Talk:Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam, BWV 7

Queries
The word "song". What is it referring to?

Instrumentation is listed twice. Tony  (talk)  00:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * "Song" is sometimes used as a synonym for hymn, to avoid repetition. In German, once "" (sacred song) or Kirchenlied (church song) was used once, "Lied" is sufficient for the rest of a text. Let me know if that's different in English. - One difference is that the German "Hymne" would never be used for a sacred song, only for national anthems and other music with hymnal expression.


 * The scoring is in the infobox, in the lead and once in the body, no?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hymn settings can be indicated as "spiritual song" (as a literal translation of "geistliches Lied"), or in English more commonly as "sacred song" (e.g. List of works by Johann Sebastian Bach, NBA series III), although such appellation is less often used for a choir setting (the only exception I know: BWV 299 is sometimes indicated as a song for its No. 39b inclusion in the second Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach).
 * "Chorale" or "Chorale setting" are probably more viable alternatives if you want to avoid a repetition of the word "hymn" and are referring to a setting for SATB chorus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I know that I can do that, but I wanted to explain - in response to the question - where "song" comes from. At church, you would hear in German: "Wir singen jetzt Lied ...", never Kirchenlied or Geistliches Lied. - In most cases, that will be singing of the melody with organ accompaniment, no part setting. - If you look at the article, it says "based on the hymn", and then The song, - referring to text and melody, also not to part setting. In the United States, I often observed the congregation singing a hymn in four parts. - Can we agree that every Kirchenlied is also a Lied? Is the translation, every sacred hymn is also a song, wrong? - You can look at this article and most others: I do use "chorale", but not when I refer only to text and melody. Is that wrong? - "Sacred songs" seem to mean not hymns (in hymnals, sung by a congregation at church) but art songs with a spiritual topic, sung by a solo voice. Do we agree? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * AFAIK you can't derive usage in English from usage in German. Please defer to those with a better assimilation to the English language (which I'm not by definition). AFAIK "song" sounds awkward/unclear in this context: even I can feel that, and I'm not a native English speaker. Better work towards an improvement of the wording, than being defensive about an awkward/unclear phrasing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I changed it to a repetition of hymn now, but owed an explanation to Tony, and waited if perhaps there was a better term. There's no other synonym, right? I wanted to discuss that, not defend, - sorry if I wasn't clear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

(e.c.) Here's my proposal to replace:

... The cantata is based on Martin Luther's hymn for baptism in seven stanzas "Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam". Stanzas 1 and 7 are used unchanged in movements 1 and 7. An unknown librettist paraphrased the ideas of stanzas 2 to 6 to a sequence of as many recitatives and arias. The song and thus the text focus on Luther's teaching on baptism, derived from biblical accounts. It is not related to the prescribed gospel about the birth of the baptist.

by:

... The cantata refers to the chorale "Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam", both to Martin Luther's text and to the associated melody ("Es woll[t] uns Gott genädig sein", Zahn No. 7246). The seven stanzas of the hymn treat baptism based on biblical accounts. Stanzas 1 and 7 are used unchanged in the opening and closing movement of the cantata. The five arias and recitatives between these choral movements use a text paraphrased from stanzas 2 to 6. Thus the cantata rather focusses on Luther's teachings on baptism than on the actual content of the gospel reading (the birth of John the Baptist).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tweaked proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tweaked further: "paraphrasing" an "idea" to a "type of movement" seems hardly something a "librettist" does (and sounds awkward). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What the librettist of a chorale cantata did was paraphrase the ideas of the original hymn (which was sometimes almost 200 years old) in the language of his and Bach's time. Forming recitatives and arias is secondary, - Bach composed also recitatives and arias on original hymn text. Can you word that better? - I prefer active voice whenever possible and think "The ... arias .. use a text paraphrased" suggests activity on the part of the arias ;)
 * Further up: to tell a user unfamiliar with the topic that a chorale cantata is based on a chorale doesn't help too much, imho, but the user may know what a hymn is without clicking. Clicking chorale isn't too helpful either: "A chorale is a melody", nonsense, the text also makes the chorale, plus the image is misleading, showing not a chorale but a chorale harmonization. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No, paraphrasing an "idea" doesn't sound right: paraphrasing is converting one sequence of words to another sequence of words (with similar meaning). I don't think in English the word paraphrasing is used for converting an idea (from whatever origin) into a text, but then again, I'm not the big expert in English language.
 * Don't feel hampered to improve further, or like I did above, try out phrasings on this talk page before inserting them in the article. Also, when you feel up to improving the chorale article, that would be a great thing. Also I wondered why there is no Lutheran chorale article yet, which would be so much easier to link to in this context (Lutheran hymn is a redirect that has similar issues as linking to the chorale article, all but a satisfactory treatment of the topic as a whole). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

