Talk:Canticle

---

Untitled

The Section "Roman Catholic Church" has material sourced from the 1908 Catholic Encyclopaedia. Consequently, its description of the Old Testament Canticles used at Lauds is prior to the Pian reforms of 1911. The Canticles listed are no longer correct; they are now:

• Monday = Canticum David (1 Chron. 29:10-13);
• Tuesday = Canticum Tobiae (Tob 13:1-10);
• Wednesday = Canticum Judith (Judith 16:15-21)
• Thursday = Canticum Jeremae (Jer 31:10-14)
• Friday = Canticum Habacuc (Hab. 3:2-19)
• Saturday = Canticum Ecclesiastici (Eccl. 36:1-16)
• Sunday = Canticum trium puerorum (Dan. 3:57-88, 56)

Ramakesava, 1927hrs 27/07/2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I put that in, but it is not quite correct. (I of course put it in in correct form, as far as I know.) What happened was that that the old Canticles, with some marginal exceptions (when a new feast was introduced in the meantime, or on a feria of ordinary time - and that was a rare bird to be sure), are still said when they used to be said - and more often, for the "rights" of penitential feriae to outrank feasts have been much increased. The new Canticles (which by the way do not have Habacuc on Friday, that would be the old one, but the Vere absconditus by Isaiah) "merely" (again with marginal exceptions) replace the "endless" repetition of the Canticum trium puerorum, which in 1910 was used for any Sunday, any feast whatsoever (!) if not outranked, any octave whatsoever, and any feria of Eastertide. - We simply have to keep in mind how many days are feasts - and thus at least potential exceptions to the neat "Sunday through Saturday normal week" we get presented in Breviary introductions and the like - on the Catholic calendar, be it that of 1910, 1962, or even (on a smaller scale) 1970 if we count memorials. The exception is more prominent than the "rule". We see this in two instances the pre-1911 Breviary: Psalm 118/119 seems to have been the "festive psalm" to use at any feast for the lesser hours; but as there are so many, the Breviary doesn't think it worth the bother to draw some psalms out of its hat for weekdays, and just puts it there for use in the lesser hours repeated every day (now no longer the case). On the other hand, it doesn't think it worth the bother to distinguish a penitential weekday from a normal weekday, as the latter are so rare, and just puts in Psalm 50/51 Miserere in every weekday. Of course both of that was changed in 1911, in the former by greatly restricting Psalm 118/119 to the Sundays and highest feasts.--2001:A61:260C:C01:99AA:E9C6:6E5A:EAC7 (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Help needed

I marked a sentence with "clarification needed". Does anyone know what that is trying to say? And is it ok to use "help me" in an article talk page? 73.127.147.187 (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, using it on a talk page is okay, I'm looking now at the article. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think It's a bit clearer now? I left a comment in the article so that the next editor can decide what to do with the tag. Leaving the helpme open until someone else reviews. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

The {{help me}} template is supposed to be used on your own talk page to ask questions about 'how to edit'. Using it on an article talk page to draw attention to a content question is inappropriate.

IAmChaos: Be bold with your editing. Your clarification is fine, as these things go, but the whole article is suffering from a lack of citations to sources. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh, should I assume that all pages are being watched, and posting a question on the talk page is sufficient to bring some attention? And @IAmChaos, thanks for the help. I didn't know the English word "s", among other weirdness in that sentence... 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

And your edit looks much better, @IAmChaos. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

73.127.147.187: It would be an incorrect assumption, but using the {{help}} template to ask for attention is still inappropriate. If you don't think a talk page question is getting the sort of response you need, the next step in escalation is to the talk page of one of the WikiProjects whose banner is on the article talk page. Nearly all talk pages now have these banners, but you should choose the most apt of the projects to ask your question.

This may seem a bit odd, why would we not want you to be able to raise a flag for attention? Every Wikipedia page is in need of improvement, it's just the way things are. Some pages are in pretty good shape, some have even been closely scrutinized to become Featured Articles, but most pages fall far short of that and all are possibly in need of improvement. The editors who pay attention to {{help}} templates are a limited resource, so we would like them to spend their efforts in improving editors, not in improving arbitrary pages - that latter job is kind of everyone's default job as a Wikipedia editor.

Also, you should know, that adding a tag like {{clarify}} has already added the page to a maintenance category, requesting editors to consider whether they can fix the problem. Editors who prowl those maintenance categories, often sorted by WikiProject, are much more likely to be inclined to address the problem than the help-template helpers. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)