Talk:Bach's Missa of 1733

History

The article contains text from Sophienkirche.

When I added that in 2013 I didn't know how to properly attribute that, and didn't sign. Today, that passage will be expanded, no more copy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Blanking

Whoever blanked and redirected this article did so inappropriately and without discussion or consensus. This should not have happened and I have restored the work. Montanabw^(talk) 23:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion is now at Talk:Bach's church music in Latin#‎Content of article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

That discussion is still there, but I have restored this talk page, having restored the article to the pre-redirect state. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Name

What about renaming this to Mass for the court at Dresden (Bach), seems the most consistent name across the sources I've read on this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Good for a redirect, but very long, and very English. Missa of 1733 (Bach)? Butt has (unfortunately on page 7 which is not shown online, but it's in the TOC): The Missa of 1733. I think Missa is better than Mass, which suggests a complete mass, while several readers may understand Missa = Kyrie and Gloria, see Missa brevis (this ambiguous term). Our concert poster for 1 February will say Missa 1733, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Rules for article titling see WP:AT, in particular the summary in WP:CRITERIA on that policy page. In what follows I use "recognizability", "naturalness" and "conciseness" in their meaning as "criteria" per the policy.
2. "Missa of 1733" (even when the (Bach) disambiguator is added) misses basic recognisability, only one source apparently. "for the court at Dresden" is consistent throughout almost any source (I mean those I know, but I would be surprised this is not mentioned elsewhere too when this composition is discussed).
3. Missa/Mass: also, would prefer the more recognisable English word, but might be persuaded if it can be shown "Missa" is used more often in reliable sources.
4. Re. conciseness: I'd prefer the recognisability and naturalness of "for the court at Dresden" over the conciseness of "of 1733" in this case. Could live with Mass for the Dresden court (Bach), a little bit more concise. Note that "Mass" is also one letter more concise than "Missa". --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Recognizability made me choose the present title because it associates with the Mass in B minor more than the alternatives. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"Missa" is the Latin word for "Mass" (who knows Missa may have a special meaning in this context? - which is all in all unproven too, the Mass in B minor is a "Missa in B minor" too). So lacks recognizability. Or to be more precise, fails WP:SMALLDETAILS.

Is a fast agreement on this possible? If not, I'd go to WP:RM without much further ado. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why this work should be treated differently from others (Piano Sonata, Requiem). "Mass for the court at Dresden" is a description, not a title. Mass suggests a complete mass, - I find it misleading for this one. If we go the description way: Kyrie and Gloria in B minor (Bach)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Missa (Latin word for "Mass") is on the front page of the manuscript. Same for BWV 232.

Descriptive titles are OK, many on Bach compositions have them, specifically as in this case there's no official BWV number (so no "official" name in the BWV catalogue that could be depended upon).

Missa in B minor is not the recognizability for this specific composition. It raises doubts again why this should have a separate page. The recognizability of this specific article, which is about the (short in text but large in dimensions) Mass Bach wrote for the Dresden court in 1733, not about the Kyrie and Gloria (of the Mass) in B minor, which are treated extensively in other pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it matters to our considerations that Bach himself simply wrote Missa on the title page for Kyrie and Gloria. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

In Wikipedia article titling it is customary to look at the orginal name given by the original creator to the creation (in any case when there's no obvious commonly used name). I don't say that would necessarily be the most determining factor in the name chosen at Wikipedia, but, for instance, for articles on operas that usually leads to the article title being the name in the original language. Re. "Kyrie and Gloria" article title: no, not customary to indicate this composition, not in Bach's time, not in the later pieces written about it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

In the complete mass, the title page is not a title page for the complete work, but only for the first of the four books which contains Kyrie and Gloria: No. 1 Missa. The second is Symbolum Nicenum. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

