Talk:Haiku in English

The typical length of haiku appearing in the main English-language journals is 10–14 syllables^[1][2] and few have a syllabically symmetrical line arrangement such as 5-7-5 or 3-5-3. Some haiku poets are concerned with their haiku being expressed in one breath ^[3][4][5] and the extent to which their haiku focus on "showing" as opposed to "telling".^{[clarification needed][6][7]}

The above has been moved from the introductory paragraph to the 'Variant Forms' section. I can see no justification for this move, as it describes the 'standard' form, not a variant. It is information that is needed in the lead. Is there any objection to moving it back? --Yumegusa (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm-m, you may be right... No objections to moving it back. --Badvibes101 (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple months back, in a search more more neutral language I changed the wording regarding 5-7-5 and 3-5-3 line arrangements from "and few have" to "and may fall into", and apparently Yumegusa disagreed since s/he reverted the change. I'd like to point out that these are the forms that almost all English speakers know and therefore write. While this page is certainly concerned with haiku as a high art, I think it too dismissive to say that these syllable arrangements are in anyway a minority. The bottom line is that no one can really know what form most haiku are written in, so it isn't possible to say few of them are one way or another. I'm strongly in favor of using the word 'may' and removing conjecture about frequency. Yumegusa (or others), any thoughts? JamesLucas (" " / +) 20:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi JamesLucas. Please substantiate your assertion that 5-7-5 and 3-5-3 syllable arrangements "are the forms that almost all English speakers know and therefore write". Please take a look at the links in the article's "Notable English-language haiku periodicals" section. It is evident from the content of every English-language haiku magazine I've seen that the article's current assertion that "few have a syllabically symmetrical line arrangement such as 5-7-5 or 3-5-3" is factual. In fact, your edit ("The typical length of haiku appearing in the main English-language journals is 10–14 syllables, which may fall into a syllabically symmetrical line arrangement such as 5-7-5") was contradictory, since a length of 10-14 syllables cannot fall into a 17-syllable arrangement. --Yumegusa (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Your point on the syllable count is well taken, and in retrospect, I'm not all that satisfied with my earlier attempt. I still maintain, however, that it's misleading to assert something about the majority of haikus by stating something about a minority. Such an inequality would need outside sourcing beyond what sounds like your own (and I believe probably entirely accurate) assessment of notable periodicals. In all fairness, I haven't retrieved the books cited, so if one of them contains an almanac of syllable counts, I would be entirely satisfied with the current status. JamesLucas (" " / +) 15:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Your point is passing me by. Read any sample of the standard publications, and it will be perfectly obvious that no strict syllable count is adhered to. And if you need to hear it explicitly: "English haiku does not follow the seventeen syllable count found in Japanese haiku" (Haruo Shirane. Love in the Four Seasons, in Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Orientalia Pragensia XV, 2005, p135). If you wish to assert otherwise, you must substantiate your position in the normal way. --Yumegusa (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Essentially I'm suggesting that this amounts to original research. I believe that you're well-versed in haiku, and I believe that your survey of major haiku publications is fairly accurate. But unless there is a published piece on the frequency of various syllable structures in English-language haiku, it really shouldn't be asserted here. "Being perfectly obvious" isn't good enough for Wikipedia even though I would personally take your word for it to settle an argument at the pub. Yeah? JamesLucas (" " / +) 00:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

To me it seems like "the sky is blue", but I must concede that there is an element of subjectivity in there. I've just made an edit to the para in question, paraphrasing the Shirane quote above, and removing the contentious reference to the teikei forms altogether. There is a subsection on Fixed form under Variant forms where you might like include referenced info in line with your earlier assertions. --Yumegusa (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Elegantly done; I will certainly see if I think I can reference something sufficiently reliable. JamesLucas (" " / +) 04:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I admire the frankness of the third sentence of the article. "It is impossible to single out any current style, format, or subject matter as definitive."

If a single word such as "tundra", or a brief poem with approximately the number of syllables as a classic Japanese haiku, or perhaps the title of this section, can all be considered to be "Haiku in English", I'm left with the suspicion that the raison d'etre of "Haiku in English" is to take advantage of the popular appeal of the term "haiku" while ignoring the constraints to which classical haiku is subject.

