Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 2

Article is ruined
I remember when I was using this page a lot to check on a BWV number. Now I never come here because the page is ridiculously overblown. Examples:
 * I saw BWV 1031 on a CD and decided to look it up but its not here! Checking again there's text that says "BWV 1030–1035: Sonatas for accompanied flute", so it must be? I look in the list but it's not in the list, which goes 1030 and then 1032. So I have to go back and click "List of chamber music works by Johann Sebastian Bach" to find the piece which is attributed to CPE Bach apparently. So you do have entries useless to anybody outside academics such as III 156 and 43/11 but not 1031 which is actually frequently recorded and played!! Not the only example
 * Default formatting is INSANE! Has out of sequence BWVs like 567. Is difficult to search because you used to type "BWV 567" into the search field (without quotes) but now you have to type "567" only, which gives you three results, two irrelevant. Also far from a single example of this! To add insult to injury as it were, there are useless links to boot! Lets say you want to look for pieces from AMB 1725. So you search the page for "anna magdalena", well wrong, turns out it's "Notebook A. M. Bach (1725)" and it says so in something called "Using the sort function (not available in all browsers)". Fine, so you click that link and it doesn't do anything, just takes you to ONE piece from the notebook..... hahaha, now click "back" in your browser because our table doesn't allow you to go back. Hee hee (Also what is the point of inventing "Notebook A. M. Bach (1725)" specifically to replace "Anna Magdalena Notebook (1725)"? I mean the page is so huge already, surely it wouldn't make much difference?)
 * On the subject of formatting, I know my JS Bach, but what about people who're not so Bach-savvy? In a section called "Without resorting the table (i.e. collection kept together in BWV2a)" (try looking up what 2a means btw - there's no link and the footnotes section is humongous!) you don't have the Orgelbuchlein, or the Partitas of the Clavier-Übung I. What, they're not together as BWV 825-830? etc
 * The date field is a joke. For starters so many works we can't date with much precision, and saying as this article does "1701-1717" is stupid and useless. He could've been 16 when he composed it or he could've been 32, haha. BUT, OK, assuming there's point in this. Why are you just putting in any dates you see fit, like at all? Like:
 * BWV 184 has no less than three "dates" 1724-05-30, 1727-06-03, and 1731-05-15 and they're not composition dates but dates of performances we know of.
 * Inventions and Sinfonias have two "dates" 22 January 1720 and 22 January 1725 - these aren't performance dates as above, nor are they composition dates. 22 Jan 1720 is what Bach wrote on the WF Bach Klavierbuchlein and we have no idea whether it's completion date, start date, etc etc etc. Moreover WHY the date field in here seems to indicate composition dates, and before it was performance dates??? and no explanation in the article
 * The whole WTC I has 1722 written in the date field, hahaha... everybody knows that not only material was taken from earlier stuff, but also the manuscript was revised! twice in the 1730s and once in 1744. Let's put those dates in why don't we, the article is so huge anyway haha.
 * 1720 (AMB) for cello suites is meaningless to anybody who hasn't researched the manuscript situation
 * many other examples of ridiculousness in the date field!!!!
 * Sometimes its impossible to find what you're looking for like at all! Check out the first French Suite, how about I just want to look it up. Well darling it's number 812. Oops we don't have that, we have 812 AMB I, 812 AMB II, 812 v.A, 812 v.B, thankfully no 812a or 812b. So which one is the one people are usually playing? And why don't we see any of these AMB I v.A etc things in booklets or literature more often???
 * Redundancy overflow in additional info field. For 147 it gives "after 147a" as a link and the 147a is of course the very next field. 147a has a link to BWV 147, perfect recursion.

Sorry about the rant! don't want to be mean but I miss the old article so much, this one is a juggernaut.... I know you guys worked hard on this! but the article is barely usable now and takes forever to load and/or sort the table. Myself I saved myself an earlier version in HTML and use that, I know a couple of guys who did the same. You should move the current version to "List of JS Bach compositions (academic)" or something! And make this article a little bit more user-friendly. Please excuse my tone I don't mean to offend and also my typing (i have hurt my fingers today : — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.69.149.24 (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Re.:
 * BWV 1031 is listed on the page (simple to check: use your browser's "search on this page" function, type "1031" and it will be the second hit):
 * If sorting by first column it will be in the "Chamber music" section (BWV 1001–1040) between BWV 1030 and 1032;
 * If sorting by second column (BWV2a = default sort) it will be in the BWV Anh. II section (where it belongs according to the latest printed version of the BWV catalogue)
 * If not sorting, better to go straight to List of chamber music works by Johann Sebastian Bach where the more familiar bullet list of BWV 1001–1040 can be found (that list page is linked several times from this page). There is no "popularity contest" between the Wikipedia pages: just use the page that suits you best.
 * Go complain to the publishers of the BWV catalogue (Breitkopf & Härtel). As it happens I do think that publishing a catalogue where numbers are no longer collated numerically [sic] is confusing, but that's the way it is (personally, I largely prefer the systems used in, for instance, subsequent editions of the Köchel catalogue and the Deutsch catalogue where a new position in the catalogue is always a renumbering of the composition, so that every version of the catalogue is always collated numerically). BTW, here is Wolfgang Schmieder explaining the non-numerical collation proceeding.
