Talk:Geist und Seele wird verwirret, BWV 35

Untitled

I dedicated the work of improving this article to Good article standard to Alakzi, for precious support making the tables possible by shaping and polishing {{Classical movement row}} and {{Cantata discography row}}, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

{{Infobox Bach composition
| image                 = File:Galante Poetinnen 0001.png
| caption               = [[Georg Christian Lehms]], author of the cantata text
| title                 = {{lang|de|Geist und Seele wird verwirret}}
| bwv                   = 35
| type                  = [[List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function|church cantata]]
| occasion              = Twelfth Sunday after [[Trinity Sunday|Trinity]]
| performed             = {{Timeline-event|date={{Start date|1726|09|08|df=y}}|location=[[Leipzig]]}}
| movements             = 7 in two parts
| text_poet             =  [[Georg Christian Lehms]]
| vocal                 = [[alto]]
| instrumental          = {{flatlist|
* 2 [[oboe]]s
* [[taille (instrument)|taille]] 
* [[Pipe organ|organ]]
* 2 [[violin]]s
* [[viola]]
* [[basso continuo|continuo]]
}}
}}

I suggested an infobox, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest to use it, with minor changes, such as a better link for Church cantata, and no links for the instruments because the appropriate links to Baroque instruments are linked in the parameter "instrumental". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added a shorter box and restored the references. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Why would you not mention the liturgical occasion, the driving force for Bach to create this church cantata at this certain time? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The significance of the occasion is better discussed in the article text. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussed yes, but someone who followed the link "church cantata" (or even understands the concept already) would be helped by the precise mentioning of the occasion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

No, they would also need to have an understanding of the implications of that occasion - even if you know that a church cantata is for a liturgical occasion, most people don't recognize what that particular occasion is. It's not as if this is a Christmas cantata, where most people can be expected to understand that. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Now who is "they". People who read their first Bach cantata article will probably go to the body. People who compare one to another and want to find the quick fact "For which occasion was this one composed?" would be helped by an entry. Why not serve them, even if they may not be the majority? Look at this: Geist und Seele wird verwirret BWV 35; BC A 125 Sacred cantata (12th Sunday after Trinity), - the occasion is given, possibly regarded as more important than a date, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Good question: who is they? Which reader do you think we should design the infobox for? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Didn't I just describe one? Someone who wants to see at a glance for which occasion this work was written. Someone else may want to know which instruments are needed to perform it. Another who wrote the text. We serve already those who want to know when it was performed where. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You described more than one - is our primary intended audience those familiar with the topic, or those who don't know it at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

My idea is to serve both, not only the "primary audience". People will not understand Bach's church cantatas if they don't get the strict connection with the liturgical year, - why not teach it wherever we can. Looking at the first version of this article: it had the poet and the occasion early, right after title, composer, BWV number, place and year. The best digital collection of sources recently moved the occasion to the subtitle, changing from "Cantata" to "Sacred cantata (12th Sunday after Trinity)". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The current article is similar to that first one in that it has occasion early in the lead, before even year. People will not get the strict connection with the liturgical year from just saying the occasion though - that's why we need the explanation. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody wants to take away the explanation, but there will be people reading who don't need it. The occasion is a key fact about this cantata which should appear, regardless of the knowledge of potential readers. Without it, readers are left in the dark about what's special about 8 September. - Thank you for improving the prose of this article with many authors! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Parameters

Thank you for taking "occasion" on board. I don't understand - with all the white space I see - why you drop the precise date of a performance (Bach wrote pieces that were possibly not performed, so that/when it was performed is additional information) and the location (we have cantatas first performed at various places, and should not assume that readers study his biography to find out where he was in 1726, and even then he performed elsewhere also). How about spreading facts and knowledge generously? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The only whitespace I see - between TOC and infobox - would not be resolved by adding more to the infobox, which is already pushing the next image almost into the section after that. Thus, I would be reluctant to add more there, particularly when additional information can be found to the left. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I should not have mentioned the white space, sorry ;) - Content: is the template documentation unclear? "If the date or at least year of a performance is known, use |performed= with {{timeline-event}}, otherwise note a period in |composed=."? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

