closely matched situations, one in which the hover image appears and one in which it does not, then make small variations until you can isolate what is responsible for the problem. If in almost all cases the image appears for you for other pages and for everyone else the image appears for the page in question, it may not be worth the time and trouble to track down this isolated problem. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot, it may be worth trying purging the various caches, see Wikipedia:Purge and c:Help:Purge. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh, Verbcatcher, and I dream of horses: Thanks one & all, I've updated my image that survived your scutiny and won't upload any more until I find a way of ensuring they are appropriate. One thing at a time. As far as the hover panel goes I'm afraid purging my browser cache, changing my browser, using the Gadget tools have all failed to produce a result for the Dylan Thomas image, he just doesn't show up on the Laugharne list of notables unlike John Perrot or Judge Powell or indeed Bridget Bevan who consistently appear without any problem irrespective of browser or device. Exactly the same on my iPhone btw. I take it none of you is experiencing this issue on the links included here? Sirjohnperrot (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot, yes, I get images on all of those links. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

:: jmcgnh Very curious business - for me anyway. Re the links to a section within the same page for the Laugharne article - I've tried the codes you suggested in the intro but they still don't seem to redirect to the later sections - just display a 'Laugharne' label. (i.e. instead of [[#Corporation§Corporation|Corporation]] you'd want [[{{PAGENAME}}#Corporation|Corporation]] or [[Laugharne#Charter|Charter]]. (The use of PAGENAME only works on the page itself.) Sirjohnperrot (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sirjohnperrot, Apparently someone disagreed with me that the page name needs to appear in the section link. I admit I didn't try that possibility. According to Template:Anchor, they are correct.

The Laugharne page no longer has sections named 'Corporation' or 'Charter', so that's why the section links do not go anywhere - the anchors they are looking to find no longer exist. You can add those anchors with {{anchor|target}} or you can change the links to go to the current name of the section.

One more quibble is that the 'Laugharne' in the 'Laugharne Corporation' section header is possibly redundant. It's an arguable point, but I think I prefer to see it the way it currently is. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The respectable area of uplands

The article states he was born in 'the respectable area of the Uplands'. There's no citation for this, this is surely just an opinion. I assume the author of those words means Uplands was respectable when Thomas lived there. I suggest removing the opinion from the article. 51.9.104.161 (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

'Respectable' is a rather old-fashioned term. The Uplands article describes it as 'a relatively salubrious area', which is similar. Are these simply terms for a middle class area? If Uplands was middle class when Thomas was there then it would be better to describe it as such. This would not necessarily be 'just an opinion', but would be verifiable from survey data. Or a reliable source may have described the area in this way. If we can't find a source for this then I would be content for this to be tagged with 'Citation needed', as it is a non-contentious statement and this is not a BLP article. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Walking Trails Section

I'm concerned this section is approaching WP:TRIVIA territory, broaching WP:UNDUE and WP:BALASP, and isn't consistent with WP:EPSTYLE (particularly in regards to "Inappropriate lists").

I wasn't able to find any significant scholarly discussion or coverage on his walking trails aside from promotional material on tourism websites. I assume this is why the section currently lacks in-line citations with only notes and external links (I've added templates to identify the claims that require verification, which is all of them tbh)? The introduction is pretty vague and sounds like WP:OR; there doesn't seem to be a clear explanation as to what the bulleted items actually are, and if they in fact form a coherent list? If the necessary sources exist, perhaps there is a way to incorporate information on Thomas's walking habits, or the significance of walking in his work, but I'm not sure this section has legs, or if it's the best vehicle for the information (puns intended). I was hesitant to delete it outright, but perhaps WP:BRD is the best move here. Happy to engage in discussion about how to improve the section if an editor would like to reinstate it! Goodlucklemonpig (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Walking this night in the white giant's thigh, poem on his birthday, that sort of walking? Doesn't mean he had "trails" of course. Just ruminating, not disputing. I don't have any horses in this race [puns intended].Foiled circuitous wanderer (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Columbine shooter?

What is a ' Columbine shooter' please? Sdgard (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sdgard Columbine shooting perpetrator. DankJae 01:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)