 * Good suggestions, can be easily implemented
 * These are the dates found in relevant literature, i.e. the latest version of the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis itself, the Bach Digital website, or any of the additional references found in the 9th column. As for the use of the "Date" column: e.g. to get a rough overview of the collaboration between Bach and Picander, sort on "Date" column, search for "Picander", and you'll get the works they are known to have been collaborating on in a workable chronological order (of course, more detail on that collaboration in readable prose can be found in articles like Picander cycle of 1728–29). True, it is a challenge to keep that column up to date to state-of-the-art historical research, but, for instance, here is such an update – you're welcome to help with that refining process – or not, if for you personally the column seems useless (not every Wikipedia reader is looking for the same information).
 * These are the dates found in relevant literature, in this case BDW (linked from the last column)
 * Re. performance dates and/or composition dates: dates attached to a composition can be tricky (Bach is no exception there: see e.g. D – a recent related discussion is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 66): true, the principles for the dates displayed in the "Date" column can be made a bit more explicit in the introduction and/or the legend to the table: they are "roughly period of origin, according to available documentary evidence mentioned in reliable sources"
 * The WTC I date is the date of Bach's autograph, in the table interspersed with data available regarding earlier or later versions. Of course there's a trade-off of how much detail the table can display: usually a condensed form of the date information available in the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis. E.g. for WTC I p. 375ff.
 * The detail about the dates should be in the Cello Suites (Bach) article.
 * As said, feel free to improve – or not, if for you the column isn't useful. More detailed date information should of course go to articles like The Well-Tempered Clavier
 * Re. "which one is the one people are usually playing?": that would be the one in BG 451 (which is mentioned in seventh column)
 * Yes, the two versions are linked back and forth through the 9th column. Note that these links between versions of compositions are not always in rows that are close together, not even for BWV 147/147a if for instance sorting according to the NBA column (the two versions of that cantata are separated by over twenty volumes in that publication of the cantatas).
 * Please note that the bullet list version is still available if that's the layout you prefer (see Category:Lists of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach). These lists can be easily reached by various links in multiple places on the page. Don't judge: if it isn't useful for you to have the huge table, doesn't mean it can't be useful for others.
 * Important: note that the earlier bullet list version of this table didn't contain a single cantata, not a single chorale harmonization, etc. So, good luck looking for (for example) BWV 147 or 147a in that version. Well, about half of Bach's compositions were at other pages at the time: now they're all on this page, and they're all in numerically organised lists, so that everyone can use whatever they prefer. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy someone finally brought up User:Francis Schonken's utter decimation of the article (I'd say more, but it'd probably be a personal attack). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please focus: 128.69.149.24 reproaches the article is too expanded now, decimation would imply it is shorter now than it used to be. Well, if one is accused of something and at the same time of completely the opposite, the truth would be somewhere in the middle, no? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. 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/20141103182253/https://www.baerenreiter.com/en/program/complete-editions/bach-johann-sebastian/nba/ to https://www.baerenreiter.com/en/program/complete-editions/bach-johann-sebastian/nba/

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) 08:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Problems with using this page
In its current state, this page is really problematic. It takes a long time to load and freezes browsers whilst doing so (tested with multiple browsers over multiple computers). There is such a thing as too much information. If I want to check a BWV number, with which article is this easiest? I could have checked using the old page before this page even loads. Whilst a wealth of information is to be admired, and should be part of Wikipedia, should it really be on this page? Almost all users would be served better by this main Bach compositions page being as before. 2A00:23C4:A683:6A00:4931:D5A7:1FF5:7541 (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As said before (see previous thread on this page) the former format of the page contained only half of Bach's compositions, so not as if one could use the page for finding a composition by BWV number. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, I started List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach by BWV number. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Redux
Given that, for example, BWV 7 is a working redirect; we have a perfectly functional search engine, and Wikidata can be used to find items by BWV number programmatically, I'm not convinced that "finding a composition by BWV number" justifies the ridiculous length (now 720,509 bytes) of this page; but then nor does anything else. What's the best way to split it? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no best way to split it, because the entire list needs to be on one page. But 1) Nuke the Bach Digital column. Hard. It's a fine site, and probably isn't a bad thing to link them in individual compositions, but it's even less appropriate than linking the the IMSLP page (which as I said ont he Shcubert list doesn't really seem needed here). Second, get rid of that "2a" column. How anyone would find that useful I have no idea. Third, get rid of the ridiculous color scheme. No other composer list has anything like that, and its meaning is completely irrelevant anyway. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't "nuke" Bach Digital. It's "the site", with further links to the original sources. Dropping IMSLP and Bach Digital for works with an article is fine because you can be SURE to find both links there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The way external links are used here is definitely a problem and contrary to WP:ELLIST. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a collection of external links, and they ought to go (WP:NOT). Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you prefer to use Bach Digital as a ref to a direct link in the same line? That would make it all longer, because instead of the simple number  you'd need to say what the ref is about, and by whom. That would comply with our MoS, but would be awkward for our readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not like we have to reference each entry individually, especially not more than once. We also don't need several ways of ordering the compositions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What are the other refs? We do want to see chronology, sort titles alphabetically, sort by key, perhaps, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The seventh and tenth columns. We also have at least four columns of different ways to order the compositions. Not as in ways to sort them, but literally how they are enumerated. