Talk:Adoro te devote

CorenSearchBot Notice

This was written in 1260 by St Thomas Aquinas, so its pretty certain this is in the public domain. I removed the tag. - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 02:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but on which date in 1260? Just kidding -- that whole year is PD by now! -- But|seriously|folks  18:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

This article could use more information on the hymn, it's structure, composition, and liturgical usage. Just having the text isn't sufficent for an article. Dgf32 (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

translation

could we have a proper translation of the latin please, not just the 'poetic' version? InfernoXV (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is youtube so blocked?

The following links aren't promotional. One shows a rare music sheet; the second shows a saint Mass with pope Benedict (infrequent event where this type of chant is played):

• url= https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=adoro+te+devote&view=detail&mid=D5537A744AA893EE67B4D5537A744AA893EE67B4&FORM=VRRTAP%7Ctitle= Adoro Te devote, with original music sheet|author= Schola Canthorum Mediolanensis|place= Milan|language= la}}
• [www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dc21JXNOrcV0&ved=0ahUKEwjk3OiZ_rXbAhVoKcAKHdkqBI0Qo7QBCCUwBA&usg=AOvVaw229eEul56h46tYNdE5GiN7 "Pope Benedict XVI in procession"] (in Latin). Jun 8, 2012. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.253.53.249 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

We don't allow self-published sources whether that's videos on YouTube (which are often copyright violations) or books published by AuthorHouse. We're also not interested in driving eyeballs to websites making money off of clicks. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

this is not a fan site for you to write what you like reading

To editor Johnbrungardt: Per WP:BRD, I have reverted your edits and I ask you to discuss. Why list other translations? Perhaps you forget that this is an encyclopedia meant to describe subjects, not an index compendium meant to present subjects? You don't have consensus for your content and, as a new user, you ought to discuss rather than insist. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

God bless you, sir. I apologize for any offense caused---it is a shame to lose the beautiful translations. In future edits will be more judicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbrungardt (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Undiscussed move

I have reverted the page move effected by Orestesg2 (talk · contribs). It was undiscussed, did not conform to the Manual of Style, and was a wholly unnecessary disambiguation. The hymn's title is "Adoro te devote", no more and no less. Elizium23 (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Misguided reverts

Skipping over the fact that it's extremely rich to call for WP:BRD while not sticking to the principle itself. It was not I that started the recent back and forth.

There appears to be the misconception that the author of this hymn is called Thomas Aquinas with Thomas being the first name and Aquinas a family, just like John Smith. But Thomas lived in the 13th century when family names were still quite uncommon, especially among the nobility. This man was from the nobility, from the family that were lords of Aquino in Italy. In Italian he's "Tommaso d'Aquino". We do not call neither King Richard I of England "England" or "Plantagenet" or, if he's too royal an example, his grandfather Geoffrey "Anjou".

So, I am curious what those that calle for BRD but never do D themselves will respond. Str1977 ^(talk) 22:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted by two users. You reply with an unsourced expression of your personal opinion. Please back it with sources or policy, for example Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC).

Do you still honestly expect me to provide a source for what his name was? Str1977 ^(talk) 16:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

PS. Wikipedia:COMMONNAME is certainly not the policy you want to go with (I would) as his common name is actually Thomas Aquinas, the name I prefer. You however want to shorten it to Aquinas, which is not a family name but a place-designation. In any case, the policy you refer to is about article titles, hence completely irrelevant as neither of us (I hope) wants to move the article on Thomas. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to Aquinas or Thomas Acquinas. What is not supported by sources is "Thomas" [1] Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC).

And yet "Thomas" is the usage at Thomas Aquinas and in the extensive bibliography. Only Thomism (ironically enough!) seems to bear you out. Sparafucil (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Saints (at least before modern times) are often referred to by their first name. He should never be referred to by something he didn't have, a family name.

So I prefer "Thomas" (and "Thomas Aquinas" if we need to clarify) but I also don't mind "Thomas Aquinas". However I fear that will invite the "Subjects go by their family name" editors who then mistake "Aquinas" for a family and cut out the Thomas".

I absolutely reject either "Aquinas" on it is own or "Thomas Acquinas". Str1977 ^(talk) 14:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)