Talk:Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her

From user talk

From my user talk page:

---

(...) Layout: For small screens, to have an image next to the text with translation, results in many line breaks. For an example of poetry please look at Es ist ein Ros entsprungen where it was improved yesterday. I would prefer the lead image in the infobox, as is normal, but will not argue about that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

ps: an image of the annunciation would suit the beginning better than the adoration of the shepherds, imho, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

---

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

And more:

---

(...) Vom Himmel hoch. What I see now in this version: under "Luther's text and setting" the infobox right, white space left of it, the first pic left, white space right of it, then the image of the choral melody which seems redundant to the two other displays, then the long long text with translation (for whom? external links have it). - I liked the image that Nikkimaria suggested. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

---

--Francis Schonken (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Francis, please keep private things on private talk pages. I know the difference. All the above is no longer relevant. In the present version, I don't particularly like:

• three images of the melody (one seems enough)
• text after tune
• long text and translation (which I would leave to external links)
• the infobox position (would prefer standard position) - was fixed by Bgwhite, but now we have again a lead image before an infobox of a type which does't accomodate an image, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• the infobox type ("hymn" has limited parameters and offers no image possibilty, compare)
• many Swedish redlinks (one with an interwiki language link would do)

I initiated some brainstorming on an image showing more heaven (because that is the first word mentioned in the text) and a bit naive (because it was written for children). Nikkimaria found two. - The German version might be a model. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Would like to see Nikkimaria's view on current version

That version...

• ...has two images of the melody, I like at least one with a standard treble clef for recognizability, while the other makes a better lead image
• ...keeps melody before text, which I prefer
• ...has text and translation imported from Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" where it seemed less opportune (note: standard PDF generation omits this: so putting the third image, which has a larger portion of the text, in that section is maybe not such a bad idea?)
• ...has the "hymn" infobox under the lead image, which suits fine imho: that infobox template is the standard for pages like this one, and I think it best to have the lead image first (among other reasons for the unsolved standard PDF generator issue) Note: this version works fine in all sorts of zoom percentages as far as I can see.
• ...takes no side on whether or not the "hymn" infobox is OK, which is hardly the place here to discuss
• ...kept the Swedish redlinks, but I'm no supporter of those, & don't really know what to do with them, and would like input of others.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what I'm being asked or why here - the opening of this section is a bit hard to follow. I had suggested two alternatives to the Adoration image, and think that either would be preferable to the current version. I would also point out that the given source expresses uncertainty about whether Luther actually composed the melody or just the words. If you want to ask me something else, you'll need to be more specific. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Tx, I asked primarily for the lead image. I disagree, I like the current lead image better, for being better in line with WP:LEADIMAGE, despite the uncertainty about the authorship of the song (which has to be explained in the article, I agree on that). But, whether or not the authorship is authentic, it is a Lutheran chorale traditional, and I don't think an annunciation to the shepherds painting that doesn't link to this Lutheran tradition is much on its place as lead image. Why do you prefer such image over the current one (also, I still don't know what other image you proposed as alternative)? There were a few here, before I moved the text and translation from there, but none of these seem very suitable as lead image to me either (some of them also for the width/height ratio). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Francis, you've pinged assorted other people, but you seem to be engaging in a tendentious debate here that is getting unnecessarily personalized. Drop the stick on the infobox. It looks beyond weird to have an image above an infobox, that's not the proper formatting at all. This is also more of a chorale than a "hymn" so let's just use the standard box and be done with it. Montanabw^(talk) 18:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion, in the box the image is however too small to read the text. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I made it bigger. Montanabw^(talk) 00:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

... which brought back the excessive whitespace problem, so no, no improvement over what I had produced before. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no whitespace problem. Must just be your computer. Montanabw^(talk) 00:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Re "hymn": it's on the list of hymns by Martin Luther, I think these should all use the same hymn infobox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her
by Martin Luther?
1567 publication
Genre	Christmas carol
Text	by Martin Luther
Language	German
Composed	1530 (1530)s

