Francis Schonken (talk | contribs) |
Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) →MOS again: first occurrence has a link |
||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
I just saw this in [[MOS:ACRO]]: "When not written out in full on the first use on a page, an acronym should be [[WP:WIKILINK|linked]]." Since a footnote ''after'' the first usage of the acronym is not the "first use" on the page, the solution "bolded without link followed by footnote" is not conforming to applicable MOS guidance. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 12:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC) |
I just saw this in [[MOS:ACRO]]: "When not written out in full on the first use on a page, an acronym should be [[WP:WIKILINK|linked]]." Since a footnote ''after'' the first usage of the acronym is not the "first use" on the page, the solution "bolded without link followed by footnote" is not conforming to applicable MOS guidance. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 12:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
: If we can't please several aspects of the MoS, we need to decide. My decision would be to not link the acronym BWV as rather well known, so I can bold the redirect, --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 12:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC) |
: <s>If we can't please several aspects of the MoS, we need to decide. My decision would be to not link the acronym BWV as rather well known, so I can bold the redirect, --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 12:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)</s> |
||
::There is no obligation (in the MOS) to bold every incoming redirect. There is an obligation in the MOS to link an acronym on first occurence. There is an obligation in the MOS to not bold links. There is nothing to decide here, while there's only one solution compatible with the MOS, and that's the solution as explicited in the WikiProject Classical music guideline. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 13:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC) |
::There is no obligation (in the MOS) to bold every incoming redirect. There is an obligation in the MOS to link an acronym on first occurence. There is an obligation in the MOS to not bold links. There is nothing to decide here, while there's only one solution compatible with the MOS, and that's the solution as explicited in the WikiProject Classical music guideline. --[[User:Francis Schonken|Francis Schonken]] ([[User talk:Francis Schonken|talk]]) 13:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC) |
||
::: There's nothing to decide, because the first occurrence has a link, in the infobox. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 13:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:16, 25 February 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam, BWV 7/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 20:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- "two solo violins (the second one only introduced in a later performance)" This bit of the lead is confusing; from the discussion of the tenor aria No. 4 it sounds like the designation "solo" was added to an existing part, which might or might not have been played tutti at first. This highlights the need for a discussion of sources: were completely new materials prepared for an unspecified performance after 1724, or was "solo" written in what appears a later hand? Sparafucil (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know more (yet) than what the source says, - not if in a different ink on the same sheet or a different copy, but don't think it matters too much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see it at all in the Emanuel Church reference given below in the mvt 4 paragraph. I'm happy to save the source material discussion for FA nomination, but maybe the parenthetical remark had best be dropped for now? Sparafucil (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I will look (probably tomorrow) where I read it. In the Weimar version we have one, for movement 1. The two are in the tenor aria,movement 4, and I can imagine that in the intimate Weimar space perhaps only two violinists played, - no need to specify solo. OR, I know, but we see on the picture that there was not much room on the organ loft. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see it at all in the Emanuel Church reference given below in the mvt 4 paragraph. I'm happy to save the source material discussion for FA nomination, but maybe the parenthetical remark had best be dropped for now? Sparafucil (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know more (yet) than what the source says, - not if in a different ink on the same sheet or a different copy, but don't think it matters too much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Comments - many are not related to the GA criteria explicitly but I thought I might as well note them, now I'm here.
- "first performed it" did "he" first perform it, or was it "first performed" on that date? Minor quibble.
- Both, he played violin, conducting the ensemble. More specific now, --GA
- I am happy to take advice, but is it worth considering linking some of the other technical terms like "librettist" and "stanza"?
- librettist yes, - stanza is unlinked for five years now, even in the FAs. Some say "strophe" which seems to be taken right from the German. --GA
- I always prefer to use expansions before abbreviating them, e.g. SATB...
- drop abbr at all in lead --GA
- Bible references need en-dashes for page ranges.
- fixed, I hope --GA
- Relinking, is there a strategy? For instance you relink St John's Day, but don't relink Leipzig.
- the second St. John is a different link, - I hesitate to link Leipzig at all, - what has today's city to do with Bach? --GA
- "He did not refer to the Gospel that relates to the birth of the baptist, nor to the baptism of Jesus, but is focused as the song..." maybe I'm tired but this doesn't read quite right - "He did not refer ... but is focused as..."?
