Talk:Ach Gott, vom Himmel sieh darein, BWV 2

Tag on External links section
After inspecting the links (per a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music), I have removed this tag. All of these links are useful and comply with WP:EL, The first is a link to Bach scores on the IMSLP, extensively used on Wikipedia and de dirgeur, frankly. The second is to an English transltion of the text, again very useful to the reader. The third is provides a readily accessible breakdown of the structure for those who may not have access to Durr.The fourth is by Julian Mincham whose site has been recommended by WGBH, a major classical music station in the US. Again, this link provides useful additional information. Voceditenore (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI the discussion is at WP:RSN: until that relevant discussion is closed the tags should stay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * FYI, this is not an issue of "reliable sources". It is an issue for the External links noticeboard, if anything. Voceditenore (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I know, but in the discussion there I suggested to take this to WP:ELN, which I normally wouldn't do before the RSN discussion is closed or archived. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * They are two entirely different issues, and you know it. You should take it to EL noticeboard and leave an notice on the Reliable sources board to that effect. This whole issue about 4 simple and useful external links is a manufactured and pedantic dispute on your part. Ditto your re-addition of the tag and insistence that it must be settled on a board that is not designed to settle it. But I know from long experience that it is utterly useless to try to reason with you. I will make no further comments here. Voceditenore (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The Bischof webpage is not a reliable source (see Reliable sources/Noticeboard): it is a hobby site. Also, it is largely in German. The information contained on that page can be found elsewhere, in English, with the links provided on the BWV 2 page. I'll remove it and remove the tag. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * James Leonard's short description (in English) may be a suitable alternative. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree on both accounts: the Bischof site offers, as Voceditenore said above, "a readily accessible breakdown of the structure", relating the voices and instruments to the movements, found nowhere else that clearly. All information on that page looks reliable. The Leonard description, however, easy to find by those interested, indeed offers nothing that other sites don't have, with the exception of a (too) short summary of the content. Not worth a link, imho. (It is used for other cantatas where he has more to offer, compare O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Re-instated the tag, and the Bischof EL. Once the Reliable sources/Noticeboard (sub)section is archived or closed, and if, by then, there's no agreement yet on which links to use in the External links section I plan to take this to WP:ELN, as said before. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You have been told that EL has nothing to do with RS, so you will probably not listen to me saying the same. We are talking here about this article, and the usefulness of Bischof's page for it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Bischof webpage I wrote "is not a reliable source". You wrote "I disagree". Let's stop discussing this here: the discussion on whether or not Bischof is a reliable source is still open at Reliable sources/Noticeboard (and that discussion started before the discussion on the same same topic here). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I was not going to say anything more here, but this latest action by Francis Schonken is the height of absurdity, obstruction, and deliberately contentious editing. He agreed that without the Bischof link, this section was OK, removed the link and removed the tag. Simply because someone disagreed with him here, but did not re-add the link, he re-added the link himself and the tag, and now claims that neither can be removed until the issue of whether it is a "reliable source" is settled at one and possibly two noticeboards. I am going to remove the link and the tag. The common sense way to handle this to remove the link for now and re-add it if there is agreement at the noticeboards. It is not to restore it, then festoon the section with a huge tag which implies that the whole section is problematic, and leave it there for weeks. Voceditenore (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Bischof is a reliable source plays a role in whether or not we include it as an external link. At least for me it does. Generally we don't include external links that wouldn't pass as reliable sources. There are exceptions, but I don't see one that would apply here. Now, whether or not Bischof is a reliable source is apparently still contentious. That discussion is elsewhere, and still open. I think it best to indicate by a tag that a discussion is ongoing for all who pass by on the article and want to have their say before the matter is decided. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * People are having their say at the RS board. Plenty of them. They are also aware of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. The purpose of a maintenance tag is not to advertise a discussion elsewhere, especially since you refuse to discuss here and insist on the RS board. Nor is it to be used as a weapon in a dispute with another editor, and frankly that's exactly what it looks like. You have no justification whatsoever for restoring a contentious link that you yourself feel should be removed and then restoring the maintenance tag that disputes your own the re-addition of the link. Really, this is absurd. Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "The purpose of a maintenance tag is not to advertise a discussion elsewhere" – disagree: many maintenance tags automatically contain a link to, or allow to link to, the place where the discussion is taking place. Whether or not a maintenance tag contains such a link to the discussion, it can always be enveloped in Multiple issues, which also automatically contains a link to the discussion page.
 * Re. "...refuse to discuss here and insist on the RS board" – keep the discussion in one place is a sound principle (not doing so would be an infringement of WP:FORUMSHOP).
 * Re. "...weapon..." – please tone down your language: I insist on WP:CONSENSUS, that's all, and your belligerent language is as well missing the point as being completely unhelpful for a consensus-seeking discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * A link - to my understanding - has NOT to be a RS to be in external links. So far I understood that a source that is not "RS" enough to serve as reference can still be of enough value to readers be an external link, for example Mincham. Why not Bischof? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ? afaik Mincham is connected to some academic school of music, and writing about music in a professional capacity. Yes, seems like all of this would need to go to WP:ELN at some point: this is not about some sort of grey area between reliable and not reliable. An External links section is not a dumping ground for unreliable sources afaik: since you apparently don't want to take my word for it, WP:ELN would be the way to go I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Tag on Recordings section requiring additional sources
I would suggest removing the explicit mention of "Aryeh Oron on the Bach Cantatas Website" from the article text. It's a rather unencyclopedic approach. While this site has also been recommended by WGBH (see above), it's probably better to simply reference each recording either to its OCLC number or AllMusic. (I've done the first two as examples.) That is more than adequate for the simple credits. References for period instruments/historically informed performance being used on the recording are harder to come by, and I'd suggest removing that column from the table for now, especially since this is up for GA status. If a review or similar (not from bach-cantatas, but in scholarly sources, established journals, magazines, etc.) can be found for the recording which states that it uses period instruments, that can always be annotated as a footnote or in a replacement column called "Notes" to replace both the "Orchestra type" and "Choir" columns. The use of a whole "Choir" column simply to annotated that one recording uses OVPP, is also unnecessary. That can go in the Notes column, providing a reference is found. Voceditenore (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Same as previous section: discussion is at WP:RSN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a meaningless comment. I have not removed the tag. I have made suggestions to improve the recording section so that the tag might eventually be removed. Voceditenore (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please discontinue to discuss the same topic at two different places at the same time. The discussion is at WP:RSN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My comments were entirely appropriate to this talk page and concern removing the source to which you object and restructuring the recordings section. However, as I said above, I know from long experience that it is utterly useless to try to reason with you. I will make no further comments here. Voceditenore (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * In response to the comment by Voceditenore, I changed the introduction of the table, removed the choir type and found an additional reference for every recording. However, these (WorldCat and AllMusic) lack the amount of detail that the Bach Cantata Website offers, which lists for example individual choir singers and instrumentalists, and has a better (chronological) overview than WorldCat, for the convenience of our readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "I changed the introduction of the table" – See also Manual of Style/Embedded lists: the current one-sentence intro of the table falls a bit short of that, e.g. "... it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points". --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A Cleanup list or some such may be used to indicate the issue until it is addressed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * (I haven't tagged anything in seven years on Wikipedia.)
 * I fixed some of the links, - sorry, my first encounter with the jungle of the WorldCat.
 * I repeated now some of the introduction which is found in detail on Bach cantata, although I find it repetitive. Certain ensembles are simply playing HIP or period or however we shall call it ("Period" seemed short but not as uninviting as an abbreviation.) The discographies of Bach works (such as Mass in B minor discography were arranged in 3 sections, one for traditional orchestra, one for HIP with choir, one for HIP with OVPP. To mark the type here in a similar way is meant to help a reader to see the difference at a glance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Here are two additional recordings of the cantata I encountered: --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/Deutsche%2BHM/88725468032 (Roland Wilson)
 * http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/Deutsche%2BHM/G010003604810L (Christoph Spering)