What period are you thinking will be listed, other than Baroque? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the documentation is unclear. Important is the first part: "if ... known, use". If a performance date is known, use it. - "Period" in |composed= expects a year or a range of years, - how can that be clarified? There is no |period=. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"If a date or year of performance is known, use |performed= with {{timeline-event}}; if not, indicate the composition year or range of years with |composed="? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wording

"The text describes the healing of the deaf mute man and connects it to the thoughts of the believer who is left deaf and mute in awe looking at the healing of Jesus and God's creation." No, it doesn't describe, - it takes the healing of someone deaf and mute as a starting point to thoughts about the believer/listener being deaf and mute when looking at the miraculous deeds of Jesus (the healing) and more generally God (the creation), connected to the last line from the gospel: "He hath done all things well" (KJV), - help with wording that welcome, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"The text connects the healing of the deaf man to the thoughts of the believer who is left deaf and mute in awe"? What was there originally didn't make sense at all, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for trying, but sorry, this is too short, - that awe (what awe?) is unexpected and unexplained. The connection from the single healing to "hath done all (!) things well" is a jump already in the gospel, but I would not count on many readers studying the linked prescribed readings start to finish, -where it is the last line. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Geist und Seele wird verwirret, BWV 35/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 12:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead
  • "derives the analogy" – "deploys", "uses" ?
    • not sure I know what you mean, is it about Nikkimaria's sentence? --GA
      • It uses the analogy, yes, but the analogy is derived from the gospel...Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
        • The sentence as now drawn seems exactly what it wanted, I should say. 17:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• History and words
  • "the summer and fall of 1726" – the MoS bids us avoid mentioning the seasons in such cases as it may confuse or annoy readers in the opposite hemisphere. Better to stick to months or "middle and late 1726"
    • year should be precise enough --GA
  • "in which an alto soloist as the only singer" – "as" is a typo for "is" I imagine, and in any case this is surely wrong. What are the choir if not singers? I suggest "...in which the only soloist is an alto".
    • What choir? The little bit in one of them - and not this one which was written before Bach even had the idea to close a cantata by a chorale? (The chorale was performed by the orchestra members in a performance I heard.) --GA
  • "the opening Sinfonia" – not capitalised elsewhere in the article.
    • lc now, --GA
• Music
  • You might give Sir John Eliot Gardiner his title (piped, please).
    • I wrote 3 FAs and several GAs without the title for him - as I don't add "Prof." to profs ;) - If you add it I won't revert, --GA
  • "The musicologist Klaus Hofmann" – but earlier you have gone for the false title in "consequently, conductor Craig Smith has suggested". Perhaps be consistent? (My strong preference is to eschew the cheap journalese false title, but you may think differently.)
    • The sentence about the conductor is not by me, and I would happily change it because many more than just he arrived at the same idea, - it's simply keeping a sentence that I found before expanding, --GA
      • Except for direct quotes we are always at liberty to use the best English when paraphrasing sources. Tim riley talk 17:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
• Selected recordings
  • "The sortable table are excerpt from" – singular noun with plural verb. And I'm not sure about "excerpt from" as a verb. I'd be inclined to avoid the matter by writing "Sortable table; source: Bach-Cantatas website"
    • tried "based on", prefer prose, --GA
  • It isn't obvious how "period" and "Bach" orchestras are to be distinguished from one another; and surely whether a large orchestra is a radio orchestra is less important than the fact that it is a symphony orchestra. (Besides, I daresay there are some radio stations misguided enough to maintain period orchestras.)
    • The distinction is made for Mass in B minor, for example. Should I link to that passage, or do you know a better way to avoiding copying the same to 200 articles? --GA

Not worth putting the review on hold for such minor points. Pray consider them and we can press on. – Tim riley talk 12:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for diligent reading! I tried. - How do you feel about supplying the full date of the first recording and the scoring in the infobox, as a service to readers? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification higher up. - Your personal view as the one and only objector to a detailed infobox for this cantata - inconsistent with all other Bach cantatas on FA and GA level - is obvious from the discussion above. I asked Tim. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think info-boxes are legitimate for such articles, but in my view they should confine themselves to the core info. Dates of first recordings are more than somewhat peripheral, me judice. Tim riley talk 17:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I could argue with some of the replies above, but I disapprove of GAN reviewers who presume to exceed their authority beyond assessing whether an article meets the GA criteria. In my judgment this one meets every criterion, and so …