- My lack of English perhaps? Can we say it simpler? The gospel is the birth (and circumsicion) of the baptist. The librettist didn't refer to that. One might expect, looking at the title, that it is about the baptism of Jesus. He didn't focus on that. Both song and libretto focus on Luther's ideas about baptism derived from the gospel about the baptism of Jesus. Sorry ;)
- Hi Gerda! It's not clear whether "He" refers to Luther or the librettist. I reworded the lead a bit; is it correct that Luther's verse 2 corresponds to the bass aria, verse 3 to the tenor recit. and so forth? It would be really interesting to know if the paraphrasing changed any emphases! Otherwise one could just say something like: "like Luther's hymn, the cantata is concerned with the implications of Christ's baptism for the believer, rather than with the the saint whose birth and circumcision are the subject of the prescribed readings." Sparafucil (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the wording. "He" refers to the librettist. - Yes, the verse - movement relation is correct. - Paraphrase: In case we get to FA some day in a distant future, the comparison between hymn and paraphrase could be done, but perhaps better not by me. I would be very careful with theological statements such as "the implications of Christ's baptism". The German article on the hymn has more details, the focus is more the implications of the baptism of a Christian than that of Jesus, - sorry, difficult ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still struggling to see how this is grammatically correct English right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- I simplified, - look if too much. More on the topic of the song should probably be in that article, linked in other settings, not in the cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still struggling to see how this is grammatically correct English right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the wording. "He" refers to the librettist. - Yes, the verse - movement relation is correct. - Paraphrase: In case we get to FA some day in a distant future, the comparison between hymn and paraphrase could be done, but perhaps better not by me. I would be very careful with theological statements such as "the implications of Christ's baptism". The German article on the hymn has more details, the focus is more the implications of the baptism of a Christian than that of Jesus, - sorry, difficult ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Gerda! It's not clear whether "He" refers to Luther or the librettist. I reworded the lead a bit; is it correct that Luther's verse 2 corresponds to the bass aria, verse 3 to the tenor recit. and so forth? It would be really interesting to know if the paraphrasing changed any emphases! Otherwise one could just say something like: "like Luther's hymn, the cantata is concerned with the implications of Christ's baptism for the believer, rather than with the the saint whose birth and circumcision are the subject of the prescribed readings." Sparafucil (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- My lack of English perhaps? Can we say it simpler? The gospel is the birth (and circumsicion) of the baptist. The librettist didn't refer to that. One might expect, looking at the title, that it is about the baptism of Jesus. He didn't focus on that. Both song and libretto focus on Luther's ideas about baptism derived from the gospel about the baptism of Jesus. Sorry ;)
- You could link "common time".
- done, thought it is common ;) (and reads rather complicated)
- I'm not really convinced of the utility of making the table of movements sortable.
- you could sort by instruments, for example, - it's a new format, was developed for sortable, I would have trouble to make it not so ;) --GA
- The movement headings, I think I'd prefer to see "Movement 1" or "First Movement" rather than simply "1".
- Compare FA BWV 165 and others, - we are in a series, --GA
- "cantus firmus" is swiftly overlinked in Movement 1's section.
- I unlinked it for you... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting to see that Menschenkinder is translated as "humans" rather than mankind, I'm not an expert, just interesting!
- Literally it would be "children of humankind" (vs. Son of God), - the translator - a woman - probably tries to avoid "mankind", --GA
- "of the number 3 as" again not an expert, but why not "of the third movement"?
- It's not the third movement but - the number 3: 3 beats to the measure, each subdivided in 3, 3 sections etc, - all symbols of the Trinity, - compare Mass in B minor#Et in Spiritum Sanctum, --GA
- "when human beings" again, isn't this more likely to be "mankind"?
- same as before, --GA
Other than these mainly subjective comments, I have no major issues. I'll put it on hold and allow the discussion to continue a bit. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for careful reading and detailed questions, - looking forward to more discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I had a re-read and I'm satisfied with the updates, so I'll promote. Good work Gerda. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Queries
The word "song". What is it referring to?
Instrumentation is listed twice. Tony (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Song" is sometimes used as a synonym for hymn, to avoid repetition. In German, once "de " (sacred song) or Kirchenlied (church song) was used once, "Lied" is sufficient for the rest of a text. Let me know if that's different in English. - One difference is that the German "Hymne" would never be used for a sacred song, only for national anthems and other music with hymnal expression.
