Template:Did you know nominations/Iam lucis orto sidere, WAB 18
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 18:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Iam lucis orto sidere, WAB 18[edit]
- ... that Bruckner composed two settings of Iam lucis orto sidere for the Wilhering Abbey (pictured), and a third version 20 years later?
- Reviewed: La tragedia del silencio
Created by User:Meneerke bloem (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 17:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC).
I have a couple of concerns. Firstly, the article says that the first version of the motet was composed in 1868, and the revision in 1886, so that's only eighteen years, and twenty as stated in the hook (I know that twenty sounds better, but I think it's important to maintain accuracy in these things). Second, could you (addressing either the nominator or the creator) please add a little more specificity regarding the second setting of the 1868 version? The only reference I can find in the article to there having been two settings done in 1868 is the third paragraph of the 'History' section ("Both 1868 settings are put in Band XXI/24 and the 1886 setting in Band XXI/35 of the Gesamtausgabe."). Would it be possible to add a bit more about that? For example, something like "Bruckner created two settings..." "created the second setting x months later," etc. Sorry if that's a little bit confusing, but I'm having some difficulty concisely expressing my request. Also, as a minor note, I think that Bruckner's full name should be included and wikilinked in the hook.-RHM22 (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for a thorough review! Réginald will have to answer first because I don't have access to the printed sources. - The German Wikipedia intentionally links only one item in a hook, to concentrate on the new article, not the composer (who - as the reader can imagine - is linked in lead and infobox). I agree on 18 years, or say "almost twenty". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response! I've left a note on Réginald's talk page. The date of creation, length and copyvio check are all problem-free as far as I can tell, so my only two big issues are the lack of clarity regarding the two settings and the timespan mentioned in the hook. I don't think it's absolutely necessary to link Bruckner, but I would at least like to see his first name in the hook. It's not a big deal, but I just think it presents a bit better stylistically.-RHM22 (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I come from 100+ nominations of just saying Bach, and think it's more an honour to be known by last name only, but let's look at
- ALT1: ... that Anton Bruckner composed two settings of Iam lucis orto sidere for the Wilhering Abbey (pictured), and a third version 18 years later?
- ALT2: ... that Anton Bruckner composed two settings of Iam lucis orto sidere for the Wilhering Abbey (pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- In Band XXI of the Gesamtausgabe, the two settings of 1868 of Iam lucis orto sidere are put together as No. 24a & No. 24b (on pp. 94-95 and pp. 96-97, respectively). The Gesamtausgabe considers them thus apparently as a first version of the motet in two different settings. Locus iste is following as No. 25. Virga Jesse is put as No. 34. The version of 1886 of Iam lucis orto sidere is following as No. 35. My suggestion:
- ALT3: ... that Anton Bruckner composed two settings of Iam lucis orto sidere for the Wilhering Abbey (pictured), and a new version of the motet 18 years later? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- If we use "motet" it should be in the first part, but for those who know it it suggests something small, for the others its confusing rather than adding. My understanding of the above would be:
- ALT4: ... that Anton Bruckner's two settings of Iam lucis orto sidere for the Wilhering Abbey (pictured) have been regarded as early versions of a third setting written 18 years later? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- I suggest to do it simpler as follows:
- *ALT5 ... that Anton Bruckner composed two settings of Iam lucis orto sidere for the Wilhering Abbey (pictured), and a third setting 18 years later?
- (a variant of your first suggestion). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- ALT4: ... that Anton Bruckner's two settings of Iam lucis orto sidere for the Wilhering Abbey (pictured) have been regarded as early versions of a third setting written 18 years later? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Everything looks good. I've updated the article with your information to more clearly explain that the Gesamtausgabe lists two settings of the 1868 version (this isn't my subject, so as always, feel free to change it around if I made any missteps on the article wording). As stated above, the date of creation, length and copyvio check are all in order. The photo is public domain as the work of the uploader. My preference is for Réginald's last suggestion (which I've taken the liberty of labeling as ALT5); it's both concise and interesting. To clarfy: the reason that I requested Bruckner's full name be in the hook is because he's a bit less well-known than other composers (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc), whose surnames have become common shorthand. However, if there is considerable precedent for just using the surname of composers, then I'll leave it up to the promoter to decide whether or not to use the full name or just the surname.-RHM22 (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)- Forgot to add: the information in the hook is confirmed in a reliable online source.-RHM22 (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
