| Revision as of 14:16, 26 October 2008 editDeor (talk | contribs)Administrators157,576 edits →Merger proposal: fixing again—too early in the morning← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:51, 26 October 2008 edit undoGeogre (talk | contribs)25,257 edits →Merger proposalNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| ==Merger proposal== | ==Merger proposal== | ||
| I am proposing that both ] and ] be merged into this article. Those two articles have a good deal of overlap in topic and content; in addition, ] is at an adjectival title, which is discouraged per ]. I think that the rather indiscriminate lists in this article should be eliminated (with individual entries, where appropriate, being added to ]) and the material from the other two articles used to construct a proper prose article on the characteristics and history of the form here. ] (]) 14:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | I am proposing that both ] and ] be merged into this article. Those two articles have a good deal of overlap in topic and content; in addition, ] is at an adjectival title, which is discouraged per ]. I think that the rather indiscriminate lists in this article should be eliminated (with individual entries, where appropriate, being added to ]) and the material from the other two articles used to construct a proper prose article on the characteristics and history of the form here. ] (]) 14:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :I certainly don't think we should have both. The couplet has a greater history in Latin verse than in English or any Romance language, and my fear is that it's too narrow. The elegaic is a standard form (i.e. it's a noun, like "epic," not an adjective, like "heroic"). The elegaic is different from the Elegy only in that the latter is now in wide English use as any encomium on the dead. Thus, I feel and felt that "elegaic" is the higher up term in a taxonomy. | |||
| :I think we ''should'' have more prosody in the article than I was able to muster, and we, of course, shouldn't have lists at all. Most English versions are imitations of the elegaic, anyway. The last I can think of that seriously attempted an adaptation were 17th c. By the time of ''In Memoriam,'' it's really just a vague gesture. ] (]) 14:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:51, 26 October 2008
What is an Elegy?and types of elergy
This is not helpful
AGREED! (anonymous)
THIS IS NOT HELPFUL AT ALL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.84.11 (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing the link to the "Collection of Elegies" from the list of elegies because when followed it is quite obviously an ad. -jskrzypek_at_gmail_dot_com
What about...?
What about its origins, forms, creators, forerunners...? This is not helpful.
I know!! there is more help in Elegiac and elegiac metre, but not for music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.113.232.171 (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Merger proposal
I am proposing that both Elegiac and Elegiac couplet be merged into this article. Those two articles have a good deal of overlap in topic and content; in addition, Elegiac is at an adjectival title, which is discouraged per WP:ADJECTIVE. I think that the rather indiscriminate lists in this article should be eliminated (with individual entries, where appropriate, being added to Elegy (disambiguation)) and the material from the other two articles used to construct a proper prose article on the characteristics and history of the form here. Deor (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly don't think we should have both. The couplet has a greater history in Latin verse than in English or any Romance language, and my fear is that it's too narrow. The elegaic is a standard form (i.e. it's a noun, like "epic," not an adjective, like "heroic"). The elegaic is different from the Elegy only in that the latter is now in wide English use as any encomium on the dead. Thus, I feel and felt that "elegaic" is the higher up term in a taxonomy.
- I think we should have more prosody in the article than I was able to muster, and we, of course, shouldn't have lists at all. Most English versions are imitations of the elegaic, anyway. The last I can think of that seriously attempted an adaptation were 17th c. By the time of In Memoriam, it's really just a vague gesture. Geogre (talk) 14:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)