Talk:Magnificat (Bach)/Archive 1

Old links
Related prior talk: --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Talk:Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a
 * Talk:Magnificat in D major, BWV 243

See also User talk:Yngvadottir/Archive 7, for currently ongoing discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably too trivial for article...
This weekend Bach's Magnificat reached 62nd place in the annual "Top 100" of Radio Klara

The audio fragment broadcast was: 1. "Magnificat anima" from Magnificat in D, BWV 243 performed by Collegium Vocale, Philippe Herreweghe (conductor) - Harmonia mundi 2951326 --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox
Anyone opposed to adding an infobox to this article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Merge suggestion
Prior related discussions: As I see no serious objections to proceed (the merge tags have been up for two weeks with nobody contesting), I will proceed with the merge shortly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes (and comments in the neighborhood on that archived page)
 * Template:Did you know nominations/Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a


 * You will please note that the merge tags have been . You seem to be the only one who wants a merge. As long as that is so, please don't act but discuss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If I'm the only one wanting this and nobody objects, I can proceed, that wouldn't even be WP:BOLD. Just editing. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I object.
 * I am against a merge in this case, different from Magnificat (Schütz), where four works are handled in one article. These two, as similar they are in structure, are different.


 * * Different key, which means the keys in all movements you want to refer to
 * * Different time in Bach's life, context
 * * Different scoring
 * * The 4 Christmas movements, part of one, but not the other


 * I believe that the readers are served better by two articles, especially because some other articles may want to link to E-flat, others to D.


 * Compare: cantata BWV 120 was originally one article covering three works, but was split to BWV 120, BWV 120a and BWV 120b, which makes sense and was imitated for several others of Bach's works where different versions exist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "My version" of the E-flat version, which is not the present one, but what is the base for my reasoning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Discuss, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Nobody is helped by the back and forth between two articles that treat the same work (in several versions)
 * Scores of the Christmas canticles are now often published in a transposed version, for insertion in the D major version, so the history of the music, as it is available now, needs to explain the origin of these additions. I see no need to make that a back-and-forth between two articles.
 * There's no history of the 243a version that isn't also history of the 243 version (which is different for, for example, BWV 232/BWV 232 I, where the Dresden offshoot has historic specifics of little relevance for the later integrated work). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) Thank you for proving my point by : the two tables in one article illustrate perfectly how confusing it would be. Do me a favour, if you absolute have to show how ... it looks: do that in your user space and the present the result for a review, - not in a live article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I could say "nobody is helped by long confusing tables next to each other", but I don't, I only say that I would be confused. To go back and forth between articles is the key of a wiki, no? - If I want to link to Bach's Magnificat from most cantata articles I need to go to E-flat because the other didn't exist yet. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The tables can be merged. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * They are merged, problem solved afaik. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "To go back and forth between articles is the key of a wiki, no?" — no, it isn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "If I want to link to Bach's Magnificat from most cantata articles I need to go to E-flat because the other didn't exist yet" — I cannot see a problem there. The BWV 243a, Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a (and similar) will still link to the article on that version of the Magnificat after the merge. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Francis, you seem not to hear me. You put great effort into merging the tables, but I confess that I find the result (incomplete for keys and voices) extremely hard to read, in German I would say "unübersichtlich". Am I the only one. I am not against a move to Magnificat (Bach), as long as we keep a separate article on E-flat with a simple table, details of the composition history (to be expanded), details on the first major work in Latin and for five voices (to be expanded), publishing and recordings for that one (to be expanded). - We have articles on Bach's works such as Reißt euch los, bedrängte Sinnen, BWV 224, lets devote one to BWV 243a, a milestone in Bachs life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "incomplete for keys and voices" — please help complete it, instead of complaining. BTW, for "voices" it is complete afaik, unless something has slipped. If you see such slips, again, amend them instead of complaining. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't support the merge, did you hear me? So many articles are in need of expansion or to be written. This article was like this until recently, when I started improving. I have other priorities. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I hear "don't do this", "don't do that" a lot. I choose to ignore it unless a reason is given (then, depends on the content of the reason whether I act upon it, reply to it, etc...).
 * The reasons given here for not merging are still rather lightweight imho:
 * improvements to the integrated version are possible... of course... but as such not a reason pro or contra the merge. All articles can be improved I suppose, which is unrelated to a merge discussion. If this translates into: I agree to the merge once the integrated version is better streamlined, then OK I can live with it. But this has nothing to do with the discussion of the question whether or not to merge.
 * readability of the integrated article: I see nothing that can't be solved with improvements like those mentioned in the previous point. So unless there is a structural impossibility to get the readability sorted I see no problem. And no structural reasons are given.
 * rest of it resumes to "personal taste" afaics, no problem with that, but doesn't convince me.
 * The reasons I have given in favour of a merge relate to structural deficiencies, as in permanent, not to be solved by mainspace cleanup (unless that "cleanup" consists of replacing the entire content of one article with a redirect). --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you please first present your reasons for a merge, which should have been the first thing in the socalled discussion, preceding actions on the articles? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Gerda warned --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose merge (as if my previous messages didn't get through). And really, FFS, Francis, people disagreeing with you isn't a wiki-crime worth a "warning." You are making all sorts of moves and edits against article consensus, with what appears to be an attempt to make only your own (often poorly-formatted and badly-written) articles the basis for all. No one died and made you god, so knock it off with the "warnings" and discuss in good faith instead of dictating like you are the be all and end-all of Bach. Here, you proposed merges, you have had people say no, so now please drop the stick, ad least on the E article. Montanabw (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Reasons? I see a lot of ad hominem (a.k.a. battleground behaviour), not a single *reason* why the pages should not be merged. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Instead of merge
I suggest we have one article about the details, such as Movements of Bach's Magnificat, which is linked to from both sides, is updated one spot, and leave the rest (history, tables of movements, scores, publishing, recordings) separate, for clarity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, there's not enough material to justify three separate articles (it's not BWV 232...). Also I think at least 90% is the same, history-wise, description-wise, references, etc. E.g., as I said before BWV 243a *is* the major part of the history of 243, sources rarely treat only one without also treating the other, etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

