Talk:Orgelbüchlein/Archive 2

BWV 624
This IP's disruptive edits were described at WP:ANI by User:Johnuniq and User:Softlavender. The "to-do" list was explained to them there and here. An extra piece of rubric was added to explain from where the translations of hymns were drawn (the 1920 book of Terry in the references). The IP pledged to stay away from unwritten sections. It was a promise that they made here and at WP:ANI. They have broken that promise and have ignored everything they have been told. Because of their own pledge and the rubric, the last edit has been reverted. Perhaps they forgot about the rubric and their pledge. I am now reminding them. Mathsci (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a very tolerant place and no one will assume the IP is trolling or being otherwise disruptive with their comment at BMV 142 or with their tagging this article. I saw the IP's tag and thought it unwise—dropping tags demanding someone else fix a defect has gone out of fashion because it rarely helps. It would be better if the IP were to find other articles to work on, unless they have something substantive to add here. Are there any errors in the current text? Any significant topics that are currently not covered? Any inappropriate references? If so, please fix them or explain on talk. Otherwise, move on. While I'm dispensing advice, Mathsci should stop worrying about other editors—who cares about a tag or a pointy comment? Ignore it. Remove the tag when the issue is resolved. Johnuniq (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for commenting. In the rubric there is a direct link to the book of Terry from which the translations are taken (with a few departures). In this case in a footnote Terry explains that the translation is from The Gude and Godlie Ballatis. The to-do list is my set of reminders. Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "...has gone out of fashion..." – don't think so. Also, all things said & done it worked here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Francis, drop the stick and head elsewhere before you get hauled to ANI and further sanctioned for your continued feuding and disruption. This sort of behavior, especially in concert with some sort of anonymous meatpuppet, is childish, disruptive, tendentious, and sanctionable. It's very clear here that you are targeting Mathsci, over and over and over again. Softlavender (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * please stop targetting me. Please stop targetting the anon IP. Not so long ago you had a field day at ANI to that effect. The editor community did not accept the merits of that targetting, and the closing admin called it a "morass". Now live with it, and drop the stick.
 * This comment by Mathsci targetted me. I replied to it. That reply has been separated from the post to which it was a reply. Twice. Please don't reposition my replies.
 * The above comment ("Re. "...has gone out of fashion..." – don't think so. Also, all things said & done it worked here.") was a reply to Johnuniq. It should not be misconstrued as anything else. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not targeting you. I am warning you. You have clearly been targeting Mathsci ever since your 1RR editing restriction expired. If this behavior continues, you will end up at ANI again, and most likely receive a stronger sanction than the last one. Softlavender (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "I am not targeting you" – really? (in that comment I see 100% targetting, 0% contribution to the content discussion at hand). --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To repeat: I am not targeting you. I am warning you, as I also did in the post you linked to. You have clearly been targeting Mathsci ever since your 1RR editing restriction expired. If this behavior continues, you will end up at ANI again, and most likely receive a stronger sanction than the last one. Softlavender (talk) 04:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * To repeat: "please stop targetting me" --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not targeting you. I am warning you. Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * @FS: The tactic of being super nice worked last time but don't rely on it. Find something substantive to do rather than insist on your right to have the last word. Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with either of you (or anyone else) getting the last word. I said what I had to say, so please go ahead and get it out of your system. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that the tag was disruptive. The phrase "of the period" means, as it always means, "of the period of the original". All of the other translations used in the wiki article appear to be modern translations, and each of them has the name of the modern translator noted and wikilinked. If there was any question or confusion about the phrase "of the period", it should have been asked on the talk page, not tagged. Softlavender (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Francis Schonken equally well should stay away from unwritten sections. His idea of "making corrections" was without merit and has been reverted. The translation is of the period. I provided a wikilink to help the reader. Mathsci (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * - agreed that "of the period" does mean "of the period of the original". However, that period wasn't clear in the text - it could have been from Bach's period or from some other period. I just put a tag, since clearly I knew that Mathsci would correct the issue if I politely advised him of what it was (which he did, thanks!). Also, let it be clear: I am not seeking a fight. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP declared that he would not edit the article while the to-do list was red. And yet here he is doing just that. As Softlavender has written, his editing at the moment is disruptive. Mathsci (talk) 01:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously English wasn't clear enough: Ich ein Kampf suche nicht!. If you don't agree, fine, don't make a war about it. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't tag articles. Query on the talk page. It's that simple. Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I remember this and this. Mathsci (talk) 12:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Francis, that citation-needed issue had indeed been discussed at length on this talk page but had not yet been resolved. The IP's tag was completely unnecessary, undiscussed, and disruptive. Any actual "clarification needed" could have been easily gained on the talk page. Tags should only be a last resort and should have consensus, especially when an article is in the process of being completed, as this one is and as both of you well know. Softlavender (talk) 03:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with that rationale. The example I gave above was a tag appearing in mainspace after the topic had lingered on the talk page for several years. Even an excursion to ANI didn't resolve the issue. Then, some months after the ANI excursion, the tag was added to mainspace, and the issue got resolved the same day. Compare with what happened now: a tag was added to mainspace, and also the issue was resolved the same day. So for practical reasons: adding an appropriate tag to mainspace works better than a talk page + ANI morass. I do agree with Johnuniq's "who cares about a tag or a pointy comment?" – maybe best to try and live with the fact that appropriate tags are a useful tool? For clarity: that I extend this talk page discussion long after the mainspace issue has been resolved is because editors should maybe better freak out less at the sight of an appropriate tag, and certainly not use them as an excuse to start targetting the editor who placed it – better address the mainspace issue signalled by the tag. I hope we can agree to that principle for future reference. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the IP's tag was disruptive; "of the period" clearly means "of the period of the original". If the editor was confused, all they needed to do was to query on this talk page. There is no need to tag an article that is actively being worked on and has several editors watching it; the appropriate action if someone is confused is to note their confusion the talk page and ask a question. There is especially no need to tag a common phrase whose meaning is self-evident. Tags are unsightly and disruptive, especially if made without effort to discuss on talk first and gain consensus that something is a problem. Softlavender (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Re. "of the period of the original" – as has been said before (I think) the period of the original was nowhere mentioned in the article before the IP added the tag. For me that suffises. If not for you, then I'm comfortable with "let's agree to disagree". --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point, but it could have easily been asked on the article page without an unsightly tag. Softlavender (talk) 05:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but I'm comfortable with that: as it happens, the talk page discussion about the tag had more unsightly moments than the tag in itself. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Changed the section header per WP:TALKNEW. has been warned about this before: don't name co-editors in section titles, it diverts from the content discussion. On the content of the matter:
 * * I prefer "Middle Scots" over "English(-language)" as an indication of the language/dialect of the translation: it is more precise, and avoids the implication that Middle Scots is a type of English (some would agree, others wouldn't – but that's not the type of discussion we want to import here, it diverts from the chorale text).
 * * Re. "... of the period": the original belongs to the period of the development of Protestantism in Germany, the translation belongs to the period of international expansion of Protestantism: indicating that as the same period is like saying that Bach's St John Passion is of the period of his Weimarer Passion (uninformative and WP:VAGUE at best). Further, it is not known when exactly this translation originated, as the first edition of The Gude and Godlie Ballatis went lost (it is not known when it was published, and it is not known which selection of hymns it contained – the earliest extant copy of that collection was published in 1567, several decades after the German original). Further the translation as rendered is a "composite" of several editions of The Gude and Godlie Ballatis that appeared in the half century after its oldest extant edition: none of these editions contain the precise wording as currently used in mainspace: the "composite" originated in a 19th-century critical edition.
 * All in all I have my doubts whether the translation currently rendered in mainspace is all that useful (do enough readers understand enough of it?), and whether we should keep it in mainspace until the section gets developed (it can always be retrieved again from the page history when there's enough surrounding prose to clarify its meaning & relevance). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Withdrew comment. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is from the book of Charles Sanford Terry. The verse is easy to read, even with its 16th-century orthography. FS's opinions must be discounted here because a native English speaker has not expressed any problem. Francis Schonken had made the suggestion—something obviously incorrect—that the text is written in Middle Scots dialect. That was his great "thought" yesterday. Now his great "thought" today is that readers will not understand the text because of the orthography. So yesterday he wrote nonsense in the article and now he is writing nonsense on its talk page. Tudor or Jacobite orthography is used on wikipedia, e.g. the quote from Fisher in Lady Margaret Beaufort. I know FS spends a lot of time dreaming up abstruse objections, but here—disingenuously pretending to represent the reader—he is is making disruptive suggestions: just WP:HOUND. Mathsci (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * In terms of what precise language the translation is in, we don't really have to identify it; we can simply give the source. In terms of whether the translation is useful to the reader: It is useful to readers who are not fluent in 16th-century German but who understand English; it is better than nothing and should stay unless something better is found. In terms of "of the period", we can just use the century. I will make those changes now. Softlavender (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Francis Schonken permuted the entries in this section with his last edit. It has made this section much harder to read. Could he please not refactor talk pages in this way in the future? Thanks, Mathsci (talk)
 * I have re-restored the proper chronology. Please observe WP:TPG and keep discussions chronological and properly nested. Softlavender (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Withdrew my twice repositioned reply altogether. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