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The seventh and tenth column reference different things, one the BG, the other broader aspects including when BG but without link). - I don't see those four columns with numbers for the pieces. BG and NBA: It's in which volume you can find the score. BWV and BD numbering we do need. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter inherently to Bach's work what volume a posthumous publication was made? This is a list of his compositions. Focus should be on the music itself and COMMON cataloging (in this case, BWV #). Again, info that MGIHT be appropirate for individual articles but not on a master list. It's crazy how much you (and the one who ruined this article) seem to think so much extra crap should be here. Again, WP:CRUFT. WP:USEFUL. These links exist for a reason. Maybe you don't like the rules, but that doesn't mean you can ignore them because you disagree. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I rarely agree with Francis Schonken, but here I do ;) - For "the master list", we have BWV, while this is for readers who want more detail. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

"the entire list needs to be on one page" Does it? I'm not convinced. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * For the sort function in the table, yes, and you won't want to split the explanation from the table. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the BWV is the best way to categories the compositions. This article really doesn't need any column for categorising them, but certainly doesn't need five: BWV, 2a, BG, NBA and BG. It's just such a niche audience that would find all those five columns useful, not only someone interested in classical music but interested in the historical ways that Bach's works have been categorised by different people. Very rare for lists to be sorted by anything other than alphabetical, chronological or quantitative (eg. size). Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The recent removal of one column reduced the page size by just 28,204‎ bytes. The page is currently 692,304 bytes long, and is effectively uneditable in the visual browser, even on high=spec machine. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Moving the Table to another page and transcluding it from here
The presence of the "Works in Bach's catalogues and collections" table makes the page very hard to navigate and edit, and slows page loading times. Would it be feasible to move that table to a separate page and transclude it from here (under a collapsible header)? That way people can read the rest of the page content, and only load the table if they need it. - Sonicwave ( talk &#124; c )  21:38, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * (I guess I'm repeating.) This article is intended for the niche audience wanting to know details. Most links from articles should go to the shorter BWV. With both in the Bach navbox, it's hard for me to check what actually links to here and shouldn't. Readers who are determined to know more detail should not be hindered just because readers exist with small devices, who possibly never look here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Loss
How do we tell our readers: If you need more information you may find it in an earlier version? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How do you manage to edit so much on Wikipedia over the years and ask this question? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand yours. We have readers who only see what's on the page, who have no idea that there is edit history, and no idea that there was more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok I'm done. Do what you want, keep ruining articles. There's a reason I barely edit WP any more. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Keep ruining articles"?? Be so kind as naming two articles who you think I ruined. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Discuss
The rationale for the deletion of complete columns is "" - That's true for the (limited) number of compositions which have an article. - I see a consensus above to remove external links for compositions with an article, but not for complete columns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well there'd be nothing in the column. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Colors
My edit was reverted because "I think this is helpful for musicologist." By a user who has literally a single other edit, on the talk page of the banned user who put them there in the first place. So let's do this "right" and see what others think (and I would ask that people do NOT consider the article length here). I think they are complete cruft and not related, per se, to the music itself. They also make the aritcle itself look pretty ugly though I suppose that's technically not a proper consideration... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth the user has edits on the Chinese Wikipedia; here's a Google-translate version of their user page. Anyway I'm taking this page off my watchlist now ... the reason I was watching it previously (to do with sound files ... see this archived deiscussion) doesn't really apply anymore. Graham 87 14:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * That edit summary indicates that the colour shading wasn't really encyclopaedic in nature. The colours don't belong on this article simply since they are not necessary and are distracting. Careless additions like these have contributed to the problem size of the article, but are issues in their own right unrelated to the article's size. Actions like removing colours helps to reduce the size, but primarily removes something that is unnecessary and distracting which is a more important reason. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Splitting article
Are there any significant reasons not to split this very long article? All I can think of is that sorting by composition key would become less convenient. Since it's already sorted chronologically there isn't much more use for the sort function. The same goes for the Franz Schubert list too. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't understand "it's already sorted chronologically", - it is not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That's correct, it is not. Although it probably should be. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * How could it be? For so many works we simply don't know, and the ranges are broad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * If it's a chronological split, compositions of an unknown date could be in their own article, or in both articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That's theory. Practically, the catalogue is the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis. It has been tried in history to find better organization, but not sucessfully so. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Many other composers' works are arranged by genre, and only by genre (example: List of compositions by George Frideric Handel), - this one is BETTER because you can sort by what you want to know. Please let's keep that, which means no split. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There is just not much here to sort by. The content is more qualitative than quantitative. We could also split the article by genre too. It would also be ideal if all the external links could be removed easily. The current table is simply too hard to navigate and edit, and can really only satisfy a very niche audience. For everything that we could sort for, we can have different lists for. It's not like all the ways that countries are ranked and listed are all in one table. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * To maintain different lists would be extra work. Why can't we just accept that this article IS for a niche audience, and the general public will probably be happy with BWV? A reader who wants to know which compositions are in B minor will not be helped with them seperated by genre, nor someone who wants to know which pieces of different genres were composed in the same period. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Link to the previous discussion ~2.75 years ago, for reference.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course there's a reason (and for Schubert too, despite being chronological there). But even beyond the reason obvious to any normal classical music lover, there's the issue of it being a sortable table. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Splitting again