BWV
I has been discussed that not all people know what BWV is, that BWV 7 should be bold as a redirect, which is actually a service to readers, telling them that next time they can arrive at the article by this easy shortcut. As a link from the bolded redirect is not wanted, per MoS (so said Finnusertop), the solution of the footnote was found and accepted. Please restore it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't the first discussion about this, although I can't remember exactly where the last one was. I seem to remember that discussion ending in something like "BWV numbers are important, users should use them more", to which I replied something like BWV numbers are rather like technical insider stuff for the regulars, and there's no need to tell users how to navigate. I haven't seen anything that would convince me otherwise since. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The link to the previous 2014 discussion is given above. Can we count this as one of the editorial choices the principal editors may make? Please restore a standard feature in the articles (several of them FA and GA) for which I feel responsible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There has been a more recent discussion, the 2014 one isn't the one I was referring to. Anyway, on arguments, no: GA/FA is not a certificate of ownership in this sense. Do what's best for the article, in this case: following WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines (first paragraph after first example). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Where do you think the version with bolded but explained abbreviation is not in line with that guideline? With an additional link of BWV in the infobox that is not mentioned in the guideline. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that you you now expect us to follow, based on a discussion in archive 63. I don't think that change had consensus. Should we discuss it with more people, or will you kindly restore this article to bold with explanation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 63 is indeed the more recent discussion I was referring to, which led to the guidance update. Anyway, the update to the WikiProject Classical music guidance was discussed at the WikiProject Classical music talk page, so this article talk page is hardly the place to rediscuss it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That discussion had more or less two participants: you and me. Smerus didn't comment the bolded redirect. How you derived from that discussion a change of the guidelines remains a mystery to me. Of course I didn't plan to discuss that here. I would prefer not to discuss it at all, - would be a waste of time. It's common practise to bold redirects, - not all but the useful ones. Please do that here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Please cease and desist. I follow current practice as established on the majority of classical composition articles, and as formalized, by me, in the WikiProject Classical music guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That majority of articles possibly don't have redirects worth bolding. Practise for five years has been to bold the BWV no in Bach cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see BWV numbers as "redirects worth bolding", I have explained why, and have been de-bolding when chancing upon them – and this for a long time now. Don't care how long the former practice existed. For comparison, many editors used to write "D." for Deutsch numbers for a very long time, until it was decided to write uniformely "D" more recently. I can't support this bolding and footnoting of BWV numbers, without a standard in-text bluelink, and still have to see the first article where it would be appropriate. So again, please cease and desist. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I hear you, and only you, telling me what to do: to stop a practise that I find reasonable. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ? I'm not telling you what to do, like you did in your first post in this section ("Please restore it"). My "please cease and desist" was my attempt to stop you from telling me what to do, for a practice I find reasonable (I explained why), conforming to broad current practice, and to current guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK you two. The title is Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam, BWV 7 so per MOS that means we bold it all, even if it's split by the English translation (or we could move the BWV # to be before the English translation). See Manual_of_Style/Lead_section ( " Mumbai, also known as Bombay, is the capital of the Indian state of Maharashtra..." ). MOS tops local consensus.  End of story.  Now play nice, both of you.   Montanabw (talk)  00:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This edit was of course not OK for WP:BOLDTITLE:

In general, if the article's title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear: The Beatles' rise to prominence in the United States on February 7, 1964, was a significant development in the history of the band's commercial success. (The Beatles in the United States)

and

Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead: The Babe Ruth Award is given annually to the Major League Baseball (MLB) player with the best performance in the postseason. (Babe Ruth Award)

There's also no rule that every incoming redirect must be bolded, please try to read guidelines without filling in the points you would like them to say. So, I reverted.

As said above, the applicable guidance, which conforms to MOS guidelines, is at WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The rule is "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence" The article's title is "Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam, BWV 7" and it should be in bold. In addition there is "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold". BWV 7 is a redirect and it should be in bold. Local consensus in a Wikiproject cannot override. I see that you're also under the misapprehension that redirects don't have to be bold. Here's the rule: "To follow the "principle of least astonishment" after following a redirect, for terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the subjects of redirects to the article or section". The first occurrence of BWV 7 is indeed the target of a redirect, and in the first couple of paragraphs. It needs to be bold. --RexxS (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – for comparison, see BD, which starts with this bolding:"Christ, unser Herr, zum Jordan kam BWV 7 ; BC A 177"When the ultimate authority on BWV numbers decides not to bold the BWV number itself (but to display it as a link with a pop-up clarification of "BWV" on mouseover) that might be seen as a sign, no? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You say it: the ultimate source, a specialised site addressed at people looking for specific sources around Bach. They know. We have a broader audience. Our readers - possibly arriving at the article by some search function, by chance - may have never heard the name Bach before, nor seen BWV. We should help those as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My reasoning being, the more specialized a source is regarding catalogue numbers, the more they would bring such catalogue numbers to the forefront, and, conversely, the less specialized a source is (i.e. the more it is intended for the general public) the less attention it would give to BWV numbers. E.g. at the end of the 20th century (250 years after the composer's death) some popularizing Bach biographies were written or republished: many of them not containing a single BWV number (Eidam's, written in 1999, can be given as an example).
 * From that perspective, bolding a BWV number is not helpful, linking "BWV" is. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I softly disagree. Repeating from above: it's not only a catalogue number but has been widely accepted as the cantata number, worth bolding, as we would the number of a sonata or a symphony. We do that for Schubert's symphonies knowing that they are not in chronological order, but that they are known under those their numbers. Please note also that Bach-Digital (not accessible as I write this, as unfortunately often) doesn't have to highlight the BWV number because it always follows the title immediately, - no need to catch the attention of the reader, while we have to deal with a translation or twobetween the German title and BWV. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "Repeating from above" – I suppose you mean below, where also my refutation of the idea is. You are correct in that the comments are becoming repetitive. I add a new idea, you just drum up a series of arguments already given, that aren't even by far referring to the new idea.
 * I didn't reply to the symphony number argument yet: imho too far-fetched, as the article title isn't Cantata No. 7 (Bach), nor the cantata indicated as such anywhere in the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

