Talk:Trobairitz

Edits

In response to the edits by Wetman-

• Firstly, thanks, I frequently have trouble making my prose flow.
• Secondly, Chansonniers is intended, they are the books/manuscripts which held chansonnes.
• Thirdly, the unattributed quote is from the New Grove article "Troubadours, trouvères", I don't know how to put in those nice footnote things yet though, so I would appreciate if someone who knows how did. Makemi 19:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of Trouveres

I think that since this article is entitled "Trobairitz", and is specifically about female troubadours, the female trouveres should not be included. Also, perhaps for the women for whom there is no biographical information and who were less influential, they and their works should be put into a more succinct list at the end. As it is now it's somewhat bewildering. Makemi 06:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I'm removing the "Na" from their names, since that's how Grove generally does it, and all it means is "Lady", and wikipedia doesn't usually use honorifics in these circumstances. Makemi 06:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

A chantar

It's nice to have all three images available, but I think the two ms scans sort of make "A chantar" take over the page, and are also not helpful to the casual reader except in a sort of "ah, that's how old music looks" sense. Maybe Comtessa de Día could get her own page, and there we would have space for all three images? I like the modern notation because it can communicate the actual music much easier to the common reader. —Sesquialtera II (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about leaving only the first page of the "old music". It would be great if I could find a color reproduction of the first page though, since it has a nice capital that just looks like a giant black blob in this copy. What I'll do for now is take out the second page and leave a link to it in the first page's caption. Then I'll move the old music up a bit and leave the modern notation next to the section on Comtessa de Dia. Makemi 16:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Another possible image

A map of Occitania Image:Occitanie.svg, but perhaps it's too many images for a medium sized article. I think it might be nice, though, because it gives a good idea of where they're from without having to go into the whole history, branching into other articles, and such. Makemi 00:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

GA Result

There are 7 things that must pass before an article reaches GA status. I have reviewed it and the result is as follows:

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Failed
7. Images: Pass

GA failed references should be links to other websites, or an ISBN link for books, or any kind of identifyer for any other source. Without those, it is no good for non-editors. See {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} for instructions, cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minun (talk • contribs)

Who reviewed this, exactly? Do tell, please! (i.e no sig...) Moreschi 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree with it being "not well referenced" -- could the reviewer please be more specific with what is wrong? Am I missing something here? There are numerous references and numerous notes. Antandrus (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the references didn't include something clickable. Now they do. (ps all the references indented under Grove are also grove, so they shouldn't need something extra which is clickable). Mak (talk) 16:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The article should not have been failed in the first place. The criticism is sloppy, with poor grammar (which gives the wrong impression), no signature (so we don't know who reviewed it) and even if the objection was valid (it is certainly very harsh, being something that you would expect for FAs, not GAs), the article should have been put on hold. Putting ISBNs and some links in is something that can (and has) been done in 5 seconds flat. Now we have to waste time and space on the slow-moving GA list all over again, which could take another two/three weeks. It seems that an astonishing lack of thought went into this review, and I think that the article should be taken to good article disputes, even when the "corrections" have been made. At any rate, please take more care next time! Moreschi 17:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing thats wrong is that you should include links in references (or ISBNs), I recieved a message saying that it had been improved, so i'll put it back on the nominations page for someone else to review, cheers —Minun ^Spiderman 18:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Review

Okay, I'm now reviewing this article. Here are my comments, pretty much all prose related, as the content and references are excellent. These comments go in order from the beginning of the article to end, written as I read through.