Since this article is still very long, it seems that the best idea for splitting compositions from this article would be to move those which are not original creations of Bach into another article, such as arrangements of others' work. I seek assistance in identifying comprehensively which these are, and how many of these there are. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * At Bach's time, that was common practice, so I see no reason to split by that difference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not a reflection of opinion on Bach, it's simply a matter of what we consider to be Bach's compositions, rather than other people's compositions that he rearranged. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. Leave the page because you just want to ruin it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * the page currently has 460,620 bytes of wiki markup. That's what ruins it. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The new edit puts it on #27 of the longest list and at least to me seems to load a bit faster in general. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The article now has 436,199 bytes. That's an insignificant change. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A 5.3% reduction. Certainly not nothing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I certainly welcome that reduction, but we can go further. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * By your "arragement" distinction, you would remove cantata BWV 134 from his own works because he used his BWV 134a, or would that not count as "arrangement" for you? Do you see how absurd it is? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For arrangements of his own works that are considered to be separate works, it would be sensible to have them both in the article of his compositions (this article) and an article of his arrangements. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * What about a daughter article for the table Works in Bach's catalogues and collections then break the table into the existing segments in it as sections, then collapsible tables can be used to shorten the load times as well enable direct section links. Gnangarra 04:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What would be the sections you would separate? Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * split it by the chapter. Gnangarra 07:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a good idea. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Return to former layout?
I'd like to return to the November 2018 layout of this page. I can't see very well which problems (if any) were addressed by intermediate changes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Far too much was provided then, going well beyond the scope of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The scope of the former version of the list was OK. At least, no major problems afaics. The content as provided then corresponded to the scope at the time. No problem there either. Variant versions of the list, with a more limited scope, exist, as they existed a year ago, which is probably what you're looking for. The alternative lists are properly linked from all places in the former version of this list, so no problem there for those looking for a similar list with a more limited scope.
 * So, returning to the remark in the OP of this section: what problem was actually solved? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You were banned for a reason. Stop trying to ruin articles. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Specialist defence
In the argumentation regarding the amount of detail of the list one finds defences like these: ...boiling down to an argument that the detail is useful for the specialist, but not for the average John Doe. Apart that I think that a very weak defence (Wikipedia is rather for the masses than elitist), it is quite far from my intentions when adding detail to the list. Let me clarify with a few examples: --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "This article is intended for the niche audience wanting to know details" (Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 2)
 * "I think this is helpful for musicologist" (Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 2)
 * 1) an amateur interested in Bach would rather read Johann Sebastian Bach: His Life, Art, and Work than recent issues of the Bach-Jahrbuch. The former is available on multiple websites, including Project Gutenberg, where it is accessed over ten times every day. The latter is a high-profile publication rather accessed by specialists. Published in 1920, Johann Sebastian Bach: His Life, Art, and Work, contains, for instance, on p. 137: "In B.G. XXI. (1) is a Symphonic movement, in D major, for Violin and orchestra." – any amateur might be interested to know whether Wikipedia has some info on that composition. With the current format of the table it would be near impossible for an amateur to find that info (a specialist would find the info more easily elsewhere, or would not need detail to find it in this table). As it happens, Wikipedia has a separate article on the composition. A specialist would have little difficulty to locate that article; although it is currently linked from the table, a lack of detail in the table would make it near impossible for an amateur to find that link to the article in the current list, as opposed to without difficulty in the former more extended version of the list.
 * 2) The same 1920 publication has pp. 140–141: "A Mass for double chorus, the first being accompanied by Strings and the second by wind instruments". Here there's absolutely no chance of finding any info on the composition in the list: it has recently been removed. With the extended footnote in the 1920 publication a specialist might be able to identify the composition (and find information regarding it on multiple Bach-related pages in Wikipedia), but again, it is the amateur who has a snowball's chance in hell to find such info in Wikipedia or elsewhere with the current version of the list (which would have been fairly easy to find in the former version of the list).
 * 3) I'm opposed to using, in this general list, arcane and/or obsolete listing systems for Bach's compositions (e.g. Hilgenfeldt's, Bitter's, Zwang's, etc). But those listing systems which are currently still widely in use in popular Bach resources (e.g. BG at IMSLP website; BNB, BC and BD at Bach Digital website) are useful to the amateur, some of these even more to the amateur than to the professional or specialist, e.g. an amateur would rather use the freely available BG scores than the high-profile NBA scores which are currently under copyright. Therefore I'd recuperate the popular listing systems from the former version of the list.