ps: As I write this, we have a state of some movements in BWV 243a, for others the request to move elsewhere, all but not the latest version in BWV 243: an undesirable state. I have to go, and would not revert again anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking time to eat... will proceed asap. Feel free to join the effort. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What you call "proceed" ... - You might have waited for a discussion before doing anything. Did it occur to move the little bit of D major that is different to E-flat and call that Magnificat (Bach)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't "proceed" with forking content like you did (and some others). If we need to discuss forking content: it is a no-no, I suppose that's the end of the discussion. So I proceed with the merging, the only alternative is apparently forking, which is a no-no. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You fail to understand the difference between a useful "spinoff" from a main article versus a WP:POVFORK, which is discouraged. Here, there clearly is an adequate amount of material to WP:SPLIT the article into sub-articles.  Appropriate links back to the parent article are fine, but there needs to be summaries and not just a redirect.  See, e.g., an article I worked on a while back, totally unrelated to music: Equine anatomy.  We have separate articles on the circulatory system, skeletal system, etc.; but still keep the main article.  It's not a fork to expand on critical sub-components of a system, biological or musical.  Montanabw (talk)  20:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Please stop the ad hominems, I understand the "spinoff" vs. "content fork" well enough, I wrote a significant part of the relevant guidance, as I mentioned on your talk page.
 * This is however not a spinoff, but a content fork. BWV 243 is in no way a subsidiary article of BWV 243a. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I stand by my previous statement, nothing ad hominem about stating that I don't agree with your reasoning and I question your logic. I am not arguing that 243 is subsidiary, I'm arguing tha 243a is an appropriate spinoff.  It is merely your personal opinion that it doesn't need to be a separate article; I see no logical reason why it should not be. You are creating a lot of drama by your insistence on creating merges of material that is detailed and useful expansions from a main topic.  You also are on a one-person crusade and have a lot of folks who disagree with your views.  How about working for a compromise of some sort?    Montanabw (talk)  21:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The "merge" is discussed above in . This talk page section is called.
 * So are you suggesting WP:Summary style for either Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 or Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a? Or any other compromise (that is not a merge)? --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am saying, do not merge, and don't get obsessed about which article is junior or senior to the other. Each article can develop on its own, and where a cross-link is appropriate, the  can be used.  Clearly, 243a will have more detail about itself and 243 will be treating 243a with less detail.   Montanabw (talk)  02:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This talk page section is about alternatives to a merge. If you are "saying, do not merge", do so in the appropriate talk page section. Note that I get remarks on my user talk page about this discussion being fragmented: I'm not responsible for that fragmenting. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