- The scoring is in the infobox, in the lead and once in the body, no?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hymn settings can be indicated as "spiritual song" (as a literal translation of "geistliches Lied"), or in English more commonly as "sacred song" (e.g. scores:List of works by Johann Sebastian Bach#Sacred songs (519-523), NBA series III), although such appellation is less often used for a choir setting (the only exception I know: BWV 299 is sometimes indicated as a song for its No. 39b inclusion in the second Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach).
- "Chorale" or "Chorale setting" are probably more viable alternatives if you want to avoid a repetition of the word "hymn" and are referring to a setting for SATB chorus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I know that I can do that, but I wanted to explain - in response to the question - where "song" comes from. At church, you would hear in German: "Wir singen jetzt Lied ...", never Kirchenlied or Geistliches Lied. - In most cases, that will be singing of the melody with organ accompaniment, no part setting. - If you look at the article, it says "based on the hymn", and then The song, - referring to text and melody, also not to part setting. In the United States, I often observed the congregation singing a hymn in four parts. - Can we agree that every Kirchenlied is also a Lied? Is the translation, every sacred hymn is also a song, wrong? - You can look at this article and most others: I do use "chorale", but not when I refer only to text and melody. Is that wrong? - "Sacred songs" seem to mean not hymns (in hymnals, sung by a congregation at church) but art songs with a spiritual topic, sung by a solo voice. Do we agree? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- AFAIK you can't derive usage in English from usage in German. Please defer to those with a better assimilation to the English language (which I'm not by definition). AFAIK "song" sounds awkward/unclear in this context: even I can feel that, and I'm not a native English speaker. Better work towards an improvement of the wording, than being defensive about an awkward/unclear phrasing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I know that I can do that, but I wanted to explain - in response to the question - where "song" comes from. At church, you would hear in German: "Wir singen jetzt Lied ...", never Kirchenlied or Geistliches Lied. - In most cases, that will be singing of the melody with organ accompaniment, no part setting. - If you look at the article, it says "based on the hymn", and then The song, - referring to text and melody, also not to part setting. In the United States, I often observed the congregation singing a hymn in four parts. - Can we agree that every Kirchenlied is also a Lied? Is the translation, every sacred hymn is also a song, wrong? - You can look at this article and most others: I do use "chorale", but not when I refer only to text and melody. Is that wrong? - "Sacred songs" seem to mean not hymns (in hymnals, sung by a congregation at church) but art songs with a spiritual topic, sung by a solo voice. Do we agree? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I changed it to a repetition of hymn now, but owed an explanation to Tony, and waited if perhaps there was a better term. There's no other synonym, right? I wanted to discuss that, not defend, - sorry if I wasn't clear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
(e.c.) Here's my proposal to replace:
... The cantata is based on Martin Luther's hymn for baptism in seven stanzas "Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam".[1] Stanzas 1 and 7 are used unchanged in movements 1 and 7. An unknown librettist paraphrased the ideas of stanzas 2 to 6 to a sequence of as many recitatives and arias.[2] The song and thus the text focus on Luther's teaching on baptism, derived from biblical accounts. It is not related to the prescribed gospel about the birth of the baptist.[3]
by:
... The cantata refers to the chorale "Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam", both to Martin Luther's text and to the associated melody ("Es woll[t] uns Gott genädig sein", Zahn No. 7246).[4] The seven stanzas of the hymn treat baptism based on biblical accounts.[1] Stanzas 1 and 7 are used unchanged in the opening and closing movement of the cantata. The five arias and recitatives between these choral movements use a text paraphrased from stanzas 2 to 6.[2] Thus the cantata rather focusses on Luther's teachings on baptism than on the actual content of the gospel reading (the birth of John the Baptist).[3]
References
- ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
chorale text
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Hofmann
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Dürr
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Alfred Dürr, Yoshitake Kobayashi (eds.), Kirsten Beißwenger. Bach Werke Verzeichnis: Kleine Ausgabe, nach der von Wolfgang Schmieder vorgelegten 2. Ausgabe. Preface in English and German. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1998. ISBN 3765102490 - ISBN 978-3765102493, p. 473
--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Tweaked proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Tweaked further: "paraphrasing" an "idea" to a "type of movement" seems hardly something a "librettist" does (and sounds awkward). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- What the librettist of a chorale cantata did was paraphrase the ideas of the original hymn (which was sometimes almost 200 years old) in the language of his and Bach's time. Forming recitatives and arias is secondary, - Bach composed also recitatives and arias on original hymn text. Can you word that better? - I prefer active voice whenever possible and think "The ... arias .. use a text paraphrased" suggests activity on the part of the arias ;)
- Further up: to tell a user unfamiliar with the topic that a chorale cantata is based on a chorale doesn't help too much, imho, but the user may know what a hymn is without clicking. Clicking chorale isn't too helpful either: "A chorale is a melody", nonsense, the text also makes the chorale, plus the image is misleading, showing not a chorale but a chorale harmonization. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, paraphrasing an "idea" doesn't sound right: paraphrasing is converting one sequence of words to another sequence of words (with similar meaning). I don't think in English the word paraphrasing is used for converting an idea (from whatever origin) into a text, but then again, I'm not the big expert in English language.