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Well referenced.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well referenced.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well illustrated.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Always a pleasure to review a music article, and I enjoyed this one. But be warned: if you take it to FAC I shall have quite a lot to say, mostly on lines adumbrated above. Tim riley talk 17:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, my pleasure. - I am sorry that I wrote "first recording" above - after dealing with the recordings - while I meant "first performance". I would like to see the full date of the first performance next to the occasion in the infobox, rather than just the year, helping those who have no idea what Trinity means. I would also like to show the modest scoring at a glance, and in general appreciate to see articles of comparable quality in similar appearance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That seems much more to the point, but this discussion belongs elsewhere: probably on the article talk page. Tim riley talk 21:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Will do, but wanted to correct here where I made the mistake. It also is transcluded there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Parameters of infobox

As suggested in the GA review: I would like to see the full date of the first performance in the infobox next to the occasion, rather than just the year, helping those who have no idea what Trinity means. I would also like to show the modest scoring at a glance. In general: I think that it would help readers to see similar infoboxes in articles of similar topic and quality, compare BWV 22. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think adding the date of the premiere is fine. Not sure about adding the details of scoring: not what I'd expect to see in an info-box, and I don't think many other readers would expect, or wish, to see it. Tim riley talk 22:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The scoring of Bach's cantatas says a lot, some for rich brass and woodwinds, others just strings and perhaps an oboe. Those who can interpret it can almost hear sounds. Does it matter if they are many? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not from a list alone they cannot, as the use of the instruments varies widely even just among the cantatas. I would further argue for removing the list from the infobox of similar articles, if it is felt we should maintain consistency - though that does not seem to me to be a necessity. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Who is "they"? I - as a reader - can "hear" a different sound reading "recorders, strings, bc" vs. "trumpets, different oboes, strings". I want to see in a cantata if one or two viola parts exist (two in some early ones. I don't go for consistency, but for consistency on GA and FA level, - serving readers to the same level of detail, - a detail discussed when the template was created. I don't see any advantage in reducing that service which is by now established for more than a year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Someone who can understand what the list of instruments mean cannot understand just from that what the piece sounds like, because the use of the instruments is variable; few also will be able to hear the difference between one viola or two. And few if any readers will know that this article has passed a GA review while some other decent-looking article has not, so there is little value in promoting consistency based on article rating. This level of detail is excessive and extraneous in that placement, no matter when it was established. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not a fact but your opinion that it is excessive. I admit that it is not for everybody but for some, and that it doesn't molest the others because it is at the end of a box which they may ignore anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

If I may stick a tentative oar in here, I should say that my idea of an info-box is that every element of it is readily comprehensible to anyone who looks at it (otherwise what's the point of it?) For that reason I'd be cautious about adding technical details of scoring. I don't seek to make a Judgement of Paris between two editors whom I admire greatly, but I am more of Nikkimaria's opinion than of Gerda's on this point. Tim riley talk 20:02, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I adhere to the simple belief that a key fact about a piece of music is the scoring, not to be omitted. It matters if it's for cello solo or a double choir. If we drop from infoboxes or articles facts that readers possibly don't understand we will have short articles. Asking again: is there any disadvantage in supplying the fact that Bach chose an alto voice and a precise ensemble of instrumentalists with the highly unusual organ to convey the text? Each entry in the List of Bach cantatas supplies the scoring, - why should the infobox of the individual article not present the same? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

As a general rule, if it's in the lead, it should probably be in the infobox. An argument would have to be made that the listing of instruments in the infobox is somehow less comprehensible or less topical than it is in the last paragraph of the lead. Alakzi (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2015

That surely can't be right:

Geist und Seele wird verwirret (Spirit and soul become confused),[1] BWV 35, is a church cantata by Johann Sebastian Bach. He composed the solo cantata for alto in Leipzig for the twelfth Sunday after Trinity and first performed it on 8 September 1726. Bach composed the cantata in his fourth year as Thomaskantor in Leipzig. It is counted as part of his third annual cantata cycle. The topic is based on the prescribed reading from the Gospel of Mark, the healing of a deaf mute man. The librettist is Georg Christian Lehms, whose poetry Bach had used already in Weimar as the basis for solo cantatas. The text quotes ideas from the gospel and derives from these the analogy that as the tongue of the deaf mute man was opened, the believer should be open to admire God's miraculous deeds. The cantata is structured in seven movements in two parts, to be performed before and after the sermon. Both parts are opened by an instrumental sinfonia with an obbligato solo organ, probably derived from concerto music composed earlier in Weimar or Köthen. The alto singer performs a sequence of alternating arias and recitatives, accompanied in all three arias by the organ as an equal partner. The orchestra is formed by two oboes, taille, strings and basso continuo. The alto part is demanding and was probably written with a specific singer in mind, as with the two other solo cantatas composed in the same period.