BWV continued
Some more thoughts:
 * I agree with you that the applicable guidance is what you quote above (after you changed it before), but the stress is on guideline, - it's not binding.
 * The BWV number is not only a catalogue number, but the cantata number. We bold such numbers, see Symphony No. 8 (Dvořák).
 * The BWV number is the one memorable thing for English-speaking readers in our article names, it deserves bolding for that reason alone, as it doesn't follow the German title directly but its translation(s). The number can show readers who don't speak German at a glance that they are at the right article.
 * The BWV number is in the url of web sources, which often have it in their headers before the German title
 * https://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~wfb/cantatas/7.html
 * http://www.bach-cantatas.com/BWV7.htm
 * http://www.uvm.edu/~classics/faculty/bach/BWV7.html

I don't tell you what to do. You made a bold edit here, changing a GA to make it look different from comparable articles. I reverted, but you didn't discuss but restored the version you like better. I recommend that for the reasons mentioned above you return to the version bold (but of course without a link) with a footnote. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "BWV number is ... the cantata number" – it is for this cantata, but not for cantata numbers in general. Cantata numbers go only up to 199, and don't include those with a "a" or "b" index (e.g. BWV 30a is only a BWV number, not a cantata number), nor those with a Anh. number (e.g. BWV Anh. 3 = Gott, gib dein Gerichte dem Könige, BWV Anh. 3 has no cantata number). In general secular cantatas don't have a cantata number in this sense (BWV 198 = Cantata No. 198, is afaik the only exception)
 * &rarr; specific for this cantata (BWV 7) I might add that the article doesn't clarify in any way how the cantata got its number (i.e. by being included in the very first Bach-Gesellschaft-Ausgabe publication in 1850), so if it isn't worth mentioning in the article, it is probably not all that significant.


 * Re. "The BWV number is the one memorable thing for English-speaking readers in our article names" – disagree, imho Amore traditore is far easier to remember than BWV 203. Over 300 numbers in this sense (some with indexes, some in a different "range" of BWV numbers, e.g. BWV 244a – etc.) are not "easy to remember" for which cantata is intended by the number.
 * &rarr; specific for this cantata, I suppose English-language readers would find it most easily by clicking a link at BWV, Church cantata (Bach), Chorale cantata (Bach), List of Bach cantatas, Category:Cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach, etc... If they are trying to find it by its BWV number, that would probably not be because of "remembering" that number but by copying it directly from a record sleeve or book, url, or such.


 * Re. "The number can show readers who don't speak German at a glance that they are at the right article" – the article title already does confirm the BWV number, in a large font, so far for instant recognition.
 * &rarr; specific for this cantata: Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam, BWV 7  is rendered in the article title.


 * Re. BWV numbers in web resources: also for Wikipedia.
 * &rarr; specific for this cantata: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_unser_Herr_zum_Jordan_kam,_BWV_7 – "BWV 7" prominently concludes the url. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree, BWV 7 is in large font in the article title, but bolding helps readers who don't know what it means to find the explanation in the footnote. Thanks for taking the time to list all these exceptions, - let's talk only about the sacred cantatas with numbers 1–199 (and their variants) for which cantata number is equal to BWV number. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "sacred cantatas with numbers 1–199 (and their variants)" – makes no sense to discuss that group as if it would make a meaningful distinction for layout decisions in Wikipedia:
 * Why discuss BWV 199, but not BWV 198 (not a sacred cantata)?
 * Why discuss BWV 10, but not BWV 11 (not a cantata)?
 * Why discuss BWV 30a, but not BWV 244a (not a variant of a sacred cantata)?
 * ...etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Please forgive my sloppy language, by "sacred cantatas with numbers 1–199 (and their variants)" I meant Bach's sacred cantatas within the numbers 1–199 (and their variants). We don't have to have one style for all classical music articles. As long as some have an infobox and others not, please don't come with an argument of uniform layout for the minimal difference we discuss here. In an article for which I feel responsible, I like to help the reader by bolding, which is in line with the MoS permitting to bold redirects. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "Bach's sacred cantatas within the numbers 1–199 (and their variants)" – same difference:
 * Why discuss BWV 199, but not BWV 198 (not a sacred cantata)?
 * Why discuss BWV 10, but not BWV 11 (not a cantata)?
 * Why discuss BWV 30a, but not BWV 244a (not a variant of a sacred cantata)?
 * No, indeed, as said above, this is hardly the place to discuss general guidance, applicable to all kinds of similar articles. I'm getting a bit offended by your "... for which I feel responsible" – are you doubting my sense of responsibility? Why do you think I stepped in yesterday, way beyond Tony's original remark? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Misunderstanding again, sorry. Not BWV 198, because it is no sacred cantata, not BWV 11, same. Not 244a, because not in the number range. I feel that you are more responsible for Bach's Latin church music, and I more for this one, - no need to be offended, and sorry again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ...gets only more insulting: currently I'm building the full list for all compositions by Bach, can't say I feel less responsible for any of the pages I link to when building that list. Please, "Comment on content, not on the contributor". --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

