Jump to content

Talk:Regina caeli

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Regina Coeli)

Merging

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merge

[edit]

I think it's a pretty obvious merge, but I don't know which title to put it at. I'm confused at the spelling of the word caeli/coeli. Contribute to Talk:Credo if you can explain it. Rigadoun 16:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge

[edit]

This article is about the prayer Regina Coeli, not the title of the Blessed Virgin in her capacity as Queen of Heaven. Are you Catholic or Protestant? If you were Catholic, you'd know your prayers.

That's fine, but the prayer is included in entirety in the other article, which seemed redundant. That info can be put here and removed from there. Rigadoun 18:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with whomever did not sign. Even the prayer and the hymn are used in different contexts. I would keep them separate.--Vaquero100 19:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move (2007)

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


At Wikipedia:Requested moves, there was a request to move this article to Regina Caeli. I've copied the request and the ensuing discussion here:

I moved the request from the uncontroversial section, because somebody objected to it, and now I'm completing the listing, and putting this request in the queue to be processed by an admin in 5 days.

So, do we think this article should move to Regina Caeli or not? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fascinating question. There is no question that Caeli would be the classical spelling; there is no question that this poem is post-classical. There is relatively little question that Coeli or Celi would be the medieval spelling. So who are we being contemporary with? (The New Catholic Encyclopedia puts their article under Regina Caeli Laetare, which might be better disambiguation.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I think it's now clear which spelling was used when, but it remains unclear which we should be using. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 08:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

[edit]

I've added "IPA: [reˈdʒiːna ˈtʃeːli]", which I believe is the current church form. But near where I live (in Croydon, UK) there is a Regina Coeli School which is used as the name of a bus stop. The automated announcement on the bus calls it [reˈdʒiːnə koʊˈeɪli]. Has anyone else come across this sort of pronunciation, or should I just complain to Transport For London that they've got it wrong? --rossb (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latter pronunciation is just plain wrong. --capmo 04:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (2010)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Coeli → Regina Caeli

http://books.google.com/books?id=nL1UQ0plOasC&pg=PA151&dq=raccolta++%22Regina+Coeli%E2%80%8E%22&cd=2#v=onepage&q&f=false
and that would be the best source to conform to, given that any translations require Vatican approval. History2007 (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really think we should base this decision on a book first published in 1807? The Vatican may have become more scrupulous about spelling correctness over these two hundred years. See for instance the 1954 Papal encyclical Ad Caeli Reginam. --capmo 02:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this decision makes it sound like it is a big deal, which it is not. The alt spelling makes no big difference to the world and will redirect, so no need for much ado about it. However, that said, given that this is a Vatican sanctioned prayer with indulgences, one has to ask: "what is the official Vatican book of prayer?" and the answer is: Raccolta. Is there another book? And by the way, the Vatican web site and Google counts thereof are no indication at all, because I hear that the web site is just maintained by 1 or 2 nuns and not checked by anyone. They just load up pages as time goes on. So that reasoning does not work. History2007 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it may not sound as a big deal for you, but as I see it, a Latin spelling error is still an error, and there's no better place than an encyclopaedia to teach the correct form. As there were other attempts in the past to rename the page, I could say that I'm not the only one who feels so. I know that the Google counts are not a valid argument, they just indicate that the Vatican web site, at least, is making some effort to use the correct word. And sorry to say, but I think it hard to believe that a site with thousands of pages in a dozen different languages is maintained by only a couple of nuns. :) --capmo 05:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All that aside, the official Vatican prayer book remains the Raccolta. When they change it in that book, the prayer name can be considered officially changed. History2007 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be it the Raccolta then, but to be certain we'd have to check in a recent edition, not in a 1907 scanned edition. --capmo 05:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose. This is not "a Latin spelling error". It is quite true that Cicero would have spelt this Regina Caeli, if - as is unlikely - he had ever used the phrase. But Cicero did not write the hymn; it was written in the High Middle Ages, in an age of changed pronunciation and corrupt spelling. In that age, they believed Coelum was derived from Greek koilos "hollow" and they spelled accordingly.
Even if it were a Latin error (as ex post facto is), we should abide by what the hymn has been called in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote in the summary don't be silly, and argued that this is not a Latin spelling error, but a corrupt spelling; then you go on to say that it's an error ex post facto. Funny way to agree by disagreeing! I also don't understand why you cite Cicero, as the use in Classical times is not in question, but the modern usage of the word (and the links I pointed to refer exactly to this modern usage of caeli, as in the Papal encyclical). With respect to how it's been called in English, it's not hard to find English sources that give the title Regina Caeli for this hymn. Anyway, your explanation about the Greek source of this misspelling is instructive and should be included in the article, to clarify this point. Also, if you feel so strongly about keeping the current title, then I suggest that the hymn Ave Regina Caelorum be renamed accordingly. What I find strange is to have each hymn following a different logic. Regards, --capmo 05:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that this was an error ex postfacto; I said ex post facto was an error - as it is. The Latinity of 18th century Philadelphia was more classical than the High Middle Ages - but not perfect. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental error here is the assumption, which I also made when I was beginning to study the language, that there is only one Latin. There isn't; the Latin of Ennius is as correct as that of Cicero - the standard capmo seems to be enforcing. The Latin of the eleventh century is also, and correctly, Latin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ave Regina Coelorum: sudden move