All of that in the info-box? Surely not? Tim riley talk 23:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. We're not suggesting dropping facts from the article - there you have adequate room to explain them so that readers can understand what the impact of the instrumentation is on the piece, what role the different instruments play. The lead will cover some of the same facts as the infobox (if present), but does not play the same role and thus should not be identical in content. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Waking up: this looks to me like a misunderstanding. The rule of thumb doesn't tell me that "everything" from the lead should be represented in the infobox, but that a fact for which a parameter is present in the template design (meant for all articles on the topic), is justified to appear in the box if it's part of the lead. The template has many more parameters which are supplied for high quality articles (such as BWV 22, compared above). Here, medium quality, we only talk about mentioning a few instruments which show how this cantata compares to others (easily compared by means of the navbox), showing at a glance that it has the same strings as most others, some oboes and a characteristic organ. I still haven't seen how showing the scoring would be any disadvantage. It has been included in around 150 cantata articles, without any complaint by readers about too much information, with three of them subjected to FA reviews without any objections in the reviews. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

This "rule of thumb" would encourage infobox bloat. The infobox has many parameters so that it can support many different articles and situations, not so that as many as possible can be filled at every article, and undoubtedly some articles use too many. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

This one was not using "too many" - which is anyway defined by whom? I repeat that the scoring of a piece of music is undoubtedly a key fact. You seem to be one of two people who don't see that. Please revert your revert. - I would like to see in this infobox |text_poet= and |movements=, but don't request them to please you although I see key facts missing without them, - it seems interesting enough that this is a cantata with only poetic text, no bible, no chorale, whereas the typical one has all three text sources, and to see where this composition is positioned in number of movements, ranging from 3 to 14 in Bach's cantatas, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to compare multiple pieces side by side, it is far easier to use a table form like that at List of Bach cantatas rather than look at infobox, jump down to navbox, look at next infobox. There you can sort things as well, to use whichever data point you prefer for comparison (though I note that two you mention as key are not there). But having text poet in the infobox doesn't tell you that it's interesting that this has only that. I know that you disagree (and see that you are calling others here to say the same), but I don't think it provides service to readers to include in the infobox what is better represented in the table for comparison and in the text for understanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sad that I can't reach you, and called for help doing that. Please forget for a moment "comparing", and "poet" (which I only mentioned to show how much I compromise). How is no information about the kind of ensemble playing acceptable in an infobox about a musical composition? That's what I don't get. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a simple ensemble statement like "orchestra" or "solo piano", it's a list of instruments. I don't see an audience that would be more served by having the list there, and as Tim said I don't think most readers would expect to see the list there. You've mentioned several cases where you think the reader would benefit from having the list - comparing, hearing the music, etc. In each of these cases though I see a better way of delivering the information - in the table for comparison, in text so we can actually explain how the instruments are being used. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If I'm understanding this correctly, the argument here is that, the instruments can be orchestrated differently from cantata to cantata and from musical genre to musical genre, and, for that reason, readers cannot accurately infer what the music sounds like from a listing of the instruments alone. The unspoken trail of suppositions appears to be: that the information is incomplete; that incomplete information is harmful; and that it should - therefore - not be included in the infobox. But this would be similar to objecting to the fact that the tides are caused by the combined gravitational pull of the moon and the Sun, by virtue of the fact that the writer has not explained how the water in the oceans is displaced to amplify the effect, or that they've neglected to provide all of the relevant mathematical formulas to prove it. Condensing information is a perfectly acceptable practice. Alakzi (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

My two-pennyworth is fairly straightforward: I would consider that the instruments used (a list of six) and the range of the solo vocalist are key facts in any piece of classical music where they exist. it's easily summarised and will be of value to some audience. The French and Italian versions of this article both include those facts, and I don't believe that their audiences are markedly different from ours. --RexxS (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