Incoming redirects
https://dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=List_of_compositions_by_Johann_Sebastian_Bach (list of incoming redirects to the list page) shows there are ten broken deep links. For instance, the first of these, Bach Digital, is linked from hundreds of Wikipedia articles. I propose to reinstate the anchor (and content) that clarify that concept. Same for the other nine deep links. It may be possible to redirect such deep links elsewhere, but until such content is available elsewhere, and properly linked there, it seems best to keep the links active here, and restore the deleted content and anchors. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * How about an article on Bach Digital? I was sure there was one, until recently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you find independent & non-trivial sources about that website? That's what would be needed if you want to start a separate article on the Bach Digital website (see WP:GNG: "...significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..."). A few years ago I looked for such independent sources, but couldn't find enough to base a stand-alone article on. The situation may have changed, but until if and when there is another more suitable explanation in Wikipedia the explanation should best be reinstated (it should not have been erased in the first place). Same for the other nine incoming redirects (which aren't even helped by a separate page on the Bach Digital concept). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You will have to ask others about the removals, - I argued against them, and I have no time. For the time being could you "park" the info that was there on Uwe Wolf, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Bach Digital could then become a redirect to him, of course. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no time either. Easiest (and least time-consuming) is to reinstate the 10 packages of content and their anchors here (so: not only the Bach Digital content & anchor), ten times as effective for less time (and no re-routing of redirects needed), that is: until someone has time to work out a better solution. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you also have no time, I will use some that I don't have next week. The German article is de:Bach digital, but I believe hat it's better recognized as a name in prose when capital. Thoughs, anybody? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no need to restore anything here. That's not going to make these links not broken anymore. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The technology is explained at WP:ANCHOR and related guidance (linked from there). Restoring the anchors, and the content that goes with these anchors, will make these deep links unbroken, so that they no longer display as "" at the https://dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=List_of_compositions_by_Johann_Sebastian_Bach page. Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Graphical indication of the proximity of primary sources to Bach
This was last discussed at Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 2. My proposition is to do what reliable sources do: In sum, there is a tremendous lot of scholarship on this topic. Limited to what is summarized about that in the available lists such as BWV and Bach Digital, the amount of available information on the topic is still colossal. Let's make a summary of the summary published in these lists (which is what Wikipedia should do), and let's indicate it graphically, like the Bach Digital website does. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Work pages at Bach Digital indicate graphically whether there are documented original sources of the composition. E.g. the page on BWV 4.2 (Bach Digital Work page ) has two such sources indicated by boldface; the page on BWV 4.1 (Bach Digital Work page ) has no such primary sources. The system set up for the Wikipedia list page was to indicate this characteristic not by boldface, but by a background colour in the table, that is three of the five background colours used without known problems at List of Bach cantatas.
 * That "proximity to Bach" of the earliest known material is an essential characteristic of a composition in this list is not only demonstrated by its treatment at the Bach Digital website. E.g. this article by Reinmar Emans opens its discussion of BWV 948 by analysing the proximity to Bach of its earliest extant material. All published versions of the BWV give attention to this characteristic, and according to its editors a detailed analysis of this characteristic will gain even more momentum in the next edition of the catalogue ("... wird zukünftig auf eine Angabe sämtlicher vorhandener handschriftlicher Quellen verzichtet. Stattdessen werden die Originalquellen (Autographe bzw. bei deren Fehlen stellvertretende Quellen) detaillierter behandelt und mit genauen Angaben zu ihren Schreibern ... versehen." – translation: "... in future a listing of all available handwritten sources will be abandoned. Instead, the original sources (that is autographs, and when they're not available whatever replaces them) will be treated with more detail, supplemented ... with a precise indication of the persons who wrote it down."). From the early 19th century this was a non-negligible topic in Bach-scholarship and in the publication and listing of his works (e.g. in the work of the Bach Gesellschaft), and it was an integral part of the Bach research of the first half of the 20th century (e.g. Neue Bachgesellschaft, first edition of the BWV, ...), but the topic only really took off shortly after the publication of the first edition of the BWV, starting with Dürr's listing of the cantatas, largely based on the research of this characteristic (1957). Subsequently, nearly all of Bach's compositions were subjected to a similar research: new research on Bach's compositions in the 21st century more often than not zooms in on this characteristic (e.g. Schulenberg, Williams).
 * Cool story bro. The colors aren't needed, because this is an encyclopedia, not a detailed reference work. On top of looking absolutely hideous. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Mainly objections against the layout then, afaics. Please explain why you object to these colours, and why they would be problematic here, while they appear unproblematic in at least a handful of sortable tables on other pages.