...one of few extended settings...
Regarding "...one of few extended settings..." (bolding added). On what is this based? Johann David Heinichen composed more than a few Magnificats (see List of compositions by Johann David Heinichen) of which at least one seems a very extended setting, see Magnificat in F major, S.91 (Heinichen, Johann David) (164 score pages, for soloists, choir, orchestra). I think the "...one of few extended settings..." sentence needs to be sourced or it should go. At least I think it is not lede material. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to replace
 * , by
 * and move the later examples (C. P. E. Bach; Rutter) to a reception-related section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * and move the later examples (C. P. E. Bach; Rutter) to a reception-related section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Now Included, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion
I propose to merge Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a into Magnificat (Bach): the main reason for that is that there is virtually no content of the first page that isn't also suitable for the second. There is no problem with page length, while the extra content that applies only to the D major version of the Magnificat is limited to a few lines: yes Bach wrote that version ten years later, for the same feast as the very first version (Visitation), but the differences are minimal: the second time it fell on a sunday, and "The feast ended the period of mourning the death of the elector Augustus the Strong." The differences for the music are about two or three movements (e.g. he didn't write "adagio" for the 3rd movement of the first version, only for the second), + the different role for the flutes + "The key of D major was better suited to the trumpets." That's it, for the info on the second version that isn't already included in the current article on the first version. Further, If any of the concepts I mentioned above (e.g. WP:Content fork, WP:REDUNDANTFORK, WP:Selective transclusion,...) need further clarification I'd be happy to provide that, unless things become clear after you've clicked the links to the guidance first and read it.
 * Both articles are in need of improvement, that's not really an argument, unless as an argument to keep it together until these issues are sorted (a large amount of the improvement is needed for the same texts in the two versions).
 * I oppose giving more detail on what applies to both versions in one version and not in the other (content forking)
 * I oppose keeping exactly the same descriptions in two articles (redundant forking), unless by the technique of selective transclusion (which had been installed before, but in the wrong direction)
 * I oppose "back and forth", meaning, the info applying to both versions only being in one article, with a link in the other, so that someone who wants to get the complete picture of the composition needs to go back and forth between two pages.
 * I oppose three articles (for now): there's no excessive page length that would warrant sectioning of of the "communal" info with the history of the piece being divided among two separate "composition" articles.
 * For the difference in key and composition year, there's of course no problem to have two redirect pages with categories.

Same goes for further clarifying my reasons why I prefer it thus; just ask me, and I'll clarify further. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I oppose, as said in the previous discussions (linked above), but will have no time for this until Tuesday. For other works by Bach, every version has its article. We can argue what should be in article BWV 243a and what in BWV 243a. The works have a distinctly different place in Bach's biography. - There would be no repetition/fork if you, Francis, had not copied from one to the other. You could remove it and take the discussion from there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Then we'll suspend discussions till Tuesday, and avoid redundant forks in the mean time: discussions can be re-opened after that.
 * Re. "For other works by Bach, every version has its article", no they don't. Give real arguments if you have them please, this isn't one of them.
 * Re. "distinctly different place in Bach's biography", I can't see an argument there, while the info on the different place in the biography is very limited: there's more info on the different place in the biography of the two versions of 1723 (yet they are kept in one article) than there is on the different place of the very first version and the ultimate version (both for Visitation, the difference being one shortly after his arrival in Leipzig, the other after the mourning period for August the Strong — that's all there is to say about the "different place in the biography"). As said for linking, categorization, etc. there are no problems to distinghuish both versions.
 * Re. "There would be no repetition/fork if you, Francis, had not copied from one to the other", yeah is that your defense to keep BWV 243 an incomplete article? As I said before: you've proven you don't care about Wikipedia's overall quality, only about the articles where you can put a distinctive mark. Now you're adding to that: making a reproach to those who do care for the overall qualtiy of Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't like redundancy but was asked to move this from below:
 * We differentiate versions for the other works by Bach without such attributes, please look at Bach cantatas and The Missa of 1733. I see no reason to treat this work differently, therefore oppose a merge. I am not against the name Magnificat (Bach) for the D major version, as we have Ave Maria (Bruckner) for the best-known version although he composed others such as Ave Maria, WAB 5, but I vote for the details for BWV 243a (the keys, composition history, Christmas movements, publishing, recordings) to stay in BWV 243a, perhaps summarized in the other.