What audience do you feel would derive value from the list of instruments, and how? (The vocal soloist is already included). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Me for a start. If I wanted to just get a quick idea of what instruments were used on a piece, I'd normally look at the infobox, wouldn't you? I don't think I'm atypical and I'm pretty certain any casual reader who wanted to know the instruments and vocalist associated with the music would expect to find them in the infobox. I would most likely expect them to be labelled something like "Voice" and "Instruments", but I might eventually pick up the solo alto in the subheading - not really where I'd expect to find it. Infoboxes are designed to provide structured data and we ought to do our best to make it as easy as possible for readers to find information. It's worth remembering that a significant proportion of our readers don't have English as their first language - this article only has direct counterparts in 6 of the 280+ language Wikipedias - and keeping it simple is essential in the lead and especially so in the infobox. --RexxS (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't look there for that, and I don't think I'd agree that "any casual reader" would, though. Nikkimaria (talk)

What we have now - "Instruments organ and instruments" - is worse than nothing, imho, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That would be, but that's not what we have...Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You are right, we have "Instruments organ and orchestra". - I promised myself to not look again at this article on an otherwise pleasant Sunday, but did and got too angry to look properly. Sorry. - I am afraid the uninitiated reader will assume a symphony orchestra, and is not helped by the missing link to Baroque instruments which would help understanding in "my version", as in more than 100 similar articles which a reader may happen to know or even come from. - I consider ARCA if we don't find a solution by tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Why should "instrumental" have that link but "instruments" not? Probably worth addressing that at the template. Is the current version better? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Better, acceptable. I still don't see why the alto is placed away from the instruments, and without a link. I know what alto means, but others may not. ("Instruments" without link was introduced for compatibility with {{infobox musical composition}} and might serve a function for keyboard pieces, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I would think it would make more sense to have "instruments" link and "instrumental" not, in that case. Nevertheless, linking alto is easily done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to link both, and use the neutral "Scoring" for pieces where it is not wanted. "Instrumental" matches "Vocal", - or what would you pair with "instruments"? "Voices"? Might be not quite clear, I am afraid. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Position of mentioning Alto

Geist und Seele wird verwirret
BWV 35
Solo church cantata by J. S. Bach
Scoring
Vocal	Alto solo
Instrumental	oboes taille organ strings

New day. Looking at the infobox, I am still unhappy with separating scoring, have the voice above the image (in |type=), while the instruments are at the bottom. If |vocal= seems to appear unexpected we could have a header for the scoring. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(I'm assuming your proposal is reflected at right - if you mean a header above the image please clarify.) Scoring doesn't currently display as a header, but as a blank parameter; I think it makes sense to retain scoring as a parameter for the situation you mentioned above, as "neutral", rather than converting it to a header. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's better without, - thanks for changing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikilinking

The term "BWV" is used 23 times in this article, with, best I can tell, exactly 1 wikilink, tucked in the info box where I didn't see it. I suspect other readers also aren't going to find it there, and I don't think that's anywhere near enough links. I suspect that readers who know this subject well will know what "BWV" means, but this article should be more accessible to general readers. I added a link to the first usage, which I now understand was poor placement, because I put it in a bold-face reiteration of the title. The problem is that the every usage of the term is in a bad place - the reiteration, links to other articles, table titles, table entries, or references. I can't think of a better solution, but the current near-total lack of links is not good. Rks13 (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the link is best included in the lead, where you put it - while I understand the argument for omitting it, I think in this case it would be more beneficial to the reader to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

On balance, I think I agree with you, Nikki. However, my first choice would be a brief sentence in the first paragraph quickly explaining what the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis is. If we keep readers on the page by explaining jargon, rather than forcing them to follow a link just to understand something, we are more likely to retain their interest. Obviously, it's an even greater consideration for those who read our articles in a printed version, where they can't follow links. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, but I would be careful of over-extending that argument - someone reading a print article can follow no links, is it really feasible to summarize all linked articles sufficiently for them to understand if they don't already know the basics? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I think there's likely to be an optimal middle-ground between explaining a bare minimum of jargon and trying to summarise all linked articles. I find the advice at Wikipedia:Manual of Style #Technical language to be worth examination: "Some topics are intrinsically technical, but editors should try to make them understandable to as many readers as possible ... Avoid excessive wikilinking (linking within Wikipedia) as a substitute for parenthetic explanations such as the one in this sentence." I admit that my experience is more with medical articles where we have to try – in the lead at least – to define unavoidable technical terms, rather than forcing the reader to follow links just to understand. If you want a ripe example, take a look at Tracheotomy and see if you can figure out where the incision is made. It's better than it used to be - I remember having to follow links three-deep to get the info the first time I looked at it. Anyway, it's nowhere near so bad with these articles, even if I still think a quick explanation of Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis would be an improvement. There must be a lot of readers who know (vaguely) what an oboe is, but who think BWV is a make of motor car. --RexxS (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope I understood that right and inserted a footnote as in BWV 22. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