Wanderer57 (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

YES! Tesspub (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that the mainstream view of an English-language haiku, at least in the United States, is that it consists of three lines of 5, 7, and 5 syllables each. I suspect this due to my personal experience growing up in the US in the 80s and 90s, during which time I was taught several times from elementary school to college that a haiku has the 5-7-5 three-line form. Googling for the query "haiku 5-7-5 syllables", I come up with several lesson plans to this effect, which suggest to me this is probably still the case (it's probably a handy way to teach kids about syllables): http://www.google.com/search?q=haiku+5-7-5+syllables

I also find that Merriam Webster's dictionary defines a haiku as the 5-7-5 three-line form (see http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/haiku ). And googling for "haiku competition", in addition to competitions by serious literary publications that don't use the 5-7-5 definition, I find many contests aimed at the general public which do use the 5-7-5 form, such as this one from MacMillan's Dictionary Blog: http://www.macmillandictionaryblog.com/your-haiku . I've also seen numerous references to this on TV, including on the Simpsons and on Sealab 2021 ("I poke, poke his face/And yet he still ignores me/Poke, poke, poke, poke, poke").

The large collection of citations at the bottom of the article convinces me that there is certainly a literary and/or academic movement towards English-language haiku that are not based on the strict 5-7-5 form. But I think this article makes it sound as if the 5-7-5 has been mostly abandoned, which does not appear to be true at all. It may have no currency in academic literature, but it seems to be still around in a big way in pop culture.

On the other hand, I have absolutely no interest in battling this out on this article, so I'm not going to follow up on it at all. Just tossing it out there as a constructive criticism. :) --203.211.73.179 (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything said above. My suspicion (based on zero facts) is that some wikipedia haiku fascist is removing anything that says English haiku has often been based on a 5-7-5 structure. 66.66.149.221 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC).

This page is for discussing ways of improving the article. Assertions such as, "My suspicion (based on zero facts) is that some wikipedia haiku fascist is removing anything that says..." are not particularly helpful in this regard. Where the opening section of the article states, "English haiku do not adhere to the strict syllable count found in Japanese haiku", it cites Prof. Haruo Shirane, a noted authority on the subject. Please feel free to add a counter-assertion, but only if you can back it up with independent WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Statements such as, "I strongly suspect..." and "it seems to be still around..." will not cut the ice in a serious encyclopedia. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. 5-7-5 is conventional for Japanese Haiku. The current intro paragraph attempts to summarize English Haiku, and as such it addresses the 5-7-5 as both an acknowledged standard and far from a requirement for Haiku in English. john factorial (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

User:JamesLucas and I are edit warring. JamesLucas, you are removing the sentence "the traditional elements of Japanese haiku, including the standard convention of utilizing 17 syllables in a 5-7-5 pattern" from the introduction paragraph, but this is a statement of fact regarding Japanese haiku. The citation you requested is cited in the first sentence of the Haiku article. This thread has historical conversation addressing consensus on the need to mention this fact about Haiku in the Haiku in English article. Your change also states that Japanese haiku "utilize a three-line structure" which is not usually true (another fact verifiable from the sources of the Haiku article). This convention of Japanese Haiku is not a requirement of Haiku in English. My wording clearly communicates this, but yours replaces it with incorrect information. I leave this comment respectfully hoping to end the edit war. john factorial (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I have explicitly invited improvements, so I’m a little confused why you resorted to reversions rather than drafting new wording that fixes the shortcomings, but I now understand (or at least hope I understand) your point about lines vs. phrases in the Japanese, and I have drafted a new version that hopefully addresses that inaccuracy.

My takeaway from the above conversation is that there has been a concern that some editors might have tried to “bury” the existence of the English 5–7–5 syllable pattern, possibly out of a naïve hope that denying it on Wikipedia will delegitimize it. I, for one, do not seek that. My preference for removing it from the article’s intro is rooted only in the fact that the intro is a challenging place to address finely parsed distinctions. The sources and—not that we should be citing Wikipedia—the Haiku article say that the Japanese 5–7–5 pattern is based on the on rather than the syllable, which is exactly the kind of subtle-but-meaningful difference that I find hard to convey with the brevity required in a leads section. If you think that this issue can be neatly packaged, though, please take a stab at it! I hope that we can triangulate on a better version of this article rather than just oscillate between two imperfect states. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 02:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it's on me that I reverted rather than edited. I mistakenly thought you were editing only the intro paragraph. I'll edit the intro now to correct the issue I see persisting there. john factorial (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I've now edited the opening paragraph to restore what I feel was lost in your edits. Specifically: (a) restored mention of the 5-7-5 pattern that is nearly ever-present in haiku but not in English Haiku (b) removed statement that haiku are rendered in 3 phrases or lines (not necessarily true). I personally find the distinction between onsetsu, mora, and "syllables" to be unnecessary detail for an introductory paragraph, but have respected your opinion that it deserves mention with this edit. If you'd like to improve the intro paragraph further I welcome it. My only request is that the mention of 5-7-5 remain because there is consensus that this is the most well-known defining characteristic of Japanese haiku and the lack of that pattern in English Haiku is a highly visible distinction between the two art forms. john factorial (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Cool—I think we got somewhere decent. And, yeah I agree that the on–syllable difference is fine parsing, but my sense is that there are working poets out there who find that parsing meaningful, so I think it’s our duty not to obfuscate that way of thinking. If we elect not to err on the side of saying less, I’d rather get into the weeds briefly than say something simple that contradicts the more complete explanation that comes later. Cheers! —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 20:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's a scholarly article (apparently a reprint from "Language Issues: Journal of the Foreign Language Education Center (vol. 1)") that discusses the 5-7-5 form, and provides some evidence for the idea that among academic/literary haiku enthusiasts the 5-7-5 form is not well regarded, while among the popular culture it is.

