Talk:Ihr werdet weinen und heulen, BWV 103

Infobox
Several editors have reverted my attempts to format the infobox in accordance with recommendations for long lists. I attempted to compromise by substituting an alternative template for one that one editor objected to, although I disagree with her objections to the initial template. Another editor has also restored obvious errors to the article, including a claim that a recording was made in the "11960s", with no valid rationale for doing so. I invite that editor to present her reasoning for that rather strange action. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Knock off this obsession with stalking articles Gerda is improving and making this pissant reversions of helpful information. You are showing immense disrespect to an editor who is of good faith and an expert in the field with your constant WP:CHEESE behavior. The lists you are collapsing are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "long." This isn't infobox mineral or infobox Presidents.  The information you keep wasting bandwidth to collapse is in small text and takes up less than a half-inch of space on my laptop screeen.  Because you use complex syntax that is difficult for me to remove manually and because you also game the system by inserting intermediate edits to make reversion difficult (and to duck a technical 3RR violation) it is simpler to revert your edit-warring.  Sometimes I have gone to the extra work to fix the typos and other small tweaks, but the rest of the time it's enough work just fixing your incessant attempts to harass an expert who is trying to create article that educate the little children like you,  who is acting like a brat in a bubble and holding her breath until she turns blue because she can't get her own way. Now would you please GROW UP.  Are you 10 years old or something?  Sometimes the real grownups actually do know best, and I for one am willing to listen and grant considerable deference to an expert in the field.  Unlike other editors who appear to think that because they stalk the internet and revert improvements, their attempt becomes the "stable" one  Montanabw (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Montana, most grownups are capable of reasonable and civil discussion. Your post is not indicative of that. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is, as I'm sure you're aware, a poor argument. I've also already pointed out to you that your reference to WP:CHEESE is incorrect. Now, I'm quite willing to listen to experts, which is why I paid attention to the recommendation on Gerda's talk that "any list with more than 2 or 3 entries ought to be a collapsed list. In other words, if it can't be displayed succinctly, then don't display it unless the reader wants to". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Surprised. What has this discussion to do with the article? Please see my talk, I don't want to copy that to every Bach composition, we better discuss it on the template talk. My talk says: "I would actually recommend any list with more than 2 or 3 entries ought to be a collapsed list." This tells me that this is a personal recommendation, not a rule or guideline. I would actually recommend to openly list Bach's scoring the best we can because that is where his music sounds, and I don't find even the longest one really "long", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Nikki, re-read WP:BAIT. YOU are NOT engaging in "reasonable and civil discussion" You are edit-warring, leaving deceptive edit summaries, and then baiting. You know you are twisting other people's words, skirting the edge of 3RR on a daily basis by following the letter but not the spirit of the rules, being a tendentious brat, and it's high time you learned to respect people who know - and contribute the most sound content to - articles.  Gerda is an expert on Bach, one of the most good faith editors I know, and her wishes should prevail on this set of articles. She is trying to float possible compromises and you appear to be bent on stalking her all over wiki and twisting her words and her intent.  I used to think you were a fairly decent good faith editor, but any more I suspect that you simply want to just prove that you are right and I have lost a lot of respect for you due to your prissy behavior.  It is absolutely stupid to collapse three lines of small text in an infobox (if you were talking a couple inches, I might agree with you) and even more ridiculous to go stalking an editor just to revert her.  For now, I'm just very frustrated that you raise false allegations against a very nice person like Gerda and show her no respect.   Montanabw (talk) 05:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Montana, please re-read WP:NPA. If I were showing no respect to Gerda, there would be no infobox in these articles - that's the solution I would prefer. I am trying to compromise with Gerda by finding a way to include the template content that she wants, but neither you nor she seem amenable to compromising. I'm sorry you're frustrated, but your attacks are really not helping to move the discussion forward. Please stop. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Nikki. Montana is right. You are stalking. another editor. You have edit warred, for example,  to collapse three lines. A compromise is  not removing an info box in a Wikipedia article, that's another discussion completely. Whether Gerda is a nice person or an expert is not the issue for me. Watching this for days, I see an admin behaving in a way that is both disruptive and tendentious, slowing down good article writing. You might want to rethink your behaviour.(olive (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC))
 * I never said that removing an infobox is a compromise; what I said was keeping the infobox, with the long list collapsed, is a compromise, an effort to mediate between my preferred state (no infobox at all) and Gerda's (infobox with all details included and visible). We could also consider linking to the relevant section or truncating to instrumental parts or groups, both of which I've tried in the past. If you have another idea for a compromise feel free to suggest it. Supporting Montana's vitriol, however, is no compromise at all. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You are implying that your  compromise to the  info box issue would be to have no  info boxes in this  group of articles at all,  and that there are info boxes, shows respect. Whether there are info boxes in any group of articles is not within the remit of any  one editor, no one editor allows or disallows info boxes.


 * It looks to me as of you are following Gerda from one article to the next, that you are edit warring rather than maintaining a discussion until agreement is reached, and then making changes, that in some cases as little a three lines have been collapsed, and then maintained that way through edit warring. Gerda is clearly an expert in this area and often a major contributor. Respectful behaviour might be, while not a policy for sure, an understanding of another editor's considerable knowledge - that's respect, needs a dose of humble pie, and shows maturity. I'm  not saying its easy to do for anyone.


 * Supporting Monatana will indeed, if the implications are understood, move this discussion along. What you don't seem to see is that multiple editors are saying pretty much  the same things to you. That's a consensus, that's agreement, but you are ignoring them in favour of your own position and  are edit warring based on your position. This is, as I said above tendentious, certainly not collaborative, looks like ownership, and is finally, disruptive.