The image is as large as you want it, if you use the flexible template. - I actually don't think it matters if people can read the text (in old German that even Germans have a hard time reading) which is printed several times in the article. - Different compromise: have the adoration image in the box which you don't care about anyway and will not miss if not part of a PDF, but which will tell most readers at a glance that this is something related to Christmas, - I doubt that as many readers will get it from reading "Weihenachten". - As for "all the same infobox": will you please go to the arbitrators and request that all Bach composition should have the same infobox? They made abundantly clear that it is up to the owner of an article to make the editorial choice if to use an infobox and which, - changes can be requested on the talk of individual articles and need consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• There should be no images above the infobox. Not only does this look weird, but it goes against MOS. From MOS:INFOBOX An infobox template is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section, (in the desktop view) or at the very top of an article (mobile view)... This also causes problems with the mobile view. The infobox is no longer the first thing a person sees, but is further down.
• Infobox musical composition should be used as it offers more options.
• Image goes inside the infobox box. Yes the text cam become smaller, but the user has the option of making it bigger. I personally can't read the Hymn text in the image in the larger version.
• One image of the melody is enough. Any more and it really doesn't add anything.
• All the Swedish redlinks serve no purpose

Bgwhite (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• There's no "goes against MOS": "... usually ..." is not always. MOS doesn't even recommend a position.

• usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section MOS DOES give a position. There has to be a good reason to go against MOS, there is none in this case. Concensus on this talk page also says to put it there. Bgwhite (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Re. "The infobox is no longer the first thing a person sees" - so and? With a standard PDF export one doesn't even see it at all, not anywhere (which is not the same for an image outside the infobox).

• If looking on a mobile device it should be the first thing, not in the middle of the article. Personally, I don't care about PDF export, that is what web print if for. The PDF extension is new and was enabled at the end of October. A known problem is printing with tables, well actually the lack of printing tables. An infobox is just a table (try PDF printing Periodic table (large cells)). Just because PDF currently has problems with tables, doesn't mean we don't add them because it will be fixed in the future. Bgwhite (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Infobox hymn should be used for an article on a hymn.

• The infobox is just named hymn, it doesn't mean the article should use it. It is also a musical composition, thus Infobox musical composition also works. Besides, it will be deleted soon enough. Bgwhite (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't add the third ([1]) There is one image of the melody in current music notation. The music notation of the 1567 publication is akward to read for most people acquainted with music notation in the early 21st century, the 1541 is even worse, it's more about the text, and the look and feel of publications in those days.
• Swedish redlinks, agree, but still don't know what to do best with them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: the alternatives are the two on the left, below. I don't much care whether one is the lead image or used later in the article; I just think either would be far better than the current Adoration image, shown on the right. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I only see selection on "nice image", with a vague attitude of who cares whether it's related to the actual topic of the article or not... So no, the two images on the left don't qualify as lead image, neither anywhere else in the article per Wikipedia rationale. The Augsburg image is better on several levels (except for the pictural quality, I agree): it is the right region, right time (at least for Bach), and is about the idea of "scenic representation" which the "Vom Himmel hoch" is about: it has the look and feel of a Lutheran approach to the nativity: too Italianate doesn't seem right (we're not talking semi-Catholic Dresden here either yet...). --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Francis, you don't get it, so why not just drop the stick and let other people do the formatting. You don't know what you're talking about here. Montanabw^(talk) 00:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A note that disagreement and "disruption" are two different things. It is not "disruptive" to disagree. Here, there appears to be at least a 3:1 consensus to insert infobox composition over the poorly-designed infobox hymn. I take no position, by the way, as to which image is included in the article, only placement. Montanabw^(talk) 00:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"...You don't know what you're talking about..." is ad hominem, ergo disruptive as a comment on the contributor instead of on the content. Remove it and I'll answer to whatever reasonable arguments you may have. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Statements of fact are not disruptive. In short, as has been stated above, the positioning of an image above an infobox is improper per WP:MOS, particularly where there exists an infobox that can incorporate an image. Gerda, myself and @Bgwhite: all agree on the formatting. That equates to consensus, which does not have to be unanimous.. Montanabw^(talk) 02:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please remove "...You don't know what you're talking about..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The image in the infobox is big enough for me to read - and at my advanced age, that pretty much guarantees anyone can read it. The only objection I have been able to glean from the above is that there is whitespace next to the infobox. So what? Any attempts to remove whitespace are doomed to failure as we have no control over the size of the screen on which it is viewed. When I view this article in a window that's 3920 pixels wide, it's almost all whitespace. On my mobile phone, there's very little. Worrying about such trivia is not the job of editors here and trying to pack every inch of the screen with content is a quixotic enterprise. There's no good reason why a standard infobox with image shouldn't be used - and Francis, you need to learn that you won't get your own singular preferences by edit-warring against multiple other editors. I've restored the version preferred by the majority here. If there are any genuine grounds for a different version, let's hear them. --RexxS (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Whitespace problem has been solved, is no longer a problem in either version.