- Don't feel hampered to improve further, or like I did above, try out phrasings on this talk page before inserting them in the article. Also, when you feel up to improving the chorale article, that would be a great thing. Also I wondered why there is no Lutheran chorale article yet, which would be so much easier to link to in this context (Lutheran hymn is a redirect that has similar issues as linking to the chorale article, all but a satisfactory treatment of the topic as a whole). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
BWV
I has been discussed that not all people know what BWV is, that BWV 7 should be bold as a redirect, which is actually a service to readers, telling them that next time they can arrive at the article by this easy shortcut. As a link from the bolded redirect is not wanted, per MoS (so said Finnusertop), the solution of the footnote was found and accepted. Please restore it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- This isn't the first discussion about this, although I can't remember exactly where the last one was. I seem to remember that discussion ending in something like "BWV numbers are important, users should use them more", to which I replied something like BWV numbers are rather like technical insider stuff for the regulars, and there's no need to tell users how to navigate. I haven't seen anything that would convince me otherwise since. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- The link to the previous 2014 discussion is given above. Can we count this as one of the editorial choices the principal editors may make? Please restore a standard feature in the articles (several of them FA and GA) for which I feel responsible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- There has been a more recent discussion, the 2014 one isn't the one I was referring to. Anyway, on arguments, no: GA/FA is not a certificate of ownership in this sense. Do what's best for the article, in this case: following Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure (first paragraph after first example). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Where do you think the version with bolded but explained abbreviation is not in line with that guideline? With an additional link of BWV in the infobox that is not mentioned in the guideline. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)- I see that you wrote the guideline you now expect us to follow, based on a discussion in archive 63. I don't think that change had consensus. Should we discuss it with more people, or will you kindly restore this article to bold with explanation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 63#""BWV" is Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, a thematic catalogue of Bach's works" notes is indeed the more recent discussion I was referring to, which led to the guidance update. Anyway, the update to the WikiProject Classical music guidance was discussed at the WikiProject Classical music talk page, so this article talk page is hardly the place to rediscuss it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- That discussion had more or less two participants: you and me. Smerus didn't comment the bolded redirect. How you derived from that discussion a change of the guidelines remains a mystery to me. Of course I didn't plan to discuss that here. I would prefer not to discuss it at all, - would be a waste of time. It's common practise to bold redirects, - not all but the useful ones. Please do that here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please cease and desist. I follow current practice as established on the majority of classical composition articles, and as formalized, by me, in the WikiProject Classical music guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- That majority of articles possibly don't have redirects worth bolding. Practise for five years has been to bold the BWV no in Bach cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see BWV numbers as "redirects worth bolding", I have explained why, and have been de-bolding when chancing upon them – and this for a long time now. Don't care how long the former practice existed. For comparison, many editors used to write "D." for Deutsch numbers for a very long time, until it was decided to write uniformely "D" more recently. I can't support this bolding and footnoting of BWV numbers, without a standard in-text bluelink, and still have to see the first article where it would be appropriate. So again, please cease and desist. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I hear you, and only you, telling me what to do: to stop a practise that I find reasonable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- ? I'm not telling you what to do, like you did in your first post in this section ("Please restore it"). My "please cease and desist" was my attempt to stop you from telling me what to do, for a practice I find reasonable (I explained why), conforming to broad current practice, and to current guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- OK you two. The title is Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam, BWV 7 so per MOS that means we bold it all, even if it's split by the English translation (or we could move the BWV # to be before the English translation). See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Format_of_the_first_sentence (" Mumbai, also known as Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra..." ). MOS tops local consensus. End of story. Now play nice, both of you. Montanabw(talk) 00:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- ? I'm not telling you what to do, like you did in your first post in this section ("Please