To-do list

 * As an aid, I am recording the current state of each of the chorale preludes in the article. A tick indicates that a musical analysis has been added, not necessarily in polished form.


 * 1) BWV 599 ✅
 * 2) BWV 600 ✅
 * 3) BWV 601 ✅
 * 4) BWV 602 ✅
 * 5) BWV 603 ✅
 * 6) BWV 604 ✅
 * 7) BWV 605 ✅
 * 8) BWV 606 ✅
 * 9) BWv 607 ✅
 * 10) BWV 608 ✅
 * 11) BWV 609 ✅
 * 12) BWV 610 ✅
 * 13) BWV 611 ✅
 * 14) BWV 612 ✅
 * 15) BWV 613 ❌ (IN PROCESS)
 * 16) BWV 614 ✅
 * 17) BWV 615 ❌ (IN PROCESS)
 * 18) BWV 616 ❌
 * 19) BWV 617 ❌
 * 20) BWV 618 ❌
 * 21) BWV 619 ❌
 * 22) BWV 620 ❌
 * 23) BWV 621 ✅
 * 24) BWV 622 ✅
 * 25) BWV 623 ❌
 * 26) BWV 624 ❌
 * 27) BWV 625 ✅
 * 28) BWV 626 ❌
 * 29) BWV 627 ❌
 * 30) BWV 628 ❌
 * 31) BWV 629 ❌
 * 32) BWV 630 ❌
 * 33) BWV 631 ❌
 * 34) BWV 632 ✅
 * 35) BWV 633 ❌
 * 36) BWV 634 ❌
 * 37) BWV 635 ✅
 * 38) BWV 636 ✅
 * 39) BWV 637 ✅
 * 40) BWV 638 ✅
 * 41) BWV 639 ✅
 * 42) BWV 640 ✅
 * 43) BWV 641 ✅
 * 44) BWV 642 ✅
 * 45) BWV 643 ✅
 * 46) BWV 644 ✅

Mathsci (talk) 08:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this progress report! I have added  so the overview is more likely to be on one screen and to reduce scrolling. --Mirokado (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Some of the above sections will presumably be archived, so this will be even more visible then. Mathsci (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note the structure of the article has been discussed in the archives. The main sources (Williams and Stinson) are mentioned in the article and a rough idea of how the finished article will look can be found in the earlier article Clavier-Übung III. As the main creator, I cannot give a timetable for how long it will take to complete a first version as I take breaks to edit other articles in different areas. Mathsci (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Archiving not helpful for to-do list
Since I want this "to-do" list to be preserved (it is my guide for adding new sections), I have provisionally deactivated the archiving bot. I am quite happy that the previous comments have been archived. (That could have been done—or could be done—manually with the section immediately below.) I am working on several articles at once, so cannot guarantee constant activity here: I do not wish to keep reinstating the to-do list. Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

