Talk:Geschwinde, geschwinde, ihr wirbelnden Winde, BWV 201

Title and consequences
The article was moved from the German beginning of the printed text to the translation to English of a German work title, Der Streit zwischen Phoebus und Pan. I read now "The Dispute Between Phoebus and Pan was likely composed for Leipzig's autumn fair of 1729." which reads wrong to me. Both the librettist and the comoser wrote a work in German. The move to any English title, with references to it following, creates such problems. Please see The Flying Dutchman (opera), which is an English article name, but the text carefully avoids saying "Wagner composed The Flying Dutchman." He didn't. All references to "The Flying Dutchman" refer to the mythical character and his story, not to Wagner's work. - We could offer the same diligence to Bach and his librettist. Easiest way: move it back. Other way: move it to the German work title, and refer to that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Will think about it. Nonetheless the An Alpine Symphony article has "In 1981 a recording of An Alpine Symphony, made with ..." etc. – I'll try to phrase judiciously, in order to avoid ambiguity, but basically there should not be a problem to use an English title in English Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no problem in using an English title for saying (staying with the opera) "produced in English at the ENO", or "known in English as". I see less of a problem for a symphony, but would still prefer Eine Alpensinfonie as original, while I'd be less critical of "Sparrow Mass" - no original title anyway. In 2012, we had a long fight about the title of Beethoven's 14th piano sonata, which resulted in not using the popular English nickname. - My point: in a text-driven work, such as lied, opera, cantata, it seems wrong, once the authors thought of it in one language, to speak about its creation in a different language. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:UE "If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, ... and so on)". I'm not seeing any reliable English-language sources in the article that use the transliteration, so I've reverted to the original German title, without prejudice to a return to an English transliteration if a sufficient number of reliable English-language sources can be adduced to establish usage of a transliterated title. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

BD
The other day, you moved an article because the title deviated from Bach Digital. Bach Digital has it like Bach. - Also a German work: Die Wolke. The article title is German, because most literature deals with the German, and also it was translated to different English names. I go for the least ambiguous = the original, for Bach's work also. Translations ae always in danger to take something away, - good for redirects, and to be mentioned and explained in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Die Wolke was moved to Fall-Out per WP:NCB. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea to move without a discussion. I see the writer choosing a harmless-sounding title, not a sensational one. Can we respect her a bit more than teh rulez? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I read in that guideline:
 * "If the original language does not use the Latin alphabet, the title is normally translated. Preferably in English." - But the book title is in the Latin alphabet!
 * "If the book is best known by an English title, use that version of the title." - but the book is NOT best known in English, as the literature shows. Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)--

Not impressed by your selective quoting of WP:NCB, which is no more than an attempt to misrepresent the guidance. Please read the guidance as a whole. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

This is of course pure disruption, which I continue to discuss here, that is where the discussion started. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You say "of course" a lot, and "disruption". For my - admittedly limited - understanding, one should "of course" begin discussing when the change of a stable condition was reverted, per WP:BRD. So I'm waiting for your thread on Talk:Die Wolke, as explained also on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You interrupted me three times when I was updating the lead to the new article title, which is the first thing to do after a page move. The current lead does not agree very well with the page title. The current page title is correct and conforms to WP:NCB, and to WP:AT, the overarching policy (its first sentence after the lead section reads: "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject" – my emphasis). When there's only one English-language source, that is the published English translation of the book, then it is obvious that the title of that translation should be used as article title. And then the lead should be adapted to that article title. And to general guidance on lead sections, including readability. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not read two English-language sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the example used in WP:NCB – both the intro and infobox of that article seem OK to me. The same can not be said about Fall-Out, so if you can't get it to an acceptable level someone else will have to. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to still not have read and . --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read them. Doesn't change that per applicable policy (WP:AT) and guideline (WP:NCB), the page should be at Fall-Out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

German names
These are three German names for the cantata: I can't see which one would be preferable, and why.
 * Geschwinde, ihr wirbelnden Winde
 * Geschwinde, geschwinde, ihr wirbelnden Winde
 * Der Streit zwischen Phoebus und Pan

