Talk:Choir of King's College, Cambridge

Former Members

In one of the service lists last year, there was an evensong "Tomkins obit". King's only do obits for their own members, so I presume that, like Gibbons, Tomkins had a connection. However, I can't find any evidence in Grove to support this. I've added him anyway, as I should imagine it's true, but if anyone connected more closely to the Chapel could confirm that it's true, I'd be grateful! Stefan 00:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Tomkins had no connection with King's College. His name does not occur in the Commons books, which records choristers receiving their weekly "commons", nor in the Mundum (accounts) books. I think that "King's only do obits for their own members" is not entirely true. I don't recall there being a policy about this, as such, in my time there, almost 40 years ago.Soixante 18:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou, Soixante, for this most enlightening piece of information! Stefan (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

His half-brother John was organist at King's, as was John's brother Giles, so perhaps the obit wasn't for Thomas, or was because these connections. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Link

This is probably the incorrect place in which to post this, but I hope it will be forgivable. The link at the bottom of the page to Andrew Kennedy links to an American politician by the same name. The actual Tenor Andrew Kennedy appears not to have a Wikipedia page at all. Instead of appearing to remove a link, it seemed better to post the problem here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.242.127 (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

 Fixed, the link is now correct. Verbcatcher (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Psalms of David

Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.48.148.31 (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Choir of King's College, Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720005114/http://www.ofchoristers.net/Chapters/CambridgeKingsCollege.htm to http://www.ofchoristers.net/Chapters/CambridgeKingsCollege.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Reversion

I replaced the URL in the infobox with {{official URL}}, which used the current (and more succinct) URL from Wikidata (www.kings.cam.ac.uk/choir) rather than the old URL (http://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/choir/index.html). This was reverted by RandomCanadian with the edit summary "do not rely on Wikidata for the infobox". My understanding is that the use of {{official URL}} is common practice. RandomCanadian, I'm wondering what your concern is. Thanks, 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, I just noticed that several other copy edits were reverted without explanation. What is the rationale for that, RandomCanadian? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

You're free to reinstate the rest. The edit summary, if quite succinct, is essentially the whole of the issue: Wikidata is not Wikipedia, and data there can be changed or, worse, vandalised (like someone putting a spam link), by someone without it being immediately apparent what the cause of the vandalism or change is. For an infobox, it is better if the information is immediately visible and easy to correct. In addition, since infobox information should be based on article content, it makes more sense for all the information to be directly in the infobox and not on Wikidata. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: If that is the case, ought we deprecate {{official URL}}, folding it into {{URL}} and removing any reliance on Wikidata? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Some people obviously hold a position which is not quite the same as mine (otherwise there wouldn't be a template), although I'd personally agree with the suggestion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Reversion to lead

I note that a description of the reputation of choir has twice been removed from the lead by GuardianH citing WP:SYNTH concerns, which I can't agree with as no two sources are being improperly combined and the single source cited seems to be summarised accurately.

The description removed is this:

"The Choir of King's College, Cambridge is an English Anglican choir. It is considered one of today's most accomplished and renowned representatives of the great English choral tradition.[1]"

The source in question states:

"There are now some fifty cathedral and choir schools around the country. The most distinguished among them is the King's College Choir, Cambridge, under the direction of Stephen Cleobury. Described by the composer Peter Maxwell Davies as "a crowning glory of our civilisation," the choir was established in the fifteenth century and has served as an international role model for its musical excellence and distinctively fresh and beautiful sound"

This is in the context of (from the preceding paragraph) "In England, the rich choral singing tradition goes back to the fourteenth century. The foundation of this rich choral scene was first of all the over thirty cathedrals with their schools, followed later by the educational system at universities and elementary schools."

The words removed "accomplished and renowned" seem to convey quite well the words of the source i.e. "most distinguished" and "an international role model". If @GuardianH or others would like to propose a re-wording then do contribute below, because otherwise this description should be restored because the lead does not now appropriately convey why the subject is notable.----Pontificalibus 15:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I would support something like this:

After its establishment, the choir became an international model for performances.

The previous sentence had multiple MOS:PUFFERY issues:

It is considered one of today's most accomplished and renowned representatives of the great English choral tradition. GuardianH (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)