Issue 245: Identical to »William Ritchie Esq.«
- Object
- William Ritchie Esq. (Tune)
- Submitter
- Anselm Lingnau (anselm)
- Assigned to
- Eric Ferguson
- Priority
- Normal
- Disposition
- Fixed
- Description
-
This tune is identical to William Ritchie Esq. and the two should be merged under that entry (possibly with tune aliases for the recordings as required).
See, e.g., The Kinpurnie Collection, p.15.
Previous Actions
- Date May 20, 2013, 7:11 p.m.
- User Anselm Lingnau (anselm)
New issue submitted
- Date June 13, 2013, 5:31 p.m.
- User Eric Ferguson (EricFerguson)
Assigned changed to »EricFerguson« (previously »None«)
Disposition changed to »Needs help« (previously »New«)
As “William Richie Esquire” is the earlier SCDDB entry, all recordings with reference to “William Ritchie Esq.” have been transferred to the former. “William Ritchie Esq.” has been added as a spelling alias, and the tune “William Ritchie Esq.” has been deleted.
Help needed: I suspect that “Richie” may be a spelling error for “Ritchie”. Can some editor with access to the original recordings check the correct spelling please, and change the tune’s name if needed?
Eric
- Date June 13, 2013, 5:43 p.m.
- User Anselm Lingnau (anselm)
The tune is actually called »William Ritchie Esq.«, as I wrote in the original issue. Please use that as the actual title (and create aliases ad libitum). The »William Richie Esquire« entry is in error.
- Date June 13, 2013, 6:30 p.m.
- User Eric Ferguson (EricFerguson)
Disposition changed to »Fixed« (previously »Needs help«)
Tune name changed to »William Ritchie Esq.«. “William Richie Esquire” kept as spelling alias (just in case), because that is how Alan Paterson probably entered it. Issue fixed. Eric