In section 3 "Contemporary English Haiku Examples and Issues" it describes how only 22% of haiku in two "major North American [haiku periodicals, 'Modern Haiku' and 'Frogpond'" are of the 5-7-5 form. It goes on to say "Clearly, a large majority of haiku are no longer being composed according to the 5-7-5 syllable count. Many familiar with English haiku, the present authors included, consider strict 5-7-5 syllable-counting to be a poor method of emulating the Japanese form, if that is one's compositional intention."

Then in section 4, "Historical Evolution, in Brief", it describes the popularity of the 5-7-5 form outside of literary publications, especially in primary school: "In the 1970s, the Western haiku flourished and became an international phenomenon. By this time haiku was being taught in many American grade schools, often as a means of syllable-study. Thus, English haiku as 'ever and only' 5-7-5 syllables got caught in the cultural craw."

Further on in section 5 it quotes "a letter written in 1971" as saying "the rigid 17-syllable requirement ... does not exist in Japan ... and who started it for English syllables I do not know. Probably, the 5-7-5 'rule' began after any number of people read that haiku are composed of 5-7-5 syllables." My point in referring to this quote is that it acknowledges the idea of a widely-perceived "5-7-5 rule" for haiku in the minds of the general public. The paper also quotes a 1967 book titled "Haiku in English" which has this advice for teachers: "The most general area of agreement is on form. It is generally taught that the form should be 17 English syllables divided into three lines of 5, 7, and 5."

My point is, this article I've linked to does not advocate using the 5-7-5 form, but it does acknowledge that this form is widely known in English language haiku, is widely taught in schools, has been known and taught for at least 50 years, and is persistent despite the fact that it's rarely used in haiku literary publications. Thus I think the 5-7-5 form deserves at least a paragraph in the "haiku in English" Wikipedia article. I found this one article supporting the viewpoint by spending 5 minutes googling "haiku 5-7-5". I'm certain there would be more supporting citations available if anyone wanted to look into it.

--202.78.240.7 (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The point is that serious practitioners in the West, whether writing in English, French, German (Wirth, Tauchner), Swedish (Härle) or Danish (Bjerg) do NOT use the 5-7-5 syllable-counting format. Really, all you need to do is look at Modern Haiku, Frogpond, Mayfly, Heron's Nest for all of 5 minutes to see this plain fact. Primary school teachers claiming otherwise is neither here nor there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.215.148 (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not just primary school teachers. It's the popular culture at large, outside of academic literary journals. If you were to stop random people on the street in an English-speaking country and ask them to define a haiku, if they knew what it was at all, probably over 90% of them would describe it as the 5-7-5 syllable count. That's what they learn in schools, and see on TV and in advertising. Moreover, show them a non-5-7-5 haiku and they'd most likely object that it's not a haiku at all.

The fact that this is the "popular" meaning of haiku in English is reflected by the fact that it's mentioned in most English-language dictionaries, as well. It's an improvement that now the article mentions the "17 syllables" as one of the three definitions of a haiku, but it should really mention that they're usually split into three lines of five, seven, five as well. And a section about "haiku in popular culture" would be good as well. -- 2404:130:0:1000:222:4DFF:FE6A:5F5F (talk) 02:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the point of this talk section - that the "Haiku in English" originator crafted the Wiki entry from a POV (that "Haiku in English" is completely free of the "on" or syllable requirement). At a minimum, this point is arguable. Phrased another way:

No Five-Seven-Five?
Concise poetry, perhaps
Mislabeled haiku

Ricegator (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The article does now at least list the 5-7-5 form as the first of the variant forms, and describes it as the "traditional" form, so that's good. I still don't think the article does a good job of reflecting the continued prevalance of the 5-7-5 form outside of literary journals, though. From the discussion here, it seems like the reason is not so much about evidence, but a question of which POV should be included in the article -- there's the "academic POV" of the serious practitioners & literary journals; and there's the "popular POV" of dictionaries, schools, advertising, TV shows, etc. Perhaps there's an existing Wikipedia page with a similar definitional divide between academic & popular, that could be used as a template for how to handle this? Or maybe something in the NPOV policy articles?

