Talk:Gregorian chant

message: In a more detailed historic overvieuw, 'plainchant' is a term that is relatively young, compared to the ancestry of Gregorian (Ambrosian, Beneventan, Old Roman, Gallican, Hispanic and what have you). It is reasonable to use the term as a synonym for: choraliter, monophonic song, as opposed to 'organaliter', various forms of improvised or composed polyphony that were gaining place of importance in liturgic practice, attestable since late twelfth century, Paris. From then on, it is useful to discern between polyphony and plainchant. Admittedly, since the rise of polyphony has brought about a decline in the earlier refinement in the performance and notation of Gregorian chant, which is amply demonstrated in the history of notation. Since the term 'plainchant' thus applies to the period that semiologists and paleographers refer to as that of decline and corruption, it would be an anachronism to have it apply to the chant traditions of its heighday, when it reigned surpreme. 
Martinuddin (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Ambrosian chant is usually regarded as another form of plain chant, I think there are others too, so maybe it's more a case of reworking the plainchant article to cover the other forms of chant.  David Underdown (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree with "quite worthy of separate entry" and no merge. History2007 (talk) 08:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well, however I think that the article plainsong has to be much more encompassing since at the moment it only talks about Gregorian chant. Instead it should include short summaries of all the major chants and have links to each one's main article. Gregorian chant is not the only type of plainsong. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes,  plainsong should be improved, and could go on someone's to-do-list. History2007 (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal: Plainsong 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 23 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Gregorian chant.gif Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello everyone - Unfortunately, this article does not meet the current standards for a featured article. The major issues is that it is significantly under-referenced, with many sections and paragraphs being partially or completely unreferenced. The external links section also needs a trim, and possibly merging with the "learning resources" section. The very short "Miscellaneous" section probably also needs integration with one of the other sections. More minor issues, such as dead links, page numbers needed for books, publishers needed for web references and date standardization, also exist. If work is not completed on these issues in the next few weeks, this article will need to be taken to WP:Featured article review for a possible revocation of its featured status. Dana boomer (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Work needed 

message: Substituted at 16:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: This article needs to classed alongside higher-order mathematical articles and those on linguistics for its utter lack of clarity and accessibility to persons who are not already expert in the field discussed. It deserves an additional award for gratuitous use of the word 'prolix', which seems remarkably apt in the context of this article's style. 
In all seriousness, it would greatly benefit this article to add in the text from the Simple English Wikipedia, which hardly duplicates and is consistent with this page and encapsulates the key points in a way suitable for the lay reader. [] Stub Mandrel (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utterly Impenetrable 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gregorian chant. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315074741/http://www.calumcille.com/griogair/9A14.html to http://www.calumcille.com/griogair/9A14.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gregorian chant. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305092130/http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/music/Gregorian%20Chant/greg_chant.pdf to http://www.u.arizona.edu/~aversa/music/Gregorian%20Chant/greg_chant.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Greetings, I patrol "External links" for compliance with policies and guidelines. There are fifteen links in the section and this is entirely too many. Three or four would be acceptable and possibly five with consensus, but there are over three times that many. Would someone please look at this to reduce the links to an acceptable number? Otr500 (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A superficial glance suggests that several of the links should certainly be removed, but I am wondering where you get the figure of five links for an article of this size and complexity. The EL guideline certainly says to keep numbers down, but does not give any formula for how much is too much.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links issues 

message: Latin is only mentioned halfway down the page Akeosnhaoe (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is mentioned in the first sentence, and this is a scandalous omission of Greek, which is the language used in the first section of the Ordinary of the Mass.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the edit history. The part about Latin was added after I wrote that. Akeosnhaoe (talk) 16:52, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see that now. I added Greek there, as well.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The language of Gregorian chant should be mentioned in the first paragraph