• The second sentence leaves me wondering what Flamenca is. Possible to make a stub?
  • Done!
• "Complicated verse". Probably true, but unreferenced possibly subjective adjective like "complicated" are a red flag to me.
  • umm, I think I had a source for that, but I can't remember what it was now, so I'll take it out.
• "first known female composers of Western secular music:" shouldn't this be a semi-colon or parenthesis?
  • Made into semi-colon.
• Two sentences in a row in the lead use the word "generally", which is. . .generally. . . to be avoided anyway if possible.
  • Bad habit of mine. A number have been stricken, see below.
• The clause "we know of" sounds unscholarly to me.
  • mmm, slightly tough one. The problem with this subject is that you have to add in so many "Scholars totally are making all this shit up, but here's what they say." I've taken out a number of qualifiers.
• Why does only one trobairitz have dates in the lead?
  • Long story, fixed.
• Why is trobairtiz italicized in the last sentence of the lead?
  • All instances of trobairitz should be italicized, because it's basically a borrowed word, I've made sure that they are.
• Why are some linked and some not?
  • Because some have articles and some don't. And for some, basically the only information is their name, so it doesn't make sense to give them a separate article.
• "about these women" how about "about the Trobairitz"?
  • changed.
• First two sentences of "Sources" could probably be combined. Existing and extant used right after one another. Probably don't need "about them" in second sentence.
  • I disagree with this one. I'm talking about the biographies of the specific trobairitz, I want to highlight the lack of information, and make it clear that it's not information about them as a class, but rather individually. Feel free to edit it to make it better.
    • It's not clear to me right now that it's about specific trobairitz. What about "There are very few extant sources of information regarding specific trobairitz." to clarify your meaning? And how about "descriptions of their lives? I think that's what you mean and I definitely didn't realize that before.
      • tried again.
        • great, this helps. Now I think the phrase "the brief descriptions" is unnecessary, although maybe we could retain "brief" before "vidas".
• Chansonniers begs for a wikilink
  • done.
• Difference between vidas and razos unclear. Not sure if you need to state it here, but maybe at least a link?
  • I don't know the difference, I think they're pretty much the same thing, Grove doesn't have an article for them, and I think the brief explanation is sufficient.
    • Personally, I'd rather have at least a red link for these, so if someone fills makes an article, it will immediately link, and also because it highlights the need for an article.
      • redlinks inserted.
• "from the works of the trobairitz" I'm not sure what's being referred to here. The autobiographical accounts of the trobairitz themselves?
  • No, not autobiographical accounts, their poems. I've tried to clarify this.
• "this time period" I've forgotten. Remind me when :).
  • done.
• "Only one survives with music intact." Need to specify woman or work. Also, maybe manuscript instead of music?
  • Name/title added. I'm not sure what you're asking about in the second half of this question. There are a number of manuscripts which survive with the poems of a number of trobairitz; however, only one piece of music survives which is definitively by a trobairitiz.
    • Okay, so manuscript doesn't work. I meant the ambiguity between "music" as a physical object versus sound. Would you consider "musical score" or something like that?
      • changed to "notated music", although it seems a bit redundant, since it's not as though there were recordings made at the time.
        • "notated music" does sound funny. What about "musical notation". Could also link that.
• "certain" one of Tony's buzzwords. Probably don't need it, although definitely need cite. I'm assuming your note is for the whole paragraphy?
  • It's from Dronke. It's nice for once to be able to say something with certainty, but not entirely necessary. I've taken it out.
    • I think it's still there actually: "certain modern editors". could just mention which ones if you want.
      • oops, I just looked for "certainly", removed "certain".
• "troubadours" wikilink and probably mentions that they're dudes. Not necc clear.
  • Well, people include trobairitz under the umbrella of the term troubadour, and hopefully the sentence "Trobairitz composed, wrote complicated verses, and performed for the Occitan noble courts." in the lead clarifies what the heck this group of people did/who they were. Are you saying the lead needs to make this clearer? Or just that it should say that troubadours are men, (which they aren't necessarily)? Let me know if it's not clear. If you're talking about "of the 460 troubadours,..." I've clarified that.
    • yes, this clarifies for me.
• "their" (in next paragraph) we've lost sight of who this pronoun refers to.
  • that's because it comes after. a possible re-write is "Interestingly, the first chansonniers which contained the works of the troubadours and trobairitz did not separate them." but I prefer it as it is now.
    • I'm still confused about this sentence. I not sure if their refers to troubadours or trobairitz or both. Also, are we still talking about just male troubadours when we say troubadours?
