Talk:Thaxted (tune)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
"Main theme" claim
[edit]I have amended the first paragraph of this page to correctly identify the theme being discussed.
"Main theme" is a term most often used to describe the "A" or first theme of a particular composition or movement, which this tune simply isn't.
The theme comes from the middle section, or what could easily be called the "B" section of Jupiter, from The Planets.
The outer sections are in a key signature of C major (no flats, nor sharps), and the theme being discussed is from the inner section, which is in a key signature of E-flat (three flats). EnglishHornDude (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Ref 11, "For the Splendor of Creation"
[edit]The link is broken. I guess this link can provide similar information [1] , but I am not sure if it is legal or not.
Accumulated non-notability?
[edit]An encyclopaedia article ought to be information about the topic itself. But this article about a tune seems mostly to be catalogues of:
- lots of texts, mostly non-notable, that various people, often non-notable, have written to it;
- lots of one-off, occasional or highly localised uses, again mostly non-notable.
That information is now far in excess of the real information on the actual topic itself.
In other words, it has become a dumping ground of accumulated non-notability. Wouldn't it benefit from drastic pruning? If so, what should be the criteria for acceptability?
My proposal is that everything should be referenced to a notable source. For instance the use at Princess Diana's wedding would pass the text. Close to the border, but probably acceptable, would be Martin Leckebusch's text, referenced on "hymnary.org". But much of the rest would be pruned.
Thoughts? Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)