The current content seems to assume a scope of 'Scansion of English language verse'. ass? Phil wink ( talk) 04:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Reply Block quoted text removed for now
#Definition of scansion series#
I will shortly post a series of suggestions at Talk:Systems of scansion that (in my view) might make it more useful as the internal face of Scansion's external. To the extent that that is a perceived virtue of Systems of scansion, then yes, it is not well represented in this article, it should be preserved, and (in my view) should exist on its own (e.g. It is not unreasonable that editors should have a specialized reference, whether this takes the form of a series of examples, a style sheet, a help article, or what-have-you. However, I will admit that I have written this article with a view to readers not editors of Wikipedia. So I am not a fan of any treatment that has "little discussion" around it. 164.53.222.28 ( talk) 06:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Reply As I harp on in the overview, beyond being a technical task on its own, even a casual scansion has a host of (usually) unstated assumptions behind it. Maybe as we work through editing Scansion some good ideas will emerge. So for now I'd resist a quick merging, but I do feel uncomfortable at the overlap. By the same token I can see the need for a more discursive and explanatory article such as we have in the new Scansion article.
The ready visual comparison with a brief expalanation indicating how widespread the use is, was important in this context. If I recall correctly this was done partly to assist in editors agreeing on a particular system for annotating scansion in wikipedia articles. Phil wink ( talk) 23:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Reply I like the way Systems of scansion lays out succinctly the different notations with little discussion. And I trust that you (dear Wikipedians) will devise further improvements. Most glaringly, the absence of Musical scansion (which should include virtually all temporal metrics - perhaps that should be the heading) and Generative metrics (even though this is more "metrics" than "scansion") is unacceptable. And I'm happy to clarify my stance on any other issues that may come up. I have with some regret, eliminated User:DionysosProteus's attractive scansion boxes (sorry!), simply because my method of starting a line with a space (which results in rows of monospaced characters) is so much more accessible to less experienced editors, and, apart from a few pesky characters, is WYSIWYG in editing. In conjuction with this, I have grouped and sub-grouped notations, not by their graphic likeness, but (as best I can) more by their practical and theoretical likenesses ("Other" is just in chronological order).
First, I have aimed at a much more comparative and explanatory treatment this has involved making a few simplifications in the description of some of the more complex methods, but I don't believe that an exhaustive description of every scansion method ever used would be a virtue. I will briefly note some of my goals and stances in undertaking this overhaul, so that anyone who cares can develop a more informed approval or disapproval.
My intent is that any last useful remnants of Systems of scansion should be integrated into this article, then Systems of scansion be deleted and redirected here. Currently, this article, Scansion, constitutes an extensive overhaul of Systems of scansion.
0 kommentar(er)
