Talk:Gott ist mein König, BWV 71

Infobox
"Ordinarily, making a change (that isn't a revert) to an article doesn't require prior discussion. I take it the essence here is that Gerda Arendt has added infoboxes to specific articles on which she knew or should have known they would be controversial, and should have discussed first in those instances? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)"

As described in this comment, I added an infobox to the article which I expected (!) not to be controversial, because
 * 1) the template infobox Bach composition was developed by project classical music (as infobox orchestra was developed by the project)
 * 2) it serves the reader to see a similar display for articles of a topic
 * 3) some authors don't like any infobox, I try to respect that (in an effort to place personal relationship above site consistency), but Thoughtfortheday, the main contributor to this article is not one of them.

The infobox was reverted with no reason given. My attempt at a compromise by showing prominently that the German title - probably meaningless for many readers - is a composition by Bach, was also reverted. Of the possibilities (infobox, "title box", image) I consider the infobox as most helpful for the reader. The infobox shown was edited by Nikkimaria also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So while this article has real problems, namely a woeful lack of proper sources (not even Dürr was mentioned as a reference!), we sit upon the ground and talk of infoboxes. Well, so be it. I suspect that, once the current arbcom case is resolved, the matter of infoboxes on musical composition articles will be raised at WP:CM in light of the findings that have been adduced by the case and consensus will again be solicited. Pending that discussion, it is inappropriate to add infoboxes. My specific objections to the infobox here are based on those that I have raised elsewhere (at WP:CM), namely that it encourages mis/disinformation and is redundant to the lede. However, I look forward to hearing from others. Meanwhile, I suggest that editors who seek to make a positive contribution to this article assist in bringing better sources to bear upon the content. Eusebeus (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My view is that the matter of infoboxes on biographies in classical music needs to be examined, whereas templates on orchestras and compositions were developed in 2013, to be used. - Please note that BWV 103 (with an infobox) was approved as GA by Smerus, and this infobox edited by Nikkimaria, both no declared friends of infoboxes. You may want to look at the GA review. - The information about text and scoring in Bach cantatas is not redundant to the lede, and even if it was, it is an objective of any infobox to present information from the lede in structured form. - Thank you for starting to improve the content of the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Had my say. BWV 103 has a very appropriate title for the current larger debate! Anyway, it is also lacking - at first glance - proper citations and references. I'll do a pass-by cleanup if I have time after I deal with the mess here. Koenntest Du bitte meine Uebersetzung auf dem Deutsch - de:Marienkirche (Mühlhausen) - ueberblicken. Oder je besser - daran weiterarbeiten :-)... Eusebeus (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * My chosen title for the case is BWV 35. (The other one's title was dedicated to a missed user. Sad: several of my articles were dedicated to missed users.) Little time, sad about that also. Thanks for starting the church! Did you see the prayer on top of my talk? (DYK 444) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Trivia
There was a satirical article in The Onion that referenced "Gott ist mein König." Might this have a place in the article under a new section (e.g., "Trivia," "Influence," "Parody," etc.)? Msoul13 (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)