MOS again
I just saw this in MOS:ACRO: "When not written out in full on the first use on a page, an acronym should be linked." Since a footnote after the first usage of the acronym is not the "first use" on the page, the solution "bolded without link followed by footnote" is not conforming to applicable MOS guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If we can't please several aspects of the MoS, we need to decide. My decision would be to not link the acronym BWV as rather well known, so I can bold the redirect, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no obligation (in the MOS) to bold every incoming redirect. There is an obligation in the MOS to link an acronym on first occurence. There is an obligation in the MOS to not bold links. There is nothing to decide here, while there's only one solution compatible with the MOS, and that's the solution as explicited in the WikiProject Classical music guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to decide, because the first occurrence has a link, in the infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless of where it comes first in the wikicode, on the saved *page* (as visible for readers) for this article the first use is in the lede, except for smartphone view. Can we add that to the list of problems caused by infoboxes? Otherwise I'd say the infobox can only repeat info (and links) also found in the body of the article: in that case it doesn't matter whether one views this page on a computer screen or a smartphone: the acronym is always linked "on the first use on a page" (and there is certainly no problem doubling a link found in the article text to the infobox). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Smartphone users may be the majority worldwide, and even the attention of others may go first to the infobox. Some find that sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase then, "... there's only one solution independent of infoboxes and lead image captions that is compatible with the MOS, and that's the solution as explicited in the WikiProject Classical music guideline." --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * BWV 7 is both part of the title of the article and also a redirect. That's two good reasons to bold it as is conventional on Wikipedia. If we were talking about just BWV, then you would have a point with MOS:ACRO, but we're not, so it doesn't apply here. If we feel that readers would be served by a link to BWV, then it is equally obvious that we cannot do that in the opening sentence because of the bolding (which means we can't link per WP:LINKSTYLE). The usual solution is to link at the next occurrence, but adding a footnote would be equally viable. Commonsense says bold the title as a convention; bold the redirect as it shows you're at the right article or section; don't link bold text because it doesn't show up well. --RexxS (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course there's an obligation to bold redirects: "To follow the principle of least astonishment after following a redirect, for terms in the first couple of paragraphs of an article, or at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the subjects of redirects to the article or section", You've had that explained to you once already. Choosing to deliberately ignore the MOS is disruptive editing. --RexxS (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Every time I hear "only one solution", I ask "really?". The spirit/idea of the MoS is - at least to my limited understanding - to not leave a reader in the dark who doesn't know an acronym. The footnote does that job. Bolding BWV 7 supplies a reader prominently at a glance with the connection to the article name, the cantata number, the redirect, - versus BWV 7, showing just a link among others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "only one solution", agreed, maybe should have formulated that somewhat more tentatively: "no other solution compatible with both MOS:ACRO and MOS:BOLDTITLE has been proposed thus far, afaik."
 * For the current article, the solution you propose is not compatible with MOS:ACRO: "When not written out in full on the first use on a page, an acronym should be linked."
 * That there is no obligation anywhere in the MOS to bold the entire article title, in the lead section, nor an obligation to bold every incoming redirect: we've been over that multiple times. That is no more than a choice for which reasons supporting the choice and other reasons for not supporting that choice can be given; On the other hand MOS:ACRO and MOS:BOLDTITLE hold obligations to link "BWV" on first usage and not to bold such link, respectively. The obligations trump the possibility of choices, whether these choices can be well-founded or not. Otherwise a rewrite of the applicable guidance is needed, which is not the topic here. What is also not the topic here: bending what is in the guidelines to someone's personal preferences. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I sought some input from the wider community here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