→ WP:RM. The procedure is explained on the page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I know how the procedure works, or rather: not works. Der Fliegende Holländer, A Boy was Born, long arguments, and finally the name by the composer still not taken. - Do you have a source for Missa ever been used in English for the complete Mass in B minor? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Really? WP:RM works fine. I have initiated dozens, participated in many, many more and have no complaints. Maybe different for those who see Wikipedia as a battleground? This is about the 1733 composition for the Dresden court not about "(what)ever (name that would have) been used in English for the complete Mass in B minor". If you think Missa in B minor (Bach) should not be a disambiguation page, take it up at Talk:Missa in B minor (Bach). --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Francis, it appears to me that if you depart from Bach's actual titles, you are engaging in WP:OR or [{WP:SYNTH]]. If you "have no complaints" that is irrelevant; you are either correct or you are incorrect, adn if you are incorrect, it is irrelevant if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because verifiability is one of the WP pillars and trumps your opinions. I fail to see any benefit to what you are doing, particularly when it appears that you are making things up, or at best, stretching the scholarahip. Montanabw^(talk) 23:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Missa in B minor for the 1733 mass for the Dresden court is WP:OR. It is in none of the sources I have seen on the work (maybe I haven't seen them all, but thus far I see nobody bring one here either). The descriptive title Mass for the Dresden court is confirmed by all the sources that discuss it. So, unless someone can explain what the exact problem would be with that, I'm not convinced there would be any. WP:RM *is* the Wikipedia procedure to follow when one can't agree about an article titling issue. Personal likes or dislikes of the procedure (or good/bad experiences with it) are completely and utterly irrelevant. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(The RM I will not forget and had in mind was to get "Moonlight Sonata" back to a serious name, took two weeks.) "Missa" for the work in question is not OR, but the term that Bach himself wrote on the title page. I would like to see it in our title also. There are VERY feW works (compared to his output) for which Bach made a title page. We can't say Missa (Bach), because he wrote five of them. The normal next disambiguation for compositions is by key, that made me add "in B minor". I added "(Bach)" also, for clarity, as you, Francis, added "(Schubert)" to piano sonatas, - but here it is not even needed, because there is no other. Next suggestions therefore Missa for the court in Dresden and Missa in B minor, to be discussed in peace. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Gerda's "In the complete mass, the title page is not a title page for the complete work, but only for the first of the four books which contains Kyrie and Gloria..." [1] *is* OR. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not. Kindly look at the autograph score (first link in Sources): No. 1 Missa, No. 2 Symbolum Nicenum etc. - (If it was for the complete mass, Bach would have missed the double chorus of No. 4, for example, which he listed on No. 4 Osanna ...: "... 2 Soprani / 2 Alti ...".) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

*Still* textbook OR. I've read diverse interpretations on how and why Bach assembled his Hohe Messe (BWV 232), never this one. Unless a RS can be shown that favours this interpretation: OR.

And, futile discussion. If there's no real objection to the current article title we need not go into a discussion of a possible article title that, whatever way one turns it, has some ambiguity and would certainly have WP:SMALLDETAILS issues. Equals battleground behaviour from where I'm standing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it is not futile to consider to use the name the composer used. The four parts with four title pages but none for the complete work are described like that in the German Wikipedia, sourced to "Blankenburg: Einführung in Bachs h-moll-Messe. 1996, S. 12f.", and in our general article, Mass in B minor#Title. - Bach didn't give a title to the complete work, but to this part of it: Missa. Why you suggest RM instead of simply moving to Missa for the court in Dresden I don't understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The issue is OR while we don't know whether or not Bach would have accepted the name "Missa" for the Hohe Messe (BWV 232) as a whole (and that's what you're contending). We don't know it. No commentators indicate Bach would have been averse to the notion. Interpreting Missa (latin for Mass) cannot refer to the whole composition is the OR.

When I said "futile" above I didn't refer to that. I referred to the fact that we don't need a WP:RM or whatever continuation of the naming discussion of Mass for the Dresden court when that name is unproblematic. I think it is. However much I try I see no real objection to that.

Re. "moving to Missa for the court in Dresden": Missa for the court at Dresden is used too. And Missa translates to Mass in English (see WP:USEENGLISH). Reasonable arguments in a WP:RM — on the other hand I see your invitation to continue moving this page around without WP:RM or consensus ("Why you suggest RM instead of simply moving..." [2]) as a continuation of your disruptive battleground behaviour in this matter (see [3]) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought we were looking for the best possible title. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

[4] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

→ WP:RM when you can't agree with what I see as the best possible solution. I have my arguments. You have yours. Let's see what others think, via a usual and non-disruptive channel. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

...and Philippe Herreweghe calling the entire BWV 232 a "Missa" [5] --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Unimpressed. A recording label, perhaps after looking superficially at the autograph, and/or trying to be different, - relevant? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, back to square one. Take to WP:RM if you think you have a viable alternative article title that could replace the current one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

& please stop complaining about the WP:RM procedure. I'll repeat and expand my objections there if needed. The complaints about RM (now dragging in Beethoven's piano composition) are completely and utterly irrelevant, as I said. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Smith?

Smith, Tim. "Assembly of the Mass" (PDF). London Bach Society. Retrieved 29 October 2014.

I have my doubts about this ref:

• How is Tim Smith and/or the "Assembly of the Mass" pdf related to the London Bach Society? All indicators seem to point to a US-based source (digitalbach.com, oregonbachfestival.com, bach.nau.edu — apparently some of these are even blacklisted, can't make them show up as clickable links?)
• At first glance I don't see a Wikipedia:Reliable source, more like an essay that would maybe pass at school, I'm not too sure about its scholarly level (even when picked from a university website):
  • "The first hint of what we now call the "Mass in B Minor" came in 1733." What about the 1724 Sanctus, mentioned in almost all sources?
  • "The KYRIE may have been written to lament the King's death, and the GLORIA to celebrate the accession of his son." seems like an exceptional claim needing a stronger source in Wikipedia context, see WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

Is there any additional info on the author and/or on peer review of this source?

