Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53

RfC: referencing
Per WP:CITEVAR consensus is needed to change a referencing system of an established article. The established referencing system for this article is without sfn templates; a series of recent updates used these templates, with a separate list of sources, listed alphabetically by author. Possibilities include converting newly introduced references to the formerly established system, and accepting sfn with separate sources list as a viable referencing style. This RfC is not about content, nor about the article structure (after the recent updates better in line with WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines), but exclusively about the article's referencing style. 15:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Survey

 * Accept sfn as a viable referencing style for this article. Not accepting it appears to be stalling article development (as it has been for several years prior to the recent substantive update). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support using sfn as the preferred referencing style of high quality articles about Bach's works. I would like to not have this same discussion for individual articles, last Talk:Gottlob! nun geht das Jahr zu Ende, BWV 28. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose/neutral For the most part, the article on this spurious cantata lacks any substantial sources. With such a paucity of sources (e.g. a bare list gleaned from a Bach archive), there doesn't seem to be much point in worrying about referencing style. I added one of the only WP:RS, the Appendix in the 2006 book of Dürr & Jones, and that source was disregarded. There are very few reliable sources (most websites give circular references to Dürr), so it is not clear why this RfC is being debated. Mathsci (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Reference styling on English Wikipedia is a serious mess. As long as many competing styles and templates are in-play these disputes will remain. And worse, many pages will have many styles with no editor working toward a single consensus style. We must support invested editors over the power of the mob. —¿philoserf? (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Retain previous style since no consistent and coherent alternative has been proposed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Expanding: The previous style, in addition to being consistent, is IMO easier for both newer editors (particularly those using Visual Editor) as explained below, as well as for readers. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Retain previous style. Change of style was evidently controversial and is unlikely to gain strong consensus, so original style should be retained per WP:CITEVAR. Nothing about the style itself prevents editors from contributing to this article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Retain previous style per Nikkimaria --Smerus (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Retain previous style Per NikkimariaSea Ane (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree that sfn is probably the better style, but English WP policy usually goes in the direction that "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". The current style works and changing it is counterproductive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:18, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * why have you gone straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC without observing WP:RFCBEFORE? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your unprejudiced (not) constructive question:
 * See above Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53/Archive 1
 * Two reverts: 17:27, 9 January 2021 and 14:10, 10 January 2021, followed by talks on the reverting editor's talk page, without viewpoints coming closer to one-another.
 * In sum, "... without observing WP:RFCBEFORE" can clearly be contradicted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion at Talk:Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53/Archive 1 is from more than six years ago. Two reverts does not constitute a discussion. If there are "talks on the reverting editor's talk page", they should have been linked, preferably from the outset. You must not expect people coming blind to an RfC to hunt around for the background. WP:RFCNEUTRAL is clear: The statement should be self-contained ... If the RfC is about an edit that's been disputed, consider including a diff in the RfC question. and it also says It may be helpful to discuss your planned RfC question on the talk page before starting the RfC, to see whether other editors have ideas for making it clearer or more concise. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion is from six years ago, but nothing changed. An editor has refused - six years ago and now, in this article and others such as Talk:Gottlob! nun geht das Jahr zu Ende, BWV 28, as mentioned above - to accept a change of referencing style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The "talks on the reverting editor's talk page" did not involve discussion of the topic of this RfC; they primarily concerned the OP's (mis)use of in use. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Re. "talks on the reverting editor's talk page... should have been linked" – my choice not to do that was inspired by trying not to make this an RfC "against" a single editor (which this is not). Also, indeed, this RfC is not about one or two edits that are in dispute. The more disputable part of the 17:27, 9 January and 14:10, 10 January edits was not the "going back to prior referencing style", but their deletion of large wads of referenced content, which is expressly *not* the object of this RfC, while such content deletions can be handled otherwise (and, for this RfC, focussing on such points would be sidetracking of the actual issue that needs resolving via RfC). Out-of-process content deletion being handled as it may (it stopped after a 3RR warning being sent to the editor), still leaves the question about acceptable referencing systems in this article unanswered, and that could not very well be handled without wider community input. In short, not accepting your criticism that the RfC question wouldn't have been formulated neutrally: the RfC is not, and will not be, an attack on a single editor. Re. "It may be helpful etc." – thanks for the (non-obligatory) suggestion. I have initiated RfCs before, giving me some experience on how to formulate a question neutrally (as I've shown in this instance), and avoid other pitfalls. Maybe you think your grandfathering in this matter as necessary –thanks, and I take the good intentions for granted–, for me, however, it diverts from the question that awaits resolution through this RfC, which is: which referencing system(s) do we accept for this article? --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The edits you made to the article prior to posting here included references that don't involve either the article's current style or sfn - eg ones using no templates at all. There were also other inconsistencies introduced, eg in date format. Further, it is unclear from your posting above how exactly you propose to implement sfn - eg whether it is used for all references or only a subset, such as books. Please clarify what your proposed citation style for this article is and what exactly that looks like, as your edits did not result in a consistent style. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I evidently started this RfC before mass-converting to a consistent style. During a "major edit" that involves working on, and adding to, substantial parts of the prose large interruptions of the wiki-text in the form of e.g.  make it all harder to proceed swiftly, so I use whatever produces shorter interruptions of the wikitext (including template-less). After that, it can go either way: if sfn is accepted, which I'd prefer (also for future editing), then, of course, following WP:CITEVAR would mean that making consistent to that style would be uncontroversial. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If your intention is to use sfn for all citations, then please make the RfC explicit on that point. That is a different question than using sfn for any citations. What do you propose using besides sfn? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, my intention is to let co-editors voice their (preferably founded) opinions on the matter at hand. It is an open-ended question. Whatever this leads to (within the framework of existing rules, including but not limited to WP:CONSENSUS) is OK for me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * taking up your challenge to deliver a "consistent and coherent alternative", I have done so (using "sfn" consistently throughout) – please take a look at it and let me, and the other participants in this RfC, know what you think. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that. Unfortunately, the sandbox version remains inconsistent in style, and I remain unconvinced that the proposal would be an improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Re. "... remains inconsistent in style" – can you explain? Where do you see inconsistencies? What would you like to see improved to consider it "consistent"? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thinking about a new(er) editor trying to add a reference, what style would they emulate? When do they include a location? What date format do they use when? What IDs should they include or not? Etc. The previous style is much simpler and therefore, as below, more accessible for later users. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Re. "Thinking about a new(er) editor ..." – the less the formatting is fixed according to unwritten rules, the less problematic it would be for a new(er) editor, because then they don't have to worry about such unwritten rules. So really, this argument reads like trying to make it as difficult as possible for new(er) editors to get easily involved.