 * While it takes longer and requires patience, allowing a discussion to conclude, and not edit warring, will likely in the long run produce better, more stable articles. Collaboration means that we realize content is decided by a majority,  and that edit warring is a unilateral action and   not a collaborative one. As an admin you should, just my opinion, be leading editors in the beahviour that creates stable articles, gaining the  credibility taking such a role brings. You are losing credibility right now. I do wonder if that's what you really want.(olive (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC))

Infobox problem
The problem with this infobox is that it doesn't summarise the article. General readers will not understand Occasion: Jubilate or Chorale: Paul Gerhardt. In order to understand the box you have to read the article. Now, in order to be a good editor you need to understand the reader and edit for the reader — these articles are not for private enjoyment. -- Klein zach  07:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Infoboxes are not the same as a lede. The WP:LEAD is the summary, an infobox conveys other critical information in a concise manner  I often compare to Infobox mineral, which to me, a non-geologist general reader, contains mostly gibberish to my eyes.  However, it is clearly a useful addition to gem and mineral articles with important scientific information.  There is a parallel here. Why the classical music projects are so against infoboxes is beyond me.   Montanabw (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am interested that, as a non-geologist, you can be so certain that Infobox mineral is 'a useful addition to gem and mineral articles with important scientific information'. And, further, if you are prepared to accept it on spec on the basis that that is clearly the consensus view of geology editors, why it is that the consensus view of classical music editors (which happens to be opposite) does not deserve the same approbation? As you will gather, I myself am not a supporter of infoboxes in classical music articles; but I accept that this should be balanced against the views of editors who are largely responsible for particular articles (as in the present case).The issue here is that the infobox if it is to be used at all should surely be convenient and comprehensible by specialists and non-specialists alike. If only for the former it is just clutter.--Smerus (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If you have a better word for "occasion", please say so, - I think it is a common understandable word. Some works were written for a wedding, others for a liturgical function, oly very few without an occasion, - I fail to see a "problem". Jubilate and Paul Gerhardt have a link, helping those who don't know. - The place to raise concerns of a general design should be raised on the template talk, not a single occurance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I was about to do the GA review for this article to pass an idle evening, but I suggest it is better to sort this issue out first. The two queried entries in the box do seem in fact a bit mystifying as they stand. 'Jubilate' is not an occasion, nor is 'Paul Gerhardt' a chorale. I would suggest for clarity that you give Jubilate Sunday as the full text against 'Occasion', and that you change the text against chorale to 'by Paul Gerhardt'. These two small changes would make the infobox considerably more comprehensible. I would make them myself under WP:BOLD, were it not, of course, for considerations of politeness and respect.--Smerus (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Taken, thank you, that helps! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Would you have a solution also how to show that the Bible quote is the text for movement 1, the chorale for movement 6? In Franck texts, the Bible quote is movement 2, in some cantatas there are several, in others several chorales: it would say SO much about the structure! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In the context: please check and improve Baroque instruments to be, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

One thing at a time! As regards the present box, I would make the following further suggestions for your consideration: Best, --Smerus (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 'BWV103' appears four times at the top of the article: in the title, in the first para and infobox, twice in the latter. This is also a bit intimidating and relentless for the innocent reader. I suggest you take it out of the top line of the info box; and that you also give a link to BWV in the infobox text.
 * I suggest you change 'Bible' in the infobox text to 'Bible text' which also clarifies.
 * I suggest you add '(1st movement)' after the citation for 'Bible text' and '(6th movement)' after the citation for 'Chorale'.

I have another, generic point. I don't think it is relevant as regards GA, but it might provoke debate if any of the Bach cantata articles comes up for FA; namely, why do we have the BWV number in the article title at all? The standard format for Wiipedia seems to be ' Cantata name (Composer)' (or just Cantata name). Bach himself of course never called his compositions 'BWV anything'. I had thought that qualifiers in article titles should only be used where there might be issues of disambiguation. We don't, e.g. use K. numbers in Mozart composition article titles or WWV numbers for those of Wagner. --Smerus (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Starting in the end: Bach himself of course didn't even call them by what we now use instead of a title, the first line of the text (which sometimes doesn't mean anything). (Wagner gave his works singular titles, such as Der fliegende Holländer. For Mozart, we need to disambiguate many masses in C major.) The discussion about the addition of BWV number in all works by Bach (with the exceptions of the few which have an English common name) was in 2010, summary: BWV is the ONLY thing within a lot of German which tells the reader that it is a work by Bach. We need to disambiguate many (cantata title vs. two other cantata titles, vs. a motet, vs. Gloria in excelsis Deo, vs. a chorale, - let's make it consistently so. - If a piece is performed, the BWV number will always be given in a program. For that reason, I would like to keep it on top of the box, but will try to hide it in the box. (I say "try", because I am a beginner in infoboxes.) - I will try to incorporate the other suggestions. "Bible text" means changing the infobox for all Bach works, but I think it makes sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried not to show the BWV number, didn't work, will have to ask. However, in many cases we will have "related", showing more works, typically by those numbers, so perhaps it is even better to keep it. I changed to Bible text, and showed the movements, using "movement" once, assuming the next time would be understood without, - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest that instead of just '(6)' (which is not clear as it stands), you use '(movt. 6)' - the abbreviation will be clear from the 'Bible text' section.--Smerus (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought it was clear enough from the 'Bible text' section but followed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)