 * I propose a summary of the detail found in reference works such as BWV editions and Bach Digital. For clarity: the list on this Wikipedia page summarizes around 1500 Bach Digital web pages. On average half of the content of these web pages consists of a list of primary sources. Summarizing that by an essential characteristic of these sources (i.e. proximity to Bach) is, afaics, an excellent task for a reference work such as Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Care to give examples of other composers that have them? Ones where you added them don't count. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

--Francis Schonken (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Er, all of those are Bach articles. And one of them is this page. I just checked BWV 565 and as expected you were the one to add the colors (on top of which somewhat unrelated I fail to see why the article has such an indiscriminate list of recordings or a huge crufty table of score editions but I suppose that's a different conversation). I didn't go looking at the history of the others but they appear to be your work as well.It's honestly mid boggling how you can even sit there and try and be so dishonest as to pretend that you're trying to argue that something should be added because you happened to add it somewhere else. Again I said before, and I honestly don't care if you see this as a personal attack but go damn, you were banned before and you just go start right up with the same behavior trying to pretend things are all hunky dory. I stopped editing WP mostly a few years back partly because of people like you. I continue to fail to see why you seem to think that adding so much crap to the articles -- and only to Bach's, because someone Bach is above everyone else somehow? -- is actually helping anyone. Perhaps as the one who added the colors you can't see it, but using a color code that you have to scroll back and forth to the top just to figure out what it all means really obfuscates all the info. What does the color coding help? Especially when it's all hodgepodge here and there? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The table represents what I had announced earlier: background colours appearing unproblematic in at least a handful of tables elsewhere. Not concentrating on the whodunits but on their apparent unproblematic nature over a long period of time in several places, as compared to three of four colours rejected by, thus far, one person in the sortable table on this page. As it happens, the table illustrates that I never used a background colour unless it had previously been used without problems elsewhere: "the others ... appear to be your work as well" is a wrong assumption. Shows that without proper explanation surrounding a table, any table is easily misinterpreted.
 * Whether this is mostly or exclusively a Bach thing is quite irrelevant to the discussion here, except that it shows that it is a widely accepted practice in Bach-related tabular lists, thus there should be no surprise they were introduced here, in the main list of Bach's compositions. For clarity, template:Cantata discography row, used on dozens of WP:GAs and probably a few FAs, has two pre-programmed colours (#F7CFCF and #CDF7CD), a practice that was widely established before I used these colours for the first time, now unproblematic over a long period of time, in similar lists at the BWV 565 article.
 * Returning to my earlier question: please explain why you object to these colours, and why they would be problematic here, while they appear unproblematic elsewhere. Even if it's only a single person objecting to them, it would be lacking good manner not to hear them out as to why they assume this not to be a good practice. I suppose, however, that the reasons would need to be pretty strong to convince all those who used them, and those who approved them (in GA's and the like), that they made a bad choice. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have explained before. If you choose to ignore that, I can't help you. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the colours should not have been removed based on a mixed bag of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, prejudice, ad hominem, and wrong assumptions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Separate columns for original and up-to-date catalogue numbers
The table at Köchel catalogue has a separate column for the original K numbers (K$1$) and up-to-date K numbers (K$6$). I consider that good practice for an extended sortable table of a composer's compositions, when there are significantly different editions of such a composer's catalogue of compositions. I submit that such arrangement is even more needed for BWV numbers than for K numbers, as the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis (BWV) abandoned a numerical collation of its entries (sic) starting from its second edition. If there's only a single column then sorting by that column would either allow to find the compositions in a numerical succession (then abandoning the "by genre" setup of the published catalogue) or, alternatively, in a succession that would make it sometimes very difficult to find a composition by BWV number.

Currently the situation is even worse: if sorting by the single column that displays BWV numbers the order is erratic, neither rendering a proper numerical collation, nor an acceptable arrangement by genre (e.g. the title of the canon group being followed by a cantata). The former version of the table upheld a numerical collation when sorted by the first column, and the by-genre collation of the last printed edition of the BWV when sorting according to the second column. All of that managed by sort keys where needed. It seems only logical to return to that earlier arrangement, while the single BWV number column can't even be "repaired" to an acceptable sorting system (see previous paragraph). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We only need one column for catalogue numbers at most. Excessive and needless formatting further harms the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody needs a column with a broken sort function. Inopportune merging of two columns into one resulted in a nonsensical collation when using the sort button of that column. I don't see very well what else than restoring the former logic could be done to make this a sensible sortable table again. I'm open to suggestions for alternative approaches, but unless someone can implement something else that makes sense I suppose that returning to the former operational situation is the way to go. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The alternative would be to have only one column that also had whatever functionality you're advocating. You're the one who wants to make changes so it's up to you to suggest an alternative approach. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can't make sense of that, sorry. May be caused by the terseness of the explanation, more likely however by a lack of grip on the guidance at Help:Sorting (see also below). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Compositions which are not original creations of Bach, such as arrangements of others' work
At Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 2 someone sought to split off "compositions ... which are not original creations of Bach ..., such as arrangements of others' work", resulting in multiple problems: The list should follow reliable sources, not only the printed versions of the BWV, but also more recent research since its last printed edition. Also here restoring the content which was deleted without consensus seems the most harmless way to achieve that without further delay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * many such compositions were not split to somewhere else in Wikipedia, but simply removed, so that information which previously was available, no longer is (unless when wading through anterior versions of the article);
 * The removal was done haphazardly, retaining many of such compositions, and removing others without proper justification. For instance retaining BWV 508 (at best an arrangement by Bach, although that arrangement may have been by someone else too), while BWV 142 (possibly at least partially an original composition by Bach) was removed from the list. This seems like a Wikipedian's original research to decide over the head of tons of Bach scholarship which composition is authentic and which isn't.
