Talk:John Dowland

message: According to :File:Dowland.jpg the pictured man is not John Dowland at all, and this is a common misattribution. For additional evidence, see :File:Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury by John De Critz the Elder.jpg and its source website. Should we modify the caption or remove the image accordingly, or is there disagreement over this? Dcoetzee 02:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous portrait 

message: The way it reads now is, "(1563 – buried 20 February 1626)." (emphasis mine). This suggests that there is no record for his actual date of death. It would help if the article reflects/explains this (or anything about his life aside from his reputation as a composer). Wellesradio (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Groves Dictionary says "His court pay ceased on 20 January 1626, which suggests that that was the day he died, but there was apparently an error of some sort, for his burial at St Ann Blackfriars was not recorded until a month later, on 20 February." Very likely these are the only sources of evidence of his date of death...unless anyone knows otherwise... Bluewave (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death date needs clarification 

message: If we know next to nothing about his early life, including not even being sure whether he was born in London or Dublin, how does anyone know he was born in 1563?  
Should this perhaps read c. 1563?  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for year of birth

message: Do we know who she was? Barbara Touburg (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Diana Poulton's authoritative biography (second edition, University of California Press, 1982, p. 28), there is a "complete mystery that surrounds the identity of Mrs. Dowland."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Jerome. Barbara Touburg (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  His wife 

message: The article states "There is no complete catalogue of Dowland's works" but lists several artists as having "recorded the complete works of John Dowland" *I paraphrase). How can this be? Stub Mandrel (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete Catalogue?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on John Dowland. 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  tag to http://www.goldbergweb.com/en/magazine/composers/2005/2/38613_print.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714135321/http://www.sting.com/news/interview.php?uid=4694 to http://www.sting.com/news/interview.php?uid=4694
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150529034057/http://home.comcast.net/~collaros623/bohemianRhapsodies.pdf to http://home.comcast.net/~collaros623/bohemianRhapsodies.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) 14:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am in the process of reading it, but I can't seem to find out any information regarding 'The Orpheus Books', supposedly discovered behind a mantlepiece in Ireland which contained old books and a letter addressed to 'Rob D' and written by John Dowland. Is this a work of fiction, or an actual thing that happened? I would love to know more, as I remember my sister telling me the story of the 'doscovery' when I was a child and I have been fascinated ever since.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DA06:FF00:39A5:845E:84C9:9941 (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  'The Orpheus Books' 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Dowland (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 18:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Hello, this phrase is demonstrably untrue: Pilgrimes Solace  'seems have been conceived more as a collection of contrapuntal music than as solo works' since 7 of the 21 songs in the book are for solo voice, sometimes with an obligato viol, or have long sections for one voice with a chorus - that's 7 more solo songs than the 1st and 3rd Books and I think only one less than the 2nd Book. Additionally, songs in PS like Disdaine me still and Sweet stay are very declamatory. I think whoever wrote these words in the over half a century old The New Oxford History of Music, Volume IV: The Age of Humanism 1540–1630 has read the 'address to the reader' and not, you know, counted the solo songs. I will take this out in a couple of weeks despite having a footnote, as long as nobody objects. I could footnote 7 different links to descriptions of the songs Poulton's  book but that does seem like overkill. It does seem that taking as 'authorities' things written over half a century when there's been rather a lot of work done on early music in the intervening period might be something to not do.Je9671111 (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Pilgrimes Solace not more contrapuntal, though he complains about new music in preface

message: Currently there is a section entitled "Notes" which includes a mixture of footnotes (particularly (1) and (4)), hand coded short references ("Warlock 1970, p.32"), citations ("Mathew Spring ...") and a bare URL (though this latter is a dead URL).  The next section entitled "Bibliography" is mainly title-first, hand coded and not in order.  I would like to:
# Rename "Notes" to be "References" and create a new section "Notes" to hold the extended footnotes using the  mechanism. 
# Convert the Bibliography to use citation templates and put it in alphabetical order. 
# Move citations from the references list into the bibliography.
# If, and only if, consensus can be achieved, convert the references to use the  mechanism.
===Rationale===
# Separates additional information from the purely mechanistic sourcing of statements.  The page layout is improved and the reader can see at a glance what the sections are offereing.
# Some sorting is essential.  Trying to resolve "Warlock" for instance takes quite a bit of hunting.  Most bibliographies use author-first (and indeed last,first), and this is the form in which the references link to the citations.  Sorting is thereby easier to do and to use.
# This should be the least contentious move.  There is a mixture of methods where there should by only one within the page.
# I know some people dislike , though I've never understood why.  Personally I find it much easier, but I am aware that there are alternatives:  and hand coding.  If I'm giving the page a thorough gnomish revision I'd like to do the job properly.
===Consensus===
This represents a change in citation method and so WP:CITEVAR applies and consensus is required. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  End matter 

message: This represents a change in citation method and so WP:CITEVAR applies and consensus is required. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus

message: It's not clear from the article if the words of his songs were written by him or others.
12:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: He is not documented having written any lyrics.--Aristophile (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not clear if he wrote the words