Talk:Magnificat (Bach): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:36, 18 November 2014

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Germany Start‑class 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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Infobox

Anyone opposed to adding an infobox to this article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge suggestion

Prior related discussions:

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Statement by Francis Schonken (and comments in the neighborhood on that archived page)
Template:Did you know nominations/Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a

As I see no serious objections to proceed (the merge tags have been up for two weeks with nobody contesting), I will proceed with the merge shortly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You will please note that the merge tags have been removed on 16 November because nobody bothered to discuss. You seem to be the only one who wants a merge. As long as that is so, please don't act but discuss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm the only one wanting this and nobody objects, I can proceed, that wouldn't even be WP:BOLD. Just editing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I object.

I am against a merge in this case, different from Magnificat (Schütz), where four works are handled in one article. These two, as similar they are in structure, are different.

* Different key, which means the keys in all movements you want to refer to

* Different time in Bach's life, context

* Different scoring

* The 4 Christmas movements, part of one, but not the other

I believe that the readers are served better by two articles, especially because some other articles may want to link to E-flat, others to D.

Compare: cantata BWV 120 was originally one article covering three works, but was split to BWV 120, BWV 120a and BWV 120b, which makes sense and was imitated for several others of Bach's works where different versions exist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"My version" of the E-flat version, which is not the present one, but what is the base for my reasoning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is helped by the back and forth between two articles that treat the same work (in several versions)
Scores of the Christmas canticles are now often published in a transposed version, for insertion in the D major version, so the history of the music, as it is available now, needs to explain the origin of these additions. I see no need to make that a back-and-forth between two articles.
There's no history of the 243a version that isn't also history of the 243 version (which is different for, for example, BWV 232/BWV 232 I, where the Dresden offshoot has historic specifics of little relevance for the later integrated work). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Thank you for proving my point by not waiting but acting: the two tables in one article illustrate perfectly how confusing it would be. Do me a favour, if you absolute have to show how ... it looks: do that in your user space and the present the result for a review, - not in a live article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could say "nobody is helped by long confusing tables next to each other", but I don't, I only say that I would be confused. To go back and forth between articles is the key of a wiki, no? - If I want to link to Bach's Magnificat from most cantata articles I need to go to E-flat because the other didn't exist yet. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tables can be merged. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "To go back and forth between articles is the key of a wiki, no?" — no, it isn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of merge

I suggest we have one article about the details, such as Movements of Bach's Magnificat, which is linked to from both sides, is updated one spot, and leave the rest (history, tables of movements, scores, publishing, recordings) separate, for clarity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, there's not enough material to justify three separate articles (it's not BWV 232...). Also I think at least 90% is the same, history-wise, description-wise, references, etc. E.g., as I said before BWV 243a *is* the major part of the history of 243, sources rarely treat only one without also treating the other, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ps: As I write this, we have a state of some movements in BWV 243a, for others the request to move elsewhere, all but not the latest version in BWV 243: an undesirable state. I have to go, and would not revert again anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking time to eat... will proceed asap. Feel free to join the effort. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "proceed" ... - You might have waited for a discussion before doing anything. Did it occur to move the little bit of D major that is different to E-flat and call that Magnificat (Bach)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "proceed" with forking content like you did (and some others). If we need to discuss forking content: it is a no-no, I suppose that's the end of the discussion. So I proceed with the merging, the only alternative is apparently forking, which is a no-no. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 19:33, 18 November 2014 edit Gerda Arendt (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 375,176 edits →Instead of merge: the other way round ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:36, 18 November 2014 edit undo Francis Schonken (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 68,468 edits →Instead of merge Next edit →
Line 53:		Line 53:

	:: What you call "proceed" ... - You might have waited for a discussion before doing anything. Did it occur to move the little bit of D major that is different to E-flat and call that Magnificat (Bach)? --[[User:Gerda Arendt\|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt\|talk]]) 19:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)		:: What you call "proceed" ... - You might have waited for a discussion before doing anything. Did it occur to move the little bit of D major that is different to E-flat and call that Magnificat (Bach)? --[[User:Gerda Arendt\|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt\|talk]]) 19:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
			:::I didn't "proceed" with forking content like you did (and some others). If we need to discuss forking content: it is a no-no, I suppose that's the end of the discussion. So I proceed with the merging, the only alternative is apparently forking, which is a no-no. --[[User:Francis Schonken\|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken\|talk]]) 20:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)