Talk:Te lucis ante terminum

Alternatives

 * Christe qui splendor
 * Iesu redemptor saeculi

Rwflammang (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Christe qui
Christe qui splendor can be found here. Its Urban lyrics Christe qui lux can be found in Latin Hymns by William A. Merryl (1904), page 10. Rwflammang (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Another alternative
I can't find an online source for this (and no longer have the same hymnbook to hand) but I am certain I remember the second verse as:

Procul recedant somnia,

et noctium phantasmata:

ut expulsis insaniis,

quies in te sit integra.

If anyone can confirm/source this, it should be included in the article. Istara (talk) 09:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Problems
The source says its version is "the one found in the Monastic Breviary and the Roman Breviary". What does it mean? Which breviaries, from when? Is it the Urban VIII version? Moreover, it is not the same version as the current Urban VIII version of the article when it comes to the last paragraph.

The same source gives next to the Latin version what is a translation of the 19th century which is so unfaithful that I believe it does not translate the same text; the unfaithfulness is especially visible in the last paragraph. Therefore, I removed the entire table once again.

Moreovover, I feel like the entire paragraph above the table should be removed, because it is unsourced. The "Sources cited" section only contains sources which the Catholic Encyclopedia article used. Veverve (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While I agree in principal, I feel we should not deprive readers from what these texts mean. "Translation" of liturgical texts, to liturgical texts in a different language, is usually not aimed at literal meaning but matching of syllables to a melody. I had nothing to do with the creation of the article.
 * I suggest you restore the Latin and Neale English, as in current frequent use, - I have more doubts about something 1974, as possibly still under copyright. Also, "Alternative" makes no sense if there's nothing. Please restore (per WP:BRD), and let's discuss here with hopefully some others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you even see that I added a ref to two parts of the table? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Veverve, the hymn is on my watchlist because of Te lucis ante terminum (Gardiner), and I feel that if you don't restore text and translation to the hymn article I'll have to add it to the composition article, which relies on the text being accessible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * we should not deprive readers from what these texts mean We do not even know which text Neale translated.
 * Did you even see that I added a ref to two parts of the table? Yes, I did. I even criticised it.
 * I feel that if you don't restore text and translation to the hymn article I'll have to add it to the composition article, which relies on the text being accessible. By all means, if you have a reliable source to put the Latin text, please add it to the hymn article. Currently, it appears your cathcorn.org page could be a good source, altought we do not really know which version is used in this 20th-century book.
 * What do you think about removing the unsourced paragraph? I see you have added three Fictitious references which do not talk about anything they are supposed to support (no mention of Paul VI, or Urban VIII, or anything) to this paragraph. I have no access to hymnsam.co.uk, so I cannot judge its content. I feel removing the unsourced paragraph would be better than giving it fictitious references. Veverve (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am busy with completely other topics, unfamiliar with Catholic and Anglican traditions, not a native speaker of English, so I just grabbed what I could find with not really extra time. I added what I found to the texts - not to any statements about the texts - but you removed the texts. How would I know what you consider reliable? How about external links, for some minimum? - Perhaps I should just leave this, and add text and translation to the composition, but I still feel it's not helpful to the next person wanting to write about a setting. Compare Locus iste. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The very first version of this article, by Charles Matthews, had plenty of references, mostly offline though, and used the source text given. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added back some text. As a sidenote, I already explained that the numerous sources given were simply a copy-paste of the sources from the Catholic Encyclopedia, the user likely never had a look at them directly. Veverve (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was 13 years ago. Customs have changed. Adding the Catholic Encyclopedia references was, for me, more about linking some the authors in fresh articles. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)