 * Adding: I would prefer two articles. You put a lot of effort in the combined table, Francis, but the result looks overwhelming to me as a reader. I believe that it would be much clearer if separate, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For Bach: we don't have a separate article for Sanctus for six vocal parts (1724) (BWV 232 III Bärenreiter), not less noteworthy than what Bach composed exactly a year earlier (the second version of 243a). Nor do we have a separate article for the G major version of "Credo in umum Deum", BWV 232 II (mentioned here). - nor would I think such separated articles a good idea. That's about versions of some of Bach's most famous music, for which there is at least an interesting prior version.
 * I'm not so familiar with the Bach cantatas at Wikipedia, so I won't say anything about them.
 * Addition: and then for Bach there are the instances of non-vocal music: BWV 1060R doesn't get a separate article, not even a separate section in the article where BWV 1060 is treated: nonetheless BWV 1060R is far more often performed than BWV 1060. BWV 1062 doesn't get a separate page, notwithstanding it is an "other version" in another key and with a different instrumentation and with a time gap of over 15 years between both versions, of one of Bach's most popular works, BWV 1043. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * For other composers we have, for instance, Schubert's last sonatas: the most important common ground for having the three of them in one article is their comparable structure, much less as the common ground for the Bach Magnificat versions.
 * Addition: much of this resumes to a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale: sometimes it is good to have a look around what happened in other similar cases, nonetheless I think for Bach's Magnificat some comparisons go one way, others go another way, depending on who wants to find them... On the whole I think we have to proceed with what would work best here for the article(s) we are discussing here, within the limits of guidance like WP:Content fork etc, and not fix too much on similarities. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. combined table: can be improved, waiting for the article content to stabilize at Magnificat (Bach). And again, as such is not an obstacle for the merge: I think the instrumentation differences can better be compared in a single table. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

BWV 243a, Gerda's view
As promised, I set out to explain why I believe that two articles on Bach's Magnificat - his two versions of more or less the same music - would serve our readers better, and why I therefore started BWV 243a, expanded it and plan to expand it further. Francis Schonken expressed that he believes one article would be better. I confess that I had to time to study all that, just add my point of view.

Background and creation
In 2010, project classical music started expanding the coverage of Bach's cantatas. Back then, we agreed to cover alternative versions of a BWV number in one article, example BWV 120. In 2013, Nikkimaria started to create separate articles for the alternatives, such as BWV 120a and BWV 120b, which had been redirects.) There are many more of the kind, simple look at Bach cantatas and click on those with a letter behind the number. I thought that it was a good idea. In that spirit, I created an article on BWV 243a. A disambiguation was needed besides the number, therefore I chose the key, as perhaps the fact in which the versions differ most.

Differences
The two works differ:
 * different composition history (243a in 1723 at the very beginning of Bach's tenure in Leipzig as a bold statement, 243 in 1733 as the first piece performed after the silent months of mourning Augustus the Strong)
 * different key (which means different keys in all movements)
 * different dedication (243a Purification and Christmas, 243 only Purification)
 * different number movements (16 vs. 12, at least at Bach's time, - I don't think that later transpositions of the Christmas insertions in 243 are a strong argument, - that can be mentioned in one sentence)
 * different publishing
 * different scores
 * different recordings
 * different sources
 * therefore different categories

I think we serve our readers better if we keep two separate articles. Readers can easily open two windows to compare, while in one article containing both versions, they would have to check the headers carefully to know if a paragraph speaks about one version or the other or both.