 * The removal was done without consensus.
 * Hundreds of compositions usually listed as compositions by Bach are mere arrangements or harmonisations of pre-existing tunes, for instance most of the arrangements in Schemellis Gesangbuch (BWV 439–507). Again it seems like a Wikipedian's original research not to include BWV Anh. 166, containing a few bars without doubt composed by Bach, while retaining BWV 1081, a similar short addition by Bach to someone else's composition. In other words, the "arrangement" criterion is here applied by Wikipedians without looking at how reliable sources discriminate between authentic and not.
 * On this, I agree with you. They should never have been removed (and I stated as much above). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no matter of what is authentic or not. Plainly, an arrangement of a composition other than by Bach which includes some amount of original content by Bach is not a composition by Bach, but still an arrangement. What was determined to be a composition by Bach and what was determined to be an arrangement of an existing composition was made well before the arrangements were moved from the article. There is no issue either way when it comes to reliable sources, on the matter of not including arrangements in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Authenticity is the criterion used by reliable sources, arrangements on the other hand were never excluded from a list of compositions by Bach, not in any source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Nobody has suggested that these are inauthentic compositions. They're simply not Bach's compositions, they are his arrangements. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * More and more I wonder if you even know anything about classical music. Listing arrangements as a part of a composer's ouvure is very much a normal thing. Hell some composers it's a major part of their work, Liszt for instance. But just adding a few more randomly, there's Mozart, Saint-Saens, Ravel and Berlioz....for starters. Bach of course is no different and I have to imagine you wouldn't even be at this article and trying to make bizzare arguments if it wasn't as big as it was. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (ec) Maybe we're mixing two separate discussions. Let's try to disentangle:
 * The major listings of Bach's compositions include both original compositions and arrangements. Since there is no separate listing of the arrangements (in an Anhang or some such) in the dominant reliable sources, these arrangements should be included in the main list, like the reliable sources do. The published catalogue of Ferruccio Busoni's works has a separate "B" section with his adaptations/arrangements listed separately. Still, they are part & parcel of that composer's body of work, but since no prominent (probably even no extraneous) list of compositions by Bach lists these arrangements separately it would be OR to do so in Wikipedia.
 * The listings in Anhang II and III (the two sections that were removed from the page) of the BWV are based on authenticity discriminations by the authors of the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis (BWV). First, the works listed in these Anhang sections are listed in the reliable sources that list Bach's compositions, not only in the BWV, but also e.g. in Bach Digital (there without being extradited to a separate section of the listing). Second, these authenticity discriminations vary largely over time, e.g. the authors of the next version of the BWV speak about the many changes (in German: "zahlreiche Verschiebungen") in the Anhang, causing problems which they want to address in the new edition of the list. I'm looking forward to that, but in the mean while I would keep Wikipedia's list of Bach's compositions as robust as possible, that is formatted thus that such future changes can be introduced without needing a complete rewrite of the list (this robustness is accountable for some invisible complexities, another reason to revert to the earlier layout of the list).
 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against Bach or giving them credit for their musical arrangements. It's just that when a very prolific composer has composed many works, it is fair for encyclopaedic purposes to display the arrangements on a different but related article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

not sure whether you want to pursue this any further, but here are some ideas: Meaning: even if there's a standard list of a composer's compositions sectioning off the arrangements, it is still a matter of consensus between Wikipedia editors to list such arrangements exclusively outside the page that contains the main list of the composer's compositions. Thus, not only a reliable source listing Bach's compositions without the arrangements of others' work is failing, but even if such a listing is found, one would still need to find a consensus among Wikipedia editors to remove such arrangements from this page. We're currently very far from such consensus.
 * The standard list of Busoni's compositions contains a "B" section with his adaptations of compositions by others (as already mentioned above): in Wikipedia that list of adaptations is on a separate page (List of adaptations by Ferruccio Busoni).
 * From the 1978 German edition of the Deutsch catalogue, Schubert's arrangements are listed in a separate section of the Anhang. In Wikipedia that section of the Anhang is on the same page as the remainder of the list of the composer's compositions (see List of compositions by Franz Schubert).

But it starts with finding a reliable source that sections off the arrangements when listing Bach's compositions comprehensively. Feel free to find such source. Here are some ideas that might get you started: --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's List of transcriptions of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach: it contains a (far from comprehensive!) list of Bach the transcriber of his own compositions. I suppose a similar article listing exclusively Bach's arrangements of others' work would be viable: I see no impediment for starting such separate list, if and when reliable sources are provided. Looking for such sources might turn up a more or less comprehensive list of such arrangements in an external source. If such source is found, and the Wikipedia article listing these arrangements is comprehensive, we might revisit the question whether the arrangements should only be listed on that separate page, or on both the separate page and the main list. It is however still something for which a consensus needs to be found among editors before removing the arrangements here.
