Talk:Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4/Archive 1

Correct title
I don't quite understand why this article was moved from "Christ lag in Todesbanden" to "Christ lag in Todes Banden", since the former seems to be the correct designation. I don't have any knock-down argument for this, but the former name gets 45,000 Google hits and the latter merely 900; also, "Todesbanden" seems to accord better with German grammar. 85.74.143.144 14:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why it was moved, either, but I never bothered to move it back. I'll do it now. Microtonal 07:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Both seem to be widely used. "Todes Banden" sounds nicely archaic, but "sounds nice" is perhaps not a sufficient reason (so I just reverted my last move). I have matched the lead section to the title - if anybody moves it again, please don't forget to do that. Kusma (討論) 17:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The article in the German Wikipedia uses "Todes Banden", but the German edition CD I have doesn't. Gramatically "Todes Banden" is definitely correct.  I've added a comment that both spellings are used.  I've also corrected the title of this section :-) Groogle (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Todes Banden vs. Todesbanden
ngram — consequently I moved the page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * We don't go by popularity, but by the edition of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe, consequently move it back, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * ps: We don't have to copy Amazon's mistake, compare their title and the picture, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Dürr also --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * After waiting for several hours, I moved it back to the version published in the 20th century. The free scores follow the older publication, no wonder, because only they are free. Admitted: Amazon and Bach Cantatas have Todesbanden, but can hardly be described as reliable sources. I am not familiar with your ngram query, but it seems not to differentiate hymn and cantata. If you feel to have reasons to still prefer the 19th century style, please follow the move request procedure. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, ngram – this is an accumulation of reliable sources (reliable in the sense of an application of WP:AT). The ...To t d esbanden variant has kept currency manyfold what the ...Todes Banden ever has been, despite what some of the very reliable reference sources do. The original argument stands. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What I read at WP:AT is: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Please follow and move back to the stable version. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:UCRN ("... Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above ...", with "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable ... sources" demonstrated by ngram) is of course a "good reason to change". --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand that this is true if you pick a new title, not for an article that had a name for 10 years, and for a good reason, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Incorrect – I'd appreciate if you check before making statements. The article exists since 2005, so it has been To t d esbanden longer than To t d es Banden. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Further, the former page move (away from To t d esbanden) had a flawed rationale, it said "title in NBA" – now NBA is a single German-language source, while what counts for UCRN is "... prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources..." (emphasis added), so:
 * never a "single" source, even if that is a very reliable one: when there are many reliable sources, these should be compared for the article title discrimination;
 * generally: English-language sources, not German-language sources. Native English-language authors, such as most often write To t d esbanden.
 * in sum, that previous page move was moving away from an article title that had "been stable for a long time" for "no good reason" – which is a no-no for WP:AT.
 * Please get accustomed to basic English-language Wikipedia policy, I'm sure many of these discussions can get a lot less time-wasting then. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry about not checking that it was stable "only" since 2011. It has never been Totes anything, please check your facts also. I understand that you (and others) think that Wikipedia policy is against calling a piece its published name, but it doesn't seem reasonable to me. Asking the project. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the t d typo (German isn't my native language either), corrected above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Simple summary of Gerda's view: use published title
 * The cantata is based on a hymn by Martin Luther, Christ lag in Todes Banden.
 * At Bach's time, both versions were used.
 * In the first complete edition of Bach's works (19th century), it was Christ lag in Todesbanden (no BWV number at the time, introduced later).
 * In the second complete edition of Bach's works (20th century), it was Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4.
 * In the "bible" on the Bach cantatas, by Alfred Dürr, translated by Richard D. P. Jones, it's Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4.

Two popular sites stick with the old version, Bach-Cantatas and Amazon, Amazon even presenting the image of the different title on the printed edition next to it. I don't think we should follow (that mistake), also think the combination of Todesbanden and a BWV number is anachronistic, but will listen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

ps: I think the most significant source for Bach's works and sources is Bach-Digital which has in English the early version and the later version, no surprise, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. the early version – "in English" is of course a relative understanding with content such as "1. Fassung (verschollen). EA wahrscheinlich 24. April 1707 anlässlich der Organistenprobe in der Kirche Divi Blasii zu Mühlhausen (Wolff 2000, Zehnder 2009). Keine Originalquellen überliefert. Über Besetzung, Werkgestalt und Stimmtonhöhe kann nur gemutmaßt werden; möglicherweise wurde der erste Satz mit dem Text der letzten Strophe als Satz 7 wiederholt."
 * Re. later version – similar, a sample of the "English" at that page: "Leipziger Fassung 1724/1725. Posaunenchor war wahrscheinlich erst in 1725 hinzugefügt."
 * Without prejudice against the content of all that, Bach digital is no authority on English expressions. Somewhat similar to BWV2a, with its English introduction, which has "Todesbanden", see below.
 * And all of this is quite irrelevant for the article titling issue, as said already multiple times, what Gardiner, Novello, Kalmus, Schirmer and more recent editions in English-language realms (and many more sources as explicited by the ngram) do, see below, has more relevance for the article title, per WP:AT, than the "Denglish" sources. Or do you propose we write "leipzig" (as it is in the title of the English "later version" page at Bach digital) henceforth, instead of "Leipzig"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Last version of the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis ("with an introduction in English"): Todesbanden
 * A 2012 publication of the cantata's score: Todesbanden
 * English-language authors such as Gardiner commonly use Todesbanden (see above)
 * Please stop quoting German-language sources such as NBA, these have no effect on article titling issues (see above)
 * ngram in the WP:AT logic, as explained above
 * The 2011 page move was not covered by relevant policy, as explained above
 * If WP:CANVASSing about this, please limit yourself to allowed types of canvassing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't use names of editors in section titles on talk pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Imported from other forums
Left out the pieces not relevant to the article title discussion in what I copied below, from other places where the same was discussed concurrently:

Ignore ignore ignore?
Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4, you may have seen it as TFA on Easter Sunday. Look again, and at the talk. I am told that when some measurements change we have to call a piece no longer as it is published, even if it was like that for 10 5 years, but as Amazon and some majority calls it (presenting the correct title page right next to it). I am confused. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry Gerda--all I've been seeing is ArbCom emails, and this project my ten-year old has due. I don't know how to answer your questions, but I know that, who has just here, knows exactly what to to. :) Drmies (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Doktoro and gobby Australian companions, it is time to cast your votes in: Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Uncle, I need to retake that class in allegory, clearly. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To the above table: many of the entries are not about Bach's work BWV 4: left: 2 3 4 5 6, right: 1 2 4 6 7 8. The first left - critical edition - has Todes Banden. But people still argue ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Question: can you find out that a source actually means the cantata, not the hymn or some other setting, organ, or different composers? I asked the web master of Bach-Cantatas to change it to Todes Banden, and he did, - things could be so easy ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

More samples on the article talk. It just strikes me as odd that while the published work shows "Todes Banden" (pictured, which is better German, - there's no word "Todesband" in dictionaries, and the second complete edition knew what they were doing when changing) but some still use the old version, and it seems even odder that we should follow those, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Gerda, I'm sorry, but this goes over my head. Good thing Uncle G is around. Drmies (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Three moar to ignore   --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So far I managed but don't know if it's the best approach, leaving Thoughtfortheday alone with it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Gerda, I still don't understand what you're asking me. Besides, I think you know I do rock and roll... Drmies (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I asked very simple self-explanatory things (I thought): should I ignore
 * ... the move of an article (twice) that was stable for five years, on the grounds of some popularity diagram? ... that is: let English sources decide about German meaning or lack thereof?
 * [...] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * [...] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I have exactly zero opinion about Todesbanden versus Todes Banden, but I now want to listen to it, and can't because I'm on a public desk (for now). Lady  of  Shalott  14:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * [...] --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Should a composition carry its published name as an article title?
I would say yes, but was informed (again) that Wikipedia policy is different. Current case: Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4. This was TFA on Easter Sunday, several reviewers had agreed with the title, not even questioned it. It is the title of the edition of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe (NBA), and it would be very simple to just take it. Yesterday, Francis Schonken moved to the former version Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 (twice), based on some statistics, and now tells me that I make things complicated.