Instead of discussing, Francis copied material from the "new" article to the "old", and expanded there. Today's BWV 243 is already a version merged by him, without waiting for a discussion. If we talk about a merge, we should look at a version before that, such as this. Repeating, I don't vote for a merge. The combined table of movements looks overwhelming to me. There was a better one for ust BWV 243 in this version.

Name
The "old" article name was Magnificat (Bach), and I suggest to use it for BWV 243, because it is the version performed most often, and people looking for Bach's Magnificat should arrive at an article without knowing the key. We can still have the other on Bach's bold first composition.

Movements
I agree that to maintain the same information in two articles is undesirable. We can summarise the composition history of BWV 243a in BWV 243, and the other way round. We will need to decide where a detailed description of the movements should go, in the first composition, in the work performed most often, or a third article such as Magnificat (Bach) movements. I don't see the slightest problem to link from the movement numbers in one article to a description in another. The reader has to do the same going back if it happens within the same article. Wherever the movements are described, they can be linked to from both Magnificat articles, and from other articles mentioning particular details. I thought of BWV 243a when I wrote Magnificat (Rutter), wanted to compare to Bach's composition and found nothing to compare to. I actually wrote BWV 243a when the conductor died who taught me to love Bach's music, to honour him. RIP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. "This article was begun in memory of Erhard Egidi, who died on 8 September 2014" — Is there an argument that affects this discussion, directly or indirectly? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No. Just my personal COI. I wrote that article as an epitaphium, from the start, see my user page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem to collapse this then, so we don't get side-tracked by it in this discussion. If someone objects, remove collapse templates again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Re. "I actually wrote BWV 243a when the conductor died who taught me to love Bach's music, to honour him. RIP." — Gerda, please decide: are you going to use this as an argument in the discussion or not? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Not an argument, just information under Gerda's view, explaining why I have personal attachment to the article which others may not understand and don't have to share. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In sum, using it as an argument - "...others may not understand and don't have to share" is true about every argument used in a debate (or were you implying that all your other arguments necessarily must be understood and necessarily must be shared by anyone seeing them?) --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

To be discussed

 * 1) It is common for Bach's works to have different versions covered in different articles.
 * 2) The versions in this particular case are so different in so many respects, that it seems particularly desirable to have clearly different articles on the versions which should not overlap in content.
 * 3) The general former name could be given to one of them, the D major version.

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) is to be discussed too.
 * 2) #1 is already discussed above, and is, as shown by my examples, incorrect.
 * 3) Please remove everything that is not to be discussed from  and its subsections: it is divisive to make allegations, and then imply they shouldn't be discussed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the content of Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a (November 2014)
The most important problem with the current content of Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a is imho WP:REDUNDANTFORK.

This issue should be dealt with, or the page should be made a redirect to the page where the content is featured. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of a "by topic" discussion. So I brought this one down in this section and propose to discuss it first. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Other problems with the content of Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a: --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Problems with the content of Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a: see list under table below in
 * "[Bach] introduced five-part choral setting to Leipzig church music" (Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a) seems incorrect, see Spitta 1899 p. 333.


 * The "introduced" is no longer mentioned, although it is in a source. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Multi-topic discussion