English meaning of title
We have in the lead section only one translation, Lord Christ of old to Jordan came, which bears little similarity with the meaning of the German title, just is singable to the same rhythm. It looks like an old-fashioned translation of the hymn. I suggest to have at least a literal translation also, with no "Old", and "Christ" leading, not "Lord". - I confess that I think the other should rather go to Christ, unser Herr, zum Jordan kam. - If the translation is there to stay, and in title style, it should be formatted like a title. For other Bach cantatas, the first objective is to convey the meaning to the reader unfamiliar with German, not the rhythm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Did this address the issue sufficiently? --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. "Christ" comes first, not the Jordan, nor his Lordship - for Luther and for Bach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I ask if it is necessary to have a citable translation? Most "translations" in sources will be English versions of the hymn and will be stilted by the need to fit the metre of the music. We would surely all agree that a natural translation would be "Christ our Lord came to the Jordan" (i.e. the River Jordan, so not "came to Jordan", the country), but do we have a convention not to use a natural translation? I can't believe anybody would demand verification of such a straightforward translation, but I suppose I could be mistaken. --RexxS (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I ask if it is necessary to have a citable translation? Most "translations" in sources will be English versions of the hymn and will be stilted by the need to fit the metre of the music. We would surely all agree that a natural translation would be "Christ our Lord came to the Jordan" (i.e. the River Jordan, so not "came to Jordan", the country), but do we have a convention not to use a natural translation? I can't believe anybody would demand verification of such a straightforward translation, but I suppose I could be mistaken. --RexxS (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I ask if it is necessary to have a citable translation? Most "translations" in sources will be English versions of the hymn and will be stilted by the need to fit the metre of the music. We would surely all agree that a natural translation would be "Christ our Lord came to the Jordan" (i.e. the River Jordan, so not "came to Jordan", the country), but do we have a convention not to use a natural translation? I can't believe anybody would demand verification of such a straightforward translation, but I suppose I could be mistaken. --RexxS (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That "natural" translation is in the infobox, cited. It was in the lead, cited. Any translation which doesn't have the word "Christ" at the beginning seems not in the spirit of Luther and Bach. I don't see any advantage in the two versions tried. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's avoid OR in assessing the "spirit of Bach" in the company founded by Bernhard Christoph Breitkopf (who knew Bach personally and owned a large collection of his scores) and the "Spirit of Luther", and what works best in English to translate that spirit, in Leonard Woolsey Bacon, who both in the sense of his occupation, and in time, was prabably closer to Luther than any of us and was apparently a native English speaker. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * As always, can we cite to actual modern translations that are used in modern choral works? Please list here?   Montanabw (talk)  23:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * @Francis: I wouldn't call it research but have observed the translations by Pamela Dellal to be spot-on regarding the meaning. @Montanabw: No, I think we need no "modern choral works", these works are sung in German worldwide with few exceptions, as Mozart's Don Giovanni is sung in Italian now with few exceptions. I believe the first translation a reader meets in the article should convey the meaning of the German as closely as possible, without regards to whether it's singable (fits the rhythm and the number of syllables). Without research: "Christ unser Herr" can be given as "Christ, our Lord", without bending English syntax. The question how any of the recent alternatives would be an advantage is open. At the moment, we have "To Jordan came our Lord the Christ". Without research I observe that "the Christ" is a function, while "Christ" in Luther's hymn is a name. - If you don't want to use Dellal, you could go with Richard Stokes: "Christ our Lord came to the Jordan" (Oron ref)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Francis Browne's May 2006 translation at the Bach-cantatas website ("Christ our Lord came to the Jordan"), which seems identical to Richard Stokes' at the same website works for me. When multiple people have translated the incipit thus (it's a fairly literal translation) I'm not sure we need an attribution in the lede.
 * Re. "Oron ref": can be a bit confusing: https://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~wfb/cantatas/7.html which is listed in the "Sources" section is in fact also an "Oron ref".
 * Some considerations:
 * the original is a singable hymn, a translation conveying that is not worse for it I think.
 * I think it a good idea to mention several translations throughout the article, not only Dellal's with the rest only without quotes in the sections after the references. I agree that Dellal's probably works best in the movement by movement discussion of the "Music" section, but if all other quoted translations derive from the same source, we'd need to be careful not to give an impression the article is "promoting" a single copyrighted translation where many other exist. For that reason editor's preferences (well-founded or not) may need to be set aside sometimes a bit for a good mix/balance of the available sources, in a WP:BALASPS spirit.
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If it works for you, please install it, at the first occasion. Published singable versions would be good to mention in the "publications" corner. I use other translations than Dellal's when I see her missing a point, but that's not often. I think we need to "promote" good translation, rather regardless of who did it, but with an attribution. The translation of the Vermont website (singable) is available in the external links, - I will not comment what I think of "Christ did our Lord to Jordan come". Several translations to several languages are linked from the Bach-Cantatas site, only two clicks away. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. "we need to "promote" good translation" – nah, Wikipedia is not in the business of "promotion" (nor of the translator, nor of the translated text) in this sense. Also, "good translation" may be a more literary translation, a quality non-native English speakers might be less sensitive to. As said, Dellal's quite literal translation probably often has advantages when discussing the music, but imho, for this article, that's where the promotion of that translation should stop. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried to put a grain of irony on "promote" by the quotation marks, but see that I failed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The finer points and quirks of the English language (and its perception) appear often at arm's length, as I implied before. Would be happy when that idea got picked up eventually. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Cite dispute
Appears to be a dispute whether to include this source, so parking it here. The other source was being constantly being unformatted with citation templates removed, which is a MOS problem. Someone other than me needs to verify the content of these sources, but the edit-warring over format must stop. The citation form needs to be consistent. Montanabw (talk) 04:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Re. "..., which is a MOS problem. Someone other than me needs to verify the content..." (emphasis added) – Please keep priorities straight: content issues supersede issues regarding the use of templates (which isn't even a style issue). WP:CITEVAR (which evidently is not part of the MOS) allows to reformat the code to cite templates, it doesn't allow to butcher the content of the citation you apparently didn't even check (needing someone else to do that for you). The Google Books link is not a link to the the "actual work" as Montanabw erroneously seems to think. The Google Books link is a link to a repository of metadata (which often contains errors no less), and in this case doesn't show much more than the ISBN number. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT – Where I got it is
 * 2) *http://bachmidi.info/kpost1.html#p0473
 * not
 * 1) *https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8uQ7AQAAIAAJ
 * 2) Also,
 * 3) *Bach Werke Verzeichnis: Kleine Ausgabe, nach der von Wolfgang Schmieder vorgelegten 2. Ausgabe
 * is the link provided for the work, not
 * 1) *Bach Werke Verzeichnis: Kleine Ausgabe, nach der von Wolfgang Schmieder vorgelegten 2. Ausgabe