* The cantata is based on a hymn by Martin Luther, Christ lag in Todes Banden.
 * At Bach's time, both versions were used.
 * In the first complete edition of Bach's works (19th century), it was Christ lag in Todesbanden (no BWV number at the time, introduced later).
 * In the second complete edition of Bach's works (20th century), it was Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4.
 * In the "bible" on the Bach cantatas, by Alfred Dürr, translated by Richard D. P. Jones, it's Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4.

However, two popular sites stick with the old version, Bach-Cantatas and Amazon, Amazon even presenting the image of the different title on the printed edition next to it. I don't think we should follow (that mistake), also think the combination of Todesbanden and a BWV number is anachronistic, but will listen. Please discuss not here but there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:FORUMSHOP (compare this earlier warning – maybe this should be taken to WP:ANI by now, but I won't go there unless I really have to) --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think an accusation of WP:FORUMSHOP is well over the top here. This forum is exactly the right one to raise the issue to which Gerda refers. The 'earlier warning' which Francis refers to turns out to be one issued by himself, not by an administrator or other authority. I don't think any purpose is served by Francis's aggressive interventions here (or indeed in article Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4) - we should be striving to get consensus, not to batter or threaten editors with whom we don't agree.--Smerus (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "This forum is exactly the right one to raise the issue..." correct. Running away from the place where the issue is already actively discussed is Forumshopping. Maintaining the same discussion in two separate places is even far more counterproductive. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The question came up before, and I wonder what we could do to avoid a conflict between the published work and our article title (which I as a reader find confusing). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking of this issue (since as a librarian we have to deal with this issue all the time), and my feeling is that one can not make a rule that applies across-the-board. Unless you know Russian, how are you going to know Vesna Sv︠i︡ashchenna︠i︡a is The Rite of Spring?; Most opera fans call the work Nabucco but it's really Nabucodonosor; Two years ago there was a ridiculously long debate about whether to call Beethoven's 14th piano sonata Moonlight Sonata or Piano Sonata No. 14 (Beethoven) neither of which is the published name. While the published name is significant, I'd say that one also has to consider what a work is called or referred to in English (since this is English Wikipedia, although I don't think anyone calls any Wagner opera anything other than its German name). - kosboot (talk) 18:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Imagine for a moment: if A Boy was Born had been accepted as published, and not moved, there would not have been one word on the talk page about that topic. - While most Wagner operas are called their German name, one is (still) The Flying Dutchman. Yes, I tried to change that, as I tried - finally successfully - to not have Moonlight Sonata as an article title, with little support at first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Kudos for your hard-won victory on the Clair de lune (if that's the kind of affirmation you were looking for)! It is however not an example of a "composition carry(ing) its published name as an article title". Your other examples illustrate the same. So can we close this thread? Really seems like nothing new is being said here, somewhat of a WP:DEADHORSE as a flimsy excuse to cover up a WP:FORUMSHOP if you ask me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd still avoid to have the same discussion in two places. For the publishers in English-language realms (Novello, Kalmus, Schirmer, up to the 2012 Serenissima publication) there is no disparity between the current article title for BWV 4 and the way these publishers printed the title of the work in their respective publications. For A Boy Was Born you got your answers at Talk:A Boy Was Born. And then again. And then some more. And then revived again. And then some more answers to the same effect. And then another formal closure for a similar discussion. All on the same article talk page. So, no, we don't always follow the publisher. That question has been answered before. So, if you think the BWV 4 and A Boy Was Born issues similar, you know the answer, and the discussion is moot. Or are there other candidates for rekindling the fire of that discussion ad infinitum?
 * @Kosboot: I think it was Le Sacre du printemps before anything else: Stravinsky lived in Paris at the time, where the piece was premiered. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To that specific example, the first published score was the 4-hand version which was dual Russian and French, although if one reads left to right, then the Russian is given more prominence. - kosboot (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

[...]

When published several times, which one?
If a work was published several times, might we follow the latest critical edition, even if a majority of sources still sticks to something older? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no rule in that sense. For Bach's organ compositions it so happens to be that we almost never follow NBA. And that's not even the latest critical edition, Breitkopf & Härtel started publishing new critical editions of these organ compositions less than 10 years ago. Neither do we follow these as a rule, and even less do we start changing Wikipedia article titles every time a next volume of these new critical editions appears.
 * The problem imho is and remains not really being acquainted with WP:AT as a whole (and subsidiary guidance linked from that policy page such as Official names). When you've gotten a good grip of that guidance probably these talk page interactions might be more fruitful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, please explain this page move, where you moved a Bach cantata article away from how it is written in the latest critical edition (2012) — oh, wait, that article got GA promoted recently without that edition even being mentioned... seriously, maybe devote more time to apply such minimal improvements (such as at least mentioning the most authoritative score editions of the composition in the article on the composition), than theoretical discussions about article titles, which you override without blinking when GA promotion is at stake. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain. I moved to Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn, which to my old eyes is the way in that latest critical edition. What did I miss? - Sorry, I missed your tag. You might add something missing yourself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn!" in the latest critical edition (2012) --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My old eyes, sorry. Have no time, all weekend, again sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to close the topic here as largely irrelevant. Please realize you make your fellow-editors lose enormous amounts of time, with arguments that upon close inspection are based on nothing (or even worse, sometimes on quite the opposite of what you try to argue, over and over again). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to discuss, participation is voluntary. We have here a cantata by Bach, who wrote "Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn." while the first line is "Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn!". - We agreed (years ago) to add the BWV number to Bach cantatas, to make the titles unique, usually separated by a comma, but no extra comma when the title ends on a "!" or "?". Some sources have the "!" in this case, others not. Which article title? The meaning of the German line is the same, with or without the "!", in
 * Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn, BWV 132 (as in IMSLP, Dürr-Jones, Bach-Digital and others, current AT)
 * Bereitet die Wege, bereitet die Bahn! BWV 132 (as in the latest edition, Bach-Cantatas and others)
 * I think the current title is justified but will listen to objections and move back if there's a consensus for it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