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I am in the process to find sources for things I didn't bring in myself, the "lament" thing was copied from the church where a long sentence comes with two offline sources. I found this Smith. Thanks for pointing out that I missed changing the publisher when I copied from another source, sorry about that. The publishing site is linked to from the Oregon Bach Festival [6]. - One approach is to drop the "possible lament" thing, another to find a better source. - I disagree that the Sanctus of 1724 would be a "hint" of a mass, - I think it was a piece for Christmas, not meant for a larger context. - I will look for at least one more source for the unneeded claim, and drop it if I don't find one fast. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

dropped --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Cuius regio, eius religio

Maybe somewhat of the Cuius regio, eius religio should be explained to clarify why in this case Bach wrote a Mass that formally was as well a Lutheran Missa in the region where he lived (and that was non-compromising on Catholics) as a Catholic Missa brevis for the ruler he sent the composition to. This is also the background of why the dimensions of the mass were far beyond what a usual Missa brevis would be in those days. I've read that explanation somewhere (including the cuius regio, eius religio quote), and will see whether I can find it again to bolster up the article.

A general consideration regarding the raison d'être of the Mass for the Dresden court being a topic that deserves separate treatment in Wikipedia: it's all about the specifics for this composition. The key to that, as far as I can see, is the dedication to the ruler at Dresden, well documented (e.g. in the letter Bach wrote in 1733). The other info is rather "tangent" to the core of this article (e.g. how it got incorporated in BWV 232, how it was "maybe" performed in the Sophienkirche, etc...). These "tangent" topics have their own articles. The dedication to August had lost its value by the time Bach incorporated the piece in the larger Mass composition at the end of its life, so a "tangent" topic for that article, but "specific" for the 1733 Missa. I see the current excellent updates by Gerda going in that direction, just trying to clarify what for me is the criterion on why we should have a separate article on this composition (that otherwise was fully absorbed in the Mass in B minor). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Religio: go ahead, use it, add it, perhaps in the "Latin" article because it is relevant to many of those pieces, used in Leipzig liturgy. Butt has something on Catholic Dresden also concentrating on Kyrie and Gloria, which is about the opposite. He has may details on usage of Latin in Leipzig (p 4 and around), explaining for example why Sanctus was separated from Osanna. Those details would also make sense in the general article, putting the pieces more in perspective. I believe that the Missa and the Mass are different crucial points in Bach's history, as the settings of Magnificat. Bach's reach for Dresden (away from Leipzig) is worth mentioning in an article related to him, not only on a church or elector. - I will get more details from Butt and the Carus publishing, but it will take time that I don't have today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Some of the details are of course also tangent to this article, but central to the Johann Sebastian Bach biographical article, e.g. that Bach eventually, several years later, received the recognition from the Dresden court he was petitioning with his 1733 letter and composition: part and parcel of the biography, tangential to the composition (while it isn't even very clear whether the composition was instrumental to that recognition), however best to mention in this article too I think.

As far as I know the cuius regio, eius religio played most demonstrably for the Mass for the Dresden court. If I remember well, whether or not it played for other compositions like the BWV 233-236 Missa's and the eventual BWV 232 Mass (or even the Magnificat versions) is more a matter of speculation. At least some of that speculation can be traced back to some sort of posthumous Catholic zeal to incorporate protestant Bach('s music) in the Catholic canon without scruples. Oecumenism can only be attributed to Bach retro-actively, the concept had no traction (at least not for what we understand by it post-Vatican II) at the time, while the only apparent rule then was the cuius regio, eius religio, which composers generally abided to without voicing their opinion on the matter openly (that's why so much on that is speculation for Bach). If I remember well the 1733 dedication letter he sent to Dresden is the most remarkable of the less covert exceptions to that, so yes, quite specific to this article, more tangential to the others. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Good thoughts, will consider, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

BTW

BTW, is there any source that discusses this work separately, I mean, not in the narrative of the genesis of BWV 232? --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Plan of Dresden

This excerpt of a 1828 plan of Dresden shows the location of the court (opera) theatre that in the 1660s was built at the Taschenberg adjacent to the Elector's palace as designed by Wolf Caspar von Klengel, then in 1708 transformed into the Catholic Hofkirche, and by the time this plan was drawn, after building among others the Katholische Kirche (1739-1751), transformed into an archive (indicated as "Archiv" in the middle of this picture), until its demolition in 1888. The location of the Sophienkirche is shown in the lower part of this plan excerpt.

This is a great plan, thank you, Francis! I believe that it would help readers to have the German names and their translations together, to understand better that the plan was made after what Bach knew at the time the piece was composed.