[edit]

Capmo: Your sudden move of Ave Regina Coelorum cited this talk page as justification. I do not see that anyone agreed to that here, or there, except you. I suggest that should be discussed before you suddenly declare defeat here and victory there. History2007 (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not declaring anything like "defeat" and "victory". For me "victory" would mean both articles using the correct Latin form, as I understand it. But since you all agreed that Medieval Latin is more pertinent in this case and that the Raccolta is to be used as the definitive authority, I'm just using the same arguments in the other article, for the sake of uniformity. As you can check here, there's nothing to discuss about this uncontroversial move which returned that article to its original title. --capmo 05:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Raccolta says Ave Regina Coelorum, then I would support the move you did. But it would have been easier to ask beforehand. But let us wait and see what everyone else thinks. History2007 (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there have been no objections here, and given that Raccolta uses Ave Regina Coelorum, I think the move makes sense. Unless there are objections, I will do it in a few days. History2007 (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated infobox image

[edit]

Greetings! I have updated the infobox image to one which I feel is much more appropriate to the article topic: Mary's queenship and coronation by the Risen Christ. Please discuss if you have any comments or suggestions. I would welcome modifications to the caption, which may be too long or not comprehensive enough, I am not sure. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 May 2019

[edit]
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: Move. After 2 weeks, it appears we have consensus to move. Cúchullain t/c 15:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Regina Coeli → Regina Caeli – This is the spelling that (apart from being correct Latin) is used in all recent official liturgical texts of the Catholic Church, as seen, for instance, in the image reproduced in the article. Past objections to this correction, based on out-of-date publications, are given above. The article by Hugh Henry in the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia was cited for "Coeli", but the far more recent New Catholic Encyclopedia has "Caeli", and even the old Catholic Encyclopedia also had an article by the better known scholar Herbert Thurston using the "ae" spelling. The Raccolta (first published in 1807) was also cited above in support of "Coeli", but the edition cited was of an unspecified pre-1923 date. Wikisource only gives nineteenth-century editions of the Raccolta, the last edition of which (and we don't know which spelling it used) was in 1950. The Raccolta has since been replaced by the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, which has "Regina caeli". The entire text of the fourth edition of this Enchiridion is on the Internet.

