Talk:Bist du bei mir

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Opera, a group writing and editing Wikipedia articles on operas, opera terminology, opera composers and librettists, singers, designers, directors and managers, companies and houses, publications and recordings. The project discussion page is a place to talk about issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!OperaWikipedia:WikiProject OperaTemplate:WikiProject OperaOpera articles

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notebook?

I think the german word 'Notenbuch' is not the same as the english word 'notebook', The right word should be in the direction of 'sheet music' I think. We need a native speaker, please !

--Metzner (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both terms, the English "notebook" and the German "Notenbuch", carry several meanings, including the one pertinent in this context. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A translation is difficult

"A translation to English is difficult, because the original German is poetry speech and can't be translated literally."

Not sure I agree. The exact meaning of "bist du bei mir" is "if you are with me". Why is that difficult? It seems simple and straightforward. I would delete this footnote. It's confusing and unnecessary. Omc (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The present translation has "pleasing" for "vergnügt" (delighted?), and "dear" for "schön" (beautiful)), - what else can I say? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

Please take note that,

Recently a GAC was refused (on BWV 227) while some foreign-language titles in citation templates were translated and others were not. Empty title (or chapter) translation parameters are there for a reason: these indicate titles that still need translation, and should remain until these titles are translated, for the editors. So please, instead of hampering editors with fairly meaningless bot edits, please help with these translations instead, tx.
An issue parameter was introduced by Citation bot. This was done before, by the same bot, if I remember correctly even on this very page. The introduction of that parameter is a fault. This was signalled to the Citation bot managers before. At the time the bot ceased and desisted that type of erroneous operation. I assumed the code of the bot had been updated not to do that again. Apparently not, while the same faulty operation was performed again today, first by the bot, and after removal, by another editor.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the GAC was refused by one specific editor, and I haven't encountered the problem before. I do not believe that translating ref titles should be mandatory, - there's too much danger in mis-translating. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but I choose to leave the empty parameters there until if and when someone has time to translate these, or encounters a translation of the title in English-language literature and adds it to the template. BTW, same for author- and editor-links: often new articles are created (there's even an editor almost systematically translating and initiating articles on persons linked to musicological subjects, but forgot the editor's name): I choose to leave the empty parameter in the template, makes it easier to add the link to the new article later, meaning, such link would then be in the usual spot, not introduced somewhere in an awkward parameter order. Makes it easier for editors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understand, and do you mean LouisAlain? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the name popping up on my watchlist, at least a few times each week. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm once more out of the picture. No idea of what is being discussed, don't know what a GAC is nor what I've done, I should have or shouldn't have done. LouisAlain (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A prolific supplier of musicologist bios was mentioned, and I said possibly you. Praise be to you ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

The history section tells me nothing much about this piece before jumping in to some speculation about how Bach got it - and even then, it is not obvious why that is relevant. It feels like there is at least a paragraph of explanation missing. I came here to read up on the subject so I cannot add this myself but could someone please look at this - the article is not telling me what I want to know (what is the piece, the context of the aria, and something about how it was written). 212.159.115.41 (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]