FAR Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4
Gerda, [...] Brianboulton (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * [...] Gerda's continual forum hopping (WP:TPYES: "Duplicating the same discussion in multiple sections on a talk page, or on multiple pages (see WP:FORUMSHOP) causes confusion, erodes general awareness of points being made, and disrupts the flow of conversation on the topic." – see below) [...] Can you help to get this message accross? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What you call forum-shopping, I call informing the relevant project, Classical music: "Should a composition carry its published name as an article title?" I asked explicitly to discuss the cantata title on the cantata talk, - however, the topic is more general, other cases exist, and that - different - discussion was held on the project talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This failed WP:FORUMSHOP which requires the following: "Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions." Instead of just mentioning "There is a discussion about whether we should use Christ lag in Todes Banden, BWV 4 or Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 as an article title going on in the "Todes Banden vs. Todesbanden" section at the article's talk page. Please comment there not here." Instead, you started to give your arguments in favour of one of the two alternatives. Fails "phrased neutrally", and so de facto starts the same discussion in another place, leaving those having a different opinion with an akward choice: not replying in the new forum may be interpreted as agreement with the arguments, replying confirms the split of the discussion. In other words the WP:FORUMSHOP policy has a reason for being worded the way it is. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Francis, I got that now (see below). - I imagine how different things had been if you had followed basic WP:BRD, for the page move and for unbolding the redirect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I must say, that I too was puzzled and dismayed by this, Brian, [...] The person who initiated the FAR started by making swingeing changes to the content with no prior discussion on April 26th . This included unilaterally moving the page to a new title. Gerda objected to the page move and participated in the post hoc discussion at Talk:Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 on April 26th, but he refused to participate any further in that discussion after less than a day. Instead, he [...] unilaterally closed the move discussion . He made no attempt whatsoever to discuss the problems he had suddenly perceived on the Talk page with other editors [...] Voceditenore (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) [...]
 * Comments:
 * The editors of the Neue Bach-Ausgabe knew what they did when changing from "Todesbanden" to the grammatically correct "Todes Banden", which is also closer to Luther's hymn.
 * [...]
 * [...] When I inform project Classical music, the relevant project, of a discussion on the article talk, it's "disruptive" "unallowed canvassing", - there's little I can say in response to that. - I work on Reger (and Pentecost and Trinity), looking forward, and simply have no time for any of this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Duplicating the same discussion on multiple pages (see WP:FORUMSHOP) causes confusion, erodes general awareness of points being made, and disrupts the flow of conversation on the topic. I think I explained this to you already multiple times, in my own words (while you don't like to be given a clickable shortcut). Now I copied it from WP:TPYES. Sorry for the clickable shortcut, but that's the applicable guideline. The more you start discussions in different places on topics that are already actively discussed elsewhere, the more I oppose the practice. Re. "I try to stay out of the procedure" – your loss; starting a discussion about the content of that procedure here, while the procedure is still going on is however somewhat questionable in view of guidelines (WP:TPYES) and policies (WP:FORUMSHOP, as indicated in the quoted guideline). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Please note that I didn't start this, I responded to Brian's question "What are your views on this?" - Please read Voceditenore's concerns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Francis, I was about to say the same thing thing as Gerda. She was asked here for her views on what Brianboulton (a long-term participant at FA and one of the TFA coordinators) felt was a potentially inappropriate and out-of-process FAR initiated by you. It is perfectly appropriate for her to respond here. You have a point that having a parallel discussion about the page name (amongst other general issues about page naming) at WikiProject Classical music was sub-optimal and should be avoided. However, your premature closing of the article talk page discussion [...] Gerda, it might be helpful in future to alert a project about a discussion elsewhere in a way which does not propose a particular point of view, as this can lead to parallel discussions. Best to simply say something neutral and short like: There is currently a discussion at Talk:Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 on whether a composition should carry its published name as an article title, and if so, how is that determined. Voceditenore (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, will follow that advice. I am happy that I don't have to deal with such things often, so lack the experience.. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Subsection
[...] Francis, on 26 April you moved the article title with no prior talkpage discussion, and closed the discussion that followed the same day. [...] apart from the wrangle with Gerda over the article title, there had been no relevant discussion whatever at this point. [...] Brianboulton (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed the entire content of this section. Francis, it is entirely unacceptable to re-post other editors' comments on other pages with their signatures but out of context, fail to provide a link to the original edits, and worst of all to refactor their comments to suit your yourself . Do not do this again. I will remove any further instances of this on sight. Voceditenore (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's the context:
 * for :
 * for :
 * for :
 * Please check whether I quoted correctly, that is as far as relevant to this discussion on this talk page. The quotes as rendered above are part of this discussion on the article title and have been commented upon below.
 * See also below --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See my comments at Unacceptable copying and refactoring. Voceditenore (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Todesbanden?
I don't know, Francis, if it matters to you (and your "procedural close" of a discussion that has not been moved to classical music, only an alert there was created): the word "Todesband" of which "Todesbanden" might be derived, has no meaning in German, and the NBA knew why they changed the name. - This is different from looking at an added exclamation mark as the only difference between two titles, - something I don't mind, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please keep discussion in one place, per my initiative (see above ) that is now Featured article review/Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4/archive1 that is: on this talk page while FAR is on hold --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Updated 06:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "the word "Todesband" of which "Todesbanden" might be derived, has no meaning in German":
 * As I always said this is irrelevant, but the contention seems to be incorrect also – apparently Todesband (in singular) has and had a meaning:
 * in 1558
 * in 1574
 * in 1586
 * in 1587
 * in 1753
 * in 1802
 * in 1834
 * in 1839 and another
 * in 1914
 * in 2005
 * And many more.
 * The linguistic argument against ... Todesbanden is both irrelevant an bogus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Article title
The by Francis who is so sure that "Todesbanden" is the better spelling that he moved the article twice. I have my problems with several aspects and would like to see what others think.


 * I believe that procedures and guidelines don't make us slaves of the procedures and guidelines.
 * I believe that WP:BRD is a good idea anyway, even more so if it concerns a FA. If an edit is reverted as bold it should be discussed. Francis moved the article. I moved it back, and wish that BRD had been respected: discuss!

I will not move it back, but can we please discuss?


 * 1) The two names in question are not tremendously different. I understand that the rule about following English sources is meant for example in cases where we have a German ship name vs. an English one, a French name for a village vs. a German one, - not for minor spelling differences.
 * 2) "Todes Banden" is correct German grammar, "Todesbanden" is understood as the same, there's no difference in meaning.
 * 3) The article has been stable at "Todes Banden" for five year, readers got used to it, we confuse them by a move.

