:: Description is back at [[BWV 243a]]. All the "Bärenreiter D-dur score" references have been removed though (wasn't even clear which of the many publications of the score by Bärenreiter the page numbers referred to). I left two publicly available D-dur sources listed in the BWV 243a article (Autograph, and Schering 1924). Plus the Novello 2000 and Dürr 1955 info, applying to both the D major and the Eb major versions. I suppose these should suffice for giving references for all what is different between the two versions in the description. See first two sentences of the [[BWV 243a#1]] description of how this could work. There's an OR template up, until all this has been sorted out in the description.
:: Description is back at [[BWV 243a]]. All the "Bärenreiter D-dur score" references have been removed though (wasn't even clear which of the many publications of the score by Bärenreiter the page numbers referred to). I left two publicly available D-dur sources listed in the BWV 243a article (Autograph, and Schering 1924). Plus the Novello 2000 and Dürr 1955 info, applying to both the D major and the Eb major versions. I suppose these should suffice for giving references for all what is different between the two versions in the description. See first two sentences of the [[BWV 243a#1]] description of how this could work. There's an OR template up, until all this has been sorted out in the description.
:: Re. D major infobox. Why not? There's no discussion at [[Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243]], and I couldn't find anything in the edit history of the article showing anyone opposed an infobox. Anyhow, the description content is now transcluded in the [[BWV 243]] article, so (not to spite you or whatever, just a practical solution) when the description is improved in 243a, the improved movement content automatically also appears in 243. Keep this in mind though when editing the 243a description of the communal 12 movements: if it doesn't apply to both versions either 243 or 243a needs to be mentioned explicitly, + appropriate references to sources listed in both articles. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 10:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
:: Re. D major infobox. Why not? There's no discussion at [[Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243]], and I couldn't find anything in the edit history of the article showing anyone opposed an infobox. Anyhow, the description content is now transcluded in the [[BWV 243]] article, so (not to spite you or whatever, just a practical solution) when the description is improved in 243a, the improved movement content automatically also appears in 243. Keep this in mind though when editing the 243a description of the communal 12 movements: if it doesn't apply to both versions either 243 or 243a needs to be mentioned explicitly, + appropriate references to sources listed in both articles. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 10:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
FYI, the official way to address the "acknowledgement of authorship" issue *is* "split" templates on the talk pages. They are put there, and stay there ''after'' the split has been resolved. See [[Wikipedia:Splitting#How to properly split an article]], step 8. See also my explanations at [[Talk:Rondo in C minor (Bruckner)#Merging]], point two of my first contribution to that section. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 07:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
FYI, the official way to address the "acknowledgement of authorship" issue *is* "split" templates on the talk pages. They are put there, and stay there ''after'' the split has been resolved. See [[Wikipedia:Splitting#How to properly split an article]], step 8. See also my explanations at [[Talk:Rondo in C minor (Bruckner)#Merging]], point two of my first contribution to that section. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 07:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
:: Learning, thank you. (I am sorry that I had missed your response above, - it happens when I get more than one message.) I think to say that the information was "split" from D to E-flat (that's what I read) is misleading, but I stop caring about it, going to write CPE's, finally. Thank you for the question on the Magnificat in D! --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt#top|talk]]) 08:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
You do great work and I love it! Don't let Tony get to you. Ihre Arbeit ist grossartig. Weiter schreiben, eien lange Zeit. PS, I really liked the article about the church the communists blew up. BarkingMoon (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Sehr geehrte Gerda, I have a watch on your page since a few weeks ago. I approved and moved 167 to holding for June 24.BarkingMoon (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not by there very often, but today I saw the recent kerfluffle at AN/I and thought you could use some sweets. Lest you think this is all selfless, though, I brought a second fork. Care to split it? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sweet of you, - I would share with Andy first if his doctors allow. Day by day I hope the thread autoarchives (havn't looked today), - I am sure his doctors allow no stress ;) . Did you see the list of 18 discussions "drowning" a project? - Everybody who takes an unbiased look is welcome to share the baklava! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hope is precious and great joy is found in living
Thank you for the sapphire—cornflower blue is a color of some significance to me.