History

These links were there but one removed by Finnusertop, and per the following discussion the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Footnote?

At present, FAs and a few GAs (including this one) have a footnote. Alakzi offered to write a program which automatically adds the footnote to articles which have BWV in the title. Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Subsectioning

Given the length of the subsections discussing each movement - no longer than a paragraph each, one as short as a sentence - I think it makes more sense to consolidate that into a single undivided section, or possibly divided into Part 1 and Part 2. The revert mentioned links from the table, which can be supplied by anchors if needed, and discussion in GA review - the GA review here did not discuss this, without knowing which review I can't be sure but possibly that article had longer subsections. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, but anchors are hidden, while the movement numbers with links visible. It's a standard arrangement - compare other articles such as BWV 165#Music. The consistent numbers serve for predictable linking to a specific movement from anywhere in Wikipedia, - if you know the movement number you can compose the correct link. Compare Messiah Part II#44. On FA level, the paragraphs will get longer, perhaps next year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

And when they get longer, as they are in those examples, we can revisit this point - but for the moment the advantages of using headers over anchors for predictable linking are outweighed by the disadvantages of creating microsections that chop up the flow of text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I still think that being able to predictably link to a movement and to represent the structure of the piece by sections is worth it. It shows at a glance which movements received more comments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

We represent the structure of the piece already in the table, and can predictably link using anchors. What about dividing the section into Part 1 and Part 2? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

General references

There is no problem with using eg. the score for the work as a general reference, and it simply is not true that every other article relegates these to External links. In the absence of a better rationale, the previous iteration should be restored. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

These are not "general references". They are the typical example of acceptable Wikipedia:External links: "contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail [translations, full scores], or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy." WP:EL also says that they should be kept down to a reasonable amount and that duplication should be avoided. Using "External links" is also consistent with what the reader would expect and what the MOS tells us to do (MOS:ELLAYOUT). You could also have done me the courtsey of a ping, and posted this as justification on the talk page of the page you actually reverted and linked to this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

RandomCanadian, nothing that you have posted requires that this be an EL section, and you have not achieved consensus here or at any other affected article to convert it to be an EL section. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, nothing absolutely requires that you follow the established layout and formatting standards. Doesn't mean you should just wave it away. Looks like common sense to me that external links (which are what these are) should be in an external links section. WP:EL is also clear that this is how it is usually done "If an article has external links, the standard format is to place them in a bulleted list under a primary heading at the end of the article." (WP:ELCITE). MOS/Layout is also helpful - "Sources" is not really a good header for external links - see MOS:REFERENCES and MOS:ELLAYOUT. I don't see why you're insisting that we use a heading usually reserved for material cited as a source in the article for material that is not cited as a source in the article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

"Sources" is not being used as a header for external links, it's being used as a header for general references. General references are references used in the development of the page but not directly cited - the score is an excellent example of this, since it is a primary source for much of the description of the work. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Except no it isn't, because our coverage of this isn't based on the primary source, except for the very basic details (scoring, key, time signature) - in which case the cited source should be directly properly cited (WP:CITE) to support the information it supports [usually, this is one single table, so there's not really the argument that this would lead to a problem with having a WP:CITEBOMB-style issue]. And no, many of these links are not and probably could not be used as general references (the Luke Dahn chorales website is not a "general reference" - at best, it's a specific reference about the chorale; Bach Digital links are database entries about the manuscripts, ...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Dahn wasn't used here, but on articles where it was used, and for the sources that were used here, there's nothing about these that would preclude their use as a general reference, as far as I can tell. What leads you to believe they could not be so used? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY? I.e. there's very little useful information we can glean from scores or database entries (and the little we can find is probably better taken from the critical reports of the NBA or from other secondary sources). I also note that the concept of general references it not particularly a good reason to ignore the very basic and widely accepted principle that sources should be cited for the material they support (this is also supported by GENREF, which says that "General reference sections are most likely to be found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source." and that "They are frequently reworked by later editors into inline citations.").

