Talk:Lorraine cycle

message: What does the following sentence mean?
"Episodes are evolved naturally, and the usual devices adopted by the trouvères to reconcile their inconsistencies are absent."
I'm assuming the second clause means that the absence of literary artifice or genre conventions suggest that the narrative evolved from chronicles or some such, but the first clause — "episodes are evolved naturally" — perplexes me. Does "naturally" mean "realistically"? "Organically" (whatever that would mean)? "Logically"? "In chronological order?" Cynwolfe (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A shade under 10 years later, I've removed it. Mostly because it's horrendously unclear what the usual devices adopted by the trouvères to reconcile their inconsistencies refers to. It might be merely fixable if I knew what that meant, but I don't. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's this mean? 

message: Under texts, you've got the whole of the Lorraine Cycle (no article) rather than just Garin le Loherain, which refers to a specific circa 1200 epic poem. I will fix this in some way now (though I'm not keen to just remove all of it). Renard Migrant (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done until now. Took care of it w/o reading the talk-page, because it was more than obvious. Arminden (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lorraine Cycle 

message: "This local cycle of Lorraine appears to have a historical basis."
Please elaborate! Several peoples involved are either fictional or anachronistic, and none of the characters (other than Pippin) has external proof of existence. A 19th-century French author saw some possible broad parallels with contemporary feuds (11th-12th c., the High Middle Ages), while an early 20th-century German critic suggested echoes of Late Antiquity wars (quite far apart, the two!), but neither of that  justifies the statement. The difference between the two opinions rather contradicts the historicity altogether. Maybe the authors just produced a piece of fiction mixing in all the "thrilling" elements they could think of, while building a narrative that sounded plausible to the contemporary listener. We need a more recent and comprehensive analysis. Arminden (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has a historical basis - ''not''?! 

message: Confusing: 2 core epics + 1 prequel + 3 sequels = 6. Why are they so often talking of only "4 parts"? Let's say Garin-Girbert is seen as 1. Maybe Yonnet de Metz is not counted, as the original version is lost and we only have the prose adaptation by de Vigneulles. Then OK, 4 (Garin-Girbert, Hervis, Anseïs, and Yon/La Vengeance Fromondin). But chanson de geste had (until now that I've changed it), a list of another 4: Garin, Hervis, Gerbert, and Anseïs. I hope they were just sloppy. I edited based on frWiki, where all is, of course, worked out in detail and looks perfectly logical. Shame they don't apply the same strict inline citation standards as enWiki, which makes any material adopted from there look poorly sourced, as it's far too much work to re-read all the bibliography they offer (if they do it), just in order to find the exact sources. Arminden (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many epics? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus has formed to keep the current title based on the word "cycle" being descriptive as opposed to part of a proper name. (non-admin closure)  Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Lorraine cycle →  – Should probably follow the same naming customs as the Crusade Cycle, as per https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095651205 Saksapoiss (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

text: This is a contested technical request (permalink). Polyamorph (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Correct link (you left a plus sign in yours which broke it). QuietHere (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the actual move, it seems web sources are inconsistent on the capitalisation of "Cycle" for both the Crusade and Lorraine cycles so it's possible the actual answer is Crusade Cycle → Crusade cycle. I'm not voting either way 'cause I can't be certain which is correct, I just know it looks like it's more up in the air than Oxford Reference suggests. QuietHere (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Web sources generally over-capitalize, especially when Wikipedia does.  Look to book sources or scholar or news sources for more reliable sources.  And where capitalization is inconsistent, WP uses lowercase, per MOS:CAPS.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's what I suspected. In that case, I'm also voting to oppose (and I'm also in support of the Crusade Cycle move) QuietHere (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Songs has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Poetry has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Literature has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject Mythology has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject France has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

text: Note: WikiProject History has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 August 2022