 * Re. when to include location: that is not a style issue, it is a content issue. The answer is: when that content is meaningful. Also, completely unrelated to vs sfn – the issue is the same for both referencing systems.
 * Re. date format: indeed, I forgot two, repaired – And, like the previous: completely unrelated to vs sfn – the issue is the same for both referencing systems.
 * Re. IDs: again, content issue, not style issue. Also, again, completely unrelated to vs sfn – the issue is the same for both referencing systems.
 * Re. "more accessible for later users", again, no, as explained above, something like  interrupting wikitext makes editing far LESS accessible for later users than the shorter interruption by something like  . --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A user trying to add a new source in the proposed scheme has to know not one set of templates, but several; has to edit not one section, but two; if using Visual Editor, has to master not one workflow, but two; has to use an approach to referencing which does not match that most often taught to newcomers; and has no consistent model to emulate. You may feel none of that is a concern for a newer editor, or is outweighed by the question of slightly more or less inline code in wikitext; we will need to agree to disagree on that point. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Re. "A user trying to add a new source ... has to know ... templates ..." – incorrect: all a user "has" to know is WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. A new user is not obliged to use either sfns or templates between tags. The "name=..." feature plus rp template that go with the system are imho not easier to grasp for a newbie than a single (not several) additional template (i.e. sfn). Re. "Visual Editor": can't comment, don't use it – but if this is the problem, that you're trying to adapt wikipedia editing to a system you happen to like (instead of adapting that system to Wikipedia editing), then we can be curt – no, not covered by WP:CITEVAR. The main problem, however, remains attacking content because of a layout issue, which, imho, is unacceptable – that is what, imho, outweighs by far the referencing system issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I also do not personally use Visual Editor, but I know that sfn is far more complicated to use with it than inline cite templates. As to content issues, again, if you think some of your disputed content merits being restored you're welcome to start a new discussion to address that. Absent consensus for it, it stays out. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I'll restore content I put in the article whenever I feel like it: it is not subject to your approval. And when we're having a difference of opinion neither you nor I determine consensus, unless one convinces the other. Without my agreement you can not by yourself determine that your opinion is "consensus". --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It would not be appropriate for you to restore content that you know to be disputed "whenever [you] feel like it", unless and until you establish consensus for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you stop the WP:WIKILAWYERing? Tx. It is not helpful for a sound development of this article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My arguments for a different referencing style were just archived, so I repeat in a nutshell:
 * Articles of higher quality about Bach cantatas use sfn referencing, with the references sorted by group and author name in a seperate section, not cluttering the prose, and better accessible for a later user who wants to add to them. See BWV 172.
 * There is no need to change all articles in the topic, but if expanding - adding more references - it is both practical and better for readers and editors to change to that style.
 * I see no good reason to not permit it. CITEVAR seems no good reason to me. I admit that I use untemplated refs when in a hurry, but to protect such laziness by CITEVAR and demand that they should stay that way looks strange to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * your "invested editors" vs. "power of the mob" distinction seems to muddy the waters. In which of those categories do you see yourself? Do you see any editors in the RfC who are not "invested"? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing behaviour during RfC