 * Bach cantatas Website has those two, and three additional ones. Feel free to add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I was wondering whether we need to give so much attention to and detail about the recordings of the cantata included in the (nearly) complete Bach church cantata recording sets. The impression from reading the article as it is currently is that this must surely be one of Bach's less important cantatas: nearly nobody seems to record it unless as an unavoidable item in a complete cantata recordings set... seems a bit out of balance in the recordings section if you ask me (at least it somewhat distorts the picture as it actually is). Imho the focus should be on those performing artists who thought it worth while to record without it being obligatory in a "complete recordings" layout. The complete recordings each work with their pool of performers (which can be detailed at the articles of those sets), but maybe need not be repeated here? At least the other significant recordings should get as much attention as those in the complete series. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add. I want to upgrade not this cantata for last Sunday, but those for tomorrow, which is both Visitation and 3rd Sunday after Trinity (+ I completely overlooked St. John's Day's over all this). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "Feel free to add" – ? I suggested to remove something. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of reference

 * Please see, "... if the liner notes are copyrighted it would apply to them, but does not apply to other pages on the site". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, that was not in the central discussion, which now is archived. Nikkimaria had every chance to participate there (and did so in the early stages of the discussion). Again, splitting a discussion across multiple pages at the same time is a form of WP:FORUMSHOPping, which is disallowed by policy. Also, a user page's (very, very) "local" consensus doesn't trump an elaborate discussion on one of the official noticeboards (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which is also part of the WP:CONSENSUS policy). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * : The discussion was archived, which does not mean closed. In it, you asked "Can we summarize ...?" Nobody answered. Do you call that a consensus? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

AllMusic
AllMusic has come up at WP:RSN. For clarity, I'd support how it is used as a reliable source in the BWV 2 article currently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:BOLD
Our policy on using bold text MOS:BOLD requires us to render the article title and words that are plausible redirects in boldface when they are first mentioned in the text, usually the opening sentence. The abbreviation BWV 2 is not only a part of this article's title, but also a plausible redirect. There is no reason why it should be rendered other than in boldface at its first appearance. The footnote is sufficient to explain the abbreviation and provide a link to Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis for those that need it. --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)