 * The Magnificat in E-flat major was composed in 1723. The Magnificat in D Major was composed in 1733 and has numerous differences in composition, although based on the earlier work. There are sufficient differences between the two to support two topics. In each case, the first performance was a different occasion and there is room to discuss the different receptions, interpretations and subsequent performances. The entirety of Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a works as a stand-alone article as anybody who reads it can see, There are no problems with the content of Magnificat in E-flat major and this section heading is misleading. The article is good example of a related article: "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork.". --RexxS (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "The Magnificat in D Major was composed in 1733" — no it wasn't. It was composed nearly entirely in 1723. There were some minor modifications, that's all, but the composition as such (of Bach's Magnificat) goes back to 1723. Have you found any source explaining how and when Bach's Magnificat was composed that doesn't start in 1723? All of the sources I read on the composition of the Magnificat have more content on what happened in 1723 than on what happened in 1733, and that is true also for all sources before it was acknowledged in the 21st century that there had been two performances of it in 1723.
 * In sum, you give a very good reason to keep all three versions in one article: people are beginning to start believing that Bach's Magnificat was composed in 1733: it wasn't, it was composed in 1723. The 1733 version is an arrangement of a 1723 composition. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Further the POV that Bach "composed" the D major version in 1733 was introduced by : this is when "In 1733, Bach composed ..." (emphasis added) first appears in the article. Until then "composed" was only used in the first paragraph of the article, referring to the 1723 version. With retrospect: a confusing phrasing was introduced then, now leading to misunderstandings. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: "Re. "The Magnificat in D Major was composed in 1733" — no it wasn't." Yes it was. The piece that was composed in 1733 was a derivative of the earlier piece, but it is significantly different - not least by being in a different key. You seem to think it is a mere transposition of the earlier piece. It isn't. Have you any source that identifies the two pieces? I think not, or we would have seen it cited well before now. Your preference - and your personal preference is all it is - would be to contain the two topics within one article. You're entitled to your opinion, but you're going to have to learn to respect other people's opinions, particularly those who see the two pieces as sufficiently different to give enough potential for two related articles, per WP:RELART. Any misunderstanding is clearly on your part: the phrasing is perfectly clear as it stands. --RexxS (talk) 21:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be rather easy to solve this little problem by saying "was transposed and revised from" (then link) instead of "was composed". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There's actually an interesting discussion of the two in Marshall (1989) The Music of Johann Sebastian Bach, well worth reading. It gives a more comprehensive history than is being presented here now, and in many ways actually supports Gerda's earlier argument that Bach's biography led to a differentiation of the two. While the articles as they stand now do not adequately reflect that history IMO, I think on balance after reviewing the sources that it would be possible to write valid articles on each version. Marshall has also written a manuscript comparison that could contribute to that, and he refers to additional German-language sources. I think this by-topic discussion is getting a bit confusing (and we seem to have developed two sections on the same topic?). There are problems with both current articles, but these can be at least partially addressed by deciding how many articles to have and what content goes where, and then working to flesh out the divergences between the two. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I would like to include that source and others, but I like to first discuss and then act, so don't want to touch the articles while the discussion is ongoing. - You can see i the history that I was in the middle of adding sourcing to the movements when the merge request happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I would like to include that source and others, but I like to first discuss and then act, so don't want to touch the articles while the discussion is ongoing. - You can see i the history that I was in the middle of adding sourcing to the movements when the merge request happened. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit introduced a WP:REDUNDANTFORK in Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a. My question is how we're going to deal with that. Denial is not part of the solution.

I understand WP:RELART, and understand why it is invoked here. But I don't agree with its premise for this article. Christo and Jeanne-Claude is a single article, although I'm sure both artists have/had biographies that were not completely identical. What I say is that BWV 243 and BWV 243a are more like Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a than like Joséphine de Beauharnais and Napoleon (the examples used in WP:RELART). --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no problem with the content of Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a and no amount of you calling it a fork makes it so. You were the one who copied content without attribution from Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a into this article and any redundancy has been created by you in an attempt to merge the information about the 1723 and 1733 pieces into this article - for no other reason than that you want it that way. It's time for you to advance reasons (beyond your personal preference) why two separate, but related articles should be merged into one in contradiction of WP:RELART.
 * I hear your assertions, but I'm not hearing reasons. You say that the present articles are more like Christo and Jeanne-Claude than Joséphine de Beauharnais and Napoleon, but you don't say why. Do you understand that different editors take different approaches to the same topics? for example in some language Wikipedias Romeo and Juliet is the only article, while in others Romeo and Juliet exist separately (and on en-wp all three exist, with different emphases on the same subject). Please feel free to explain why the E-flat major Magnificat and the D major Magnificat are not susceptible to the same examination. --RexxS (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS – in other words: such comparisons are of little help here, as I already argued above: for each example there are counterexamples, on the whole they learn us little on the optimal path for this Bach composition. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we already discuss too many "multiple topics" on this talk page of an article that at present doesn't exist. Can we concentrate first on the question if the coverage is better in one article, or two, or three? As for 243a, I was willing to stop changing it until that question was resolved, but will instead improve it, as I had planned myself and you, Francis, demand below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Re. "Can we concentrate first on the question if the coverage is better in one article, or two, or three?" – see my response below in --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

one article, or two, or three?
Re. "Can we concentrate first on the question if the coverage is better in one article, or two, or three?" :