      • tried again.
• "Interestingly" seems like a subjective adverb
  • yeah, it is... stricken.
• "Medieval" is this always capitalized?
  • I think it should be lowercase, I've changed it.
• " jocs partis" I want to know what this is.
  • mm, brief explanation given.
• Two sentences is a row with accomplishments". Not sure it's the word you mean anyway. More like skills?
  • yeah, it is what I mean, but again, bad habit of repeating words. I've re-worded it.
• "it is important to remember" I don't think an encyclopedia should tell me what is important to remember. I think the sentence works fine without it.
  • stricken
• "rôles" I'm unclear on the switch to French for this word.
  • Uh, because the circumflex is pretty? struckeded.
• "Professional female composers were generally referred to as joglaresse, and were far less respected than the trobairitz." So it sounds like they were amateurs, but it doesn't say so.
  • That depends on your definition of "professional". I don't really want to get into a whole sociological study of what professional meant at the time, whether being supported by their husbands, who married them because they wrote good poetry, counts as professional, etc. I was hoping that the fact that they were noble women would in some part clarify this point.
    • I think it's still confusing because the sentence "Professional female composers were referred to as joglaresse, and were far less respected than the trobairitz makes a distinction between joglaresse and trobairitz on the basis that joglaresse were professionals. It seems like it's tacitly allowing that trobairitz are amateurs, but not really saying so.
      • There's only so much I want to make up. I could extemporize on the subject, but I don't think that would be appropriate in this context. I've put in what I have sources for, and people can make sense of them as they will in this case, is my thought. Joglaresse were definitely lower class, and by some they are certainly seen to be professionals. No one comes out definitively either way on the trobairitz, they were more like amateurs, but the distinctions don't necessarily make that much sense without a much larger context.
        • Okay, this is fine, but then I think the sentence "Professional female composers were referred to as joglaresse" should be changed so the article doesn't reflect something it doesn't mean to. Something like "Joglaresse were lower class, professional composers," which I basically just copied from your last comment, might say the same thing without implying a necessary comparison on the basis of amateur vs. professional.
• "Women were generally the subject of the writings of troubadours, however" what was the subject of the writing of the trobairitz?
  • Sorry, I thought I had clarified that. They both wrote of fin' amours, women were the subject, frequently for both troubadours and trobairitz. I'll have to think about how to make this clearer.
    • I think firstly why I'm confused is that I see this sentence starts with "Both troubadours and trobairitz", yet by our discussion above, trobairtiz are troubadours. Then the next sentence is possible using troubadours to refer to both? I'm lost. Also, if they both wrote about the same subject, why is the word "however" there?
      • Because I said so. Ok, obviously I need to rewrite that paragraph. Hopefully the other instances of troubadour/trobairitz are sufficiently clear.
        • Cool.
• "The trobairitz wrote in the canso and tenso (debate poem) genres" is this distinct from troubadours? Also, are those both debate poems? Also, although you talk about what a debate poem is later, it's another weird item where I'd love to have a link to something.
  • The problem is that I'm not actually an expert on Occitan literature, and don't feel qualified to write every wiki article in the subject, and sadly thus far no one else has either. Trobairitz wrote more in these genres than did troubadours; they are a larger proportion of their output.
    • Again, personally I'd prefer a redlink, but I'm not sure what's the standard for such things.
      • redlinked
• "epistles" wky?
  • done.
• "this poem" used twice in a row as the start of sentence? Possible to replace one with the name of the poem?
  • I didn't know the name of the poem, because the subject is the same as the title, so I was confused. Fixed.
• For the bio's, maybe include their location in a parenthesis lead style, instead of "was from" as their first sentence?
  • Because the names of the towns are strange (to me at least) and many don't have articles, so I think it's clearer this way.
• "a town on the Drôme in the marquisate of Provence" this clause seems to be missing a verb or something
  • It's referring to Dìa.
    • Ohhh. Okay, that sentence has wayy to many commas. If that one clause was in a parenthesis I think it would help some anyway.
      • lol, you're right. Another bad habit of mine. I've parenthesized it.
• Are the three bullets for Comtessa de Dia her three extant poems? Doesn't say.
  • Yup, fixed.
• Does the list include all known trobairitz and or works? This would be interesting to say.
  • I don't think it's complete, largely because of the disagreement about the numerous "Anonymous" writers. It could probably be more complete. I've included in the heading that the list is incomplete.