In the maelstrom that Wikipedia can sometimes be, remember these words from Ode to Joy:
Wem der große Wurf gelungen,
Eines Freundes Freund zu sein,
Wer ein holdes Weib errungen,
Mische seinen Jubel ein!
Ja, wer auch nur eine Seele
Sein nennt auf dem Erdenrund!
Und wer's nie gekonnt, der stehle
Weinend sich aus diesem Bund!
Thank you, your comment makes me even prouder! Date for this one: the centenary of the first performance is 20 May, but it was written for Pentecost, performed on various dates whenever that was. It would make more sense to me to have it on Pentecost, 8 June, nothing pending yet. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to thank everyone in the great team to achieve this individually, but do it here, going on vacation, with sporadic access, - take care! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on getting this article through FA and a well-deserved FOUR award...just to let you know, you can put a little top icon for FA, GA, and Four on your user page by posting somewhere on your user page:
For the FA star: {{FA user topicon|article_name=Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172|date=13 March 2014|icon_nr=1}}
For the FOUR award: {{Top icon|imagename=Four Award.svg|wikilink=Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172|description=This user earned a Four Award for work on Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172.|icon_nr=1}}
Gerda, you are one of the very few people who have reached this milestone. Thank you for your tireless contributions to Wikipedia and the DYK project! -Zanhe (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gerda. I was wondering why such an obviously virtuoso pianist has so little coverage these days, despite being relatively young as pianists go. Perhaps you were too? I found his official YouTube channel. It has no videos on it (although others have uploaded some old ones to their channels). Anyhow, he did have a comments section where someone in France, who had heard him play years ago and greatly admired him, asked when he would be performing again there. Cocarelli replied [1]:
"Je vous remercie pour ce souvenir heureux pour vous et pour moi. Malheureusement les concerts ce n'est plus d'actualité, du moins tant que je traînerai des troubles neurologiques qui me handicapent sévèrement dans ma mobilité et au piano. Je vis en France, en Sarthe, où j'enseigne le piano dans deux petites écoles de musique (dans mon état, impossible d'envisager une place dans un conservatoire). Vous souhaitant Bonne continuation. Merci encore!"
(Thank you for this happy memory, for both you and me. Unfortunately, concerts are no longer possible now that I suffer from neurological disorders that severely handicap my mobility and my ability to play the piano. I live in France, Sarthe, where I teach piano in two small music schools (in my condition, it is impossible to imagine a place in a conservatory). Wishing you good luck. Thank you again!)
In belated response to your efforts at Franz Kafka, my favourite author, and also for your kindness in telling other editors (i.e. me) that they are valued, I grant you this barnstar! Thanks very much for doing what you do. RGloucester — ☎02:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, have read the whole thread. My view is different; there are many content writers who ensure they take up only those administrative areas that are related to content writing and that don't take away the pleasure of/from volunteering. And I would recommend you go for the RfA. If you're on for it, I'll continue on email. If not, no issues. Best regards. WifioneMessage08:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ernst Roth
Grave of Ernst Roth (1896-1971) in Twickenham Cemetery, London, UK.
Hi Gerda. That photo of Ernst Roth's gravestone is now uploaded. I've put a thumbnail here. You may want to crop it down a bit before using in an article. Please use as you see fit, and apologies for taking so long to get round to uploading it. Not quite eight months, but still a long time. Hopefully better late than never. Carcharoth (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
. . ...
colourful image in hope last song of silence
A merge proposal could win consensus if the main article had more discussion of the other movements, so it stayed balanced. I like infoboxes. This article is part of a series, and readers should get a consistent experience. See Help:Infobox – "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." The "main editor" does not have any special say. I am not qualified to judge the sources. I am generally suspicious of websites, but they may be good. I would not remove citations of sources that seem reliable. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness for you, Gerda; if it hadn't been for your hint, I wouldn't have known that I am supposed to submit to this TFAR thing (that I just finished) if I want to see my article on the main page. It pays to know smart people. Magnificent FA! Prhartcom (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I helped to compile the article on Janáček, so I'm curious ... and I can accept criticism :) --Vejvančický
The compilation is great, I would criticise just the lead, and it's not your fault, it's the general layout. I think that a reader first should know that the person pictured with a woman is a composer, and about what time, - only then details of pronunciation, alternate names. There's an easy solution, but not liked by Classical music ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I don't fight the "infobox battle". Honestly, I have no opinion on that. Both ways work for me and for any intelligent person, I believe. When I look at the article it is clear to me in 1 or 2 seconds what it is about, with the infobox or without it. Thanks for your explanation, Gerda. With my best wishes - Antonín Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't fight any battle, but for me a listing with parameters is just easier to grasp. Look at Genghis Khan, - the lead is even more complicated, with Mongolian that doesn't show, but one glance to the right tells me something. I will have to understand why for composers that is not offered for people like me. Those who don't like it could opt out even to see it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May
Brackett-bot loves you Braxckett.