 * I must apologise for triggering this problem. I'm sure you'll agree that it is helpful for an article to have a consistent scheme for citations, and that citation templates provide a consistent display, as well as encouraging access dates and archiving in order to combat link rot. I was in the process of cleaning up the references, when I spotted what seemed to be a merged reference:
 * Alfred Dürr, Yoshitake Kobayashi (eds.), Kirsten Beißwenger. Bach Werke Verzeichnis: Kleine Ausgabe, nach der von Wolfgang Schmieder vorgelegten 2. Ausgabe. Preface in English and German. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1998. ISBN 3765102490 - ISBN 978-3765102493, p. 473
 * Looking at it, it seemed to present two distinct sources: the 1988 book by Dürr; and a website http://bachmidi.info/kpost1.html#p0473. I naturally assumed that the references had become mixed, which sometimes happens when templates are not used, and I separated them. I now gather from the edit summary exchange that the page number for the book is sourced to the website. I must admit I can't grasp that concept at all. Surely the relevant page is sourced to the book itself, not the website? Or am I missing something here? WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT does tell us not to "cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself", so I'm assuming you've seen both the book and the website; but then, if there are two sources, then there needs to be two citations.
 * I added the Google book url merely as a convenience for the reader: it may allow some to read the actual text without having to find the physical book, although, as Francis says, it can also be found eventually by following the link generated from the isbn number. We don't normally make wikilinks to item titles in citations, because there is often an online version of the source available, and a link to the actual source should take precedence over a link to our article on the source. In this case, although some may able to read the Google book version (what's available to see is often different in different countries), I think I could make the case that our article is the more useful of the two links as I don't see much more than the table of contents. Nevertheless,, we can't assume that the meagre information Google provides to someone in the Netherlands will be what is delivered someone in Montana (who may see a preview of the book, possibly even including page 473). Until we know what the other editor sees, we must accept that their assessment of which link is more useful may reasonably be different from our own. Perhaps we can reach some consensus and understanding here before I set about any further regularisation of the citations. --RexxS (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I added the Google book url merely as a convenience for the reader: it may allow some to read the actual text without having to find the physical book, although, as Francis says, it can also be found eventually by following the link generated from the isbn number. We don't normally make wikilinks to item titles in citations, because there is often an online version of the source available, and a link to the actual source should take precedence over a link to our article on the source. In this case, although some may able to read the Google book version (what's available to see is often different in different countries), I think I could make the case that our article is the more useful of the two links as I don't see much more than the table of contents. Nevertheless,, we can't assume that the meagre information Google provides to someone in the Netherlands will be what is delivered someone in Montana (who may see a preview of the book, possibly even including page 473). Until we know what the other editor sees, we must accept that their assessment of which link is more useful may reasonably be different from our own. Perhaps we can reach some consensus and understanding here before I set about any further regularisation of the citations. --RexxS (talk) 06:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * (ec) Francis, I think RexxS and I agree here; you are confusing format and content, I am discussing format.  You also seem to be confusing a web source with a book source.  I am fixing the LDR refs, you can decide where in the article they are placed. Clearly,  Dürr  and backmidi and are two completely different sources, one is a book, and one is a web site with charts and lists.  I will let you and and Gerda determine if they are both used and where, my job here is formatting.  The MOS is clear that citations are to be consistent and when we can use the citation templates, that is best.  If the google books link is actually wrong, that is one thing, but when possible, the URL helps the reader find more extensive information on the book and even to find out where to buy a copy if they wish.  List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach is a link to a wikipedia article, I presume you aren't using wiki to source wiki. It is appropriate to follow the same format for all sources.   Montanabw (talk)  06:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I provided an appropriate citation. It is your right to regroup that information in a cite template provided it remains the same citation. If that doesn't work we go back to the original format and content, until someone figures out how the same content (and links) can be put in a template (which apparently failed thus far).
 * When you have suggestions for the citation, that is another matter: until accepted they stay out of the footnote. I provided the article content, so unless I made errors I know what the footnote reference should say.
 * Re. "Clearly, Dürr  and backmidi and are two completely different sources, one is a book, and one is a web site with charts and lists" – nonsense. The Dürr 1998 source is a catalogue (see BWV), by definition nothing but "charts and lists". It is not based on such comments that I'll be changing my views.
 * Re. "The MOS is clear that citations are to be consistent and when we can use the citation templates, that is best." – I think we're dealing with an urban legend here. Show me where the MOS says that, or this discussion has ended as far as I can see. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – BTW, all this discussion here also illustrates how much a link to BWV is needed straight from the lede of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) Please, if you want to use a cite template, convert the citation as given by the person who provided the content, i.e. either:
 * Alfred Dürr, Yoshitake Kobayashi (eds.), Kirsten Beißwenger. Bach Werke Verzeichnis: Kleine Ausgabe, nach der von Wolfgang Schmieder vorgelegten 2. Ausgabe. Preface in English and German. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1998. ISBN 3765102490 - ISBN 978-3765102493, p. 473
 * or:
 * Alfred Dürr, Yoshitake Kobayashi (eds.), Kirsten Beißwenger. Bach Werke Verzeichnis: Kleine Ausgabe, nach der von Wolfgang Schmieder vorgelegten 2. Ausgabe. Preface in English and German. Wiesbaden: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1998. ISBN 3765102490 - ISBN 978-3765102493, p. 473
 * I see no reason to omit the convenience link to the cited page (which works independent of Google Books settings and location of the reader).
 * If you want an otherwise "improved" citation, please check the sources yourself.
 * Again, the Google Books url brings little to the table here (afaik no contributor to this article has seen any page of the actual work via that url), while the internal link may lead to more options for accessing the actual work, or, as is the case here, a more complete and accurate summary of the work.
 * For a somewhat related discussion (in tempore non suspecto) see my contributions to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 202 --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand whether you intended to cite Bach Werke Verzeichnis edited by Dürr et al. 1998, or the website http://bachmidi.info/kpost1.html#p0473 to support the text. After all, the purpose of the reference is to allow a reader to see the source that provided the text in our article. Which one was it?
 * If you just want to make a link to our article on the book because it's interesting, then place it in a See also section - it's where readers expect to find wikilinks, and where the original author placed such a link in . The article has an established style for references (which includes the use of CS1 templates), and per WP:CITEVAR, you need prior consensus on the talk page before changing it. --RexxS (talk) 20:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * http://bachmidi.info/kpost1.html#p0473 is a convenience link (see Citing sources for the concept). Can please someone produce the cite template that holds either of two versions of the content and links I gave above? Otherwise we'll go back to the way I formatted it until someone finds a way to translate it in a cite template. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * http://bachmidi.info/kpost1.html#p0473 is a convenience link (see Citing sources for the concept). Can please someone produce the cite template that holds either of two versions of the content and links I gave above? Otherwise we'll go back to the way I formatted it until someone finds a way to translate it in a cite template. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Circumcision?
Our article on the Feast of John the Baptist doesn't mention circumcision, which is eight days after birth (for Jesus: 1 January, the eighth day after 25 December). In the context of this cantata, it seems not relevant, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The gospel of the day does, see Benedictus (Song of Zechariah), which is the second part of the Gospel reading. The passage in the cantata article compares Gospel reading text with Luther's chorale text. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The end of that paragraph used to read, until a few days ago "The song and thus the text focus on Luther's teaching on baptism, derived from biblical accounts. It is not related to the prescribed gospel about the birth of the baptist." (referenced to "Dürr") Personally, I think "not about the Gospel" somewhat of a redundant addition. In Lutheranism, Luther's hymn is associated with the feast of the Baptist. It doesn't refer to the "preaching in the desert" (first reading), nor to either part of the Gospel reading. It refers to what John the Baptist is best known for (practicing baptism). It would be better to clarify that link than expounding on the links that aren't there. (there's no direct link between the "preaching in the desert" and the birth or circumcision of John the Baptist either, but that's not mentioned). The theme that brings it all together is of course John the Baptist himself, who was born and circumcised according to the Gospel reading, who "preached in the desert", and baptised Christ. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