Hey, this is a great article. Hope these comments help. A Chantar is one of my early music greatest hits. MarkBuckles 04:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the comments, Mark. I hope it's a bit better, and if you have further suggestions they would be very welcome :) Mak (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good revisions. Here are two more things I thought of:

1. How about including IPA for the name at the top?

2. For the notation, a) isn't this just the first verse? Maybe the caption should say that, and b) My recording from the Norton Anthology is a full step higher. Any reason you know of? MarkBuckles 00:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried again/some more. Now, as for IPA, I've never seen a pronunciation given for this word, and I could make one up but I figure no information is better than completely made up information. Perhaps if someone has an OED?. I've changed the caption. I have no idea why the Norton anthology has a different pitch, perhaps they decided to do it at 392 Hz or it was more comfortable in the singer's voice (you don't happen to know who it was singing it, do you?) You can see from the facsimile that it uses a C clef, and the first pitch is a third below that. Thanks, Mak (talk) 04:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Is their a babel for Occitan? :) My OED doesn't have the word, though its not unabridged. Interestingly, it does say of troubadours that they "are famous for the complexity of their verse forms and for the conception of chivalry and courtly love which prevails in their poems." So that might be a citation for complexity if you want one. I've been wiki'ing so much that when I accidentily closed the dictionary, I tried to hit the back button. . . might be time to check in. MarkBuckles 05:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, from an interested observer, on all this effort! I can add at least a stub for vida and razo: I know the difference. I'll do it later today. Occitan is a fairly new term, but there is an Occitan Wikipedia if that's any help. Andrew Dalby 10:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking again, I see from the article that I'm not the only one who knows the difference! Stubs might still be useful though. Andrew Dalby 10:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great. Currently both bluelink to alternative definitions which is undesirable. MarkBuckles 03:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool! This is why WP is occasionally awesome. Thanks very much to Andrew for the articles on Vida and Razo, and to Mark for finding User:Aubadaurada to get the IPA for us. It's completely different from what I would have made up (although if forced to I probably would have gone to Singing early music: and come up with something closer. That's an awesome book, btw). Anyway, thanks a lot to all Mak (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

I've reviewed the article and it looks great. The only reason I've stopped its movement onto GA status is because of the references. Unless someone provides a sound reason, I think the "Notes" section should be merged into the above section. Having them separated forces the reader to locate the author's name and then search for the book title above. This is trivial to everyone except the extremely lazy reader, but it would make the section shorter and much better organized.-Dark Kubrick 17:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking for. I'm using the <ref></ref> system, which is the standard. In this system there is no way to put the entire citation and then multiple page numbers for different citations. (so, let's say there's something in the first paragraph from pg. 7 in book foo, and something in the 8th paragraph from pg. 82 in book foo, there's no other easy way to indicate that) In the interest of having the most thorough references possible I have opted for this manner of referencing. If an extremely lazy reader is reading this article, and wants to know where the citation is from, they can jolly well look up a couple inches. If you're asking that there not be a separate heading that's fine. I'm not going to clutter up the wiki text and have less specific references just so someone incredibly lazy can see the title of the book more easily. Mak (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Duly noted. I respect your desire to have the most thorough references, and heartily encourage it.

Which means that there's nothing else to stop this from being promoted. -Dark Kubrick 01:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Trobairitz/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

   • I removed the improvement tag as there had been no discussion and it seemed unneccasry. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • A well referenced and interesting article. Keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Pop Culture and Trobairitz

Would it be appropriate to insert a section about trobairitz in pop culture? I'm thinking of Marion Meade's novel Sybille, which has a NYT review and is about a fictional female trobairitz. . Sorry if this isn't the place to ask, I'm new! Lionowl (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

References