Talk:Thomanerchor

Move discussion

I've copied discussion regarding this page from my talk page, and I've commented out my comments on other matters, so this discussion can continue here. cmadler (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Erschallet, ihr Lieder

Do you remember the Bach cantata? I nominated it for Pentecost, the first reviewer is not happy with the term Thomanerchor, do you think you might have a look? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I can live with ALT4. I prefer boys to boys'. Thanks even more for finding links that I had searched for without success! About the German in wiki-links: I see more and more "original names" - like Thomanerchor. When Adele Stolte recorded, it was most likely Gewandhausorchester. But it's ok for now, and thanks for your effort! - I'm thinking of one more for Pentecost - not Bach, smile. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've actually just moved the Thomanerchor article also. cmadler (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I wish you had moved the orchestra instead, looking at Deutsches Symphonie-Orchester Berlin, Gächinger Kantorei and others. Thomanerchor is well established, their English web says: Welcome to the Thomanerchor. The thoroughly English bach-cantatas website says Thomanerchor. The two hooks of April both mentioned Thomanerchor, a different name now would be confusing. - I think the English version is not a name (different from Salzburg Festival that is known as such) but just a translation. Could you look at the many direct links to Thomanerchor and think about moving it back? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please consider: Thomanerchor is an internationally known unique name, unique in the world. It doesn't need a qualifier like Leipzig. It's almost like a brand name. Take Shell. The German Wikipedia doesn't argue that it translates to Muschel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, some names are not translated (this includes names of people, so my grandfather, for example, stayed Adler and did not become Eagle when he emigrated to the US) and some names that are descriptive are translated (so United States becomes die Vereinigten Staaten). Company names and especially brand names tend to the former and are usually not translated. So Volkswagen is Volkswagen, not Peoples' Car. But orchestras, choirs, schools, etc. tend toward the latter, and are often translated. So the Deutsche Demokratische Republik (DDR) was the German Democratic Republic (GDR), and the Basilica Cattedrale Patriachale di San Marco is Saint Mark's Basilica or Saint Mark's Cathedral in Venice. Some of those other articles probably should be moved as well. cmadler (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand this in general. I defended St John Passion versus Johannes Passion, successfully so. But Thomanerchor is not "a choir", but a very singular choir with a tradition of centuries. The name should not be translated, as Gächinger Kantorei is not translated (less than 70 years) or Münchener Bach-Chor (60 years). These names are used worldwide, known worldwide - and get unrecognizable in translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Dorothee Mields

Could you please have a look at the new soprano - for cats or links I missed - and also at Peter Schreier's collection of awards? - Concerning the topic above: the move Johannes Passion to St John Passion was performed after a long discussion that reached a conscensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thomanerchor

Thanks for looking at Dorothee Mields. Could you please check the red links in awards for the Thomanerchor as well? Perhaps this list is helpful? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts and explanations. I have a similar routine, mostly for singers: try a red link, see if other pages link, if yes, keep the link. I did so today for the teacher of D. Mields whom I found in recording lists. I plan to do Ludger Rémy soon. As for Thomanerchor: I didn't create that article. Someone else translated it from German and simply kept the links that are blue there. Thanks for sifting them! - Back to the name. I wonder what kind of an info box that is with no room for the director? I was not even tempted to write Thomanerchor as "Alternate name". It is the name, anything else is alternate. It would make just as much sense to say that Antonín Dvořák is the alternate name for Antonin Dvorak. One more thought: the typical German naming convention for a church choir would say "Chor of St. X, Y-town". That would indeed meet your construction. But Thomanerchor is different, one word, four syllables, unique in the world. Would you please move the page back? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thomanerchor 4

Food for thought: I don't go and move de:The Beatles to Die Käfer von Liverpool. Please revert the move. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Done,and copied relevant discussion from this page. cmadler (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's comparable, "The Beatles" is a non-descriptive term ("beatles" isn't a real word, it's a combination of "beat" with "beetles"). It would be more like putting Eastern Michigan University at de:Osten Michigan Universität, which if the German Wikipedia naming convention is similar to the English naming convention, should probably be done. It's a name, but it's descriptive, as opposed to "The Beatles" which, being a purely made-up word, can't be translated (and being non-descriptive, shouldn't). cmadler (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Another thing to keep in mind is that different Wikipedias (and indeed, different languages) have different conventions for use of foreign words and names. I think French is probably at one extreme, where everything tends to be translated, even newly-created terms. German, or at least the German Wikipedia, seems to lean the other way, generally retaining foreign terms, though sometimes "Germanifying" the spelling (e.g., Beat music is de:Beatmusik). English Wikipedia convention is as I described above, sometimes translating. For example, de:Thomaskirche (Leipzig) is St. Thomas Church, Leipzig, de:Universität Hamburg is University of Hamburg, de:Wiener Philharmoniker is Vienna Philharmonic, and as I previously mentioned, it:Basilica di San Marco (full name: Basilica Cattedrale Patriachale di San Marco) is Saint Mark's Basilica or Saint Mark's Cathedral in Venice. cmadler (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Name of the article (Thomanerchor 5) summary