• Archiv (Archive), formerly Opernhaus am Taschenberg (Opera house at the Taschenberg, completed 1667), then Hofkapelle (Court chapel, from 1708), place of a intended performance, not to be confused with
• Katholische Kirche (Catholic church), Hofkirche, Dresden (completed 1755)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Note the ambiguity of Kapelle/Chapel:

• building, e.g. Burgkapelle - Castle chapel
• musical ensemble, e.g. Kapellmeister - Chapel master

Hofkapelle can mean either the building, or the group of court musicians

Regarding what happened to the Opernhaus am Taschenberg in 1708:

• converted to Hofkirche according to most sources (e.g. Stockigt 2013)
• sometimes also Hofkapelle, e.g. Ermisch 1888

The difference being Kapelle/chapel would indicate private use for courtiers only, Kirche/church would indicate it is open to the general public. With its capacity for 2000 people, and being open to the general public, the Opernhaus was converted into a Kirche/church. Although in a certain sense it was also a Kapelle/chapel attached to the Royal Palace, while Catholicism was not the religion of the region in the cuius regio, eius religio sense and only confined to the court.

The author of http://www.earlymusicworld.com/id16.html gets confused: "...the court had no dedicated chapel for worship until 1708, in which year the former court theatre was redesigned as a chapel in accordance with his own taste and design. The first public Catholic church in the city was opened in the same year..." - in fact it was the same building, the same chapel/Kapelle/church/Kirche, see e.g. Musical chronicle of the city of Dresden factsheet and Exploring Bach's B-minor Mass page 27

So let's not add to the "Kapelle"-related confusions... --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, if Hofkirche is confusing with the later building (currently cathedral), see Hofkirche#Dresden - in fact there were three separate buildings that were at least for some time called "Hofkirche" in Dresden. In 1733, however, there was only one, the one in the former "Klengelsches Opernhaus". --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

See also this footnote I had added to take away the confusion: Mass_for_the_Dresden_court_(Bach)#cite_note-18 --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

How do you suggest then to distinguish the building that served as Hofkirche in 1733 (the former opera house, called Opernhaus am Taschenberg in the German Wikipedia, converted to a church around 1708) and the building known as the Hofkirche today, built from 1737 to 1755 (which Bach could hardly "know" when he composed the piece this article is about, and which nobody I know calls Dresden Cathedral, see de:Katholische Hofkirche)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, Mass_for_the_Dresden_court_(Bach)#cite_note-18 deals with it (click the link) --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The footnote is good. I missed it so far and am afraid that might happen to others. Would you mind to have it with the first mentioning of Hofkirche in both text and image caption, right after the word, not the sentence? And if you find Hofkapelle confusing, why do you use it at all when speaking of the building? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I was planning on a WP:REFGROUP for the explanatory notes above the list of source-citing references, once I've finished reading File:Ermisch Das alte Archivgebäude am Taschenberge in Dresden.pdf (I'm halfway through it, but the 19th century German isn't too easy, e.g. took me some time before I found out what he meant by Risse). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine! I enjoy what you do here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Re. [7]:

1. for this page discuss here;
2. for the general problem: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox#Issue 1: visibility of infoboxes in generated PDF

--Francis Schonken (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I think non-inclusion in the generated PDF is a good reason (a good reason suffises for infobox removal, per MoS). The image of the frontispiece of the manuscript score, including the caption content, is an essential part of the article. If it goes missing in the PDF version such PDF version is an incomplete rendering of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I separated WP:LEADIMAGE (&caption) from remainder of the infobox (which I kept) [8], as a temporary workaround until this discussion is concluded.

I don't think an infobox without image under a PDF-able lead image + caption is a very elegant solution visually, and I would remove the infobox under the image, unless someone can suggest a more optimal solution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think non-inclusion in a generated pdf is a completely insufficient reason to remove an infobox. If this should be a MoS issue, you need to cite the guideline that supports your assertion. Despite your claims, printing an article includes the infobox, so there is no problem there. Every single one of the 2.5 million infoboxes on Wikipedia is omitted from generated pdfs - are you suggesting that is sufficient reason to remove all of them? If there is any demand for infoboxes to be included in generated pdfs - and I'm unaware of any - then the solution is to change how pdfs are generated, not to remove infoboxes. --RexxS (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that separating the lead image from the infobox is inelegant and I will restore the infox in full, pending any proof that anybody is inconvenienced by the lack of the infobox in a pdf version of the article. --RexxS (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no claim "printing" is the problem.

MoS quotation: "I defer to WP:STYLEVAR, which states: "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason." (quoted from here) --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You claimed printing is the problem (see your recent edit: "apparently the image isn't printed/PDF-ed when enclosed in a navbox"- have you forgotten that so soon? (Actually printing is the solution to the problem). The style and formatting of the article was Mos-compliant before you removed the infobox for spurious reasons. Infoboxes have always been allowed by MoS and you need consensus to remove one. --RexxS (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm inconvenienced by it. Proof. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Then simply use the browser print option to print to a pdf file. That's your inconvenience removed at a stroke. --RexxS (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the two-column layout of the generated PDF, which is easier for reading on paper too.

