Talk:Cantata academica

Infobox
I feel free - as suggested - to discuss this infobox on the talk, open for suggestions. As for our agreement: we both added to something others started, I concluded that none of us "owns" this article. So let's look at the flaws and merits of this infobox, - it summarizes how I understand the article, and it would not be the first time that the precision of an article is improved by that feedback. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Gerda. I don't think the faults in the infobox you've presented are faults in the article, but of the infobox itself. The issue of scoring, for example: it's explained in the article (and we had previously discussed the vocal parts), but that parameter as you've presented oversimplifies, and to list all parts would go too far in the other direction. The text, movements, and occasion parameters you've presented reflect correct information in the article, but are incompatible with the template documentation - such is the nature of a box, it doesn't always nicely fit what you want to put in it. As to your second sentence, I'm afraid we must disagree. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think of not mentioning movements and scoring at all then? Please specify how text, movements, and occasion are incompatible with the template documentation? The documentation could be improved. You could just have removed the parameters in question. - Which part of my second sentence do you not agree with? Do you think you "own" this article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ps: scoring: I kept it simple, following your examples such as, but we could drop it altogether as it is the "normal" scoring for a cantata, - unlike Messiah, where the extremely simple instrumentation of just trumpets, timpani, oboes and strings would be informative for people who have the orchestras of later versions in mind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gerda, the template documentation doesn't need to be improved, you just need to not be putting stuff in parameters that doesn't fit what those parameters are supposed to convey. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific. Do you mean, for example, that the commission should be kept separate from the occasion? My abilities in mind-reading are limited. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There's that, yes, and text source vs text compiler, and movements vs sections/parts. The specifics are not as relevant, though, given that we haven't decided any infobox would be a net positive here. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I like to practise. To not make it too complicated - used to the simple "opera" - I suggest first performance added, commission and text dropped, - the person who compiled is mentioned only one more time in the English Wikipedia. (Forgot to sign yesterday.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Gerda's
Let's discuss this, as proposed in 2013 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We've discussed it above already - not seeing anything that would change the conversation. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Things can change in some years. Let's see what. I dropped Genre already, and now also Composed (close to premiere), Movements and Scoring (the expected scoring for a 20th century cantata). In response to the above, drop Sacher, and the compiler (until he will have an article.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we agree that the version provides correct facts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * taken, as no objection --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Gerda, there was an objection, see above and below. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection for several days to if it contains correct facts. I am requested to wait three days. Can we try? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not the same thing at all. Continued below. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Nikki's

 * It would seem not much. But how about this? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty to have two version on our way to compromise, because we can't expect interested others to look up the history. I also took the liberty to not repeat the image. Imagine it with a caption in Gerda's, without in Nikki's.
 * The idea of an infobox is to have facts in argument-value pairs. By putting the catalogue number in the name - of which is is no part, plus the link from bolded material is against the MOS - you loose that pairing.
 * What I - as a reader - want in an infobox, is a sense of history and place of the topic. Therefore I want the performance date, and the caption because it clarifies that the image was taken 8 years after the first performance.
 * I want to see at a glance that the work was related to the university of Basel and a major event there, unusual as it is.
 * I would like to see the full title which is a program for those reading Latin.
 * I would like to see the names of the Rector and the conductor who initiated it, as related people, but am ready to compromise there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the primary idea of an infobox is for readers; metadata (argument-value pairs) is a secondary idea, and one that could be served by other means (eg Wikidata). Since the label "name" does not display, what does display is perfectly understandable to a human reader. (There is no blanket prohibition on links from bolded material, but only from the bolded material in the first sentence of the lead).
 * Why is it particularly important or useful to know that the image was taken 8 years after the performance? What difference would it make if it were 7 years or 9 years after?
 * Perhaps, but this can be better explained in text so that the reader can appreciate the unusual nature of the event and its influence on the composition of the work
 * There are very few readers who can read Latin
 * Related people (other than the composer, obviously) would not be key facts about this work
 * The alternative option is to continue as we are, with no box - that would perhaps be preferable. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't say "primary idea". Quoting from our article's lead: "It is a structured document containing a set of attribute–value pairs". This has nothing to do with metadata. Some human readers absorb paired information better than prose, for example the many non-native readers who have to turn to English for this topic because there are no other Wikipedia articles so far (but de and nl). We can serve them without taking away from the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Gerda, it is absolutely not correct to say that this has nothing to do with metadata - see the articles linked from that sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not making clear enough that for me personally, metadata are no major concern, - serving readers is. I read structured information more easily than prose, and imagine that there are more like me. - I remember that in the discussion of Götterdämmerung I asked (biblically) what if there were only 10, shouldn't we serve those 10? We do now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

