Talk:Aus tiefer Not schrei ich zu dir, BWV 38

Infobox?
Improving the quality of this article, I would like to summarize key facts in an infobox, for example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is an improvement. History has shown a more modest version will "gain" parameters over time, but I will propose one nevertheless, in the hope that the past does not repeat. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain what you think is not modest in my proposal, which has parameters accepted for featured articles? I like the idea of similar boxes for similar articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see the counter-proposal. I don't like that idea: different articles (and different pieces) = different circumstances and different needs. While you may have taken particular approaches with articles you have written, that does not necessitate that all cantata articles follow your model. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question (what is not modest?). Time, place, occasion, authors of a hybrid text, scoring, - that's what I as a reader would like to see at a glance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I did, by comparing the two versions. The later table presents a better at-a-glance view of the scoring of the whole work, although it isn't perfect. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I didn't get that "by comparing" answer. One by one: I think it is modest to show the reader at the first glance that this cry out of anguish comes with the (unusual) sound of four trombones, and it is reasonable to list in the infobox the instruments that Bach mentioned on the title page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Compromise version to the article, I wrote this before but failed to save. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems we have some compromise, I think IDONTLIKEIT isn't the best approach here. Montanabw (talk)  02:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Revert of Bach's title
I disagree, and this edit is not particularly helpful - all of this information is already presented in English, unless you have sources that comment on the slight differences? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, unless you have a compelling rationale to restore that edit, it doesn't seem to be particularly helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (Sorry, I must have missed to save my edit:) I disagree. Yes, the information is there in English, but I am interested in how Bach himself wrote it, the order of the items, the spelling of the title, the names he used for the instruments, the way he wrote his own name, etc. I believe it is helpful to those readers who would not look at a facsimile and perhaps could not read his handwriting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the audience that would be helped by this would be very small, and the one confused by it much larger. Do you have sources to suggest the ordering or the spelling is in some way significant? Could your purpose be served by providing an image of the cover page? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * An image of the title would be better than that of the hymn, but would leave people in the dark who can't read Bach's handwriting. We are are talking about one sentence. The title Bach himself wrote is present in all articles of recognized quality on the topic. No reader has complained, and different GA reviewers have not complained, including Jaguar who reviewed this one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the editorial choices you have made in other articles are not binding on all. The audience of those who would benefit from this inclusion is extremely limited, if it exists at all - we have no sources presented that the spelling Bach used here was significant (for example), or that lend any weight to this content. After all, not everything that can be verified warrants inclusion. And as we know from other discussions, readers who are not already editors rarely comment on article content at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not request "binding", but higher quality articles are a model. As we know from other discussions (see Talk:Götterdämmerung), I like to quote the biblical discussion with Abraham arguing: "But what if there are only ten...?" - interested readers in this case. In only one sentence, there's a wealth of cultural background, which those not interested can easily ignore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the detail conveyed by this sentence is already presented and explained in a much more accessible manner - what the instruments are, the occasion, the composer, etc. What we are left with is the spelling and the order, and there's no sourcing for how these are significant or what "wealth" is provided by this text. Further, when you present material in an article that confuses people, some will ignore it and continue on, but many will lose interest and give up (a problem that is well documented in the communications literature). Alienating many readers for the theoretical benefit of a very few is not a good tradeoff for what is meant to be a general-readership encyclopedia. You've chosen to make that tradeoff elsewhere, but that doesn't mean we need to make it here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * By that logic, would you advise to eliminate other original titles, such as Pre-reform Russian: Война и миръ, Voyna i mir? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, as I don't object to the inclusion of the German-language title here. But if that article contained a full transcription of the manuscript title page because of minor details without indication of their significance, I would advise its removal as well. Two different issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't follow, because what Bach wrote is the original title, abbreviated to a German common name. I find it interesting that Bach used a mix of Italian and French, which could be explained. Another possibility would be to have an arrangement like his in a quote box? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of format but of content and value: you're not proposing just the title but a full title-page transcription, unless you've changed your mind? Do you have a reliable secondary source that would support explaining the mix of French and Italian used? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I will think about it, have other problems and am on vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Recordings as a table?
I suggest the following table, as more informative, with a clear organization and with many links to women's articles.

The sortable table is taken from the selection on the Bach-Cantatas website. Choirs are roughly marked as large (by red background) or one voice per part (OVPP) (by green background); instrumental groups playing period instruments in historically informed performances are highlighted green under the header Instr..