The spelling "caeli" is not a recent fad: it is found in 15th-century Trent manuscripts. There is no doubt that "caelum" is the correct Latin word: see PHI Latin texts, where searching for "coelum" produces no results. The objection raised above that in medieval times (when the anthem was composed) "coelum" was the (only) spelling is quite unsubstantiated. Is it instead possible that the "coelum" spelling arose instead in post-medieval times, when Greek became better known in the West and the Latin word for "sky"/"heaven" was associated with the Greek word κοῖλος ("hollow")? "Regina caeli" is also the spelling used in today's scholarly works such as the Harvard Dictionary of Music and the American Institute of Musicology Bealtainemí (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Cúchullain t/c 13:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a further request, I propose that "caeli" be written in lower case, in strict conformity with the incipit of the prayer. Bealtainemí (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious. N-grams please. Being official is much less important than being WP:COMMONNAME. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this what you mean? It seems rather inconclusive as regards the last half-century. What is more important, the Wikipedia article is about the liturgical prayer, not about the Regina Coeli prison in Rome and other Regina Coeli institutions. An n-gram that covers them is not applicable to this article. Its non-applicability and the uncertainty of its result means that it counterbalances neither the rules of Latin orthography nor, what is much more important here, present-day usage (whatever about the past) with regard to the liturgical prayer that the article is about. Bealtainemí (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks! It's conclusive enough for me. Oppose per n-gram. Also per the 2 previous discussions above, which I've only just noticed. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Decided I'm neutral on this. Johnbod (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, if nobody else (i.e., other than me) disagrees with your opinion that the n-gram (which is not precisely about the liturgical prayer of the Wikipedia article and shows "-ae-" as the majority form in some recent decades) is "conclusive enough" for the "-oe-" spelling of the liturgical prayer, and that the objections "per the 2 previous discussions above" (which I thought I had answered) are indeed valid, then the present objectively mistaken "-oe-" spelling must regrettably be maintained, as being in possession. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support: If this article were about a hymn that was only used in the medieval period, or if the article were limited in scope to only discussing the hymn as it was used back then, then I could see the appropriateness of the medieval spelling Regina Coeli. But the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this article is a Marian hymn which is used in present-day Catholic liturgy. It's a Catholic hymn, the Catholic Church still uses it every day during the Easter season, and the Catholic Church spells it Regina Caeli, at least in current liturgical books. Because the majority of the article body talks about this hymn as a contemporary reality (appropriately so), the title should follow suit in using the contemporary spelling. The old title should, of course, be noted in the article body. And because Regina Caeli is the spelling used today by the religion to which this hymn applies, the WP:COMMONNAME for the average person will be the proposed spelling Regina Caeli. In all likelihood, the old spelling Regina Coeli would be the "common name" only for a medieval historian or linguist; for everyone else it would probably be an unexpected WP:SURPRISE. Jdcompguy (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose: I cite as an example the notice from last Sunday on the Vatican Bollettino titled Le parole del Papa alla recita del Regina Coeli also the same event on the official Vatican News website. --Dcheney (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Vatican website also uses Regina Cæli. It's inconsistent. In any case, I was under the impression that the Catholic Church now uses the new spelling exclusively, and I was incorrect. Jdcompguy (talk) 08:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Vatican news site is, as Jdcompguy rightly says, inconsistent (for instance, Angelus - Regina Cæli 2019). So perhaps Dcheney would like to withdraw at least the adverb in "Strongly Oppose". (The editors of the website are inevitably often influenced by the name of the nearby Regina Coeli prison. In particular whoever is editing it recently, unlike his or her predecessors, for instance, this example.) The Vatican documents, even when given on that website, are consistent: they always use the correct Latin spelling. So Jdcompguy was not at all incorrect before in saying the Catholic Church (not the Vatican website, which is not endowed with magisterium) now and for well over half a century uses the correct Latin spelling exclusively. As Jdcompguy also said, the primary topic, what the Wikipedia article is about, is the Marian hymn itself, not news items about its recitation. An interesting case is this recent news item, which uses "Regina Coeli" about the Pope's recitation of the prayer this month, but within which the prayer itself, as spoken by the Pope, is given as "Regina Caeli". Bealtainemí (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the justification for the move was that the "old" spelling was not currently being used, and yet it is. It is specially indicated that the "old" spelling is not used in any current liturgical books. Yet no evidence has been presented to support that. I have checked several in my library, and none of them include the Latin version. If someone has a current Latin version of the Breviary, that should have it (I do not). --Dcheney (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason for the proposed move is that the -oe- spelling is not currently used in the text of the hymn (although it is used elsewhere). You ask now for the current Latin version of the Breviary, where the Regina caeli concludes the office of compline during Easter time. You can check it for yourself here or here or here (and elsewhere). If by "Breviary" you mean not the current normal or ordinary text but the pre-Vatican II text, you can check that too for yourself here. Evidence has long been presented within the Wikipedia article itself in the form of an image from the Latin Liber Usualis. Is that enough? Bealtainemí (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Internet links I have given immediately above, both pre- and post-Vatican II, show that the incipit of the hymn is Regina caeli, not Regina Caeli, which should be reflected in the title of the article, as in my secondary request. The same fact was already demonstrated in links 1 and [2, as well as in the images in the article. Bealtainemí (talk) 08:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 20 June 2019