So, I'm not impressed by the argument that an English-language name would have to be chosen among a few options (well, less options than the German alternatives). There's nothing anti-policy or anti-guideline in choosing an English title for this page, on the contrary, it gives a better conformance to policy & guidelines. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME is rather clear - in this case, Bach's vocal works are usually referred to by their German incipit (or, in the cases of larger scale works such as passions or the Weihnachtsoratorium, by corresponding titles in common usage) in WP:RS. In any case, even if you think it should be an English title, the proper way to go about it, when your move attracts controversy, is to start a discussion about it, not repeat it until it goes your way. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 04:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME does not seem to lead to a clear result in this case... Tell-tale seems to be that you don't say which one would be the common name and why. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If common name doesn't impress you, how about series name. Back in 2010, project classical music agreed that Bach cantatas can come under first line & BWV number. Why spend any time on a change? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm all for common name where it leads to a clear result, I never said I'm not "impressed" by common name, don't twist my words. I only said that in this case it doesn't seem to lead to a clear result. Geschwinde, geschwinde, ihr wirbelnden Winde seems a bit more common in English-language reliable sources than Geschwinde, ihr wirbelnden Winde: if there were a way to separate them clearly, Der Streit zwischen Phoebus und Pan would probably be most common of the three German ones, in which case it would be logical to choose an English name instead. Which is all conforming to policy and applicable guidance. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I implied "in this case", - on this talk page we should speak about this article, no? Sorry if that was not clear. I would go with the title from Bach Digital, a valid source, Geschwinde, geschwinde, ihr wirbelnden Winde, BWV 201 . The article is mainly about Bach's work, not the libretto, and it's part of a series, and it shows the poetry, two evenly long lines rhyming. My 2ct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Works for me. For clarity (this is rather meant for 107.190.33.254 – but it's not possible to ping an IP), it is not necessary to use that full name every time one refers to the cantata further down in the article text. I tried to solve that issue too quickly yesterday, becoming a bit short over repeated interruptions of the rather complicated job (reading various detailed sources in various languages to distil suitable article text) I was engaged in. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I moved the article then. Could an admin then please move this (unconnected!) talk to Talk:Geschwinde, geschwinde, ihr wirbelnden Winde, BWV 201. Graham? - I agree that the full title doen's need to be repeated in the text. Once established, even "the cantata" will do if it's clear from the context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Under no circumstance should the "..., BWV 20" talk page be moved here: that is a page without history; what I wrote above is, recorded in the history of this current page, and that history should not be overwritten. I just turned the "..., BWV 20" talk page into a redirect, and it should be deleted together with the "..., BWV 20" mainspace page. Please also don't copy my comments (above) to a page with no history. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

New Bach Edition
New Bach Edition (and not Neue Bach Ausgabe) is the only name found on the English-language page of the publisher (Bärenreiter). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Music template
The music template is used for e.g..

Next to that, e.g. "3/4" (instead of with the music template, ) looks quite silly and unprofessional.

The music template is used throughout in tables of GA's such as Magnificat (Bach).

If there are issues with the layout produced by the music template, then bring it up at Template talk:Music. For the time being, the template should be used consistently in the article (that is: for all time signature indicators or for none), and it seems to make more sense to use it consistently for all. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Italicisation of Italian musical terms
Afaik there are no universally applicable rules when and when not to italicise Italian musical terms. For layout, Wikipedia's rules are that when there is no universally applicable style rule, to keep at least the style consistent within a single page. Difficulties with Italian musical terms are for instance illustrated at the Tutti page, which does not Italicise the term in the article title, but begins its lead sentence with Tutti (thus breaking Wikipedia's simple rule to keep it at least consistent within a single page).