{| class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" style="margin-right: 0;" ! scope="col" | Title ! scope="col" | Conductor / Choir / Orchestra ! scope="col" class="unsortable" | Soloists ! scope="col" | Label ! scope="col" | Year ! scope="col" | Choir type ! scope="col" | Instr.
 * + Recordings of Aus tiefer Not schrei ich zu dir, BWV 38
 * + Recordings of Aus tiefer Not schrei ich zu dir, BWV 38

How do others feel about it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this change as I find it both less informative and less clearly organized, but I think we should split this discussion to address the two different issues of content and formatting separately - one could present the current list of recordings in a table, or present the BC list (which is similar but not the same) in the current format. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * None of those alternatives would have clear labels for what it shows. An additional advantage of the table is that you can link to every entry, for example say singer A sang in conductor B's recording, by a simple predictable link which leads to all details of that recording. Example: Dorothee Mields was a soloist in Maasaki Suzuki's recording. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, none of what alternatives? My comment was regarding splitting a discussion of content vs format, not presenting possible alternative formats. Also, since you are proceeding with notifying projects, Classical music would seem to be more relevant. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly favor the use of a sortable table. What goes into it can be debated endlessly, but the concept is sound.  It should be formatted carefully, perhaps  can provide input on the design; he's helped me with tables in the past.  Montanabw (talk)  19:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There might well be a table format that would suit this article, but the one proposed is not it. Let's see what alternatives (if any) might work better. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think until you find such a better way, the table - providing labels for what is shown and sortable to suit the different interests of different users - is preferable to an unexplained list of names. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the table shown above would be a step backwards from what we currently have. For example, if a reader tries to sort by soloist...well, there are four of those, so which one will he/she get? It's confusing. However, I will clarify in the article who the named persons are. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. The concern about the sort of the soloists could be helped if the column was not sortable, but I believe it's not even a cause for major confusion. Not listing the soloists at all, as you propose, lets us miss links to singer articles, many of them female. I work for project, Women in Red. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Much as I respect the work of that project, "linking to articles about women" is not a good rationale to use a table here. But there is a problem with the argument where a "sortable" table allows users to sort by things that they wouldn't want to - publisher, CD title - but not by things they conceivably might, like ensemble or soloist. And I disagree strongly that the current soloist sort is not a cause for major confusion - it's very non-intuitive. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A table with a column for every item (soprano, alto etc.) would be possible, but overly long. - A list of all soloists is what I "inherited" from people who created such articles from 2005, see 2009 example, and it makes sense to me. Opera discographies list the singers of the major parts, - can you imagine them without names of singers? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not object to adopting the format of that 2009 example here, so long as it included (and was sorted by) date. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't need the flaws of that format (bolding, repeating voice types for everyentry, etc) which we improved in later versions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bolding is easy enough to remove, but if you have a concern about "providing labels for what is shown", that format certainly addresses it. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I like tables for such lists, and, other things being equal, I like sortable fields, and think they are helpful to our readers. But unless every item is sortable I am not convinced that the sort button is all that helpful. I don't, for instance, find it helpful to click the sort button for the soloist column to find that Arleen Augér is supplanted by Ruth Holton. Nor do I find useful a sortable column with both conductor and orchestra in it. I quite like the suggested table, but if we adopt it I strongly urge removing the sort function: it just isn't helpful and it's not as though the list is very long. That said, I think the suggested table is otherwise a slight but useful improvement upon the plain list. –  Tim riley  talk    17:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I asked if one column, or the whole list, can be not sortable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No answer yet, so I made an untemplated header to not sort the soloists. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A similar problem exists for the conductor/choir/orchestra column, and then we are left with only one column that someone might conceivably wish to sort by - date. Per Tim, perhaps it would be best to make a non-sortable table, and simply order it by date. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That's even easier, just omit "sortable". I would like to leave the other model here, - took me a while to find how you make a single column not sortable. Aus tiefer Not always meant what it says for me personally, - I will be able to remember. - I disagree, btw: often the group of conductor/choir/ensemble is known as a unity, and known by the conductor, but for seven entries, it doesn't matter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Groups persist even when conductors change, usually. But for only six entries I agree that sorting is not essential, particularly when it can cause confusion or frustration. We should also consider the arrangement of components within the row, though, as well as the issue of the last two columns, before coming to the final table version. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Thomanerchor had many conductors who recorded the same piece, for example. - What do you think about explaining that the soloists are arranged in the sequence S A T B? - For the last two columns, please compare the comments by Drmies and Voceditenore on BWV 51, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That explanation would help. For the last two columns, I see the editors you name made several good points about why the columns are problematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In the beginning. How about following the compromise of Jauchzet Gott in allen Landen, BWV 51 and mark only OVPP and Period instruments? Tried above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If the column is simply a yes/no switch, why need we include it at all? We could just use an annotation alongside the choir or ensemble, as appropriate - for example, "Netherlands Bach Collegium (period)" Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Normally - with more entries - you have three groups (roughly: large - medium - small, or: 1950s, 1970s, later) and more descriptive terms (such as "Chorale", "Ensemble", "Chamber"). For my taste, a clear colour guide serves a reader better than the clutter of two more terms in brackets after the sometimes long names of ensembles. I am thinking about a paragraph (or even article) to discuss the topic of the Bach cantata recordings, expanding Bach cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You can still colour the ensemble cell green for period instruments, but here since we have fewer entries we don't need more groups. Alternatively, you could add a text cell for Description, and give a more comprehensive, source-based explanation of what differentiates one recording from the next. I would also suggest shrinking the Title cell (which along with removing the two switching columns would allow more space for Description, if desired) and moving it between Soloists and Label. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)