May
Sogni =Vittorio Matteo Corcos - Dreams , 1896, Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Moderna, RomeHöfisches Fest in einem Lustgarten
Gerda, spring its blue band waves around, Frühlingsgefühle im September, how come? Thought you were about my indthusmiasmic article :) Serten (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kirche von Horn auf der Höri fehlt noch. ;) Yep.DYK. First review, too much climate and ecological history conflicts in the last time. Cheers. Serten (talk) 22:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My plans are secret ;) (I can give an infobx only to articles I create - and by create they don't mean a creative process but turning a red link to blue, - if I create a decent article from a one-line stub, that's not create, - therefore I avoid red links). I work on Locus iste. Want to find out if the chapel pictured is the chapel for which it was composed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful with too much secrete solemnity - our common liking O.J. Bierbaum on Stefan George: „Feierlich sein ist alles! Sei dumm wie ein Thunfisch, temperamentlos wie eine Qualle, stier besessen wie ein narkotisierter Frosch, aber sei feierlich, und du wirst plötzlich Leute um dich sehen, die vor Bewunderung nicht mehr mäh sagen können.“ ;) Serten (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, I wouldn't mind having the same kind of infobox like THIS ONE, - same coliur, same size on painting and all of it. But it is in Russian... don't know how to make it English. I specially like the colour of it, it goes perfectly with the painting's own. Hafspajen (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With my edit summary readding the template ("apologize"), I mean(t) to say that I apologize, not that you should. So rather, "my apologies". Thanks for being on the lookout. Hyacinth (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Magnificat (Rutter) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to add the two citations to the quotes in the third paragraph of the lead, as mentioned at the GAN review. I'd do it myself, but I have no idea how to make sfn work: I do my own referencing with a hammer and chisel, Stone-Age style. Tim riley talk17:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I may not add one, but can help. See what you understand of {{infobox song}} and {{infobox musical composition}}, and see what fits better. Move the image name (without prefix) to the appropriate parameter in the box, and the caption to the caption parmeter. Good luck, need sleep. - Can you help with this one (move it), - celebrating Kirchweih today by singing Monteverdi ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox poem was deleted, and the song one doesnt allwo pics, so you helped me a lot. I didnt get the hint with the move - where to? I would however support a sort of unified infobox scheme whereever you need me.
Vivant omnes virgines
Faciles, formosae.
Vivant et mulieres
Tenerae, amabiles,
Bonae, laboriosae.
Locus iste infobox to Locus iste (Bruckner). Dangerous. I didn't "create" the article, so say the rules, and I may not add an infobox to an article I didn't "create". However, I believe that I created the article, and most Bruckner composition articles have an infobox, - our readers don't object ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't drag me to far into that muddy pond. Dem Schweinen ist alles Schwein! I thought I remember a rather saulty italian leftist novel out of my youth with such a title, but I couldnt find it. Such where the days ;) Serten (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first time I saw a countertenor, first not believing to hear him, was in Scotland. I wasnt aware of Scholl, great article! My last biography opus magnum is Reiner Grundmann, and I never would write a science bio without an infobox. Serten (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not ;) - by avoid bios, I meant bios of our list. Scholl was a long article when I met it, - it improved greatly with the help of friends and one of his harpsichordists, - look at the history which contains one of the edits I love best. - As for GA and infobox, not only are all my good articles graced with an infobox, but five of them were reviewed by users who don't particularly like them, namely Smerus, Dr. Blofeld and Tim riley. - Scholl stood almost next to me as a soloist of Bach's St Matthew Passion, - a lasting inspiration. When he sang He was despised, you would have heard a needle fall. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gerda, would you mind assessing the importance of Erschallet, ihr Lieder, erklinget, ihr Saiten! BWV 172 for WikiProject Germany on the article's talkpage please? I know little about Bach cantatas, so wouldn't be able to judge their importance within German music and specifically on en-Wiki (I am just looking on some of the more notable or well-developed Germany-related articles, not going to assess 14.000+ stub articles). GermanJoe (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bruckner's Locus iste is indeed becoming a "good" article. Unfortunately Nikki, who was somewhat calmed down, is again disputing about the Infobox, as a stubborn procedural barrister. Are there any means to let her stop it?