 * The Cambridge Companion to Bach, p. 131 contains a short list of Bach's original concertos: i.e. a list without the arrangements (as well the arrangements of his own compositions, as those of others'). That's the only list of Bach compositions without arrangements I know. Most other authors would discuss Bach's concertos without providing such list. It is also not representative for a general list of all of Bach's compositions. It is also a list that excludes Bach's arrangements of his own compositions, which is a different matter from what has been proposed thus far.
 * It's not true at all that we require a source that displays the arrangements separate to the compositions. That is a purely editorial choice which we can make. Please keep your future remarks much briefer going forward. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Assuming for a very brief moment that there were no risk at WP:OR when deviating from a solid body of reliable sources (avoiding a lengthy explanation to illustrate that risk), how else could it be illustrated that this would be a sensible editorial choice? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As a very obvious way of splitting the works of Bach. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Deviating from a standard practice engrained in all reliable sources used as a basis for this list is never obvious, leave alone "very obvious". It is a very exceptional approach to Bach's compositions, and without decent explanation it has received thus far zero traction among fellow editors. Repeating the non-explanations doesn't really help: please provide one, at least in favour of the feasibility of this approach, or we'd be rather at the end of the road for this pursuit imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to explain this any more simply. There is a substantial difference between original compositions and arrangements. What would be a better way to split the works of Bach then? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Saying that as if there's a need to split anything, when there isn't, just like every other composer. The list should be complete. It's not even about sources or whatever else....it's a matter of the fact that a comprehensive list should be be, by definition, as complete as possible. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the article is very large so it does necessitate a split. That's nothing to do with completeness. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You might want to revisit the Article size guidance, especially the part that speaks about lists, e.g. "If there is no natural way to split or reduce a long list or table, it may be best to leave it intact..." Meaning, if splitting off arrangements, doubtful and spurious compositions doesn't come naturally (which is the case for Bach), it can't be done against consensus. Other than that, I'd suggest to group size-related discussions below in the section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Arrangements are indeed a natural distinction between Bach's works, among others. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * At Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 2 you wrote "I seek assistance in identifying comprehensively which these [compositions which are not original creations of Bach] are, and how many of these there are." The fact that it needed to be asked, and that no Wikipedia editor nor external reliable source seems to be able to answer the request satisfactorily already demonstrates there's nothing "natural" about it. I could write a multi-page essay on why it doesn't make much sense to distinguish between arrangements and original compositions when listing compositions of pre-19th century composers (it is never done in comprehensive composition lists of these composers afaik), but you probably wouldn't read it (interesting topic though). Just one thought, one I've seen recur in reliable sources: the first thoughts about copyright originated in the 19th century – before that era reworking another composer's work was rather seen as a tribute to that composer than stealing their work. Again, it is up to the one defending the "obvious" or "natural" stance to convince fellow editors towards a new consensus, by giving credible reasons. Didn't happen thus far afaics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with regarding anything as stealing others' work. Seeking to identify which works are original and which are arrangements is in no way demonstrative that this is not a natural distinction between works. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Re. "This has nothing to do with regarding anything as stealing others' work" – exactly, as I said. Since, in Bach's era, it was not possible to steal someone's work by copying, arranging, publishing and/or publicly performing it, there was no obligation to indicate the original composer's name on an arrangement. This led to difficult to disentangle questions of authorship and/or of who arranged who, and some of these disentanglements were only performed more or less satisfactorily after the last publication of the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis. Several others remain unresolved (and may be resolved at some point in the future – or not), e.g. BWV 565, BWV 597. That being only one of many reason why arrangements are not listed separately in catalogues of 18th-century composers. As for demonstrating that the distinction comes naturally in Bach's case: I'm looking forward to seeing some evidence supporting that, which didn't happen yet. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your pontifications about history are immaterial and needless. Arrangements are significantly different to original compositions in authorship. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Look at the examples, as mentioned: Scholars differ in both cases. Nonetheless one of these was removed, the other remained in the table. WP:OR? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * BWV 565 may be an arrangement by Bach. Or not.
 * BWV 597 ditto

Or this pair: Also here scholars differ in both cases. Also here one of these is retained in the current list, while the other was removed. Such random decisions by Wikipedia editors, favouring the assertions of some scholars over the assertions of equally respectable other scholars, can afaik only be seen as messing with core content policy (WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT,...). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Der Gerechte kommt um (BWV deest): possibly Bach's adaptation of a composition by his predecessor Kuhnau. Or not.
 * Uns ist ein Kind geboren, BWV 142: ditto
 * As usual, we should determine what the balance of reliable sources claim about anything in dispute. This is not original research. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For the two deleted ones mentioned above the balance of the reliable sources is to include them in the list of Bach's compositions, but mark them somehow as doubtful. Ditto for all of Bach's certain arrangements, where the balance is even more overwhelming: reliable sources list them as compositions by Bach, sometimes even without marking them as an arrangement (the main comprehensive lists do however mostly mark them somehow as an arrangement: in Wikipedia's table such common cross-linkings between compositions deriving from one another can be found in the "Additional info" column). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)