This would be my preferred scheme:
 * 1) step 1: merge all content in one article (which for obvious reasons should be Magnificat (Bach))
 * 2) step 2: solve the issues with the content of that article, in a collaborative Wikipedia-style effort.
 * 3) step 3: when the article is in an acceptable state, decide whether or not spin-offs are desirable, applying Summary style

This is how we're working now:
 * 1) Gerda points out difficulties with the integrated version, Francis tries to solve them
 * 2) Francis points out difficulties with Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, Gerda tries to solve them
 * 3) How many articles there are in the end can only be decided when at least Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a and the integrated version are optimized.

I'd go to the first scheme ASAP, not because I prefer it, but because on the whole this mode of operation has multiple advantages:
 * Less WP:OWN
 * More in line with standard WP:SPLIT operations. Note that current when to split conditions are thus (Consideration must be given to size, notability and potential neutrality issues before proposing or carrying out a split), or, point by point, a split may be considered or proposed:
 * if the whole article becomes too large,
 * or, if the specific material within one section becomes too large,
 * or, if the material is seen to be inappropriate for the article due to being out of scope
 * Note that none of these conditions were met when Magnificat (Bach) was split into Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a and Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 a few months ago. What we're doing now is dealing with the fall-out of that out-of due process operation.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The process is more recognizable by other editors, so that possibly other editors are attracted to contribute to article content, not exclusively Gerda and Francis updating content.
 * Surprise links are no issue until it is decided how many articles there will be (and maybe even not after that either).


 * Please allow me to describe it differently, I like it simple:
 * I split an article about BWV 243a, as the standard for Bach works with different version.
 * It could grow, the other (please don't forget: at that time rather stubby) also could grow.
 * I see only one person wanting one combined article.
 * --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Re. "the other (please don't forget: at that time rather stubby) also could grow" – so at least stop impeding that growth. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * In sum, a two-article solution for the time being
 * Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a, letting it grow
 * Magnificat (Bach), letting it grow
 * + redirecting Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 to Magnificat (Bach)
 * + keeping merge tags for the proposed Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a &rarr; Magnificat (Bach) merger, until there is a final decision on that
 * + surprise link cleanup
 * OK? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The combined table
The layout (and the incomplete content) of the table currently provided at Magnificat in D major, BWV 243 is a problem. I postponed to try solve that problem thus far: let's see whether something like this could work better:

Improvement suggestions appreciated! --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Issues with the table in Magnificat in E-flat major, BWV 243a
 * Quia fecit mihi magna (5th movement) should be B-flat major instead of E-flat major I suppose;
 * Continuo isn't indicated in the table: not redundant while some movements are without continuo;
 * Ti is not a wind instrument (it is between the wind instruments in the score, but that doesn't make it a wind instrument)
 * Bassoon and organ are wind instruments: they have (continuo) parts, however not in all movements: listing wind instruments without mentioning the continuo is incomplete.
 * For the combined table these issues have been dealt with in my last updates to the version in draft namespace, see below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I will work on the issues of 234a, see above. This table is too hard to read (for me). I suggest to have one for the D major version and talk about the (not so mny) differences to the E-flat in prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Imho the only appropriate place to compare versions of Bach's Magnificat is in a Wikipedia article with a version-neutral title. The comparison neither belongs to the E-flat major version, nor the D major version, as such articles quite naturally should only be about the version mentioned in the article title. I will elaborate the comparison part for the Magnificat (Bach) article (in prose, with a leaner table), since there's no rule against it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A addressed above that we might have 2 articles, E-flat and this one, or even three, E-flat, D, and this one. Before we discuss 2 or 3, we need to find out 1 or more. A reader new to this page might be overwhelmed, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The surprise links to the 243a article
— in addition to the edit summary: C. P. E. Bach owned both autographs by his father (E♭ and D versions) for some time ("Provenienz/Besitzer: J. S. Bach - C. P. E. Bach - ..." ), it is unreasonable to assume the E-flat major version is a better link from the article on C. P. E.'s setting of the same text.

