Talk:Magnificat (Bach): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:19, 19 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]

They are merged, problem solved afaik. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 19 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]

Re. "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" — I cannot see a problem there. The BWV 243a, Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a (and similar) will still link to the article on that version of the Magnificat after the merge. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, you seem not to hear me. You put great effort into merging the tables, but I confess that I find the result (incomplete for keys and voices) extremely hard to read, in German I would say "unübersichtlich". Am I the only one. I am not against a move to Magnificat (Bach), as long as we keep a separate article on E-flat with a simple table, details of the composition history (to be expanded), details on the first major work in Latin and for five voices (to be expanded), publishing and recordings for that one (to be expanded). - We have articles on Bach's works such as Reißt euch los, bedrängte Sinnen, BWV 224, lets devote one to BWV 243a, a milestone in Bachs life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "incomplete for keys and voices" — please help complete it, instead of complaining. BTW, for "voices" it is complete afaik, unless something has slipped. If you see such slips, again, amend them instead of complaining. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support the merge, did you hear me? So many articles are in need of expansion or to be written. This article was like this until recently, when I started improving. I have other priorities. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hear "don't do this", "don't do that" a lot. I choose to ignore it unless a reason is given (then, depends on the content of the reason whether I act upon it, reply to it, etc...).

The reasons given here for not merging are still rather lightweight imho:

improvements to the integrated version are possible... of course... but as such not a reason pro or contra the merge. All articles can be improved I suppose, which is unrelated to a merge discussion. If this translates into: I agree to the merge once the integrated version is better streamlined, then OK I can live with it. But this has nothing to do with the discussion of the question whether or not to merge.
readability of the integrated article: I see nothing that can't be solved with improvements like those mentioned in the previous point. So unless there is a structural impossibility to get the readability sorted I see no problem. And no structural reasons are given.
rest of it resumes to "personal taste" afaics, no problem with that, but doesn't convince me.

The reasons I have given in favour of a merge relate to structural deficiencies, as in permanent, not to be solved by mainspace cleanup (unless that "cleanup" consists of replacing the entire content of one article with a redirect). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please first present your reasons for a merge, which should have been the first thing in the socalled discussion, preceding actions on the articles? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 19 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]

You fail to understand the difference between a useful "spinoff" from a main article versus a WP:POVFORK, which is discouraged. Here, there clearly is an adequate amount of material to WP:SPLIT the article into sub-articles. Appropriate links back to the parent article are fine, but there needs to be summaries and not just a redirect. See, e.g., an article I worked on a while back, totally unrelated to music: Equine anatomy. We have separate articles on the circulatory system, skeletal system, etc.; but still keep the main article. It's not a fork to expand on critical sub-components of a system, biological or musical. Montanabw^(talk) 20:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the ad hominems, I understand the "spinoff" vs. "content fork" well enough, I wrote a significant part of the relevant guidance, as I mentioned on your talk page.

This is however not a spinoff, but a content fork. BWV 243 is in no way a subsidiary article of BWV 243a. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my previous statement, nothing ad hominem about stating that I don't agree with your reasoning and I question your logic. I am not arguing that 243 is subsidiary, I'm arguing tha 243a is an appropriate spinoff. It is merely your personal opinion that it doesn't need to be a separate article; I see no logical reason why it should not be. You are creating a lot of drama by your insistence on creating merges of material that is detailed and useful expansions from a main topic. You also are on a one-person crusade and have a lot of folks who disagree with your views. How about working for a compromise of some sort? Montanabw^(talk) 21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "merge" is discussed above in #Merge suggestion. This talk page section is called #Instead of merge.

So are you suggesting WP:Summary style for either Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 or Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a? Or any other compromise (that is not a merge)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying, do not merge, and don't get obsessed about which article is junior or senior to the other. Each article can develop on its own, and where a cross-link is appropriate, the {{mian}} can be used. Clearly, 243a will have more detail about itself and 243 will be treating 243a with less detail. Montanabw^(talk) 02:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page section is about alternatives to a merge. If you are "saying, do not merge", do so in the appropriate talk page section. Note that I get remarks on my user talk page about this discussion being fragmented: I'm not responsible for that fragmenting. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 55: / Line 55: @@
 ::::* rest of it resumes to "personal taste" afaics, no problem with that, but doesn't convince me.
 ::::The reasons I have given in favour of a merge relate to ''structural'' deficiencies, as in ''permanent'', not to be solved by mainspace cleanup (unless that "cleanup" consists of replacing the entire content of one article with a redirect). --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 10:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
+::::: Would you please first present your reasons for a merge, which should have been the first thing in the socalled discussion, preceding actions on the articles? --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 11:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 == Instead of merge ==