Talk:Lambeth Choirbook: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Dating the manuscript: new section) |
Richard Mix (talk | contribs) (→Dating the manuscript: reservations) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Dating the manuscript == | == Dating the manuscript == | ||
An editor has pointed out that DIAMM has changed their dating of this manuscript since the page was created (in 2009), to "late 1520s" ([https://www.diamm.ac.uk/sources/209/#/ details]). | An editor has pointed out that DIAMM has changed their dating of this manuscript since the page was created (in 2009), to "late 1520s" ([https://www.diamm.ac.uk/sources/209/#/ details]). I propose to date the manuscript to 1525-1530, focusing primarily on 1525 for linking purposes. — [[User:BarryJ|Barry Johnston]] [[User talk:BarryJ|(talk)]] 21:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC) | ||
:The templates don't seem to allow for unknown dates, or variable dates either. I think "1520's" linking 1520 is more nuanced than "c. 1525" implying mid-twenties. But wouldn't it make more sense to revise template:pub so that all pages didn't need to be brought into agreement? There are some cases where varying dates can be assigned to different entries in a manuscript, and when a date is really unknown or unknowable it seems better to leave it blank than to pick some arbitrary 'working date'. [[User:Richard Mix|Richard Mix]] ([[User talk:Richard Mix|talk]]) 22:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
::DIAMM says "late 1520's", so 1525 for parameter 2 isn't arbitrary. Choosing a date for all the works in a publication is necessary because of a number of examples of publications with exactly the same title but different dates; date is part of the ID for a publication, so that MultiPubList can find the correct works. Leaving it blank is worse, because (for example) Lambeth Choirbook is early sixteenth-century, not fifteenth nor seventeenth. One of the historical tools I use is to look at people belonging to the same or an overlapping generation as possible mentors or influencers, requiring some dating, even if just approximate; for example see [[English composers in chronological order]]. The text parameter 3 is available for additional explanation, and the Description field can be used to discuss dating of an individual work. — [[User:BarryJ|Barry Johnston]] [[User talk:BarryJ|(talk)]] 00:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::By arbitrary I mean 1526, 1527, 1528 or 1529 might have been chosen; in fact since we only have 3 significant digits there's a case for 1530 instead of the mid-twenties 1525. This is also an ethical issue, when one is forced to make a guess that is then presented as a fact (such as "Nth published"). A practical problem is that needing a single year for MultiPubList requires vigilance on work pages that might rely on older (or newer!) scholarship. [[User:Richard Mix|Richard Mix]] ([[User talk:Richard Mix|talk]]) 23:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:06, 6 July 2023
Dating the manuscript
An editor has pointed out that DIAMM has changed their dating of this manuscript since the page was created (in 2009), to "late 1520s" (details). I propose to date the manuscript to 1525-1530, focusing primarily on 1525 for linking purposes. — Barry Johnston (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
- The templates don't seem to allow for unknown dates, or variable dates either. I think "1520's" linking 1520 is more nuanced than "c. 1525" implying mid-twenties. But wouldn't it make more sense to revise template:pub so that all pages didn't need to be brought into agreement? There are some cases where varying dates can be assigned to different entries in a manuscript, and when a date is really unknown or unknowable it seems better to leave it blank than to pick some arbitrary 'working date'. Richard Mix (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- DIAMM says "late 1520's", so 1525 for parameter 2 isn't arbitrary. Choosing a date for all the works in a publication is necessary because of a number of examples of publications with exactly the same title but different dates; date is part of the ID for a publication, so that MultiPubList can find the correct works. Leaving it blank is worse, because (for example) Lambeth Choirbook is early sixteenth-century, not fifteenth nor seventeenth. One of the historical tools I use is to look at people belonging to the same or an overlapping generation as possible mentors or influencers, requiring some dating, even if just approximate; for example see English composers in chronological order. The text parameter 3 is available for additional explanation, and the Description field can be used to discuss dating of an individual work. — Barry Johnston (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- By arbitrary I mean 1526, 1527, 1528 or 1529 might have been chosen; in fact since we only have 3 significant digits there's a case for 1530 instead of the mid-twenties 1525. This is also an ethical issue, when one is forced to make a guess that is then presented as a fact (such as "Nth published"). A practical problem is that needing a single year for MultiPubList requires vigilance on work pages that might rely on older (or newer!) scholarship. Richard Mix (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)