These are the changes involved in the revert:

1. Image in or out of infobox
2. Image size
3. Text content of infobox conforming to referenced article content or not
4. General infobox or "hymn" infobox
5. Section title for text (& translation)
6. Displaying 1541 Gesangbuch or not
7. Text and translation announced in table or out of it
8. Text layout in table

In the same order:

1. Outside infobox: there is no downside for small screens (tested on mobile phone), there is an advantage for standard generated PDF version. That the guideline implies the infobox "should" be in the upper right corner is obviously not what the guideline says. Also, as long as we're discussing this, this should return to the state prior to the start of the discussion, which is image above infobox: [2]
2. 260px suffises for me, no need to make it bigger either
3. There should be no disparity between content of the article and content of the infobox
4. Let's wait outcome of template merge discussion
5. "Text", while the translation is not always visible
6. See above "note: standard PDF generation omits [text and translation in table]: so putting the third image, which has a larger portion of the text, in that section is maybe not such a bad idea?" – I stand by that reasoning
7. Better in table for standard PDF generation, otherwise announcing something that isn't there in that version
8. No reason to add more whitspace there, undiscussed revert.

Further, there is a {{primary}} template on top of the page, could we maybe concentrate on that, and when these "primary" related issues are adequately handled, maybe some of the primary source content/images we're discussing now will be automatically handled too? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Please stop reverting. Consensus is clearly for the infobox. Four people have now voiced in favour
2. Infobox hymn will be deleted. You continuing to insist on hymn is clearly moot.
3. You were told to "If there are any genuine grounds for a different version, let's hear them." Not revert what you only want and them here them.

Bgwhite (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't suppose it is up to you to decide what consensus "is". There's no consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The 1541 Straßburger Gesangbuch image is pretty cool-looking, but it didn't look right at the top of the section. I put it back in, but at the bottom of the section instead of the top. The article is a bit image-heavy in general, but that one was pretty cool. As for the standard pdf generation, that software is totally f****d and really should not be used. (the bug has been reported to Village pump technical for over two months now...tables also don't render) The "printable version" is a better way to get a downloadable copy of an article. Montanabw^(talk) 20:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

"Translation"

Some parts of the translation are very free versions of the original, perhaps better called a version rather than a translation. I have not yet checked, but what is the standard translation in various English language hymn books? (if this is it, it should be specified) DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Could we focus on improving the article rather than tagging it?

Regarding the newly added tags, they seem like WP:OVERTAGGING (if not WP:TAGBOMBING) to me. I see nothing in the article that needs copyeditng; if someone feels it does, can they please copyedit this extremely short article instead of tagging it? That would take less than a minute. In terms of the lede, it seems adequate to me; if something else from the very short body text bears mentioning, could someone add that instead of tagging? That would also take less than a minute. In terms of this citation [3], unless there is proof of error in it, or unless someone wants to replace it with another citation(s) instead, it seems a helpful English-language overview, complete with its own sources, for this German hymn. In terms of religious texts, this is not a religious article and does not deal with theology or theological interpretation; it is an article on a song/hymn. In terms of citations needed, could we please find and add them rather than tagging, or tag inline; this is one of the shortest articles on Wikipedia and it does not need a tag at the top for that. In terms of external links, if they are remiss, please gain consensus and trim rather than tagging at the top. I just wandered into this article by some stroke of accident (although I do have some familiarity with the hymn from attending German Christmas Eve services), would like to see the article helped rather than tagged. Sincerely, Softlavender (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)