I am for sure willing to expand the discography, etc., but I am no more intended to again lose time with beating with her around the bush.
I think that there should be a separate discography for each of the three settings. The only CD with the three settings is that of Robert Shewan in 1991, but, as you can see on Hans' critical discography, it is absolutely not his first choice and also not my own first choice...
PS: The same would occur for Christus factus est. There are also 3 settings: WAB 9 (so-called by Grasberger, actually the gradual of the Messe für den Gründonnerstag), WAB 10 (the least known, for 8-voice choir, 3 trombones and string ad lib. - only two recordings: one fully a cappella by J. Brown [1997] and one "faithful" to the score by R. Luna [2013]), and WAB 11 (the most popular, as WAB 6 for the Ave Maria). For the Libera Me you have two settings: WAB 21 and WAB 22. For the Pange lingua also two settings: WAB 31 and WAB 33, and for Tantum ergo 8 settings: WAB 32 (wrongly called Pange lingua by Grasberger), WAB 41 (1-4), WAB 42, WAB 43 and WAB 44; some of them being in two versions ...
As there is one major Ave Maria, I would leave it as is. Christus factus est will be as good for Good Friday as Locus iste was for our Kirchweih ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a long-time reader. You're edits like on Rondo in C minor make things worse for readers. Readers don't get to choose what goes on a wikipedia page, as you just proved by reverting me. You have all the power. Not good for readers. You never hear from readers like me.
Long-time reader, please sign your posts. I reverted you ONCE. I don't do more than one revert. (You reverted twice.) Please discuss your point of view on the article talk page, where others spoke already. We have something here that is called consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your note. My edits have been reversed and I am engaged in discussion at the talk page about my edits. The discussion might interest you. ____83d40m (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, for the note, for discussing, and for picking the iris, - showing exquisite taste. There's an unwritten law on Wikipedia that you may not know: don't change an article shown on the Main page (which went through a review process). There's a written law that you may not know: if your edit is reverted, don't revert again, go and discuss. You did it now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I. redirects don't hurt ;) - I believe that the shorter name is better, - look a Wagner's stage works, some just name, some (opera), - may he not notice ;) - Ave Maria (Bruckner) looks fine to me, short and sweet covering WAB 6. Who knows WAB (as the IP said, blocked btw.)?