restore it"). My "please cease and desist" was my attempt to stop you from telling me what to do, for a practice I find reasonable (I explained why), conforming to broad current practice, and to current guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I hear you, and only you, telling me what to do: to stop a practise that I find reasonable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see BWV numbers as "redirects worth bolding", I have explained why, and have been de-bolding when chancing upon them – and this for a long time now. Don't care how long the former practice existed. For comparison, many editors used to write "D." for Deutsch numbers for a very long time, until it was decided to write uniformely "D" more recently. I can't support this bolding and footnoting of BWV numbers, without a standard in-text bluelink, and still have to see the first article where it would be appropriate. So again, please cease and desist. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- That majority of articles possibly don't have redirects worth bolding. Practise for five years has been to bold the BWV no in Bach cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please cease and desist. I follow current practice as established on the majority of classical composition articles, and as formalized, by me, in the WikiProject Classical music guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- That discussion had more or less two participants: you and me. Smerus didn't comment the bolded redirect. How you derived from that discussion a change of the guidelines remains a mystery to me. Of course I didn't plan to discuss that here. I would prefer not to discuss it at all, - would be a waste of time. It's common practise to bold redirects, - not all but the useful ones. Please do that here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 63#""BWV" is Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis, a thematic catalogue of Bach's works" notes is indeed the more recent discussion I was referring to, which led to the guidance update. Anyway, the update to the WikiProject Classical music guidance was discussed at the WikiProject Classical music talk page, so this article talk page is hardly the place to rediscuss it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- There has been a more recent discussion, the 2014 one isn't the one I was referring to. Anyway, on arguments, no: GA/FA is not a certificate of ownership in this sense. Do what's best for the article, in this case: following Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure (first paragraph after first example). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- The link to the previous 2014 discussion is given above. Can we count this as one of the editorial choices the principal editors may make? Please restore a standard feature in the articles (several of them FA and GA) for which I feel responsible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
This edit was of course not OK for WP:BOLDTITLE:
In general, if the article's title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear:
The Beatles' rise to prominence in the United States on February 7, 1964, was a significant development in the history of the band's commercial success. (The Beatles in the United States)
and
Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead:
The Babe Ruth Award is given annually to the Major League Baseball (MLB) player with the best performance in the postseason. (Babe Ruth Award)
There's also no rule that every incoming redirect must be bolded, please try to read guidelines without filling in the points you would like them to say. So, I reverted.
As said above, the applicable guidance, which conforms to MOS guidelines, is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
BWV continued
Some more thoughts:
- I agree with you that the applicable guidance is what you quote above (after you changed it before), but the stress is on guideline, - it's not binding.
- The BWV number is not only a catalogue number, but the cantata number. We bold such numbers, see Symphony No. 8 (Dvořák).
- The BWV number is the one memorable thing for English-speaking readers in our article names, it deserves bolding for that reason alone, as it doesn't follow the German title directly but its translation(s). The number can show readers who don't speak German at a glance that they are at the right article.
- The BWV number is in the url of web sources, which often have it in their headers before the German title
I don't tell you what to do. You made a bold edit here, changing a GA to make it look different from comparable articles. I reverted, but you didn't discuss but restored the version you like better. I recommend that for the reasons mentioned above you return to the version bold (but of course without a link) with a footnote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Re. "BWV number is ... the cantata number" – it is for this cantata, but not for cantata numbers in general. Cantata numbers go only up to 199 ([1]), and don't include those with a "a" or "b" index (e.g. BWV 30a is only a BWV number, not a cantata number), nor those with a Anh. number (e.g. BWV Anh. 3 = Gott, gib dein Gerichte dem Könige, BWV Anh. 3 has no cantata number). In general secular cantatas don't have a cantata number in this sense (BWV 198 = Cantata No. 198, is afaik the only exception)
- → specific for this cantata (BWV 7) I might add that the article doesn't clarify in any way how the cantata got its number (i.e. by being included in the very first Bach-Gesellschaft-Ausgabe publication in 1850), so if it isn't worth mentioning in the article, it is probably not all that significant.
