A fact from Verbum caro factum est appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 December 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music articles
Looking at the facsimiles from the 1591 publication of Hassler's Cantiones Sacrae, it is very clear that both the Tenor and Quinta Vox parts are for tenors—indeed, Hassler switches the music between the parts when repeating the opening "Verbum caro" text, so the tenor sings what the quinta had and vice versa, and again later in the piece. Both use C4 clefs. The tenor tessitura is a bit higher, though both parts go up to F4, and the tenor down to E3 while the quinta has one D3.
To say that this is SSAATB is misleading, if not inaccurate, and it shouldn't be offered even as an alternative. I have changed the article accordingly. The Sexta Vox uses a C2 clef, as compared to the Soprano's C1 and Alto's C3, but that's frequently thought of as a second soprano rather than a mezzo line (though it could be a high alto), so SSATTB is a reasonable call. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this article in the preps, and realised that I sang this recently! It was very interesting to learn some more of its history, so thank you for writing it! Frzzltalk;contribs09:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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: not moved. The request was made according to the order of other notes in Category:motets. The consensus was finding any other topic of same name which was later not doing for any DAB page. The consensus was that "any one searching for the motet already knew it was from Hassler." Regards! (non-admin closure) Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!21:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, no other topic. People looking for this title probably mean the composition. Those looking for the Bible verse will probably search in English, or by verse number, and the Latin phrase is currently only in the image caption of that article. - Previously, I constructed with a dab to the composer, and it was removed as not necessary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt, when I do a google search for "verbum caro factum est", I see a lot of results about music, so I'm prepared to accept (to my surprise...) that people searching these words really are looking for a composition. What I don't know is if they're all trying to find the Hassler one. If there is a composer mentioned in the search results preview, it's always Hassler, so I'm inclined to think there isn't a "verbum caro factum est" by anyone else. Are you aware of any others? -- asilvering (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure I understand — WP:EASTEREGG refers to improper piping of links within articles, not article titles as they appear in categories, and so does not apply in a requested move discussion. Coming back to your nomination rationale, I would like to see some evidence in reliable sources of your assertion that there is no primary topic. There seem to be no shortage of similarly named pieces, as your link demonstrates, but that doesn't necessarily mean that this article title has to be disambiguated by default. Another rationale that would make sense to me is the creation of a primary redirect to the John 1:14 article at the Verbum caro factum est title (if, again, supported by appearances in sources), which would then justify parenthetical disambiguation for this article. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:26, 5 April 2024 (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.