History additions would be helpful
The article's first few sentences summarize the Orgelbüchlein's history, but ... (moved into header box) —Patrug (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The history section is barely written and obviously stops in midstream (hence the images which would accompany missing text). Various sections are waiting to be completed or even written. That was previously explained on the talk page and can be read in the archives. Please read those archives to understand the order in which the article is being written. As the editing hisory of the article shows, I am the only one who creates content of the type you mention, indeed any substantial content. To see a roughly finished article, please look at Clavier-Übung III. Mathsci (talk) 07:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, I already skimmed those three pages. As you said in your previous comments, it's helpful for editors to see an overall To Do list maintained prominently on the Talk page, rather than scattered across lengthy archive pages (or distracting article tags). Since the To Do list will probably be needed for several more years, I just put it into a non-archiving banner box (whose bullet points can be edited in the normal way), and I re-started the archive bot for the rest of the Talk page. A similar example appears at Talk:OPEC, where a complex multi-year editing effort has been helped considerably by an evolving "To Do" banner that highlights the long-term roadmap above the week-to-week chatter. I think this will help efficiently accomplish your goals here, too, which I share. Keep up the good work. —Patrug (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Patrug, I am the main creator of the article. I had a break in 2013-2016, so please don't guess how long it will take to write. OPEC is not a reasonable comparison at all, but Clavier-Übung III is (sorry I missed the "III"). The archiving was done by the IP. I do not like your changes to my to-do list so I am converting it back to what it was. I find the editorialising comments that you added were unhelpful so I have removed them. Please don't make changes like these again. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

To-do list (not to be archived)

 * As an aid, I am recording the current state of each of the chorale preludes in the article. A tick indicates that a musical analysis has been added, not necessarily in polished form.


 * 1) BWV 599 ✅
 * 2) BWV 600 ✅
 * 3) BWV 601 ✅
 * 4) BWV 602 ✅
 * 5) BWV 603 ✅
 * 6) BWV 604 ✅
 * 7) BWV 605 ✅
 * 8) BWV 606 ✅
 * 9) BWv 607 ✅
 * 10) BWV 608 ✅
 * 11) BWV 609 ✅
 * 12) BWV 610 ✅
 * 13) BWV 611 ✅
 * 14) BWV 612 ✅
 * 15) BWV 613 ❌ (IN PROCESS AT MOMENT)
 * 16) BWV 614 ✅
 * 17) BWV 615 ❌
 * 18) BWV 616 ❌
 * 19) BWV 617 ❌
 * 20) BWV 618 ❌
 * 21) BWV 619 ❌
 * 22) BWV 620 ❌
 * 23) BWV 621 ✅
 * 24) BWV 622 ✅
 * 25) BWV 623 ❌
 * 26) BWV 624 ❌
 * 27) BWV 625 ✅
 * 28) BWV 626 ❌
 * 29) BWV 627 ❌
 * 30) BWV 628 ❌
 * 31) BWV 629 ❌
 * 32) BWV 630 ❌
 * 33) BWV 631 ❌
 * 34) BWV 632 ✅
 * 35) BWV 633 ❌
 * 36) BWV 634 ❌
 * 37) BWV 635 ✅
 * 38) BWV 636 ✅
 * 39) BWV 637 ✅
 * 40) BWV 638 ✅
 * 41) BWV 639 ✅
 * 42) BWV 640 ✅
 * 43) BWV 641 ✅
 * 44) BWV 642 ✅
 * 45) BWV 643 ✅
 * 46) BWV 644 ✅

Mathsci (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

To-do list

 * As an aid, I am recording the current state of each of the chorale preludes in the article. A tick indicates that a musical analysis has been added, not necessarily in polished form.