- Re. "The BWV number is the one memorable thing for English-speaking readers in our article names" – disagree, imho Amore traditore is far easier to remember than BWV 203. Over 300 numbers in this sense (some with indexes, some in a different "range" of BWV numbers, e.g. BWV 244a – etc.) are not "easy to remember" for which cantata is intended by the number.
- → specific for this cantata, I suppose English-language readers would find it most easily by clicking a link at BWV#BWV Chapter 1, Church cantata (Bach)#St. John's Day, Chorale cantata (Bach)#Bach's chorale cantatas, List of Bach cantatas#List of cantatas, Category:Cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach, etc... If they are trying to find it by its BWV number, that would probably not be because of "remembering" that number but by copying it directly from a record sleeve or book, url, or such.
- Re. "The number can show readers who don't speak German at a glance that they are at the right article" – the article title already does confirm the BWV number, in a large font, so far for instant recognition.
- → specific for this cantata: Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam, BWV 7 is rendered in the article title.
- Re. BWV numbers in web resources: also for Wikipedia.
- → specific for this cantata: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_unser_Herr_zum_Jordan_kam,_BWV_7 – "BWV 7" prominently concludes the url. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, BWV 7 is in large font in the article title, but bolding helps readers who don't know what it means to find the explanation in the footnote. Thanks for taking the time to list all these exceptions, - let's talk only about the sacred cantatas with numbers 1–199 (and their variants) for which cantata number is equal to BWV number. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Re. "sacred cantatas with numbers 1–199 (and their variants)" – makes no sense to discuss that group as if it would make a meaningful distinction for layout decisions in Wikipedia:
- ...etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agree, BWV 7 is in large font in the article title, but bolding helps readers who don't know what it means to find the explanation in the footnote. Thanks for taking the time to list all these exceptions, - let's talk only about the sacred cantatas with numbers 1–199 (and their variants) for which cantata number is equal to BWV number. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please forgive my sloppy language, by "sacred cantatas with numbers 1–199 (and their variants)" I meant Bach's sacred cantatas within the numbers 1–199 (and their variants). We don't have to have one style for all classical music articles. As long as some have an infobox and others not, please don't come with an argument of uniform layout for the minimal difference we discuss here. In an article for which I feel responsible, I like to help the reader by bolding, which is in line with the MoS permitting to bold redirects. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Re. "Bach's sacred cantatas within the numbers 1–199 (and their variants)" – same difference:
- No, indeed, as said above, this is hardly the place to discuss general guidance, applicable to all kinds of similar articles. I'm getting a bit offended by your "... for which I feel responsible" – are you doubting my sense of responsibility? Why do you think I stepped in yesterday, way beyond Tony's original remark? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please forgive my sloppy language, by "sacred cantatas with numbers 1–199 (and their variants)" I meant Bach's sacred cantatas within the numbers 1–199 (and their variants). We don't have to have one style for all classical music articles. As long as some have an infobox and others not, please don't come with an argument of uniform layout for the minimal difference we discuss here. In an article for which I feel responsible, I like to help the reader by bolding, which is in line with the MoS permitting to bold redirects. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Misunderstanding again, sorry. Not BWV 198, because it is no sacred cantata, not BWV 11, same. Not 244a, because not in the number range. I feel that you are more responsible for Bach's Latin church music, and I more for this one, - no need to be offended,and sorry again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
MOS again
I just saw this in MOS:ACRO: "When not written out in full on the first use on a page, an acronym should be linked." Since a footnote after the first usage of the acronym is not the "first use" on the page, the solution "bolded without link followed by footnote" is not conforming to applicable MOS guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
If we can't please several aspects of the MoS, we need to decide. My decision would be to not link the acronym BWV as rather well known, so I can bold the redirect, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)- There is no obligation (in the MOS) to bold every incoming redirect. There is an obligation in the MOS to link an acronym on first occurence. There is an obligation in the MOS to not bold links. There is nothing to decide here, while there's only one solution compatible with the MOS, and that's the solution as explicited in the WikiProject Classical music guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- There's nothing to decide, because the first occurrence has a link, in the infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- There is no obligation (in the MOS) to bold every incoming redirect. There is an obligation in the MOS to link an acronym on first occurence. There is an obligation in the MOS to not bold links. There is nothing to decide here, while there's only one solution compatible with the MOS, and that's the solution as explicited in the WikiProject Classical music guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)