(I acknowledge that in a perfect world I would do the work myself, of finding lots of citations to back up the idea that the 5-7-5 form is still in widespread use, and writing up a section about that, and defending that section here on the Talk page. But my social anxiety prevents me from engaging in all but the mildest forms of debate, so chiming in here once a year is about all I can muster. I'd like to think that Wikipedia is not an adversarial system in which one editor champions one position while other editors assume the burden of proof to change their mind, but instead a collaborative system in which person adds what they can. And this suggestion is basically all I can add.) --2404:130:0:1000:15EF:D1CF:9244:F78A (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

To clarify the previous comment, the article has lots of great information about non-5-7-5 literary haiku, and that should certainly remain its focus. But to better reflect reality, it should address the wide use of the 5-7-5 form in a non-literary context. I think ideally, there'd be a couple of sentences about how the 5-7-5 form is widely used in pop culture and education, but that serious haiku authors usually avoid the form, and why they avoid it.

The main reason I suggest this on the Talk page rather than writing it myself (other than social anxiety) is that I'm lacking in good secondary sources to cite. Primary sources are the popularity of the 5-7-5 form are easy to find; i.e. there are lots of them on Google and TV, and my own lived experience. But I barely know where to begin in finding a secondary source about this topic. I'm hoping one of the haiku enthusiasts who I imagine to haunt this page may be better positioned to find a suitable secondary source on this subject. --101.98.144.68 (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a "Haiku in Pop Culture" section may be valuable here, just to show the contrast. Like the previous author, though, I don't have any good sources to cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brecherdc (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there an accepted way for literary journals to reliably report their circulation? I have been openly publishing the circulation figures of tinywords, the haiku journal I edit, for years. It currently stands at about 3,220. However, apart from opening my Mailman distribution list to public inspection (something I cannot do for privacy reasons), it's difficult for me to establish that figure. What constitutes a reliable assertion of circulation on Wikipedia? Dtweney (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dt, sorry for the delay in replying. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. In essence, every source must be independent and verifiable, so I can't see how this can be made to fit. Within the context of this article, an individual publication's circulation figures are in any case not of great relevance. --candyworm (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I agree it's not particularly relevant, except that tinywords is occasionally deleted from lists of haiku publications here on Wikipedia, which after almost 10 years of publishing haiku is getting a little annoying. So I'm looking for ways to help establish the relevance of the publication. 04:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtweney (talk • contribs)

Are there other poetry publications or websites, independent of yours, which make mention of tinywords? E.g., in reviews, editorial references, reprinting of haiku acknowledging tinywords as the original publisher. I'm no expert on reliable sources but I think this sort of "mention" would carry some weight by indicating that people recognize and respect your publication.

Wanderer57 (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

tinywords exists, whether or not the terribly important wiki editors say it does. Deleting it is just another manifestation of the fundamental silliness underpinning the entire wiki editorial approach.

Similarly, Ardea exists (I added it and it was deleted). I know it exists, because I have been published in it and have had work accepted for publication in the upcoming issue, scheduled for July 2012. I provided a link. When will Wiki's terribly important editors grasp that they do not make the facts, nor do they make them disappear when they happen not to like them, but are only supposed to record them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.215.148 (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no need to be abusive of the editors here who put in a great deal of hard work for no return. Reading the conversation above, it seems clear that no-one was disputing tinywords' existence, neither was anyone suggesting deleting its article, so it's hard to know who or what you're arguing against. --212.118.232.111 (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Err ... (1) Yes, they did, in fact it was disputed by someone who by his own admission is no expert. (2) The absurd gambit of 'a great deal of hard work for no return' cuts no ice at all with me when the result is (a) refusing to list a well-known journal like TW, (b) deleting the listing of a perfectly legit journal like Ardea on a personal whim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.215.148 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please adhere to Wikipedia guidelines in your posts - see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It now seems that tinywords has been entirely removed from this page. (I re-added it, but not sure why it wasn't there to begin with.) In addition, the tinywords page was deleted and redirects here. I'm not sure how a page on haiku in English can be complete without this site, which for the past 10 years has been a major part of the haiku world in English. --Dtweney (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to ask as it's more comic than serious.