refers?
We read now "The cantata refers to the chorale...". Please explain what "refers" means in this context. To my limited understanding, it describes a rather weak connection, compared to formerly "is based on the chorale". Both text (even if partly paraphrased by the contemporary librettist) and tune are the foundation of the cantata, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Section headers
Why would 150 or so cantatas have a section header "History and words" but not this one? The "words", both the biblical words of the prescribed readings as the cantata texts, are not "History". - What's wrong with a section header "Music"? (now "Movements") - Music is generally understood, but I can imagine many readers for whom "movement" would need a link of explanation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Round two: now we have "Music and text". Well, for the other other cantatas, we first have the work of the librettist related to the occasion, in "History and words", then "Music", and that the music is related to the text for a composer like Bach, and that the relation to the text is discussed, is taken for granted. Introducing "text" this late is misleading, making the reader who looks at the TOC expect details on the text here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Also: we discussed how articles on Bach's cantatas should look in 2010 (example), they are a series. It's better for readers to find the same section headers when they go from one cantata to the other. If you think one of the headers could be improved, discuss it first at Classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. 2010 discussion: the first example you linked to in that discussion looked like this at the time. Section headers:
 * ==History==
 * ==Scoring, words and structure==
 * ==Movements, text and translation==
 * Not so far from:
 * ==History==
 * ==Scoring and structure==
 * ==Movements==
 * (at least closer to that than to what you propose now) No section titles were discussed in the WikiProject discussion you are linking to afaics. I'm not sure what you actually try to accomplish in this current discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't "propose" now, I compare similar articles, and suggest that before you change a single one in a series, you talk to the project. In 2013, the first Bach cantata article became FA, BWV 172, and that is the model now, if not for all, then at least for all FA and GA, like this one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * BWV 172? has other section titles. Yes it has a "Music" section, which starts with a paragraph on the text exclusively (without its relation to the music)...
 * Re. "you talk to the project". Yes, please, where is the communication point for the project? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The standard should be adhered to until agreement/consensus for change.
 * I would agree that readers scan headings before they read more detailed body of the section. Headings should be easily understandable for the general public. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Re. "The standard should be adhered to" – there is no standard afaics. Where is it?
 * Re. "readers scan headings before they read more detailed body of the section" – this also implies that section titles represent the content of the section. That the description of the text is in the "Music" section and not in the "Occasion and words" section is less than optimal.
 * Movement is a generally understandable word, it is used multiple times in all of these articles, generally unlinked, so doesn't seem to be a difficult concept to grasp. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In this article, "movement" is introduced by "Bach used the text of the first stanza of Luther's hymn for the first movement of his cantata", which should make it clear even to somebody for whom "movement" means "motion" that this is different. Then there's a table of movements, to clarify further. Then we had an explaining line "Bach structured the cantata in seven movements" which you changed to "The seven-movements cantata". But the reader of the TOC doesn't know any of that.
 * In BWV 172, the repetition of the development of ideas at the beginning of "Music" seemed good for a reader who skips to "Music" right away: a development from general to private which the music matches perfectly. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So, nothing tangible for this cantata. As said "movement" is used all over the place in classical music articles, I think this it seldom linked, so doesn't need explanation in a section title.
 * For the "you talk to the project" and "The standard should be adhered to", I assume these positions are de facto retracted as my questions in this regard were left unanswered. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I looked around: Messiah (Handel) has "Music", Symphony No. 8 (Mahler) has "Composition". That would be an alternative. "Movements" seems too narrow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd replace the the "Scoring and structure" section title by "Structure and movements" (compare Magnificat (Bach)), and remove the "Music" section title. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