For all these reason (and several more), I think "Todes Banden" is the better spelling, in agreement with the latest publication and with sources which use that and not older ones. Please discuss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Undid my earlier close, and grouped the fractured discussion about the same on this page under one heading.
 * Re. #1: small spelling differences (e.g. Brussel/Brussels) are also covered by the guidance.
 * Re. #2: irrelevant, e.g. whether "Vienna" is correct German is irrelevant for the article title in English Wikipedia. Further, do you accuse the Bach-Gesellschaft of using "incorrect German"? Seems a bit farfetched if you ask me.
 * Re. #3: Readers worldwide are more used to the Todesbanden variant (see ngram, and WP:AT that this is the criterion, not the in-Wikipedia variant of the "what readers are used to" principle)
 * See also above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that what is correct in German is irrelevant for the purposes of the article. Given the number of words that are being generated in this discussion of a German language title, perhaps it would be a good idea to elicit more comment from native speakers of the language. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * See above: what counts for WP:AT/WP:UCRN is "... prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources..." (emphasis added) — if anything, we should get more input from native English speakers. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand that WP:AT is mainly for names of new articles, not needed for an established one. - I have no idea how native English speakers would help when it comes to the difference between two German expressions, of which one is good (Todesbanden), but the other one is better (Todes Banden). I didn't say the Bach-Gesellschaft edition is incorrect, - another misunderstanding it seems. We have the native German speakers: the editors who decided on Todes Banden when they published the second edition of Bach's complete works. They knew what they did. If English sources didn't yet follow, we can still educate our readers, adjusting a little sooner than Bach cantatas, Amazon and printed publications (which I did in 2011). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs)
 * Re. " I understand that WP:AT is mainly for names of new articles" – incorrect, you just made that one up, didn't you? WP:AT is what applies when considering WP:RMs. It applies as well to an existing name as to a proposed alternative name. In fact the two are compared as to which one fits WP:AT best.
 * So what do we have here? Someone not following WP:AT (it's not a short policy, there's plenty of stuff in it), and instead wants to make the policy still longer with invented additional new rules that would have WP:SNOW chances to get accepted as policy (and even if they would they're not in it right now). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Another misunderstanding: I say what I understand, and you understand that I want to make rules. No. I want to keep things simple. I also like things stable. To change something that was stable for five years for such a minor difference seems no service to readers. I wish you had at least used WP:RM, instead of moving and moving again when reverted. Should we do that: I revert to the status before, and you start a correct move request? I liked the way Bach cantatas handled the matter efficiently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ps: please compare the 2005–2009 discussion above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ammended my post above. I meant to say the interpretation of WP:AT is not correct.
 * Re. "simple": again, ngram is the simple and correct application of WP:AT. Didn't add any of the other layers of complexity, most of them irrelevant in the context of WP:AT. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me understand ngram: it only seems to compare the use of the two terms in general, not for this specific piece. If that really creates an automatism for the page naming of this particular piece, something seems wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, N-grams are useless for this, because the results will be for all uses of "Todes Banden" or "Todesbanden", and cannot be constrained to "hits" for this particular work.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "please compare the 2005–2009 discussion above" — sorry, missed that one thus far. Grouped it all together now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't care much. I'm more used to "Todesbanden", so it's easier to read. Tony   (talk)  14:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How is that easier? In German, we can combine many words to one, but there's more clarity when kept separate. Actually it's more "English" to have them separate, death's bonds. We have no word Todesband, while we have Todesangst (fear of death), Todesahnung (premonition of death) and Todessehnsucht (desire to die). Luther wrote two words, todes bande (pictured). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Leaning toward Todes Banden , since that's what the original publication used; [See below for revised !vote with different rationale.] there is no word Todesband, making Todesbanden some kind of "Englisch" neologism; and the fact that in the table in thread above comparing sources for the two spellings, most of them are not even about this particular work, so would not seem to be relevant.  The only thing I can think of that Todesbanden has going for it is WP:CONCISE, but that by itself is insufficient.  There does not appear to be enough data available to make a reliable WP:COMMONNAME analysis,  [There is enough, actually.] so this really seems to come down to WP:COMMONSENSE, i.e. believing our eyes. PS: Why is this being argued about in this back-channel way, repeatedly and in a move-warring fashion, instead of being handled via standard WP:RM procedure?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, the original German publication (i.e. first publication) used ... Todesbanden. That's what stuck in English publications of the score up to the 21st century. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * &lt;nursing a headache now&gt;  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Use Todes Banden  per WP:COMMONNAME. This is more easily analyzable than I thought; see below.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Web queries
This is more easily analyzable than I thought: That's 4,427 for "Todesbanden" versus 12,550 for "Todes Banden". This is a 2.8-to-1 ratio (73.8%) in favor of "Todes Banden". The inclusion of "BWV 4" or "BWV4" as a required search term eliminates most false positives for other things with the same title. If advanced-search features are used to first constrain the results to English-language hits, one loses the page-hits count, but if one then uses the feature to stop hiding similar results (at the end of each of the resulting searches), one gets the following: 26+3=29 pages of results for "Todesbanden" versus 26+11=37 pages of results for "Todes Banden"  (All results-page counts are off by one each from what Google seems to report, due to a Google bug. On each final numbered page of results, e.g. "25", there is still one more page available with "Next", which will end up with the same number, e.g. "25" instead of "26" when you click through to it.) So, that's still a 1.28-to-1, or 57%, lead for "Todes Banden". That's close enough that other factors should be considered. If "Todes Banden" has, as has been suggested, become the more modern usage, and is also standard in German, shouldn't we use that? An argument  be made to go with the original, first-published spelling which [I didn't get this right the first time, apparently] was "Todesbanden". But this doesn't actually match usual practice with regard to published works and the English language; it's entirely routine to modernize spellings (even wordings) of titles. When's the last time you saw a book cover with Sir Gawayn and þe Grene Knyȝt on it, instead of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, or Tales of Caunterbury instead of Canterbury Tales? Similarly Egilssaga is usually rendered Egil's Saga in modern English-language editions and works about the saga. (Yes, there are exceptions, like Charles Cotton's The Compleat Gamester, but they're usually cases of works that are not produced in current editions, and are only of historical interest.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Search for : 137 results (yes, one hundred thirty-seven)
 * Search for : 4,290 results)
 * Search for : 11,200 results
 * Search for : 1,350 results
 * I have to commend you for the efforts you put into this, alas the results shown above are completely unusable through massive false positives, and because of doing a web-wide search (including massive unreliable sources, including self-references to Wikipedia and its derivatives, which the "-wikipedia" parameter doesn't filter out, not by far), instead of a more acceptable search limited to e.g. Google Books.
 * E.g., the first result page of the first query above exclusively lists Wikipedia pages and Wikipedia-derived documents (sic). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, a "BWV 4" or "BWV4" parameter in the query does exclude many works speaking about Bach's cantata. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, what it seems to show is that the "Todesbanden" spelling when coupled with the BWV number is largely a "Wikipedianism"; WP-derived material for that particular spelling dominates, and is difficult to eliminate from, search results that include the BWV number with the one-word spelling. It seems to be that there are largely two styles for this: "...Todesbanden" alone, and "...Todes Banden" with the BWV number. Mix-and-matching them looks to be WP making something up on the fly, splitting the difference in a way that sources largely do not. This is rather like taking the 2015 reclassified scientific name of an organism that also had its vernacular name changed at the same time (from "... baboon" to "... macaque", or "... crow" to "... jay", or whatever), and pairing it with the pre-2015 vernacular name in old sources (or using the new vernacular name, but giving it the old scientific name). This is, I think, what Arendt, above, meant by "...Todesbanden, BWV 4" being anachronistic. Of course including the BWV number excludes the Bach-related material that doesn't mention BWV numbers; this was intentionally a snapshot of the subset of sources that do include "BWV 4" or "BWV4", a statistically significant sample, which does not in fact have a large proportion of false positives in it, especially compared to leaving the BWV number off. It's better data that the Google N-grams search, which cannot be constrained in any way to favor Bach-related results.  The fact that it's a general Google search of course means that it includes some blogs and forums as well as reliable sources; this is inherent in the medium.  The search shows us the "ground truth" of usage in English. The results are backed up by more narrow types of source searches:
 * Google News search for  produces no results at all
 * Google News search for  produces multiple hits
 * Google Scholar search for  produces no results at all
 * Google Scholar search for  produces a hit
 * Additional searches can be constructed, if someone wants to, that don't use the BWV number, do include  as a required search term, and also include other keywords relating to other works by this title as mandatorily excluded search terms, but that requires being certain what all those works are, and how to exclude them without unduly affecting returns for Bach, so someone else can try that if they like; it requires details I don't have at hand. Given the data so far, I have to return to the theme that the "Todes Banden" spelling is clearly the COMMONNAME in English (at least when used with the BWV number), though not by an enormous margin. This is backed up by the fact that the "Todesbanden" spelling doesn't actually make sense in modern German, and the fact that English strongly tends to modernise the names of older works when they retain modern currency of usage/interest. I don't really see any strong countervailing arguments, other than that the "Todesbanden" spelling was preferred formerly, at least by some sources, which ultimately seems to be to actually back the notion that the common name has changed.  I didn't come here with a position in mind, but noticed the question being raised in my casual review of "what's going on with all these disputed Classical moves?", and it seemed worth looking into with additional data. None of the data provided by anyone is by itself simple or adequate on its own, but has to be looked at in the aggregate, due to the complexity of the case. This not like Sony PlayStation vs. *Sony Play Station.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite the large reams of text: the first to couple "Todesbanden" and the number "4" in the BWV catalogue was of course the BWV catalogue itself. No edition of the BWV uses "Todes Banden" afaik. Even Dürr writes "Todesbanden" . Sorry if your web queries can't elicit that, but that's not a problem of the actual sources, and even less a problem of Wikipedians inventing stuff. The latest edition of the score couples "BWV 4" and "Todesbanden" (not "Todes Banden"), see . Again, if you don't know how to elicit that with a web query, that doesn't show an actual problem with those reliable sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite your diffs, I can't follow:
 * The BWV catalogue preceded the NBA edition which (until your attempt now) determined our article titles, as a critical edition with high scientific background, - no wonder the catalogue was still old style. Sad that it was never updated.
 * Dürr wrote "Todesbanden" in a short book in 1958, but Todesbanden in a book covering the complete cantatas in 1971, translated in 2006, a main source for this article.
 * The "latest publication" seems hardly relevant, compared to the NBA. Their title "Christ Lag in Todesbanden" proves (by that capital "Lag") that they are merrily unaware of German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. #1: Chronology:
 * First edition of the BWV (Schmieder): 1950
 * First edition of the NBA score (Wolff): 1985
 * BWV2 (Schmieder): 1990
 * BWV2a (Dürr): 1998
 * 2nd edition of the NBA score (Wolff) 2013
 * Re. #2: Dürr apparently used both forms. See also BWV2a (1998) in previous reply.
 * Re. #3: Again, for article titling issues English-language publications are more relevant than German-only publications (per WP:AT). That does not include capitalisation which is regulated by Wikipedia's style guides (which are not an issue here afaik). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

(e.c.) Google Books:
 * "Christ lag in Todes Banden" "Bach" "cantata" -Wikipedia → number of results: 442
 * "Christ lag in Todesbanden" "Bach" "cantata" -Wikipedia → number of results: 3100