I moved back, also because of use in articles which would get needlessly complicated. If you think there should be an article covering all three, go ahead, write it. I feel that it is enough that they refer to each other in the lead. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that what I did was shaky. You will perhaps find me a hairsplitter, but we have three different Ave Maria in Category:Motets by Anton Bruckner, and only one in {{Anton Bruckner}}. The other motets are currently placed in chronological order in {{Anton Bruckner}}. WAB 5 is also called "Ave Maria I", WAB 6 "Ave Maria II", and WAB 7 "Ave Maria III". They are in different styles and were composed in different periods of Bruckner's life: end of the Sankt-Florian period, beginning of the Linz period (end of Sechter's tuition) and the Vienna period (the so-called "mature" period). Would they not have to be also put chronologically in {{Anton Bruckner}}, as, e.g., Ave Maria I, II & III? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 21:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have only one in the navbox because you did't answer the question where to place them ;) - A piece for voice and organ would not be called a motet in Baroque music. I'll put them there as motets now. We had I, II, III for Bach cantatas also, until we decided to take the catalogue numbers to differentiate. - I am not sure about the chronological order because someone not knowing would have problems to add one, but not with alphabet. We could add years, at least to those with several entries, making the sort more obvious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. People will now understand, e.g., why the Symphony in D minor "0" is placed after Symphony No. 1. While doing so, I have moved Afferentur regi (2nd motet composed after Sechter's tuition) after Ave Maria (1861) (1st motet composed after Sechter's tuition). --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could indeed draft something on it. The motets could be placed in the 4 periods of Bruckner's life: youth (till 1845), St-Florian (1845-1856), Linz (after Sechter's tuition, 1861-1872) and Vienna (1873-1896), and so in the context of his "greater" works (Masses, Symphonies). What about the two Aequali WAB 114 and 149 (also placed by the MWV as "smaller religious works")? --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 07:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DYK nomination of Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Locus iste (Bruckner), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vienna Conservatory. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Before drafting the new page Motets (Bruckner) I have two question for you:
Do I include the two Aequali? They are stricto sensu not "motets", but they were composed as a kind of absoute for Bruckner's aunt Rosalia Mayrhofer
I am not intended to consider the 2nd version of the 5 Tantum ergo (WAB 41 & 42), Pange lingua WAB 31 and Iam lucis orto sidere (WAB 18) as separate item (i.e., new motets), but to include it in the short summary I am intended to put with each motet. OK so?
Thank you! Very helpful to have the position of the motets in the context of his development and the other compositions. Try to link only once, and have translations to titles without an article. Should we try to get Tantum Ergo moved to Tantum ergo? (And the others.) - Never heard of Passion Sunday and absoute, learning ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Description is back at BWV 243a. All the "Bärenreiter D-dur score" references have been removed though (wasn't even clear which of the many publications of the score by Bärenreiter the page numbers referred to). I left two publicly available D-dur sources listed in the BWV 243a article (Autograph, and Schering 1924). Plus the Novello 2000 and Dürr 1955 info, applying to both the D major and the Eb major versions. I suppose these should suffice for giving references for all what is different between the two versions in the description. See first two sentences of the BWV 243a#1 description of how this could work. There's an OR template up, until all this has been sorted out in the description.
Re. D major infobox. Why not? There's no discussion at Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243, and I couldn't find anything in the edit history of the article showing anyone opposed an infobox. Anyhow, the description content is now transcluded in the BWV 243 article, so (not to spite you or whatever, just a practical solution) when the description is improved in 243a, the improved movement content automatically also appears in 243. Keep this in mind though when editing the 243a description of the communal 12 movements: if it doesn't apply to both versions either 243 or 243a needs to be mentioned explicitly, + appropriate references to sources listed in both articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Learning, thank you. (I am sorry that I had missed your response above, - it happens when I get more than one message.) I think to say that the information was "split" from D to E-flat (that's what I read) is misleading, but I stop caring about it, going to write CPE's, finally. Thank you for the question on the Magnificat in D! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking at the spring article I almost forgot. I have no time now nor the next days, but hope to get to it during the week. In the recent Magnificat, it helped to cite the score. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jonas, we have a misunderstanding. You gave me seven days, I said (during in trip) that I had no time for the next few DAYS. I have no idea why you understood WEEKS. Please give me those seven days before failing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See above, vacation ;) - Before I can expand that I have to reference the St John Passion structure and the D major Magnificat, get Locus iste to GA standard (I nominated on our Kirchweih date before it was ready, then it was fully protected). I have a new article in mind for tomorrow but will not supply a red link, to not have the Locus iste struggle again ;) - If you want to fill red links, there are enough for a while in the Bach cantatas, singers but also hymn writers, hymns and places. You could also translate more for Katharinenkirche, Oppenheim, where we sang Locus iste on Saturday, and Bruckner's E minor Mass will be performed by the Kammerchor Stuttgart (not for me, more vacation, for most of October), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On 30 December 2011 the article became a GA, thanks to Ched, PumpkinSky and MathewTownsend, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hafspajen (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
_H%C3%B6fisches_Fest_in_einem_Lustgarten.jpg)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
; see Talk:Magnificat (Rutter) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 12:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:St John Passion structure for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
; see Talk:St John Passion structure for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)