Jump to content

Talk:Antiphonary of St. Benigne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quality

[edit]

The article is a stub and neither the title in mispelled French nor the classification of the manuscript were correct (it is a misreading provoked by the problematic title of the PM-edition: Antiphonarium tonale missarum). I inserted the correct category tonary, the references to its author William of Volpiano who was Abbot of St. Bénigne (so it is not just a church) and not only scribe of this manuscript, but also inventor of its additional letter notation.

The external link about neumes does not seem to have any relevance to the subject, this entry was obviously abused to make its link popular, but I will check it carefully. I added another link to the digital library of the Library in Montpellier, which has recently changed its name, so the old name mentioned here is no longer correct.

Platonykiss (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I am sorry. Of course, there is nothing to object to cite own contributions, as long as they are relevant to the subject treated here.

But this publication:

http://www.scholaantiqua.net/rjohnblackley.htm

just mentions the tonary of Saint-Bénigne to control concordances of certain pitches of the Pentecost introit "Spiritus domini" with other sources. It pays neither attention to microtones (special signs for the dieses in the Boethian diagramm) used by the school of William of Volpiano (also in this antiphon) nor does it mention him or any Abbey related to him nor the Norman and Cluniac reforms done by him nor any other reform by the end of the 10th and the beginning of the 11th century.

If you would like to insist having a link to this comparative study of the introit "Spiritus domini" I recommend:

  • to point out the relevance for an encyclopedic article about William of Volpiano's manuscript (details like John Blackley guides an ensemble called *** are certainly not), as example within the context of a quotation.
  • to use cite templates which has the advantage, that everybody who is interested in Blackley's article, can grasp the data for a bibliography by one click on plugin like zotero.
  • to overwork the quoted article that it becomes more relevant to the subject.

I hope that you understand my decision why I removed that link from the page.Platonykiss (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings of quality

[edit]

I set all ratings back to zero for two reasons. These are quality judgements for a stub as it existed before. Neither the rating of the quality nor the rating of the importance of the issue show that the judges of these portals really understand too much concerning the subject of this article and its content. But as it is reworked, you will have a second chance to re-evaluate it. Good luck! --Platonykiss (talk) 09:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Felix Folio Secundus! Better you leave this job to somebody more competent, it is obviously not your cup of tea... And finally not that important to rate everything, isn't it? ;) --Platonykiss (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Antiphonary of St. Benigne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antiphonary_of_St._Benigne&oldid=1215121654"