And that is not the point: I don't want incomplete versions of an article to which I collaborated heavily to get it right to be spread in an incomplete version so easily. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And others will prefer a single column, which is actually easier for reading on paper. It is exactly the point: you don't own these articles no matter how much you've collaborated on them and your preference is no more than a single editor's preference: you don't have consensus to remove the infobox under such nebulous pretences. --RexxS (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The point is that no one owns an article so what one wants cannot be an issue. Problems with printing hard copy versions of this encyclopedia are not solved by removing something in the online version. I'm sorry to say but that sounds like an excuse to remove the infobox rather than a solution to problem one has when printing. This is an online encyclopedia; how that online and the master version reads has to be considered first. There is no good reason given to remove this infobox.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC))

The point is I'm entitled to my own opinion, for the reasons I have given.

Confusing having my opinion, founded in the reasons I have given, with claiming ownership is missing the point. I don't claim ownership and defer to consensus.

But then, claiming my reasons "no good" in an absolute sense is not what's going to convince me to change my point of view (neither citing a false allegation about "ownership" and the like), so this kind of mongering is not conducing to an approach of consensus. I'm open to reasonable arguments and unless they are given I don't see a consensus approaching here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

At no time did i suggest you could not have an opinion; and I have no desire to change your or anyone's opinion or point of view. In fact, I honour your and every editor's right to have an opinion. I have concerns with you using those opinions and POVs to make the kinds of edits you are suggesting on this article. You do not give a reason per WP to remove or adjust infoboxes to suit printing needs. While I can understand the frustration, you must understand that the reasons you are using here if applied further would mean an editor could remove any info box because of the claim that one can't print the article page in an accurate way. How does that make any sense? What makes sense is to maintain the integrity of the online article while looking for ways to print as accurately as possible. We cater to online readers not the possibility that a page will not be printed the way we as editors would like to see it printed. If you are following consensus then seems there is no support for your changes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. "You do not give a reason per WP": I did. Read. Fishing for me to repeat myself is not an honest argument.

Re. "frustration": further mongering, there's no frustration.

Re. Wider discussion: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox#Issue 1: visibility of infoboxes in generated PDF. The current discussion is only about the current article. About the general issues I said none of the things you contend. So, if you want to reply to what I actually said, take part in the general discussion as linked, not give replies here on general issues regarding points I didn't make.

Re. "If you are following consensus then seems there is no support for your changes", again you are implying that my "one" opinion in the matter is negligeable against "two" other opinions, and in general you're not interested in finding consensus by sanity of arguments, but by weight of numbers you assume invariable. Please then, !vote and spare us the arguments, if you say for yourself you can't be convinced by a sound argument. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose retaining infobox for this article, for the reasons given above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Francis.These are strawmen arguments. If you want to start an RfC I'm sure you will get votes on the issue.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC))

I think the choice is yours, either you believe a good argument can convince another contributor, or you continue on a path of belittleing as a replacement for argumentation, then for your own sake just have the !vote, it will carry more weight than the non-argumentation on content matters. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Late to this, Francis, I have simple question. If I understand you right (I am not at all sure) you want to have the infobox removed because in a certain printout it doesn't appear?? It doesn't appear if it's in the the article or not, your print result is the same, no? Why then do you want it removed? An infobox should only contain information from the body of the article anyway, and will serve some readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said above, please familiarize yourself with what I said, before making unrelated comments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I will not read more, I have no time for it and learned a bit about letting go what's less important. I don't have to repeat that I am for keeping the infobox, any infobox, it's known well enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds somewhat like a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT argument to me. Anyway, for the time being,

• The infobox is kept in the article;
• The WP:LEADIMAGE and its caption are kept in the article, outside the infobox: it is kept in whatever automatically generated version of the article, which it should while it belongs to the article, the article is incomplete without it — until a more permanent solution is found (see next bullet)
• Discussion of the general point, and how to solve it is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox#Issue 1: visibility of infoboxes in generated PDF, and that's imho where the general discussion should stay, until matters are resolved.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Missa

The title page bears the name Missa. I believe that it show bold in the first sentnce.

The workd is known as Missa in B minor, BWV 232 I. I believe that redirect should go here, ot to a subheader in Mass in B minor, within Structure, which gives the reader no historic background.

Even better: rename this article (as it was) to Missa in B minor, BWV 232 I. If Mass for the Dresden court is kept, is does not need the dab (Bach), as there is no other, if I understand JHunterJ right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Most (if not all) of Zelenka's masses were written for the Dresden court, including these on which separate articles exist in Wikipedia:
  • Missa Sanctissimae Trinitatis
  • Missa Votiva

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Re. "The work(d) is known as Missa in B minor, BWV 232 I" – where? This would usually refer to the later version, i.e. Missa, Part I of the Mass in B minor (BWV 232), unless with an additional qualifier such as "a", "1733", "Frühfassung", "(early version)", or the like. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• This mass bears the name Missa (without the addition of solemnis or whatever) in the composer's autograph. In the lead paragraph of Wikipedia's article on that composition "Missa" is only mentioned immediately followed by the qualifier "solemnis"; similar for this article on Bach's composition: unqualified "Missa" in the composer's autograph, qualified with "brevis" in the lead paragraph. I see no need to press that in the first sentence, which, imho, has more important matters to attend to. Missa is nothing else than the Latin word for Mass (or Mass (music) when talking about a composition). Such Latin expressions are usually translated in English, that is in English Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  Please make a Mass for the Dresden court dab page then, if you don't want to see it moved by some editor going for "unique title is enough".