edit conflict:
 * I've reverted to the original version. Better to discuss respectfully than edit war the change once an editor disagrees with the changes. Movement is often not known or understood by people who have no classical musical training or background so I would disagree with that suggestion. Its up to the regulars in classical music to decide what is standard. If FA articles are using a particular version that would seem to me to be the standard set for best articles. If editors disagree and want to change that, again, reasoned and respectful discussion is the way to go. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Oh please, let the niceties aside: your first edit to this article was a revert. And then you come here and say others shouldn't revert, unless they "disagree with a change". Please self-revert your tendentious edit to the article, and spare us from your preaching here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted to the original version pending discussion and agreement. You didn't have agreement at any point and your edit was contentious. You made an edit that was contested. You were reverted. You then reverted again with out agreement. Perhaps you are familiar with WP: Bold. I also suggested that movement was not necessarily understood by general readership. That is the position I am offering in this discussion. A revert pending discussion especially by an uninvolved editor when there is disagreement is a standard editing procedure. And, I prefer to not put niceties aside. I haven't bashed you in this discussion as you have others, per nicety.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Frankly, I was growing tired of all the bullying, including yours. Re. "I haven't bashed you in this discussion as you have others": you're wrong there, so I'd prefer you retract these words.
 * Re. "standard set" for section titles in composition articles: the GA/FA's don't show a "standard" in this sense, so you were wielding something that doesn't exist. The only "standard" in this sense is at WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines, but you were bullying me into not using that because I wrote it in part. So here's my coming out: yes I write policy, guidelines and essays every once and awhile. I am perfectly aware how consensus etc. works when doing that. The fact that I contributed to several of these should not be an impediment for me also using them, when they may help out in a discussion etc. So for this article, I propose to go to the "standard set" at WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines, instead of various WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS variations, or links to discussions that don't confirm the current structure for this article (see above). If anyone can improve it from there, they are welcome (the "standard" at the WikiProject guidelines isn't too immovable to not allow variation, see various FAs and GAs that use another structure), but when options are open, and various positions are strongly advocated, the optimal way out seems to follow reccomendations of the WikiProject guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Editions
Please discuss instead of reverting:
 * I think "Editions" is a better section header than "Score editions" because some of our readers may know "score" in sports, not music. This article is not only for experts, I try to avoid terms with ambiguous meaning in section headers. "Publications" would work.
 * Bach-Gesellschaft-Ausgabe seems to exist, but doesn't, it's only Bach-Gesellschaft. Explain a bit? How about: the first attempt to publish all works by Bach. Word it better but don't leave the reader alone with a link to the Gesellschaft.
 * Neue Bach-Ausgabe in German is the perfect match to this, also our article name. If English is needed, it could come as an explanation.
 * How about mentioning that the work was assigned BWV 7 because it was the seventh in the Bach-Gesellschaft-Ausgabe? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * (ec) Some thoughts:
 * J.S. Bach Complete Edition is an "edition" too, I'd try to avoid confusion with editions of recordings. Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam, BWV 7 (Bach, Johann Sebastian) contains a (web) publication of the score: it is a separate "publication", not a separate "edition" (the edition is the BGA edition). As such the section discusses "editions", not the various publications of these editions. How about "Printed editions" as a section title? --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Re. Bach-Gesellschaft-Ausgabe: see bolded incoming redirect in the first paragraph of Bach-Gesellschaft.
 * Re. Neue Bach-Ausgabe: now moved to New Bach Edition, per WP:USEENGLISH: this is the name the publisher (Bärenreiter) uses on their English-language pages.
 * Re. your last point: don't see the point of asking that on this talk page: find a reference for the claim, and add it to the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Now you, Francis, moved Neue Bach-Ausgabe to New Bach Edition, a publication in German to an English title, while we have operas and universities more and more under their original name. Shaking head. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I did: see reasons for that move above, and in the edit summary of the page move. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christ unser Herr zum Jordan kam, BWV 7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304191941/https://www.baerenreiter.com/en/program/complete-editions/bach-johann-sebastian/nba/series-i/ to https://www.baerenreiter.com/en/program/complete-editions/bach-johann-sebastian/nba/series-i/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The correct link is https://www.baerenreiter.com/en/catalogue/complete-editions/bach-johann-sebastian/nba/series-i/ – no need for a link to the web archive (which would normally only contain obsolete, and thus non-operational, links). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)