 * 1) BWV 599 ✅
 * 2) BWV 600 ✅
 * 3) BWV 601 ✅
 * 4) BWV 602 ✅
 * 5) BWV 603 ✅
 * 6) BWV 604 ✅
 * 7) BWV 605 ✅
 * 8) BWV 606 ✅
 * 9) BWv 607 ✅
 * 10) BWV 608 ✅
 * 11) BWV 609 ✅
 * 12) BWV 610 ✅
 * 13) BWV 611 ✅
 * 14) BWV 612 ✅
 * 15) BWV 613 ❌
 * 16) BWV 614 ✅
 * 17) BWV 615 ❌
 * 18) BWV 616 ❌
 * 19) BWV 617 ❌
 * 20) BWV 618 ❌
 * 21) BWV 619 ❌
 * 22) BWV 620 ❌
 * 23) BWV 621 ✅
 * 24) BWV 622 ✅
 * 25) BWV 623 ❌
 * 26) BWV 624 ❌
 * 27) BWV 625 ✅
 * 28) BWV 626 ❌
 * 29) BWV 627 ❌
 * 30) BWV 628 ❌
 * 31) BWV 629 ❌
 * 32) BWV 630 ❌
 * 33) BWV 631 ❌
 * 34) BWV 632 ✅
 * 35) BWV 633 ❌
 * 36) BWV 634 ❌
 * 37) BWV 635 ✅
 * 38) BWV 636 ✅
 * 39) BWV 637 ✅
 * 40) BWV 638 ✅
 * 41) BWV 639 ✅
 * 42) BWV 640 ✅
 * 43) BWV 641 ✅
 * 44) BWV 642 ✅
 * 45) BWV 643 ✅
 * 46) BWV 644 ✅

Mathsci (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

To-do list

 * As an aid, I am recording the current state of each of the chorale preludes in the article. A tick indicates that a musical analysis has been added, not necessarily in polished form.


 * 1) BWV 599 ✅
 * 2) BWV 600 ✅
 * 3) BWV 601 ✅
 * 4) BWV 602 ✅
 * 5) BWV 603 ✅
 * 6) BWV 604 ✅
 * 7) BWV 605 ✅
 * 8) BWV 606 ✅
 * 9) BWv 607 ✅
 * 10) BWV 608 ✅
 * 11) BWV 609 ✅
 * 12) BWV 610 ✅
 * 13) BWV 611 ✅
 * 14) BWV 612 ✅
 * 15) BWV 613 ❌
 * 16) BWV 614 ✅
 * 17) BWV 615 ❌
 * 18) BWV 616 ❌
 * 19) BWV 617 ❌
 * 20) BWV 618 ❌
 * 21) BWV 619 ❌
 * 22) BWV 620 ❌
 * 23) BWV 621 ✅
 * 24) BWV 622 ✅
 * 25) BWV 623 ❌
 * 26) BWV 624 ❌
 * 27) BWV 625 ✅
 * 28) BWV 626 ❌
 * 29) BWV 627 ❌
 * 30) BWV 628 ❌
 * 31) BWV 629 ❌
 * 32) BWV 630 ❌
 * 33) BWV 631 ❌
 * 34) BWV 632 ✅
 * 35) BWV 633 ❌
 * 36) BWV 634 ❌
 * 37) BWV 635 ✅
 * 38) BWV 636 ✅
 * 39) BWV 637 ✅
 * 40) BWV 638 ✅
 * 41) BWV 639 ✅
 * 42) BWV 640 ✅
 * 43) BWV 641 ✅
 * 44) BWV 642 ✅
 * 45) BWV 643 ✅
 * 46) BWV 644 ✅

Mathsci (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

BWV 633 & 634: music extracts
Hello. Thank you so much to everyone involved in this page. It has been very useful. A small point I just noticed .... While the two musical examples given for these two chorale preludes are correct in themselves, they do seem to be allocated to the wrong BWV according to my Barenreit Utrtext edition, so - for example - the opening extract given for BWV 633 is the opening of BWV 634 in the Barenreiter ... and vice versa. Hardly crucial in the greater scheme of things, but thought I would mention it. Again, thabks to all for their hard work looking after this page. Ucypanp (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The manuscript pages for Ob are often empty when projected chorale preludes remained unwritten (see article). It can be checked in the sources of Williams and Stinson, that ornamented BWV 634 preceded BWV 633 in the autograph manuscript. However, Bach digital records accurately the chorale preludes for each (with notes for those managing the archive). All versions of the Breitkopf and Peters editions agree; most importantly the urtext edition here has two facing pages with BWV 634 on the left hand side and BWV 633 on the right hand side. Mathsci (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

New article
To evaluate for inclusion in this article:
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/24/arts/music/bach-orgelbuchlein-project.html 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)