New Bach Edition 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.
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.
The article name was until today the original German name of the edition, Neue Bach-Ausgabe. (It appeared like that on the Main page on Wikipedia's 10th birthday, see above.) In a time where Italian operas are performed in the original language, and German universities have articles under their original name, it seems anachronistic to me to move to an English name. Please remember that we talk about an East/West German project begun in the 1950s.
The website of the publisher has the name Bach-Archiv only in German, even in the Englishversion. I believe it could be used, matching Institut better. It hardly needs a translation. To have one organisation in German, one in English looks inconsistent to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Re. "The website of the publisher has the name Bach-Archiv only in German, even in the Englishversion" – No, they appear to be changing to Bach Archive, see  (Bach-Archiv once; Bach Archive trice). When the English name is used about as often (even: more often on certain pages), I'd prefer the English name. Note that also in English Wikipedia the article title of the Archive is in English (per the English-language webpages on the institution's website). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
"Also books that haven't been published in English (yet) are preferably referred to by an English version of the title, if the title in the original language would not easily be recognised by the majority of English speakers." - Who tells you that Neue Bach-Ausgabe is not recognised by the majority of English speakers? It has been recognised for more than five years. I guess that I will not be translated. How about saying somewhere early in the lead that the edition is in German? Nothing a reader would guess from all that English. - I remember my failed effort to have The Flying Dutchman (opera) moved to a title that doesn't suggest Wagner wrote something in English.
Archiv vs. Archive: "I prefer ...", you say. - I, however, prefer to speak of both institutions in the same language, and find the mix strange. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Note "easily" in the NCB guideline: it reads "easily ... recognised by the majority of English speakers": that's an argument that works even stronger for article titles than section titles (where you recently advocated the same principle). The example given in the guideline is "Lucidez", far easier to recognize as "Lucidity" than "Ausgabe" as "Edition" for English speakers, if you ask me.
Re. Göttingen Bach Institute: note the publisher says "Johann Sebastian Bach Institute, Göttingen", so seems more logical to translate both to English on this page (and probably best to move the page on the Institute to "Johann Sebastian Bach Institute"). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
By your logic, we better move the cantatas to English titles, - if you think a reader doesn't get "Archiv", Todes Banden is unzumutbar. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Since when are cantatas "books"? The naming conventions for cantatas are at WP:NCM, those for books at WP:NCB. (The Flying Dutchman of course at WP:NCO) --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)