  Sorry, I have no time for the intricacies of BWV numbering now. You may be right.

  If not in the first sentence, please have Missa bold somewhere soon, for people rubbing their eyes not having to scroll to see what they came for mentioned. I never heard of Mass for the Dresden court until you introduced that, and if that's the title of the article see no reason not to say Mass for the Dresden court (Missa in B minor). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  Mass for the Dresden court is already a dab page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  Re. "... Missa in B minor ..." – where is this used in a reliable source? The Bach Digital page doesn't exactly have it that way, and I can't remember having it seen anywhere else in an external source. It should be an exceptionally common way to refer to the composition to burden the first sentence with it: name variants (none of which appear particularly more common than others) are extensively treated in the third paragraph of the intro. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  Thank you for the dab. Sorry, I know the piece as The Missa, and - when reaching the article - would doubt I arrived at the right article until I look at the image. Perhaps I'm the only one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • "these are masses written for the Dresden court" is not "these are topics known as Mass for the Dresden court". I've cleaned up the disambiguation page. If the right title for the Bach work is "Mass for the Dresden court", it doesn't need a qualifier on English Wikipedia since there's not currently any ambiguity on English Wikipedia for that title. If the right title for the Bach work is something else, then it may or may not need the qualifier, depending on whether that something else is ambiguous. Either way, Mass for the Dresden court (Bach) is currently wrong. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

    Mass for the Dresden court now redirected elsewhere; there's nothing wrong with Mass for the Dresden court (Bach), but you may have a better idea, in which case I'd suggest a WP:RM: see previous discussion above at #Name – I'd be wary to change the name again without a properly conducted RM. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

    Yes, it's wrong as it is because WP:PRECISION and the classical music naming conventions. If you have a better idea for the base name, I'd suggest WP:RM, but there's no ambiguity for the current name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

    No more page moves without WP:RM please, I explained that. Mass for the Dresden court is now a redirect to a logical place, with precision and what not. Redirecting it to a single composition by Bach lacks all precision, that is in the WP:PRECISION sense. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

    Re. "...classical music naming conventions" – WP:NCM#Key signature, catalogue number, opus number, and other additions to a composition's article title has, under "Disambiguate by last name only?": "Only when period, style, way of naming compositions etc can be confusing the added first name can give additional clarity, e.g. Requiem (Michael Haydn). A particular example of this is Johann Sebastian Bach and his many composing namesakes. Conventionally J. S. Bach's compositions would be the primary topic in any genre, i.e. without disambiguating term (Brandenburg Concertos) if not needed, and disambiguated or serialized by BWV number (Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor, BWV 582) or (Bach) parenthetical disambiguating term (Orchestral suites (Bach)). ..." (disclosure: as far as I can remember I wrote that) – the case for BWV 232 I (early version) is imho closest to the last example, i.e. Orchestral suites (Bach). There is currently no Orchestral suites (I mean, that is a redlink), but if there were it would be a redirect to Orchestral suite, not to Orchestral suites (Bach).

    Note that "Mass for the Dresden court" is inherently ambiguous, while, of course, many masses were composed for that court; Dresden is also not commonly associated with Bach, nor Bach with Dresden: he never lived there, and this is probably the only composition by this composer that can with certainty be associated with that city (association of other Bach compositions with that city is mostly educated guesswork). It is also a descriptive title that fits many compositions (not like Brandenburg Concertos, of which only one set is known, that is the set composed by Bach). "Mass for the Dresden court" is also not really a common name for this composition, while it never really had a very common name: it may be the most common name (two or three sources, compared to at most one or two for competitor names), but that doesn't make the name commonly recognisable as belonging to Bach: it is imho impossible to establish "primary topic" on such scarcity of sources, that is without naming the composer. Also the WP:NCM guideline is not about establishing Bach as primary topic for any pagename, but that compared to his namesakes one could use his name for disambiguation without adding initials (like one would have to do for his composing namesakes). --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

    @JHunterJ: if you have admin privileges, could you please restore the edit history of the Mass for the Dresden court redirect, that is the edit history before you deleted that page earlier today (i.e. the delete to make way for a page move)? As far as I can remember that edit history was not trivial, and I would like to be able to access it for future reference. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Thinking out loud

Was thinking about Wikipedia pages about Handel's Messiah:

• Over-all pages: Messiah (Handel) and Structure of Handel's Messiah
• By Part pages: Messiah Part I, Messiah Part II and Messiah Part III

Similarly we could do, for Bach's Mass in B minor:

• Mass in B minor and Mass in B minor structure (already exist)
• Mass in B minor, Part I, Mass in B minor, Part II, Mass in B minor, Part III, and Mass in B minor, Part IV: in which case Mass for the Dresden court (Bach) could form the basis for the first of these. Early versions (which also exist for Part II and Part III) could be discussed in these "by Part" articles, as well as a detailed description of the movements (some of which could probably be borrowed/transferred from the main articles).