As shown above, I strongly vote for the name of the article being the internationally known, one word, unique name of the performers, Thomanerchor, as opposed to an English construction that doesn't re-translate to this name. The word Thomanerchor appeares on 76 articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although Thomanerchor, Leipzig might be better. This seem,s to be standard on their CD covers, which is pursuasive undre WP:COMMON. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that on a CD cover it makes sense to add Leipzig. But on Wikipedia, with a link possible, that is not necessary, Leipzig being mentioned always right next to the choir. - Comparable: St John Passion (no Bach needed), Great Mass in C Minor (no Mozart needed), please see their recent naming discussions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly these are not comparable examples, secondly, while I agree with the current Mozart name, the Bach seems wrong to me, and not supported by the discussion either. This is not ther way we handle works of art with common titles, for example. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The St John Passion was discussed by the Project Classical music, I should have mentioned that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, but the discussion was rather chaotic, & barely mentioned the "(Bach)" option. Johnbod (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The "(Bach)" was my suggestion #3. Reason for the discussion was, as you know, the article name Johannes Passion, no name at all and not matching St. Matthew Passion (Bach). I personally am quite happy that I don't have to construct pipe links for these pieces, appearing in almost every article I write. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment

• B1 Referencing & citations - NO - needs additional inline citations
• B2 Coverage & accuracy - NO - Accuracy yes (nothing in there that's outright false), coverage not really complete on every aspect and probably needs updating
• B3 Structure - YES
• B4 Grammar & style - Not checked, reading rapidly there's not any obvious mistake
• B5 Supporting materials - NO - It's only pictures of the Thomaskirche. I'm not sure if there's a policy about photographs of minors (in this case...) on WP but that needs to be looked up in case we can find something. Strike that. The picture on the German article could be appropriate - File:Logo Thomanerchor.svg. 04:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• A note on importance: Per the project guidelines, "Topics that are very notable within Germany, and well-known outside of it, and can be reasonably expected to be included in any print encyclopedia." is the description for High. I'm not from Germany so I can't confirm the first part, though I guess it could probably pass it - the last part I'm not sure about but again I guess it would. The middle part "well-known outside of it" is quite obvious and doesn't need any further comments. "Topics that are reasonably notable on a national level within Germany without necessarily being famous or very notable internationally" is the description for Medium and I am sure it surpasses that. So, High or Medium, or am I wasting my time? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Hey - is the following notable enough to merit a mention in the article [1] (links below if it doesn't give you the same results as me) - several German newspapers report it [2] [3]? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Similar Windsbacher Knabenchor. Whenever news like that comes up, it gets repeated, - so the "several" doesn't mean more importance. Is it relevant for 800 years? Is a special for this youth institution other than countless others, just less prominent? I don't think so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, a similar mention (albeit, if I remember correctly, unsourced) appears for the Wiener Sängerknaben. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal justification.

I have removed the "Famous Thomaner" section for containing no sources or measure of what made a certain person "famous". If anyone has sources, I would love to see them. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 00:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Sources should be in the target articles, no need for them here. I checked, and while sourcing could be improved, there aren't any I would assert contain false claims to have been a member of the choir. Inclusion criteria for this list should simply be that the subject is sufficiently notable to have an article about them. This is all common practice in similar articles. ----Pontificalibus 08:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not really how Wikipedia works! I have changed it to the clearer "Notable members" - though I hope we can all agree that Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach is "famous", to name but one. Johnbod (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

It is exactly how Wikipedia works - wikilinked list items don't require an inline citation where sourcing is in the target article (take a look at some similar sections). Good idea to change it from famous to notable, as that is the normal terminology used for such sections.----Pontificalibus 07:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I approve the change from "famous" to "notable", but "members"? What is meant is probably "former members". There must be many more than listed. I wonder if we should have a category for pupils/students/alumni of the Thomasschule which would tell more easily who belongs than any listing in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)