Google News:
 * "Christ lag in Todes Banden" "Bach" "cantata" -Wikipedia → number of results: 38
 * "Christ lag in Todesbanden" "Bach" "cantata" -Wikipedia → number of results: 106

Google Scholar:
 * "Christ lag in Todes Banden" "Bach" "cantata" -Wikipedia → number of results: 64 (and: on top of the page)
 * "Christ lag in Todesbanden" "Bach" "cantata" -Wikipedia → number of results: 382

Seems like Google searches can't handle "double negatives"; BTW, the following (e.g. implemented for Google Books) should normally automatically exclude most Wikipedia(-derived) pages as such pages would usually use both forms: Confirms the trend... --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Christ lag in Todes Banden" "cantata" "Bach" -"Christ lag in Todesbanden" → number of results: 435
 * "Christ lag in Todesbanden" "cantata" "Bach" -"Christ lag in Todes Banden" → number of results: 3120

Not repeating the whole phrase in the double negative and applying enough quote marks apparently also works (Google Books): --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Christ lag in Todes Banden" "Bach" "cantata" -"Wikipedia" -"Todesbanden" → number of results: 402
 * "Christ lag in Todesbanden" "Bach" "cantata" -"Wikipedia" -"Banden" → number of results: 3.050

Chronology
As Francis mentioned above:
 * First edition of the BWV (Schmieder): 1950 Todesbanden
 * First edition of the NBA score (Wolff): 1985 Todes Banden
 * BWV2 (Schmieder): 1990 Todesbanden
 * BWV2a (Dürr): 1998 Todesbanden
 * 2nd edition of the NBA score (Wolff) 2013 Todes Banden

See also BWV 1997 bachcentral.com

A new version of the BWV is in preparation. They say "Zudem erfordern wesentliche Neuerkenntnisse aus der letzten Phase der Neuen Bach-Ausgabe sowie entscheidende Forschungsergebnisse der letzten 15 Jahre inhaltliche Änderungen." THEY seem to be ready to incorporate recent research ("of the last 15 years"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Added the links for BWV2 and BWV2a in the list above, hope you don't mind.
 * Also, again, Wikipedia is not going to change an article title for a single new publication (however authoritative etc.): "... prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources..." (emphasis added) was quoted high up above, with some further clarification. Lets avoid circularity in the discussion.
 * Further, if this were an article about a book (which it isn't: the "score" may be a kind of book but the article is about the composition, not exclusively its score appearance) and if it were so that "the title version 'best known in English' cannot be determined" (which is not the case here, the ngram and properly implemented web queries above are clear enough) then "try to determine which of the widely spread versions of the book in the English-speaking world was the most authoritative original (that is, the version that contributed most to the book's becoming known in the English-speaking world), and stick to the title as it appeared on that edition" would apply (see WP:NCB). Despite the dissimilarities I refer to that guidance here to illustrate that en.Wikipedia rather has a leaning towards authoritative early editions than authoritative later editions (thus, after a long struggle, we had On the Origin of Species, after its first edition, despite several maybe even more authoritative later editions of the book had The Origin of Species as title). In this reasoning Schering 1932 is more relevant than NBA 1985. Serenissima 2010 and NBA 2013 add little to that, apart from showing that both names are still in use and confirming the English-language inclination towards the authoritative original. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't mind the links. You wrote in prose that the BWV didn't change, I admit that they may never change.
 * You write: "Also, again, Wikipedia is not going to change an article title ...". Please remember that Wikipedia had an article title which was understood. It was you who changed it, and it seems to be only you who is interested in that change.
 * You say that Wikipedia rules are such that an old style title (19th century) has to be restored over a new style title which was agreed on in scientific research (1985), because of the inertia of sources that didn't follow (but I would blush calling that old style "authoritative"). Such rules seem unreasonable, but I would not be surprised. There is also the possibility to ignore such rules: we could educate readers to the (in this case better) new style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "... it seems to be only you who is interested in that change" – if that were the case the talk had ended here
 * Re. inertia: true in a certain sense, so that we don't have to change article titles after every new publication, and can continue to aim for maximum recognizability across a broad readership. Google News searches, which can be used to gather information on the best article title, see above, would however be squeezed towards the "recent": but even that search resulted in a higher occurrence of the Todesbanden variant.
 * Re. "(... better) new style" – afaik the "better" can't be demonstrated without a sizable amount of WP:OR (like erroneously declaring that "Todesband" doesn't exist in German, see above). Breitkopf & Härtel using one form and Bärenreiter using another with authoritative Bach scholars adapting to the "house style" of the publisher may as well be explained as product differentiation by these publishers. Policies like WP:AT and core content policies exist to cut short endless discussions about an alleged "better" that can't be proven. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You changed, without discussion, and nobody else supports your view so far.
 * Why do you think the Bach scholars responsible for the NBA took the trouble to change the established title if they were not convinced that it was better, in terms of more appropriate? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "Why..." – tangent, not relevant to the article titling issue. The relevant question is: in what proportion did English-language reliable sources follow it? "Not really" is the answer to that question (BTW, a sizeable proportion of recent German-language sources doesn't follow NBA either in that respect).
 * That being said: I'd be interested to read an answer to the "why..." question in a reliable source. My personal answer to that question, that is from a Wikipedia editor's perspective, would at this point be inferred from a combination of several primary sources. In other words: original research, not helpful to indulge in it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

thank you
More import from other forums:

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do what I can. There could yet be arguments in favor of "Todesbanden", but I think the more obscure and specialized they are, the less WP-relevant they are. We turn to COMMONNAME by default for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There can be no argument for Todesbanden together with a BWV number. When the number was added, it became again Todes Banden, as it was in the beginning (Martin Luther). We have a series of articles, look at the navbox, of: title by NBA and number. It was explained in the lead in a footnote: "The two-word version was Luther's original and has again been adopted by the NBA." until the simplifications. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just did Google News and Scholar searches and came to the same conclusion. When the BWV number is used, there are "hits" for "...Todes Banden" with BWV, but zero hits for "...Todesbanden" with the number. Re: "in the beginning" – You make a claim that it was originally "Todes Banden", FS claims it was originally "Todesbanden", and I'm simply working around that conflict, because I don't have all day to figure out who's getting that right.  This is why I looked at things like "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight", etc. – what does English usually do with old titles that don't match what the modern usage would be?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * When I said "in the beginning" it was a pun on the doxology, and that Luther who wrote the hymn on which the cantata is based, wrote two words, "todes bande" (pictured). The article here, however, started as "Todesbanden" until I moved it in 2011. this has the strange combination, - the free scores are the old ones, naturally, but they should not use the BWV number. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand; FS's position is that the earliest published versions of the Bach piece use the "Todesbanden" spelling, and he seems to be right about that. So there are multiple arguments at play, and they're more fiddly than I want to deal with.  This should be based on current usage, not what happened several centuries ago. The article prose itself is where to get into the history and nomenclature of the piece over time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Re. "This should be based on current usage" – sure, see Google News search above. That is: with parameters that don't result in excessive false positives/negatives. As said the older source/newer source distinction shouldn't be made when results of web searches are that clear. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have removed the entire content of this section, apart from Francis's comment which he added here. Francis, it is entirely unacceptable to re-post other editors' comments on other pages with their signatures but out of context, fail to provide a link to the original edits, and worst of all to refactor their comments to suit your yourself Do not do this again. I will remove any further instances of this on sight. Voceditenore (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit my posts on this page. This includes what I quote from elsewhere. If you want to know context, ask for it. I've made clearer what is quote and what is not by enclosing in a quotation box where technically possible – the demarcation by horizontal lines, as before, will have to do for the others. Please never again remove my posts here on this page where I explain on what basis I select what I quote (like you did above). Here is the source of what I quoted: – that is the full context for this quote, there are no omissions in the above quote (which I indicate by [...], as is customary, in some of the other quotes on this page). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See my comment below at Unacceptable copying and refactoring. Voceditenore (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Easter cantata
And yet from another forum :


 * please stop spamming the project with misinformation, which only leads to further instability of the article title (see below). The name of the cantata was not changed "When it got the [BWV] number" – BWV 4 was assigned to Christ lag in Todesbanden (see links to the exact page in various editions of the BWV catalogue above).