An added bonus is that any (remaining) naming issue for the article on the 1733 Missa in B minor would automatically be dissipated. Another added bonus is that we could easily get Missa in the first sentence of the Part I article, something like this:

Part I of Johann Sebastian Bach's late 1740s Mass in B minor, BWV 232, is named Missa and consists of a setting of the Kyrie and the Gloria, which in an earlier version of 1733, likewise called Missa by the composer, formed a stand-alone Kyrie–Gloria mass. ...

--Francis Schonken (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Also thinking: the big difference is that while Handel composed Messiah as one complete piece at one time, and the split in Parts I to III was done only because a table of all movements in one article seemed too much for one article, Bach's Missa of 1733 was written at a completely different time than the compilation of the Missa tota at the end of his life. - I like the treatment of the historic situation in 1733, but don't think that a separation of the added parts would help. In most performances of the Mass in B minor, the whole work will be given. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, if we can put naming and intro discussions to rest (can we?)

That being said, the reasoning seems particularly twisted:

• Handel's Messiah was composed as a whole, therefore it is OK that Wikipedia has separate articles on each part
• Bach's Mass in B minor was not composed as a whole, with three of its four parts having unrelated clear earlier versions, therefore Wikipedia should not have separate articles on these parts.

Whatever makes you tick..., but, as said, I'd simply be happy if we can, after more than 5 years of regurgitating discussions, put an end to these discussions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 11 March 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Bach's Missa of 1733 — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

---

Mass for the Dresden court (Bach) → Mass for the Dresden court – Enwiki has only one article with this title and disambiguation is not required. Move the article over the current redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. BD2412 T 02:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – the Mass for the Dresden court redirect goes elsewhere: it doesn't redirect to this page. It goes to where several masses written for the Dresden court (some of them with Wikipedia articles) are listed – as if Bach would've been the only one to have composed such Mass. So disambiguation *is* needed, in this case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Mass for the Dresden court redirects to Outline of Dresden#Music of Dresden which only lists one piece of music called "Mass for the Dresden court" (the Bach one). Any remaining ambiguity could be dealt with using a hatnote. It doesn't matter that other composers may have written such a Mass, in disambiguation it matters whether or not Enwiki has an article about it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Mass for the Dresden court should redirect to Outline of Dresden#Music of Dresden, which lists several masses written for the Dresden court. Outline of Dresden is not a disambiguation page (so DAB page rules are of no relevance). "Mass for the Dresden court" is a descriptive name, and many compositions can be indicated as a "Mass for the Dresden court". Wikipedia has at least four separate articles about compositions that can be indicated as "Mass for the Dresden court", listed at Outline of Dresden#Music of Dresden, and Bach's composition is certainly not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC among the compositions that can be desccribed with that name. See also preliminary discussions above: "Mass for the Dresden court" is not even a common name for Bach's composition, because the composition does not have a common name (last time I checked I couldn't even find five reliable sources that used exactly *this* name for Bach's composition), so that's why a descriptive name (that definitely needs disambiguation) was used. Even in scholarly literature this composition gets all sorts of names, none of them more common than any other: each name variant has, at most, one or two references in scholarly sources. But I'd be glad to move this page to a more technically correct name such as Kyrie–Gloria Mass, BWV 232 I (early version), which also aligns better with the current page name of Kyrie–Gloria masses, BWV 233–236, about the four other compositions in the genre written by Bach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding a parenthetical composer name added to article titles that are perfectly unambiguous without that addition (which isn't even the case here) I can also refer to the discussion we had at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 54#Schubert Sonata Articles Renamed, and the confirmation that "(Schubert)" should be added to a whole range of article titles that were unambiguous without it at Talk:Wiegenlied, D 498 (Schubert)#Requested moves. In the present case the article title isn't even unambiguous without the parenthetical composer name addition, and it is perfectly tenable to keep it to avoid ambiguity. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Wikipedia:Article titles#Disambiguation cites this article as an example of combinatorial disambiguation, apparently sanctioning the current title. Jmar67 (talk) 12:07, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Yes, WP:AT gives it as an example, saying it is "exceptional, in most cases to be avoided per WP:CONCISE", without making the basis of the exception clear. The remedy is to remove it from the list of examples. Even were it to stay at the current title, Mass for the Dresden court should target it, not a section in an article that barely mentions it. 94.21.219.87 (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

  Re. "The remedy is to remove it from the list of examples" – actually, no, we don't rewrite policies so that one side in a naming discussion can get the upper hand. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:29, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Huh? It's listed as an example of an exception to MoS policy, i.e. something that doesn't meet policy. If it is changed so that it does meet MoS policy, it can be removed from the list of exceptions. Same IP as above 94.21.10.195 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Please distinguish WP:AT (policy) and WP:MoS (guideline) – the current WP:RM falls under the AT policy: the MoS guidance is something else (and not policy).

