Talk:Lorraine cycle

What's this mean?

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)

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)

Lorraine Cycle

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)

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)

Has a historical basis - not?!

"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)

How many epics?

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)

Requested move 13 August 2022

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)

---

Lorraine cycle → 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) — Relisting. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

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

Correct link (you left a plus sign in yours which broke it). QuietHere (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

discussion moved from WP:RM/TR

The Ngrams suggest that the uncapitalized version is more common, so I don't think that it's "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" (unlike Crusade Cycle, which sources generally do capitalize). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Pinging Saksapoiss. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC) I agree with the move. The prevalence of the use of smaller caps may be applicable in cases where the content says Lorraine cycle of chansons de geste. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Oppose: This is one among various cycles, just as the Viennese waltz is one among various waltzes and the Epstein–Barr virus is one among various viruses and the Carnot cycle is one among various (other kind of) cycles and the Schrödinger equation is one among various equations. Unless it can be determined that reliable sources nearly always capitalize "cycle" when referring to it, the inconsistency would be better resolved by renaming Crusade Cycle to Crusade cycle (assuming that one is treated the same way in sources, which may or may not be the case). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: along the lines of BarrelProof. Cycle is a descriptive/category noun. The description of a particular collection is made specific by modifiers and/or the application of the definite article (the). Specificity is a property of proper names (proper nouns) but not a defining property. Just because the modifier may be capitalised as a proper noun, it certainly does not follow that the name phrase should be capitalised in full. If the aim of this move is based on WP:CONSISTENCY, then we should determine the most appropriate format for this category of WP articles rather than approaching this piecemeal. I would suggest a withdrawal of this RM and a fuller discussion to consider the greater question. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – In 1933 there was a burst of citations or listings of the book title Yon or La Venjance Fromondin, a Thirteenth-Century "Chanson de Geste" of the Lorraine Cycle, but in more recent times capitalizing Cycle is rare. So there's clearly no reason for WP to treat this as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a descriptive term, not a proper name. Cf. Matter of Britain#Arthurian cycle, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.