I had hoped we could leave "page name instability" behind us by now, move on to more important topics, and thus avoid FAR proceedings in the future (see below). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC) (added source of quote 06:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC))

Christ lag in Todes Banden, WAB 4
More import from other forums :

the discussion on this issue is here, nowhere else. I'll undo your disruptive page move now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Francis, I am not a specialist of Bach's cantatas. I have done it according to Gerda's request.
 * Je retire maintenant mon épingle du jeu. (Ich ziehe mich nun aus der Affäre). Mit freundlichen Grüßen, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 14:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Tx, I'll revert then now (apart from the IMSLP link). If you want to know how thinks now about this issue, you'll have to ask her and have the courtesy to wait for a reply. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I will wait for Gerda's reaction about our "coming-and-going". NB: I find it troubling that the title on the English Wikipedia is now no more in agreement with that of the German Wikipedia. Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Some may find calling it WAB 4 troubling. I didn't (as long as you don't take that to mainspace of course). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2016 (UTC) (added source of quote 06:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC))

Wrong external links
I'm not sure how to change it, but the external links on this page relate to BWV 2, not this cantata, which is BWV 4. Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRyanEinfeldt (talk • contribs) 12:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I can't believe no one caught that until now. :) Fixed. Microtonal 15:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Aria and duet?
The article makes a few references to the aria and duet movements, but there is no indication exactly which these are. &mdash;Dgiest c 19:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

links to video or audio of work
As someone who is greatly musically challenged, I find the bot revision eliminating video or audio links distressing. I first heard the music at church Sunday and was immediately interested. This comes from someone who generally doesn't sing or participate in music. I emailed our choir director, looked online and found both this article and a youtube and a google video of the music. I've listened to both several times and arranged to borrow a book on the topic, and then posted the links here to share with other neophytes. After the automated revision my attitude is that anyone interested can simply repeat my research, something that will greatly decrease the value of the wiki as the first one stop shopping place when you need something now..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmwilliamsjr (talk • contribs) 17:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

FA plans
Some editors agree that this article would make a good TFA on Easter 2016. All help welcome. One improvement will be to change the references to harv, as in other FA articles on Bach cantatas, such as BWV 172. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

HIP
Harnoncourt was the pioneer to make the first recordings of Bach's cantatas in historically informed performance, this cantata was in 1970 on the first volume of the complete cycle. What kind of citation beyond that do you expect? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Bach cantatas (Teldec) has four references for the fact, but I really hesitate to copy it to every single cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Small comments
Lead, end to next to last paragraph: "The lost scoring of the earlier performances was perhaps similar." Is this too weak to be worth saying?
 * Don't know. It's a summary of what is said below: that the custom of having the voices doubled by instruments is 17th century tradition which Bach kept (in his motets - see BWV 226: one choir doubled by strings, the other by winds, and) here, - therefore - although the music is lost - we have good reason to believe it was originally similar to what is extant of performances 16+ years later, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Background, second and last para: "to the questionable leadership" - definite article "the" needs specifying whose leadership, or maybe use "to ... questionable" Marlindale (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Under "Movements", "Unlike Bach's later cantatas, all movements are in the same key"

There is a grammar issue here. One could write "Unlike in Bach's..." or "Unike Bach's later cantatas, all movements of this one are in the same key"


 * Thanks, tried to fix both, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Bold redirect
Regarding : BWV 4 is a common redirect to this article, as has been discussed inconclusively, and should be bold, also explaining to the reader who may not understand German the recognizable part of the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "inconclusively" means that no change to the applicable guidance was convened; on the contrary, a follow-up discussion at the lead section guidance talk page led to removing of the ambiguity that would have allowed that guidance to supersede WP:ACRO. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Help my memory: link to the "applicable guidance". - It's guidance, not binding, right? I see the need to bold a redirect (which doesn't work right now) as higher than the link to a very common abbreviation, which is not crucial for understanding the context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:FAR?
Maybe about time to take this to WP:FAR? Other editors interested in helping out here? I'd do more if I had more time (that is calculating in the enormous amounts of time apparently needed for back-and-forths and long-winded talk page discussions for the smallest steps of improvement). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Instability (page name, layout)
 * Pending discussions about the article basics (see above, see below)
 * Unbalanced, not well-researched, etc. (see tags in article). Summarizing some major issues:
 * The "Background" subsection focuses on the *start* of Bach's tenure at Arnstadt, while the cantata is linked to the *end* of that tenure, and the transition to Mühlhausen. Accidently, when looking at the Divi Blasii naming issue, I encountered quite some reliable sources about those later stages of Bach's stay in Arnstadt, and the transition to Mühlhausen. So it's not as if there wouldn't be enough material to give that section more balance;
 * The "Performances" subsection is relatively short on the best known performance of the work (1725), doesn't explain very well the differences between the performance versions of the cantata, etc.
 * The "Publication" section doesn't mention the major publications in English-language regions such as those by Novello, Kalmus and Schirmer.
 * Disruptive behaviour (unallowed forms of canvassing)
 * etc. (will give more if needed)


 * How much of that instability and disruption is of your making? Allegations of canvassing are not a matter for FAR, but for ANI, where the actions of all involved parties are examined. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * With the counterproductive forms of canvassing going on it seems unlikely consensus editing and stability will return soon, so probably it will take some time to resolve the issues indicated with "unbalanced" tags (yes, the posting and explaining of these tags are "of my making" – do you suggest these aren't valid?); the second step explained at WP:FAR seems a very reasonable next step, under the conditions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Page name instability seems to be resolved, so I struck that from the list of issues above. I also struck the "disruptive behaviour" issue from the list above while, for the time being, this apears to have ceased. Still enough issues to resolve for the article content! --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Unstruck page name issue, discussion apparently not finished yet, see below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also unstruck the disruptive behaviour topic, as long as editors insist on having the same discussion in two different places at the same time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * FAR initiated, please keep discussions at Featured article review/Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4/archive1 until resolved one way or another on this talk page while FAR is on hold . --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC) Updated 06:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Topics imported from FAR

The below is imported from FAR (placed on hold, see below):

Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4

 * Notified: Gerda Arendt, Thoughtfortheday, WikiProject Classical music

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the issues mentioned at Talk:Christ lag in Todesbanden, BWV 4 Francis Schonken (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)  General  well-written: lot of weasely writing and putting emphasis where it doesn't belong, e.g. (giving my thoughts when reading that in brackets): "At this time, Bach was already demonstrating ingenuity in keyboard music (well, name a few of these works then, the sources on this period of Bach's life do so – e.g. Geck mentions the Andreas-Bach-Buch and the Neumeister Chorales in this context), but Christ lag in Todes Banden is a significant milestone in his vocal music. It was completed seven years before his sequence of Weimar cantatas, begun in 1714 with Himmelskönig, sei willkommen, BWV 182 (what is the relevance of naming this one?), and 17 years before he started a complete annual cycle of chorale cantatas in Leipzig in the middle of 1724 with O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort, BWV 20 ('''again, why this one? – why not the last new chorale cantata in that cycle, the one performed a week before BWV 4 was restaged in the version we know it today?)." — this style of being vague regarding the topic at hand, but giving excessive detail on topics with no more than a very remote tangential relevance to the topic pervades the whole article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC) comprehensive: neglects a lot of the history, in favour of generalities regarding Bach that aren't even relevant to the article topic  well-researched:  not representative of the sources on this cantata, nor of the period when it was written  neutral: off-topic detail instead of on-topic minimum unbalances article  stable:''' unstable: article title; layout  style guidelines</li> <ol STYLE="list-style-type: lower-alpha"> <li>a lead: lead section instable</li> <li>appropriate structure: doesn't follow the recommended structure at WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines</li> <li>consistent citations: sometimes relevant page number is missing, see below on the Geck/Hargraves reference.</li> </ol> <li>Media. (tbd, but seems OK on first approach)</li> <li>Length. Not OK, it doesn't stay focused on the main topic, going into unnecessary detail and doesn't use summary style.</li> </ol>

