Talk:Cantata, BWV 248a

"Little therefore can be said about the work..."
The article text contains "Little therefore can be said about the work...": this doesn't seem to indicate something that would pass WP:GNG and/or WP:NMUSIC requirements – In Bossuyt's book it is a footnote of six lines; the "quebec" website doesn't even mention the work (it uses the "BWV 248a" number, erroneously, as a reference to BWV 248 I). I suggest a merge to the BWV 248 VI article, where the cantata fragment is explained, with adequate references, in the Herr, wenn die stolzen Feinde schnauben, BWV 248 VI section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. This article is rather muddled. Perhaps the other article could be expanded a little.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Re. "Perhaps the other article could be expanded a little":
 * I have no intention to go on rambling, in the BWV 248 VI article, about "lost" cantatas when BWV 248 VI a does not belong in that category. BTW, that's the main reason why I placed the Original research banner tag, while none of the available reliable sources say it is lost or that "Its existence can be deduced as some of the music was borrowed for (whatever)" – straight nonsensical original research.
 * The Bossuyt source has now been transferred to the BWV 248 VI article.
 * The Herr, wenn die stolzen Feinde schnauben, BWV 248 VI section is a subsection of Herr, wenn die stolzen Feinde schnauben, BWV 248 VI, which has an expand section tag. Feel free to contribute!
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At the risk of being accused of rambling on, would it be possible to describe the Michaelmas cantata as a "lost cantata", or the fragment in question as being "all that is known to survive" of a cantata?--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Bossuyt calls it lost "except for..." (so at least: not entirely lost); what remains is contained in the D-B Mus.ms. Bach St 112 VI, Fascicle 1 manuscript (i.e., 4 of its instrumental parts show the BWV 248a version), which is "all that is known to survive" of a cantata version (the music of the BWV 248a cantata of course also almost entirely survives in the BWV 248 VI Epiphany cantata). If anyone cares to flesh out some of the details that might help readers to understand more easily, please go ahead at the BWV 248 VI article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. Yes, I will think about whether some of these details could usefully be included.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

These clarifications being applied, I suppose we can safely reinstate the redirect. Any objections? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)