4 August
We have now this, my objections are above, some repeated:
 * The catalogue number is not part of the title
 * Please no link from the header line
 * Missing any date
 * Missing some place. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See above - there is no visible "title" label so no potential confusion for the reader from putting it in the header
 * Why?
 * Added above
 * Why do you feel this should be included? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In comparable pieces, we have a key there if it serves recognizability. For Bach, we have the BWV number a line below, because for readers unable to grasp German, that may be the only thing they understand. I don't know of any opus number in that position, and don't think people are helped by it in prime position. The prominent link, - I don't like it, like others don't like infoboxes ;) - I remember that we changed all Bach cantatas because of a remark by Finnusertop in that matter, "don't link from a bold redirect". - Time and place is my minimum expectancy for an infobox, to deserve the name. - Not asked: we lose granularity when we pack things in one line which should be paired. Imagine users trying to translate to languages we both don't know: they would be helped by individual parameters, saying exactly what is the catalogue number and what does the year mean, year of composition, performance or publication? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A user whose English does not allow them to understand "Cantata academica, op. 62" is not more likely to understand "Cantata academica / Catalogue op. 62" - splitting things to another line doesn't automatically make them more understandable, particularly when paired with an esoteric or unclear term. But if BWV number "may be the only thing they understand" in a cantata article...why not opus number here? The title is, like for the cantatas, non-English, and the opus number is for those familiar with the topic area equally as recognizable when paired with composer.
 * The prominent link is better than no link at all for purposes of helping readers to understand - linking the abbreviation op. to the relevant article. Would it be helpful to debold the header here?
 * Can you please give me a clear explanation of what you consider to be an infobox? I get the sense that it extends beyond simply using the infobox template, but then you have proposed elsewhere an "infobox" containing only title-image-caption, so I am a bit confused as to your intended meaning. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I put in too much time already. What I like to see in an infobox you can see in any given GA and FA I created: detailed paired information. When I let an image with header and caption suffice it was in compromise with you (and Tim riley), as in The Company of Heaven. I have article work to do now, on two other cantatas, one by Bach (expand for GA), one by Glazunov (for his 150th birthday). Tomorrow, late where live. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Let us avoid sterile, time-consuming discussion! Whatever the context ("creator" or "reader", type of article), As I already wrote, I believe, that an infobox should of course be accurate, but above all informative, alike the summaries used by Uwe Harten in Anton Bruckner - Ein Handbuch, Residenz Verlag, Salzburg, 1996. ISBN 3-7017-1030-9. If a picture is added, it should add info about the concerned composition, dedication, etc. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion is vital to Wikipedia, Meneerke, which is why things like canvassing are problematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Gerda: I've added an expanded version of the infobox, but I would still appreciate answers to my questions. I know you said above that you "put in too much time already", but you've been spending some time posting about this elsewhere since then. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have posted elsewhere because trying to tell you more than twice that a catalogue number matching a parameter is different from a less granular mix with a title (as just one example) seemed pointless, - so I hoped others could explain who are more capable of understanding what you might understand. The infobox I would like to give readers was added in 2013, but I am willing to compromise as shown above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Gerda, if you don't want to or can't answer my questions, that's fine, but simply asking people to look at this discussion or directing them to post here cannot tell me what differences you see in the comparisons you made, or what your aesthetic opinions are, or how you define your terms - only you can. I'm trying to understand your views. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article needs a more informative infobox and with the information as presented in Gerda's proposal. I would fully support inserting it. It defies understanding why people are still opposing infoboxes and appropriate, succinct information within them.JackTheVicar (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox 2023
We are spending too much time arguing, for my taste. One concern after the other then:
 * 1) The opus number is not part of the title, it has now its dedicated parameter, for granularity. We should also avoid bold links. I thought I found a solution but was reverted, on the grounds of a discussion of 8 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to avoid bold links, nor any reason to not display opus number as it appears in the first sentence. Nothing has changed about either of those two things since the last discussion, so it's not clear to me why we are bringing up the same point again. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The parameter opus didn't even exist when we (you and I and one more user, nobody else) discussed last (unless my memory is worse than I know it is). I don't know a single other article with the bold linked opus number above the image, and I don't wish to see one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The parameter catalogue existed; the existence of a more specific parameter doesn't change the points raised previously. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

almost 2024
I have a bad memory. The opus number is not part of any title, and to list it with the title instead of the parameter defies the purpose of granularity. I don't think we should spend time on such things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * As above, the label of title is not displayed, so there is no confusion for the reader. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You think so, as I understand. Should we ask others on the template talk or project classical music? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * What I don't understand is why you say you "don't think we should spend time on such things", and then propose spending yet more. Still nothing has changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe that naming the opus number as part of the header is confusing readers, and not to confuse readers is what I will have time for, but not now. I think about making some parameters wanted in any case (if known) even in a concise infobox. In a piano quartet, the scoring can be deducted from the title, but in a cantata, I'd want it in a predictable spot.
 * Sorry that I had forgotten that this is "your" article. The cantatas popped up on my watchlist, and I compared this one to those of Bach. - Happy New Year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "Cantata academica, Op. 62" is used by hundreds of sources to refer to this work, and that same format appears as the opening words of many if not most of our articles on musical works (and thousands if not millions of their corresponding sources). If that is confusing to readers - and I haven't seen evidence that it is - moving part of it to a new line here isn't going to change that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)