I return to an issue I have pointed to earlier: many articles in Wikipedia that say something about Bach's Magnificat in general are now linked to the 243a version. Imho, this calls for two things: --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * These surprise links to the 243a article need to be replaced by links to a version-neutral article on the Magnificat, Magnificat (Bach) (who's in on helping to replace the one-sided links to the general article?)
 * The version-neutral article on Bach's Magnificat should give the full story & description of Bach's Magnificat (both versions), while that is what readers can reasonably expect when wanting to learn about the composition by clicking such link.
 * History: the links were set when BWV 243a offered more than the other article, including the link to the transposed version within the first paragraph. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft version
I've created Draft:Magnificat (Bach) in order to show what the combined result (including the suggestions above in and  may look like. All suggestions welcome! --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've asked Yngvadottir to merge the draft into the mainspace page (also merging page histories of the draft and the mainspace page), so that the page can be edited further in mainspace. See --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Draft deleted; see close of Talk:Magnificat_(Bach), above. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Position of main article content
Re. "There is no consensus to have this content here, contra last reversion; only Francis is arguing for that position" : --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm arguing for that position, for reasons like this one: — imho it makes no sense to link to one version of Bach's Magnificat from the Mary (mother of Jesus) article, and not to an article that treats both versions. We should have an article that is neutral on the versions, and that should be linked from such articles, and the article title for that is Magnificat (Bach), until Gerda Arendt changed it without reason or prior discussion with a deceptive edit summary. Similar for Magnificat, etc... see more examples here
 * I'm not on my own here, : "I am not against a move to Magnificat (Bach),..."
 * You use the term "Main article", I don't agree with that interpretation. Who defines what's "Main", when we look at two versions of a compositions, one earlier in time, the other more practical to perform. Which one is Main? I would say that the term is not helpful in the context, We differentiate versions for the other works by Bach without such attributes, please look at Bach cantatas and The Missa of 1733. I see no reason to treat this work differently, therefore oppose a merge. I am not against the name Magnificat (Bach) for the D major version, as we have Ave Maria (Bruckner) for the best-known version although he composed others such as Ave Maria, WAB 5, but I vote for the details for BWV 243a (the keys, composition history, Christmas movements, publishing, recordings) to stay in BWV 243a, perhaps summarized in the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "I am not against the name Magnificat (Bach) for the D major version", that's what I meant. Sorry for using the expression "main article content" to explain that, "main" might indeed have multiple meanings.
 * The rest is merge discussion, and should be kept in, please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A bit redundant, but for clarity, I see a consensus for undoing this and this edit. Can these edits be undone, this discussion section closed, so that we can continue in good order with the actual discussion above in ? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No objections then. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you really expect anybody to read this far? - Let's get serious: It seems strange that you first copy something from A to B, and then claim that A is redundant. My view, which I tried to express above, is that I don't care if this article, about the D major version and a comparison, is called Magnificat (Bach). If a merge finds support, it can stay as it is. If not, and you have a problem with duplication of content, duplication should be removed from this article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose undoing as described above, and no consensus for it that I see, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See above for my combined proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge: there is no reason not to have both a "main" article and spinoffs for the related topics. These silly merge discussions have wasted more bandwidth than the articles some want to merge.   Montanabw (talk)  15:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No merge is discussed in this section afaik, you're the first to bring it up here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Old merge discussion
The former discussion(s) are last on this page in this version, if anyone wants to either bring it/them back into view or archive it/them. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd bring them back, and set up an auto-archive, OK? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * OK with me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the revert, I got confused as to which was the correct version.  Montanabw (talk)  23:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

POV issues (December 2014)

 * Apparently there is uncertainty whether the 2 July 1723 first performance is a fact (in other words not all scholars seem to have followed Glöckner 2003 in that respect), so this needs some rewriting of this article, in order to make it comply to WP:NPOV. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And what, pray, is there in a challenge to a statement with the WP:WEASEL "apparently", above, and no supporting evidence that justifies the ludicrous POV tag, which I am removing as wholly indefensible?  Tim riley  talk    18:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, I had removed the POV yesterday . The intro still needs some updating regarding the same POV, will try to do today, time permitting.
 * Re. "apparently": this referred to this edit, "not all scholars follow Glöck(n)er's arguments", sorry for not making this clear from the start. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)