Talk:Vespro della Beata Vergine

message: Hi, thanks for inviting me to cast an eye over this article. It is well-written and I enjoyed reading it - and I learnt from it! As we discussed, I've made suggested copy edits that made sense to me as I read through the article, but please do re-revise as you see fit. I'd be happy to discuss reasons for the suggested changes as well. Here are some further copy edit type suggestions to consider:
:: Thank you so much for the effort. The article is the work of many editors, and some things grew in a long history, which explains a lot of the inconsistencies still found. I'll go over the points now and fix some right now, leaving others for later, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand completely! The article is remarkably consistent throughout, well done to all contributors. :)  ~ RLO1729💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

text: Thank you so much, - I'll see what I can do. Almost all changes were accepted, with thanks, with the exception of versicle in the lead - something I "inherited" from earlier editors - which I found distracting and not helpful at that point, so removed from the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

text: RLO1729, I looked, more to come later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great job! Cheers :)  ~ RLO1729💬 00:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested copy edits 

message: , I suppose this edit deleted more than you wanted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, good catch. I used the feature to detect duplicate links, new to me, and need to be more careful, checking what it does. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unexpected deletion 

message: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Vespro della Beata Vergine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  TFAR 

message: These should be listed by the Catholic numbers, given that the article's about a piece of music written for Catholic liturgy. As it says, Monteverdi would have known them by those numbers, and the books containing this service would also have them by the Latin, not Hebrew numbering. If there's some sort of policy around here, please provide a link so it can be discussed there. It seems to me much like the policy on English: use British English on British topics and American English on American topics. Whatever the titles of the articles on the psalms are, those aren't what's used in the older Catholic liturgical books (which are still in use) or the music which is based on them. PaulGS (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To my understanding, they are italicised in prose to indicate where a first line begins and ends withon the prose, which is not needed in a list where that is clear. Change if you feel differently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

text: By now the consensus seems pretty clear: all objections have been answered. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus means editors are in  agreement. Consensus does not mean objections were answered, for the obvious reason- answered to whose satisfaction. You do not have consensus for changes. Claiming you do is a mischaracterization, a misunderstanding of what consensus means, or dishonest. I assume you misunderstand. Please wait for agreement. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? Don't think you understand how consensus works. It is not the same as unanimity. Anyway, now the last obstacles appear to have been cleared for a workable consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ?????? Seems you're pretty clueless on this one. Thanks for your input but it is no longer needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . Oddly enough and despite what you seem to think you do not control this page in fact there's Wikipedia term for that, it's called ownership, and it is not acceptable talk page behaviour. Now, you must show the rest of us on this page that you have agreement with the editors here to make the changes you have tried to edit war into the article and you must do so with arguments that the rest of us can agree on. I, Pigsonthewing and Gerda have reverted your changes; that is agreement here for the stable version of the article. Until you have agreement to make changes I suggest you don't. And by the way calling me clueless is a personal attack. Be careful.Littleolive oil (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ????????? ... and now a series of WP:ASPERSIONS ... Please, try to get a grasp of how Wikipedia works. I don't control this page, have no ambition in that direction, and am disgusted at the idea. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of psalms 

message: I see that Latin Psalm incipits are italicised in prose, but not italicised in lists: I'd apply the same layout everywhere, that is, italicised via a  tag. (this does not apply to Magnificat, etc, which are not Psalm incipits, but should also have a uniform style: for each of these titles/incipits, either always italicised, either not italicised neither in prose not in lists). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To my understanding, they are italicised in prose to indicate where a first line begins and ends withon the prose, which is not needed in a list where that is clear. Change if you feel differently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Italicising Latin Psalm incipits in lists

message: I have reverted an edit - a disputed edit - which was made with a claim of consensus in this discussion. No such consensus has been demonstrated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: By now the consensus seems pretty clear: all objections have been answered. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus means editors are in  agreement. Consensus does not mean objections were answered, for the obvious reason- answered to whose satisfaction. You do not have consensus for changes. Claiming you do is a mischaracterization, a misunderstanding of what consensus means, or dishonest. I assume you misunderstand. Please wait for agreement. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? Don't think you understand how consensus works. It is not the same as unanimity. Anyway, now the last obstacles appear to have been cleared for a workable consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ?????? Seems you're pretty clueless on this one. Thanks for your input but it is no longer needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: . Oddly enough and despite what you seem to think you do not control this page in fact there's Wikipedia term for that, it's called ownership, and it is not acceptable talk page behaviour. Now, you must show the rest of us on this page that you have agreement with the editors here to make the changes you have tried to edit war into the article and you must do so with arguments that the rest of us can agree on. I, Pigsonthewing and Gerda have reverted your changes; that is agreement here for the stable version of the article. Until you have agreement to make changes I suggest you don't. And by the way calling me clueless is a personal attack. Be careful.Littleolive oil (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: ????????? ... and now a series of WP:ASPERSIONS ... Please, try to get a grasp of how Wikipedia works. I don't control this page, have no ambition in that direction, and am disgusted at the idea. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  False claim of consensus 

message: Readers shouldn't be confused because the links are to the correct article. One option is to list both, such as Psalm 109 (110) Dixit Dominus, and the sentence above (or perhaps moved to a note) clarifying that 110 is the Hebrew numbering and 109 is what's in the books and what Monteverdi would have known it as should make it clear to readers. I would think that most readers who have an interest in either this sort of music or the Psalms would know there are two numbering systems, but if not, the article on each psalm would explain it even without a note here. PaulGS (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: On content

message: --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Notelist