The current article title, Mass for the Dresden court (Bach), does not only conform to the AT policy, it *is* policy.

Please distinguish between exceptional cases sanctioned by (AT) policy, such as the current article title, and exceptions to the (AT) policy, which the current article title is not.

Even if it weren't used as an example in the AT policy, the current article title conforms to that policy, while the proposed alternative, Mass for the Dresden court, does not – the latter can mean any Mass for the Dresden court, of which there are at least four examples listed (with separate Wikipedia articles) where that article title redirects to. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Leaning support. Even if there are multiple masses for the Dresden court, that is not the end of the inquiry. Is there a primary Mass for the Dresden court? Seeing the options, Bach is by far the most noted composer listed, and therefore likely the composer of the primary piece of this name. BD2412 T 02:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Really? Did you read any of the above? –

• "Is there a primary Mass for the Dresden court?" – This question has been answered multiple times before, see above: No, this Mass is certainly not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the description "Mass for the Dresden court".
• Re. "... piece of this name" – as said, multiple times, see above: "Mass for the Dresden court" isn't a "name" of any piece of church music but a "description", while any author writing about the piece gives it a different name or description. Totally lacking a WP:COMMONNAME, a description was chosen as Wikipedia article title, but that description ("Mass for the Dresden court") applies to many pieces of music, some of which are, indeed, more often performed than this piece (which is only exceptionally performed as a separate piece, in its original format, and without post-1733 adjustments).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME this is the Missa brevis in B minor (Bach). The current title might be known to a few book readers, but music listeners will know it by common name - as an early chunk of the Mass in B minor. Likewise Missa brevis in A Major and Missa brevis in G Minor. Forget the others. See support for alternative below. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • re. "per WP:COMMONNAME this is the Missa brevis in B minor (Bach)" – it isn't, and no idea where you got that. Can you demonstrate that name's "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" (quote taken from the WP:COMMONNAME policy)? I don't think so. I haven't seen a single reliable English-language source use that name, so please show us at least a few, thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Other proposal

Proposing to move Mass for the Dresden court (Bach) to Bach's Missa of 1733. Rationale: Tomita, Yo (2016). "Manuscripts". In Leaver, Robin A. (ed.). The Routledge Research Companion to Johann Sebastian Bach. Taylor & Francis. p. 57. ISBN 9781315452807. Quote from that page:

... Bach ... performance parts of the Missa of 1733 ... (boldface emphasis added, italics as in original)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support for that one, with or (better) without the italics. It IS a Missa, and in Wikipedia we don't italicise generic names, - perhaps the book has a different styling guide. It would need italics if it was the name of a film or a poem, but not for use as it is normally used. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support. For clarity, I'd only support it with the Missa italicised:
    1. Per the English-language reliable sources, see [9] – different authors all italicising Missa in English, except when quoting the title of a German article;
    2. In English, the Latin word Missa is usually translated: i.e., its English word is Mass, and the Latin word is only exceptionally used. This is different from, e.g., Requiem, Magnificat, Kyrie, etc, where the word commonly used in English is the same as the word used in the foreign language. For compounds such as Missa brevis, Missa solemnis, the entire Latin expression is commonly used in English (and thus does not need to be italicised). In other compounds, e.g. Missa Providentiae, Missa pro defunctis, missa tota, etc, the word missa or Missa is italicised – mostly for a combination of reasons: Latin expression that isn't very common in English, non-generic name, etc. Thus, Missa and not Missa.

  --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Sounds very reasonable, provided the possessive doesn't violate some policy rule. Could also be Missa of 1733 (Bach). Missa should be italicized as a foreign word. Jmar67 (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Re. "provided the possessive doesn't violate some policy rule" – there is precedent, e.g. Bach's church music in Latin, Spitta's Johann Sebastian Bach, so I don't think there's a problem there. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Missa, like Requiem and Magnificat, and other common Latin phrases, is not foreign word. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC) - Adding: Why "Missa brevis" would not be italic, but "Missa" would be, is beyond my understanding of logic. Having said so, I'd also support Missa italic, as said above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I would prefer Mass of 1733 (Bach) as a simple clarification of the present title that is in line with the conventional parenthetical disambiguation for compositions. Jmar67 (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I'd definitely avoid the parenthetical "(Bach)", which was the problem that got us here in the first place: next step would be a new RM to get rid of it, while we have no other article about "Mass of 1733" (i.e. simple disambiguation logic), and new efforts to avoid an article title that has near-zero recognisability and precision. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
        • I'd prefer Missa over Mass, firstly that's what the title page says, secondly because it's no normal mass, only Kyrie and Gloria, and of unusual proportions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Qualified support see above In ictu oculi (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.