Talk:Freue dich, erlöste Schar, BWV 30

Templates

The article as it stands uses neither citation templates nor an infobox. I would be open to migrating to templated citations, but does anyone else have thoughts on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, that's because you removed the infobox without discussion, leaving cryptic abbreviations. I suggest letting the editor who is doing the most work keep it there for now, this is a debate across a bunch of articles and seems no reason to drag the larger debate here. Montanabw^(talk) 21:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(another ec) The article was created in 2009. I started improving to a standard of 2013. We ran into edit conflicts. For me, improving also means templated references that don't clutter the text, and an infobox. The content and the music are still just a start. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Gerda added an infobox to this article today, without discussion, based on her personal preference - a good-faith and bold addition. She also attempted to change the citation style, which is a problem because of WP:CITEVAR, but we can seek consensus here for that change. However, I disagreed with the addition of the box and removed it; per BRD, as the no-box version was the original and stable version, both Gerda and Montana had no cause to restore it, particularly without discussion, particularly as Gerda has stated she will defer to the wishes of a principal contributor. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I added an infobox without discussion as to many other Bach cantatas, not as a personal preference but to have a similar appearance of similar articles for the reader. Many readers will switch back and forth between cantatas via the navigation template. - I changed the citation style as I did for several of the old-style cantatas, an abandoned project from the last decade. I don't understand "BRD". I don't know what "defer" means, but don't see any "principal contributor" in this case, - I care more about the reader, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

A suitable image

We talked about a suitable image in the last section. I had suggested Zecheriah (as in BWV 167), whose canticle is topic of the Gospel, and in a broader meaning also the topic of the cantata. Instead, a scene of the birth of St. John was offered, which is only the occasion of the cantata, painted 200 years earlier. At present we see a scene that shows Zecheriah on the side, with a focus on the breasts of the baby's mother, - forgive a slight exaggeration. Can you imagine that picture in austere Leipzig? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately we needn't adhere to the mores of the Bach era ;-) The current image is brighter and clearer than the one at Nativity of John the Baptist, that's why I switched again. It also represents both father and son, the dual subjects, whereas the first image shows only the father. (By the way, the interwiki on the first image caption led to a dab page - which was meant?) Nikkimaria (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Last first Anton Sturm (Maler) - I copied it somewhere, now need to remember where to correct there also ;) - We do not have to adhere To Baroque mores but might still deliver the feeling of the era, Lutheran modesty, no? - Next year I will look into the content more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: This is not "a revert as in BRD" - you boldly added an image yesterday, and I reverted to the image that was in the article for five years prior to your recent edits. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• WP:CCC. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• Indeed it can, but you've yet to demonstrate that it has, only mis-cited BRD. In the interim, we'll keep the longstanding image. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec) For clarity, I generally object to use typical Counter-Reformation imagery (such as Tintoretto's) in an article on a typical Reformation-related topic (such as a Lutheran church cantata). There is already an image of John the Baptist's birth in the article which is more in line with a Reformation approach to religious imagery. Its painter was maybe less gifted than Tintoretto (so I wouldn't use it as a lead image), but we certainly don't need a second, less suitable one, on the same topic in this article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The second image you've recently added on that topic, as you allude, is of lesser quality. Suggest instead we remove it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I am with you Francis, that Counter-Reformation doesn't fit well, but I agree with Nikkimaria that the change was bold, and, when discussed, had to be discussed, without further changes to the article. Can we show the options here in a beauty contest, please? Until then, the status before the change. Whatever image, upright=1.3 is the highest we should give to our readers, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

As said, the Tintoretto one is less suitable than the Cranach one, whatever one's personal judgement about intrinsic artistic qualities. The Wiederau one has a very close connection to the music of this cantata, so failing anything better being uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons, I'd prefer that one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The Wiederau image has a close connection to Angenehmes Wiederau and may be pictured in that article. This cantata though has a far clearer thematic connection to the nativity images. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Another problem with the old lead image is its caption, "Nativity of St. John the Baptist, the occasion celebrated by this cantata" – not really, nor does any reliable source afaik say so. The birth of the Baptist is mentioned, sideways (without his name being mentioned anywhere in the cantata's text), in one line of the third movement: that line is part of a three-line sentence that focusses on John the Baptist being the "precursor" (not on his birth). Imagery about being a precursor is not too easy to find (this one sort of illustrates it but is technically not very well photographed; this one might work too, but is only B/W – I might give it a try in the lead though; these "John pointing to the Lamb of God" images are however rather an illustration of John 1:29, "... John ... saith, Behold the Lamb of God, ...", than of Luke 1:57–80, "... for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways ...").

The Wiederau image is not a perfect fit, but closer to the cantata (at least closer to its music which is the true topic of this article: the merits of its text are a side-topic – without a composition by Bach the libretto would have gone quite unnoticed in history, in that case likely zero % chance to pass WP:GNG and deserve a separate article). Note that the "birth" related text is one line in one movement, while, by comparison, the Wiederau music covers the bulk of the cantata. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)