Talk:Elegy

message: 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)
thread_title:  What about...? 

message: The article states that "The term "elegy" is not to be confused with "eulogy."", but it doesn't offer any detail as to why.  I understand the difference, myself, but it seems irresponsible to say that something shouldn't be confused with something else, but then not explain why the two things shouldn't be confused.  Can someone add something to this hanging chad of a line? --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not-to-be-confused-with templates are generally left at that. If they're difficult to distinguish at first glance, which is not the case here, an "as opposed to" section should be added to one to explain the finer points that distinguish the subjects of the articles. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Elegy & Eulogy

message: The article lists good quality sources at the end, but clearly these have not been used. Or if they have, they've been misunderstood. There's no sense that the article has a grip on the concept of literary history, and how a genre develops. Essentially, it's just a list, and probably should just be called "List of elegies." I threw in a bit of classical literature, but someone coming to this article won't leave knowing what an elegy is, or how the modern concept of elegy derived from the ancient. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we have three articles—this one, Elegiac, and Elegiac couplet—that overlap considerably in their treatment of the history of the elegy as a literary form. As you can see by looking above on this page, I once suggested that these be combined to form a basis for a proper article, with most of the list being handled at Elegy (disambiguation); but too few people agreed with me for the merger to be implemented. If you have a better idea, or if you want to repropose the merger, I'll be behind you all the way. Deor (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Elegiac couplet might merit an article on its own, but an article for elegy-like things is not necessary unless and until one's content burdens the other with length. I think a merger proposal should be reraised for those two in particular, and then a merger of elegiac couplet might be considered. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that an article on the elegiac couplet that focuses on metrical matters would be fine; but much of the current article deals with the history of the elegaic form, and I think that matter would be better merged to the general article, as it overlaps with both this article and Elegaic. Deor (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Besides this, things with "elegy" in the title should be moved to the disambiguation page unless they're also stated as actually being an elegy. Most of the entries in the music section are only elegies in name. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "elegiac couplet," which is a technical article on the metrical form, works separately, but I don't see what justifies a separate article  Elegiac. That article, which I didn't know existed, has content that is superior to this one. Perhaps this one should be a "List of", or simply a disambiguation page, yes. But "Elegiac" is currently the article that ought to be titled "Elegy," because it's the one you'd want to link the term "elegy" to. And I'm not sure I'll remember in future when I link (which is how I ended up here) to link to the adjectival form. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources etc.