Talk:Tota pulchra es, amica mea: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Richard Mix (talk | contribs) (rational for merge prior to sorting and splitting) |
Richard Mix (talk | contribs) (cupertino effect) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This page (Tota pulchra es, amica mea) should not be merged with the Tota Pulchra es page--the texts are different [[User:Winglet|Winglet]] ([[User talk:Winglet|talk]]) 21:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC) | This page (Tota pulchra es, amica mea) should not be merged with the Tota Pulchra es page--the texts are different [[User:Winglet|Winglet]] ([[User talk:Winglet|talk]]) 21:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC) | ||
:There's a big project in cleaning up the 2 pages, which might or might not be best begun by not having more than one page marked for cleanup; I'm certainly not a fan of textpages with many different versions. My usual criterion is whether an 'official' version occurs in a liturgical book: [https://gregobase.selapa.net/scores.php Gregobase] is a great resource for this. Looking at a few of the 11 works on this '' | :There's a big project in cleaning up the 2 pages, which might or might not be best begun by not having more than one page marked for cleanup; I'm certainly not a fan of textpages with many different versions. My usual criterion is whether an 'official' version occurs in a liturgical book: [https://gregobase.selapa.net/scores.php Gregobase] is a great resource for this. Looking at a few of the 11 works on this ''…amica mea'' page, I note that Isaac is identical to the given text, anonymous 1541 uses the 1st 3 lines only (and the work page unhelpfully links to ''[[Tota pulchra es|Tota pulchra es Maria]]'' instead of here), Belli likewise goes as far as "super omni a aromata." and then continues "Surge propera…". So, there's work still to be done before this page can be really considered a 'text' in its own right. [[User:Richard Mix|Richard Mix]] ([[User talk:Richard Mix|talk]]) 22:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 22:22, 4 March 2017
This page (Tota pulchra es, amica mea) should not be merged with the Tota Pulchra es page--the texts are different Winglet (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- There's a big project in cleaning up the 2 pages, which might or might not be best begun by not having more than one page marked for cleanup; I'm certainly not a fan of textpages with many different versions. My usual criterion is whether an 'official' version occurs in a liturgical book: Gregobase is a great resource for this. Looking at a few of the 11 works on this …amica mea page, I note that Isaac is identical to the given text, anonymous 1541 uses the 1st 3 lines only (and the work page unhelpfully links to Tota pulchra es Maria instead of here), Belli likewise goes as far as "super omni a aromata." and then continues "Surge propera…". So, there's work still to be done before this page can be really considered a 'text' in its own right. Richard Mix (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)