Added a "by FA criterion" overview of the issues. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC); expanded style-related thoughts --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Suggesting a source (alas in German, but with the advantage of being available without exception with one click): pp. V-VI of NBA I, 9 – introduction to score publication --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Another source, on the period when the first version of this cantata was written: Spitta, start of Part III (maybe also go back a bit for the end of the Arnstadt period) – (of course for Spitta always check whether more recent scholarship confirms or modifies his approach). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In Eidam (not available on-line) this period of Bach's life is described from the second half of the 3rd chapter to the first half of the 5th chapter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For the Geck/Hargraves reference the page number is not indicated, I suppose somewhere around p. 62 ff. (which has some relevant material not yet treated in the article on BWV 4) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thus, what had been an exciting and promising start at Arnstadt, had now turned into recriminations and disputes is another way of explaining why Bach wanted to change from Arnstadt to Mühlhausen (current explanation in the BWV 4 article: the post at the Divi Blasii was "more important", which is a very narrow view on the issue) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Johann Gottfried Walther not mentioned in the article on BWV 4: nonetheless (Bach as) "... the only candidate considered seriously" only becomes understandable when at least mentioning that Walther had retracted his candidacy... and explaining why he did so (as it is in the sources on this period of Bach's life). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * the Brass/Woodwind distinction made in the article on BWV 4 regarding the cornetto seems rather anachronistic. The Wikipedia article on the musical instrument compares the cornetto with "... other(!) woodwind instrument(s)". This needs at least some context, or, alternatively, slimming the BWV 4 article down on that quite irrelevant distinction for early 18th-century instrumentation. Anyway, both Bach-digital and the NBA score introduction mentioned above are quite clear that trombones were only added later, and that all other assumptions regarding the instrumentation are of a speculative nature. With these sources the assumption that the scoring "... may have been similar to the surviving version" seems unjustified/speculative/weasely (weasely in the sense that the little bit of exact knowledge on that matter is replaced by something vaguish that quite obviously misses the point). Also, it is not explained why the instrumentation is "archaic"; nor does "The string accompaniment is consistent with the limited instrumental forces which Bach had at his disposal early in his career" seem justified: later in his career he would use string sections with one viola part as a standard (instead of two as in this cantata). Three trombones is also not covered if assuming both "limited early instrumental forces" and the instrumentation of the later version "similar to the surviving version". --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Recommend procedural close – As the FAR instructions state, "Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here". According to the article's talk page, the FAC ended on March 11. If my math is correct, we aren't at three months yet. The thinking behind this is that issues should have been brought up during the FAC; apparently the classical music project has an article alerts system that lists new FACs, so it's not like the FAC was hidden from interested editors. I'd be inclined to make an IAR exception if plagiarism was a factor, but not for other matters that can be resolved in the normal editing process. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 17:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Tx. for the clarification, however "FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted" is in the intro of the FAR instructions. Also, please don't quote out of context, "Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here" is only half a sentence. The full sentence is "Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content." (bolding the part that was left out). The extenuating circumstances here are instability, and disruptive behaviour. Also because of the "radical change in article content": I moved the general treatment of early cantatas to Church cantata (Bach) (most of it on other cantatas) and would replace it by content more specific to this cantata. That more specific content on this cantata is in the relevant reliable sources, thus the current version of the article fails WP:BALASPS miserably, and so we're back at "FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted". --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like most of the changes come from edits that you made. There are some divisions among classical music editors that are well-known, and I have less than zero interest in getting involved with them (and lack subject-matter knowledge), so I'll bow out here. As a parting thought, I still don't understand why these issues couldn't have been brought up at FAC, or why this couldn't have waited a month so that the time frame of the nom would match what the instructions recommend. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 18:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "It looks like most of the changes come from edits that you made" – yes, the radical change is my proposal. Did I say anything different? Is that relevant?
 * Re. "I still don't understand why these issues couldn't have been brought up at FAC" – I'm not in the habit of following FACs. Just became aware of the article when working on Church cantata (Bach), because of the Early cantata (Bach) redirect that went to that article then. After dealing with the "early cantata" related content I started looking at the article, did a few edits, got reverted on a few of these, and only then realised it was a FA. The more I looked at the article, the more it seemed problematic.
 * Re. "why this couldn't have waited a month so that the time frame of the nom would match what the instructions recommend", sorry I stumbled into this so short after the FA nomination, not my fault. "FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted", was what I read next, and the article sure didn't pass these standards whenever it was was promoted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Improvements to article and review process
As one of the editors involved with this article, I welcome the opportunity to improve it. I don´t really want to get involved in the debate as to whether it should have been promoted. I would say however that given the dating problems with Bach´s early cantatas, some generalities regarding the composer´s career are probably necessary in the article. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * would make that: "some generalities regarding the composer´s career are probably absolutely necessary in the article". But (e.g.) why more generalities about the Arnstadt church than about the Mühlhausen church? Why only the vaguish "some responsibility for choral music" regarding the Arnstadt period, when a more precise general description, based on extant contemporary sources, is given in relevant literature? — etc.
 * Anyway, would proceed with such improvements to the article ASAP, sure, that's the real focus, not the process with which such goal is achieved. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I am wondering which specific keyboard works to mention in the context of the Arnstadt period apart from the Neumeister Collection.  If the Passacaglia in C Minor can be assumed to have been written there, it would suggest another level of achievement. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Included in the Andreas-Bach-Buch (BDW ) --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * See also Geck source mentioned & linked above: Möller manuscript (pp. 57–58) → Andreas-Bach-Buch, mentioning Passacaglia (pp. 58–59) → Neumeister collection (pp. 59–62) → transition to Mühlhausen, mentioning BWV 4 (pp. 62–65). What I mean to say by this: we don't have to "invent" such connections (whether he wrote the Passacaglia before or after BWV 4) – the connections are in the relevant sources. With all that is known about chronology of these early works, they belong in the same timeframe – one an organ composition, the other a cantata. Readers might recognize one of the two and thus this clarifies at which point we are in Bach's development.
 * What one won't find, afaik, mentioned in each other's neighborhood in such sources is however BWV 4 and the cantata BWV 182, as it is currently done in the Wikipedia article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

More source suggestions

 * Philippe and Gérard Zwang. Guide pratique des cantates de Bach. Second revised and augmented edition. L'Harmattan, 2005. ISBN 9782296426078
 * This preview of the first 48 pages of that revised edition of the Zwang catalogue describes BWV 4 on pp. 43–44 as probably the first cantata Bach wrote. Don't think the Wikipedia BWV 4 article can be complete without mining the info on these pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ref formatting
This: was changed to: with loss of page numbers, indicating a translation as "(in German)" (while it is an English translation), italicising the title of a short essay instead of putting it in quotation marks, and ending on no less than four parentheses, without indicating which parenthesis applies to what. Is there no more elegant solution to address this, while keeping within the ref format established on the page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Johann Sebastian Bach. "Kurtzer; iedoch höchstnöthiger Entwurff einer wohlbestallten Kirchen Music; nebst einigem unvorgreiflichen Bedencken von dem Verfall derselben." 23 August 1730. Translation published in David, Hans T. and Arthur Mendel. The Bach Reader: A life of Johann Sebastian Bach in Letters and Documents. Rev. ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1980. pp. 120-121.

It will I think be best to separate the citation for the original from that for the translation, so that each citation provides correct bibliographic information. I suggest a suitable change below. The page range belongs to the second citation as it is the range of the whole contribution, not an excerpt being referenced by a particular inline. I like providing translations of foreign-language titles: I suggest something here but someone with access to David & Mendel may like to check that. I think it will not be necessary to repeat the German title in the citation for the translation.
 * ... without diminishing his requests for the violin players in two groups.

