Talk:Erwünschtes Freudenlicht, BWV 184

BWV is not part of the title
Erwünschtes Freudenlicht, BWV 184 is the article title, Erwünschtes Freudenlicht is the title of the piece, BWV 184 is the catalogue number which Project Classical music agreed to use as disambiguation, short but still indicating (at least to those who know) that is a work of Bach. It is no part of the work title. The may lead to thinking that it is. Around 200 articles about Bach's works use the dedicated infobox which reflects that, infobox Bach composition. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The reader sees the same presentation in the article title, template, and bolded in the first sentence of the lead. If they are likely to be confused by one, they are likely to be confused by all. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The article title was designed to be simple. In the lead, there's the translation in between title and catalogue number, visually supporting that they are two different things. No way the comma should be bold, we should not have a bold link within the "title", the separation of the composer's name in two lines is not pleasing. Why not use the dedicated template? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The article title is designed to be simple, the template header is designed to be simple. I've amended the composer name to be the same between the versions, although on my display it is a single line either way; this template's design is more pleasing overall. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we design the other template this way? The catalogue number should be its own entity, not pretended to be part of the title? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can propose whatever changes to either template you like. But if "pretended to be part of the title" is a problem, it shouldn't be in the article title, and it shouldn't be bolded in the lead. Whatever our conventions, we can't expect a reader to understand what all the subtleties of formatting represent, and why we think one makes sense in one case and not another. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As discussed by Classical music, it's the standard disambiguation for works by Bach on which the project agreed. It doesn't make it part of the title. It's bold because it's an important incoming link. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, those are our conventions. However, if you believe that a reader seeing Erwünschtes Freudenlicht, BWV 184 will think that to be the title, that is exactly what is in large print at the top of the page. Having that at the top of the template would not cause any additional confusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't feel understood, probably my fault. Trying again. Comparable St Martin's, Isles of Scilly. The infobox does NOT repeat the disambiguation. I believe that BWV should NOT appear within the title, but it should appear: as a redirect and other name for the cantata. I have no time right now for making the templates similar, but perhaps RexxS? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)