[edit]
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: Moved. (non-admin closure) – Ammarpad (talk) 06:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Caeli → Regina caeli – Article body text uses lowercase. Other Latin hymns on Wikipedia also use sentence case titles, such as Tantum ergo, Ubi caritas and Rorate caeli.  — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Regina caeli, Queen of Heaven, is a general concept in Catholicism, that should have precedence

[edit]

The hymn and the various other occurrences of this Latin phrase are just particular uses of a fundamental Catholic concept, Mary as the Queen of Heaven. That should be explained first, and all the different uses of the phrases should branch off from there, as they are legion. Arminden (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is English-language Wikipedia, the article for the general concept is located at Queen of Heaven, the English translation of "Regina caeli." In English, "Regina caeli" untranslated primarily refers to the hymn, hence the focus of this article. But in response to your concern, I have added a hatnote link to Queen of Heaven to make it easier for people to find the other article. Jdcompguy (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, so then let's place all the needed cross-references so far missing! On my way to do that. Arminden (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jdcompguy, unlike in coding, here it's not about an abstract logical diagram where each spelling has the same value. It's about spoken & written language. There is an overriding topic, Queen of Heaven, with a Latin origin, but the original Latin phrase gets spelled in N different ways. If you can show that people in general a.) know one meaning and don't know much or anything about the other ones, and b.) use one spelling much more often than the other variants, then you have a case for directing everybody to that by-far-best-known meaning, according to how I understood Wiki rules. But otherwise, the logical way to go about it is to bundle all spellings together = DAB page, and take it from there. To separate a few spellings from the total number of permutations ("upper/lower case" x "oe/ae") and redirect them to the antiphon, while redirecting the remaining ones to the DAB page - why? What's the rationale? Please explain. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Arminden: In the English language, "Regina caeli" (together with its various spelling permutations) is first and foremost used to refer to the Marian antiphon. Hence, all spelling/capitalization permutations (Regina Caeli, Regina coeli, and Regina Coeli) all did, and should continue to, redirect here, to Regina caeli. This is because the Marian antiphon is the primary topic for all of the spellings. "Queen of Heaven," which has its own English-titled article hatnoted from here, would be the primary topic for "Regina caeli" etc. only if this were the Latin Wikipedia. There are several pages on Wikipedia that include "Regina Coeli" (with "oe" and capital "C") in the title, and these get linked from Regina Coeli (disambiguation). If someone is looking for "Regina caeli/coeli" on Wikipedia, it's by far most likely that they are looking for the Marian antiphon, not the Roman prison or some obscure church. Jdcompguy (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jdcompguy: Thank you, now I understand what you mean. I'm neither Catholic nor an English native-speaker, so I would never argue with those arguments. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Arminden: You're welcome, and thanks for the cordial discussion. All the best. Jdcompguy (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regina_caeli&oldid=1208392654"