For practical reasons I'd suggest, for the BWV 201 page: --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * tutti
 * con sordino
 * unisono


 * The basic problem seems to be that some Italian (Latin, German ...) words become part of English, and others don't, and people may disagree if unisono belongs in one or the other group. - Inconsistency is programmed, but one of the problems of least importance, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, then it is the style used by the first editor who introduced it (which is another Wikipedia style guidance principle which I still forgot to mention). Again, Gerda, this topic was initiated not so much for you but rather for IP 107.190.33.254, who reverted my initial style choice on tutti. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I only gave my 2ct, and then went on to remove italics from a Latin article title which is (or is not?) a phrase in English, like Nunc dimittis. Nice that you mention the introduction by a first editor, - I believe that also goes for article titles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we're not talking here about Latin names for liturgical texts (such as Nunc dimittis), for which I would have directed the IP editor to guidance such as WP:NCB and WP:NCM (if clear accepted guidance exists, that is a sufficient reason to make style conforming to guidance: the "first come first serve" principle only applies where no unambiguous guidance exists) – of which you would be well aware, but which might be new to an IP editor. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You reached out to 107 (and thanks for that) so will have noticed that they have edited from 2018, with educated edit summaries, and received several "thanks" on the talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy suggests that words which fall into common usage in English do not require italicization (and suggests to look up in online dictionaries, where tutti does appear). I fail to see how tutti is not such a common word (it is even used outside of musical contexts). I'm fine with leaving unisono and con sordino in italics as they are Italian musical terms which have no use outside of this musical context (at least to my knowledge); which echoes the suggestions from MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The Merriam-Webster on-line entry appears particularly unconvincing:
 * In all examples of recent usage the sentences are quoted with tutti italicised. That seems to be Merriam-Webster's editing, so at best (I mean "at best" for your stance) we don't learn anything from these examples, while unclear whether the term was italicised in the original.
 * many of the examples are variants of tutti-frutti, which is a separate Merriam-Webster entry (“Tutti-frutti.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tutti-frutti )
 * According to the https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tutti entry, Merriam-Webster harvests its examples of recent web-usage by an automatic system – which seems particularly inefficient: e.g. the https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tutti-frutti entry doesn't cite a single example of recent usage...
 * Also, some of the examples quoted by Merriam-Webster may fall below what is considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. For instance, the first example ("... tutti-fruity ...") is quoted from something that may be a blog below quality expectations of sources usable for Wikipedia.
 * Wikipedia has a certain reticence w.r.t. neologisms (policy: WP:NOTNEO; guideline: MOS:NEO), thus something like "tutti-fruity" is not found in the encyclopedia (Tutti Fruity and Tutti-Fruiti are mentioned as proper names, capitalised).
 * My printed edition of Merriam-Webster has "tutti-frutti" as a separate entry too, but without the "-frutti" the meaning is exclusively defined as musical terminology; Also, Merriam-Webster has many words that are Italicised in Wikipedia per its MoS rules. My OED Minidictionary does not contain either term (neither the original word nor the "frutti" variant), so the least one can say is that it is not a very common word in British English. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The italics in the Merriam-Webster examples are used as emphasis (see for example italics on this English word). The examples are linked, so you can check, amongst other things, italicization... It not appearing in an abridged version of the OED does not have much significance. More topic-specific, MOS:MUSIC also says that non-italics are ok if the terms are commonly enough used in music (and the term warranting an article does point towards this) - and then it lists as example three terms which have no usage outside of music... As for unisono and con sordino; these are indications about the scoring which could better go in descriptions of individual movements (where, since the text would be in English, the English equivalents would be used) when the article gets there (ex. such as in BWV 4/4 or BWV 31/8 (where a short textual description mentioning this kind of detail is given despite there not being a table)) 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looked at the original sources referenced by Merriam-Webster: indeed quite useless (as I thought),
 * Two "tutti"s quoted from a disclaimer entirely in Italian (quite missing the point for an English dictionary imho)
 * Five variant spellings of "tutti-frutti"
 * "Kappo di tutti" as a rather unclear reference to a Japanese restaurant (the two sentences under that caption do not point to anything that could be called "di tutti")
 * None of Merriam-Webster's examples illustrate that tutti would be a "commonly used" musical term. Thanks for pointing to Manual of Style/Music – I completely forgot about that guidance, which indeed rather supports your point, e.g. divisi is far less common than tutti afaik, however: in the Divisi article divisi and its abbreviation are italicised in the article text, so this seems like the kind of example that should not be used in Wikipedia's guidance. Anyhow, with that kind of ambiguous guidance, imho tutti is rare enough (as opposed to "commonly used") to italicise it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)