I've written an OpenCOBOL program that fails when run and really, fails as poetry. It's in the OpenCOBOL FAQ.

       program-id. one.
       procedure division. add
       1 to return-code.

      *btiffin*

Compiles with cobc -x one.cob (an open source and freely available compiler for everyone, international translations are in the works). The program runs with ./one, and returns 1 as an exit code, an exit code usually denoting failure. Worthy of mention? I think it is, but I did want to ask, as it's jokey. BTiffin (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this notable? Is it reliably sourced in a third-party publication? Heck, is it haiku? I think the answer is 'no' all round. --candyworm (talk) 08:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted here the addition of Richard Zimler to the Notable haiku poets section of this article. Some examples of "haiku" from Zimler's 2011 book LOVE'S VOICE can be found here. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Even though the article is about haiku in English, the name of the section "Notable haiku poets" seems too general and confusing. In my opinion, it should be changed to "Notable non-Japanese haiku poets", "Notable English language haiku poets", or something along these lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haiku_in_English#Notable_haiku_poets

Malikov (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. In the context of this article, it seems perfectly clear what is meant. However, I'm glad you called attention to this section. Its introduction reads, "Although the poets listed below have published some haiku, not all of them are known primarily as haiku poets. Some of them have written both haiku (or haiku-like poems) and mainstream poetry." I believe that it is both trivial and misleading to include 'mainstream' poets who have merely dabbled in haiku, since they are not "notable haiku poets" as the term would normally be understood. I propose to edit out such poets, so that the section includes only poets noted for their haiku, as the title suggests. Any objections before I set to it? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been removing some of the WP:OVERLINK on the Haiku article, and found one that seemed like an interesting resource, but was all about English haiku, so I figured it might be more at home here. However, it is relatively small, and probably wouldn't provide a unique resource beyond what this page would if it was of FA-standard. Still, if anyone is interested in it: elvenscout742 (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It probably should be noted that there are many who don't consider English Haikus anything more than over-rated pop culture.They may have been picked up by various popular writers at times in the past but do they really deserve so much status as they have now. Most really are just simple opinions written every second of the day by all humans. A Haiku could be compare to a twitter post at this time in history. The depth really isn't in the writing its in the interpretation. So considering Haikus some exceptional form of English work is just silly to many. 101.51.234.17 (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No doubt some/many people do think this, but it would need a reference to say it. Haiku are taken seriously by quite a few journals, books and poets. Ben Finn (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Pretentious clever-clever spring to mind 86.129.235.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

In the section on the one-line haiku variant, it says Matsuo Allard "wrote essays in its favor and published several magazines and chapbooks devoted to the form."

I've tried to find these essays online, but I can't find any mention of them. Does anyone know the name of these essays and where they were published? Is there a citation for this?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.225.166 (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have just removed several example poems from this page. Not that they're not all lovely, but the page's encyclopedic information was ill-served by the plentiful examples, many of which were poor examples of the context in which they were placed. I believe the editors intention was to showcase the variety of HIE forms, and I believe that this edit accomplishes that purpose better by not cluttering the page with the 12 poems I have removed. Readers hoping for more examples of the art form are free to access references & external links. john factorial (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I was surprised to discover that Robert Spiess seems to have been thrown away, except for a modest reference. He seems to have been rather important in the field of haiku, wrote books and articles, was an editor, and you can find various references about him on the Net. I was interested by a quote of him I found on YouTube, mentioning this WP article, but lo! he just disappeared. So I have to find other sources... 2A01:E0A:C75:4180:A874:FA63:D965:96B6 (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The link for ref 32 is a parked domain page now. "The Lune: The English Language Haiku by Holly Bliss at GoArticles.com" rubah (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The popular and appreciated reddit "haikusbot" that detects 5-7-5 syllable comments brought me here. I thought it would be interesting to note this curious fact or some other instances where haikus written in english come up in popular culture. Girlsolano (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the Wikipedian-in-residence at Brigham Young University. I'll be trying to improve parts of this page over the next month or so. Please let me know if you have any suggestions or concerns. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I would like to mention that I recently joined the Haiku Society of America, which publishes Frogpond. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I would like to merge "variant forms" with the "length and structure" sub-section. I am also planning to remove most of the haiku examples because I believe they are original research (sad). Please let me know if you know otherwise, or would like to discuss this more. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I found a blog post that mentioned Moonset, but I didn't think it was a reliable source. You can read about it here. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Lune (poetry) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 26 § Lune (poetry) until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:19, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Tinywords.com has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 26 § Tinywords.com until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:25, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Haiqua has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 26 § Haiqua until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:42, 26 December 2025 (UTC)