Nor do I see any justification to ignore the equally widespread basic MOS layout guidelines (which is also supported by GENREF, 'General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "References" section, and are usually sorted by the last name of the author or the editor.') about sources (which should be in a separate section) and external links (links to scores and performances are clearly covered under this, as they are at every other music article: "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a legally distributed copy of the work"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY would prevent citing primary sources for analysis or synthesis; it does not preclude their use as general references. I am not sure what point you are making about layout - MOS:LAYOUT allows for a separate section after the footnotes for this purpose. I have no objection to reordering the entries within this section as you see fit. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what's so hard. These are not being used as sources; so the header shouldn't be "sources". One by one:

1. The IMSLP page is not being cited for anything, nor is it being used to support any content in the article (nor could it, since it's in effect another user-generated content website like Wikipedia. It's not a reliable source per our guidelines, although it is useful as an external link, for a resource that cannot be provided on Wikipedia (we're not a repository of musical scores, which IMSLP is);
2. the Bach Digital page is a database entry, and a link to scans of the manuscripts (so not useful beyond verifying basic facts, which we already know about, so you can't really claim it's being used as a source for anything)
3. the BCW page is fine as it in effects acts like a great directory (contains links to other translations, including all of the ones you so insist be restored; as well as to much more useful material)
4. The uvm page is redundant with the BCW page (if you notice, you'll see it's already linked from there), and because of that, since, per WP:EL, we should strive to keep links to a minimum and only keep the most relevant ones, needs to go
5. and finally the Dahn page is specifically about Bach's chorales, and the useful information it contains about them isn't much more than a database entry...

None of these are truly "general references". If they are, then the solution is not to have a confusing header, but to actually follow proper citing methods and add ref tags where necessary, and move the rest (i.e. all of them, as I'm saying) to a ==External links== section, as standard everywhere else on wiki. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The definition of general references in the Wikipedia context is sources that are not associated with specific inline citations.

If you want to add inline citations, great... but the absence of them doesn't make general references not general references, quite the opposite. And removing entries from a Sources section because you think they should be used as sources is the opposite of how that should be done.

In an effort to get this sorted out, I would suggest we keep a manuscript source listed in Sources but can remove any additional ones, as in most cases having only one is reasonable. If you want to have a second in External links or not is up to you. We can format ones in Sources using citation templates if that is preferred, although those should not be used in EL sections. Other entries in Sources vs EL will depend on the specific page. I've set up an example here. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that these very clearly were not used as references for writing the article, so they're not "general references", and they're not really "Further reading" material either. And the other problem is that I don't understand why you insisted on having multiple external links to translations (because that is what they are: when a translation is used for writing the text, it's likely [and needs to, due to copyright concerns] already cited) when WP:EL explicitly says that we should keep links to a minimum number and avoid needless duplicates. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you can conclude what was or was not consulted to write the article when you were not involved in writing the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Rather obvious when the only information which could have possibly come from the single plausible (but not really) "general" reference (the score) is cited as coming from a secondary source elsewhere, "In the following table of the movements, the scoring follows the Neue Bach-Ausgabe. The keys and time signatures are taken from Alfred Dürr, using the symbol for common time (4/4). The instruments are shown separately for winds, strings, and organ and continuo."... None of the other links were actual "general references", so, that solves that issue. I however still don't see any explanation justifying the inconsistency with other music pages re. MOS/Layout. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no inconsistency and therefore no justification required; as already noted, MOS:LAYOUT specifically allows for sections of this type. As to the section you mention, it explicitly states that it uses the score for instrumentation, so it is unclear why it would be "rather obvious" that the score is not a source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The inconsistency is that there is no other article which uses a "Source" header for this type of content; and that the link being given was not to the NBA score, but just to the IMSLP page (which is not a reliable source, because it is user-generated content). Anyway, I'm probably better off actually going to listen to some music instead of wasting my time here, so see you next time. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)