-- Mirokado (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Translated in.
 * Translated by the editors.
 * Tx for the suggestion, but that is even further from K.I.S.S.. My objection above was that something fairly simple (German original in one place, translation in another) was transformed into something needlessly complex. This proposal would take the "needlessly complex" still much further. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

FAR on hold
Coord comment: In light of the short time since the article's initial promotion, I think it's appropriate to put this review on hold for now and allow more time for talk-page discussion, where some of the issues mentioned above can hopefully be addressed. If in a few weeks concerns about the article persist the review can be reopened. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

(FAR page content above imported here by Francis Schonken (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC))

Still a few weeks the article will stay FA whether anything happens or not.
 * you wrote "I don´t really want to get involved in the debate as to whether [the article] should have been promoted", but you welcomed the opportunity to improve it (see above). Do you want to get involved in adressing the article's issues? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I was happy to take a break from the article, but I am still interested in doing some more work in due course. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * you wrote "I couldn't care less if that article is labeled FA or not" – can I motivate you nonetheless to help address the article's issues?

Any others interested in addressing the article's issues? When nobody can be motivated to keep it FA by the time the grace periods ends, what's the point in keeping the FA tag after that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't care if this article is a FA. The is gone. Thinking of this article is not good for my health, so I am determied to forget it.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To be absolutely clear: do you want to take part in the step where "concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article", or not?
 * I'd be prepared to address the issues you raised elsewhere (e.g.: "... the removal of a chunk of the article, a table into which much thought went, putting it elsewhere?"), provided they are raised "at article Talk", as the informal step requires.
 * A similar chunk of issues raised elsewhere:

"(...) If you ask me, the best thing to do would be to restore the version before these changes (...), and discuss every single one on the talk page. (...) Steps towards improvement are always welcome, don't need a formal (...) procedure. (...).
 * Beauty contest:


 * F: Christ lag in Todesbanden or Christ lag in Todes Banden (Christ lay in the snares of death), BWV 4, is a church cantata for Easter by Johann Sebastian Bach.
 * G: Christ lag in Todes Banden (also spelled Todesbanden) ("Christ lay in death's bonds" or "Christ lay in the snares of death"), BWV 4, is a cantata for Easter by German composer Johann Sebastian Bach, one of his earliest church cantatas.


 * Comments:
 * Showing two bold German names that differ only slightly seems not a helpful start in the article.
 * I believe that offering the more literal translation "death's bonds" is a service. (Imagine sourcing for both translations, - omitted here only to avoid error messages.)
 * I believe that a reader unfamiliar with the topic should first be helped to both Bach cantata and the top of Church cantata (Bach), not to a section (Easter) without introduction.
 * I could do without "German composer" but editors before us had it, and I respect their work.
 * I believe that offering the more literal translation "death's bonds" is a service. (Imagine sourcing for both translations, - omitted here only to avoid error messages.)
 * I believe that a reader unfamiliar with the topic should first be helped to both Bach cantata and the top of Church cantata (Bach), not to a section (Easter) without introduction.
 * I could do without "German composer" but editors before us had it, and I respect their work.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)"


 * (edited for things that are already discussed in other sections of this talk page, or not relating to informal improvement of the article). I'd be prepared to address such concerns, of course if we finally can come to an agreement that "at article Talk" is the place for the informal stage. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Francis, the material following your "A similar chunk of issues raised elsewhere:" is completely inappropriate. First of all, you added a fake time stamp. Secondly, you have edited her alleged comments without providing the context in which they occurred. Either remove this completely, or provide the exact diff for each alleged comment and remove the fake time stamp. You have already been warned by an administrator about refactoring others' talk page comments. Voceditenore (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed, no problem. It was just an offer to talk about concerns if there are any. FYI, the time stamp was genuine, it was generated here --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That being said and done, would you object to me restoring the material I removed here to this talk page, so that the concerns expressed there can be addressed here? Again, this is just a friendly offer to address these concerns. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I recorded no objections, so the issues are back for further discussion here. See also below, which is taking up the fifth bullet in Gerda's quoted comment above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, just found out the above had been discussed elsewhere. I'd like to return to improving the article: the comments I quoted above help me in doing that. For instance the second bullet led to this update, with "...see also talk page" as part of the edit summary – so I think it best to have that comment on this talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Translation of "...banden"/"Banden" in lead sentence
Currently "...banden"/"Banden" is translated as "snares" in the translation that is given in the lead sentence (alternative translations are further down in the article).

"...banden"/"Banden" can also be translated as "bonds":
 * (German) Band and (English) bond are words deriving from the same root I suppose, although from what I understand from several dictionaries I consulted, the English word seems to have a positive connotation ("thing that unites") less prominent in the German counterpart;
 * (English) snare seems to reflect the negative connotation better (a string or rope in the context of traps, nooses etc.)

I'd generally prefer to give only one translation of the article title in the lead sentence, which one is best: the one with "bonds" or the one with "snares"? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Discography section
Placed a POV section template in the Recordings section: Don't know where to begin on the POV in that section:
 * Recorded "early"? As if 1931 is "early" for the recording of a Bach composition
 * I would say it is early in the context of the cantatas, which were relatively neglected. The relative absence of recordings meant that some people would know the works through piano arrangements of the highlights. -Thoughtfortheday (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Too much of Oron's POV
 * Why would only recordings from 1959 be relevant enough to be listed here?
 * etc.

Copying and refactoring
I had removed Francis Schonken's completely unacceptable copying of editors' comments on other pages (with their original signatures), refactored to suit his own purposes, taken out of context, and no permalink provided to the original page where editors could see the whole conversation and its original context. They constituted multiple violations of WP:TALK, as well as a violation of the attribution required by Wikipedia's licensing.

Francis has now reverted my removal and has re-added material which he had previously removed at my request. His edit summary "there seem to be no objections to treating these topics here" is entirely false and he knows that. I am objecting. You copied and refactored two of my comments here with no indication of where they were made and the full context in which they occurred. The fact that you have driven all the other editors away from this article and its talk page is immaterial. Now, please remove your all re-additions of editors' comments on other pages or at a bare minimum provide the exact diff for each and every comment by another editor which you have copied here.

For an example of what is going on here and why this talk page is now a complete mess and very misleading, see the material Francis has refactored and posted above with a misleading link in the heading. It actually came from an old version of User talk:Gerda Arendt. This is the full and original context. Francis, I am also notifying Drmies who has previously commented on your unacceptable copying and refactoring. Voceditenore (talk) 09:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "... posted above with a misleading link in the heading ..." – the material was archived 12:35, 5 May 2016, the extract above was posted 06:16, 7 May 2016. Evidently I extracted it from the archive. So don't tell me where I got it, I got it from the archive.
 * There's no refactoring. I selected part of the material, for its relevancy in the article title discussion (or in other sections on this talk page relevant to the section). Once quoted, I didn't touch any of the quoted text (you did, you even removed some comments made by myself and by other editors on this talk page exclusively, which is disruptive).
 * There's no permission needed to copy parts of comments from elsewhere. I've given the diffs where I copied from, that should suffise.
 * the title you initiated this section with does not conform to WP:TALKNEW's "Keep headings neutral", which is disruptive. Please consider changing it to a more neutral heading. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have changed the heading. Francis, I am going to say this one last time. It is unacceptable to refactor others' comments in this way. In this particularly egregious example, you selectively edited Brianboulton's and my comments at Gerda's talk page which were highly critical of your behaviour at this article and this talk page. You removed our criticism of you, and what you kept implied that I was primarily criticising Gerda for forum shopping. Re-posting on this page my suggested wording for Gerda to use when posting at other forums is utterly irrelevant to improving this article or to discussing what title it should have. Ditto anything else there about forum-shopping. Re-posting it here is simply a tool to browbeat and discredit another editor. If you were truly interested in "focusing" the discussion here, then you would have quoted only Gerda's points that were relevant to it with a diff, i.e. these. Yet you quoted none of them. Furthermore, this link which you gave for the "source" of the comments you refactored is obfuscatory. The relevant material is buried in the 285,742 bytes of all the other material Gerda was archiving in that edit. Once again, at a bare minimum provide the exact diff for each and every comment by another editor which you have copied here or link specifically to the entire context in which they were originally made, i.e. this. Voceditenore (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)