|
@Anagram16: I've begun writing this "Alexandrine genus" article, as I proposed at Talk:Alexandrine. It isn't ready for the mainspace yet and I haven't waited long enough for feedback, but I felt like getting started, which is why I've begun it here at my user subpage: User:Phil wink/sandbox6. If you're interested, I welcome you to contribute. Normally, you shouldn't edit other people's user pages or subpages (except of course their talk page), but you're being invited, so of course it's OK in this case.
- Why you might not want to edit: (1) Because eventually I plan just to cut-and-paste this content onto the current Alexandrine page, it will appear that I wrote it all, and you won't get visible credit for your contributions (they'll still be recorded on my page, but no one will see that). (2) It's possible (I think unlikely) that consensus will go against my plan, in which case some of your work might have no home (though some would probably still be incorporated into the main page). If these things bother you, you should wait to contribute until the proposed pages are resolved, but if you don't mind, come on over for a visit.
You'll see the overall structure is similar to what I did over at Ottava rima. I hope you don't see this as cultural chauvinism; my rationale is that the historical archetype gets a main heading, and the English version gets a main heading (because these are the parts most likely of interest on the English Wikipedia), then the other literatures get relegated to "Other" (though we could give each tradition a subheading). But this is just my current opinion, and if you disagree, I'm happy to discuss.
To give you an idea of the scale I imagine, I think the French and English sections are nearly done (ignore the "Materials for main English alexandrine article" section... that's just me working on 2 future articles at once), and the other sections should if possible be even briefer. As we move forward, we'll probably have many occasions to haggle over whether some element belongs in the "genus" article, the "species" article, or both.
So mostly what I hope you'll help with is the constellation of continental traditions (because I wanted the easy part for myself!). There is no deadline. Because I want to give plenty of time for people to comment on my proposal, I don't expect I'll paste this into the mainspace for several weeks. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
- First af all, thank You for invitation. I can help, I want to help and I will help You. The second thing, I don't need to be always visible. The third thing - the article on alexandrine will be Yours, because it was Your idea to write it. Mine are articles on Polish and Czech forms. Another thing, You write about combinations of alexandrine with iambic pentmeter or heptameter. Are you going to write about poulter's measure? Next thing, an article on Spanish alexandrine should be written. I don't know Spanish, so I can't write a long article about it. However, I think, we could make a stub about it and wait for a Spanish speaking person to expand it. You write about cultural chauvinism. Please don't think about it. The truth (and we should write the truth in Wikipedia) is that Italian literature is great and much older than many other traditions. There are many long poems in ottava rima in Italian (Spanish or Portuguese) literature and only few in Northern Europe. Perhaps English language literature is the greatest in the world now. It is a fact. Good proportions should be always observed between great and small literatures. The important thing is not to pass these small traditions over. I know nothing (for example) about Welsh literature, but I think it should be mentioned, if there are some interesting verse form (of course, there are, but perhaps not alexandrine or ottava rima). Another thing, we still talk about English or German literature, and don't even mention an important tradition between them - I mean Dutch literature. I think, there are the same forms in it. I can't tell more about it, because I know only Wilhelmus. Now, please write Your Alexandrine. I will follow Your additions. At the end of my letter, I put an interesting book on French poetry, especially alexandrine: Roy Lewis, On Reading French Verse. A Study of Poetic Form, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1982, pp. 43-69 (Chapter on alexandrine). Perhaps You know it, but I am not sure. (Anagram16 (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC))Reply
- I haven't been watching this page for a month. I apologise. I am impressed. Perhaps after a short section about Russian poetry is added, You will be able to move it into the main space. Surely Gasparov will be very helpful. (Anagram16 (talk) 10:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC))Reply
- Thanks. Actually, I think it's ready for mainspace now (it can always be improved even more after the fact) ... what's holding me back is that I want to complete and move both User:Phil wink/French alexandrine and User:Phil wink/English alexandrine first, so that when the genus article is updated, it will point to all 4 new species articles in the suite. So I need to get back to work on them. Phil wink (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
- I understand and will wait for that. (Anagram16 (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC))Reply
|