 * Francis Schonken, please stop restoring your proposed referencing style until this RfC has concluded. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * On 02:15, 12 January 2021 you removed some 16500b, including:"Spitta believed that the style of Salomon Franck can be recognised in the text. Hence, the lyrics of the aria are sometimes attributed to Franck."Including these sources that go with it:
 * The current replacement for these removed sentences is:"It is sometimes attributed to Salomon Franck, based on Spitta's belief that Franck's style can be recognized in the text."... which is not covered by the sources:
 * I asked you, officially, to stop removing thousands of bytes at a time; you ignored that.
 * Don't be surprised, if substandard and/or missing prose is restored that it then is restored references and all.
 * I asked you, officially, to stop removing thousands of bytes at a time; you ignored that.
 * Don't be surprised, if substandard and/or missing prose is restored that it then is restored references and all.


 * --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think any of the material that you boldly added which was reverted should not have been, you're welcome to start a new discussion seeking consensus for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

, your editing behaviour during this RfC has been, frankly, appalling: Indeed, it has now, by that behaviour, been clearly demonstrated that clinging to a "no sfn" dogma leads to a substandard article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't object to reformatting sfn to, if that is your preferred style, as long as nothing on the matter has been decided;
 * Your massive deletions (again thousands and thousands of bytes since my last reminder of the warning you got in that respect) of well-referenced content, again, and again, are of a quite unprecedented and unacceptable scale of disruption. That well-referenced content is added "boldly" is a platitude, and does not warrant deleting it just because it was added until it has your seal of approval. You're actively preventing a sound development of this article, and I begin to suspect that the drama you cause on behalf of the referencing system, is just a meagre excuse to damage Wikipedia and/or claim ownership of this article.
 * your editing behaviour during this RfC has been, frankly, appalling. Pot, kettle. Your additions have been challenged, and rather than seek consensus for them on their merits, you respond with reverts and attacks. Again, if there are specific pieces that you feel ought not to have been reverted, start a new section for them so they can be properly discussed. Arguing generically based only on number of bytes is not useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, adding sound content with sound references (in maybe a questionable format) does not compare to removing sound content, references and all, because one doesn't like the format of the references. Trying to equate them as a "pot, kettle" indicates loss of perspective. The first is, whatever it is looked at, a positive contribution to the encyclopedia, the second is, whatever way it is looked at, harming the encyclopedia. References format is not, not in any way, a viable excuse to delete content. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Re. "... it ain't broken ..."
Replying to RandomCanadian's "if it ain't broken, don't fix it" (in the "Survey" section above): of course it is broken. In May 2014 an editor started to expand the article. On 26 May 2014 the sequence of updates was interrupted by a mass revert which deleted approx. 1150 bytes and re-imposed a former referencing style. After that disruptive revert, there was no substantial development of article content until early 2021 (nearly seven years later). When I started to add content & references on 9 January 2012, the edit was promptly (i.e. less then 10 minutes later) reverted giving WP:CITEVAR as reason for the revert in the edit summary. That's what's broken: CITEVAR is used as a lame excuse to stall development of the content of the article. For clarity, most of the content & references that were removed less than ten minutes after my 9 January 2021 edit are now included in the article, needing however a large amount of complementary edits against several mass deletions (which were spuriously defended by "CITEVAR"-like rationales). This is not a proceeding any Wikipedia editor should go through: contributions should be assessed on content (including the content of the references) in the first place. Reformatting of references should be a secondary task, which should not impede content development based on sound references, and should never be used as a lame excuse to mass-delete. For that reason, indeed, the current style variant for presenting references is "broken" while an impediment to sound development of the article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion criteria for recordings list
What should be the criteria for deciding which recordings to list in the Recordings section? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

For background: As per discussion above and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music, editors generally feel that the number of recordings listed in composition articles like this one should be limited when there are many examples. Because there are 30+ recordings of this work available, this requires some coherent way of deciding which to include. Proposed criteria so far:
 * A: "Recordings for which sources are available demonstrating not only that the recordings exist but that they are significant - eg published reviews".
 * B: "the information to be found about the recording in reliable sources includes at least: singer, accompaniment, when the performance was recorded, and that date clearly distinguished from other applicable dates such as when it was issued, etc. Further, (1) the recording was or is distributed by an official international commercial distribution chain. ["official" was defined by the proposer as "a distribution chain that respects the copyright of the copyright holder of the recording (excludes, e.g., bootlegs posted at Youtube)"] (2) at least one independent reliable source outside that distribution chain picked up on the existence of the recording."
 * C: Use of period instruments + awards + conformance to historic performance + pitch of the bells. This is a bit messy because it attempts to summarize multiple posts from the same contributor; wordsmithing welcome. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There is of course always option D - some other criteria entirely, or some combination.

Survey
I'm for option A. There is always the option for someone to create a supplementary List article if they are keen to do so.--Smerus (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But to my confusion and astonishment I now find that an editor has effectively duplicated this article as sort of POVFORK. This seems completely out of order and I will be raising this twin at AfD.--Smerus (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * see Articles_for_deletion/Schlage_doch,_gewünschte_Stunde_discography--Smerus (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * D. Any inclusion criteria here and a link to Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography, if it's not determined to fail WP:LISTN at AfD. I've asked for that list to be draftified at AfD for the duration of this RfC. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * D – the over-all setup of this RfC is very questionable. For instance, option B is not what I proposed, so I reject the tendentious summary of it given above. A good preparation would have made sure that the preliminary talks (in above) were satisfactorily summarized and represented, and not some botched tendentious version of the viewpoints that don't align with the OP's views. Also, the OP's refactoring of what others added to the RfC is quite unacceptable. Indeed, Gerda's comment, which I'd approach fairly sympathetically although not exactly the same as my views, illustrates the questionable setup of the RfC, so if that is the kind of !votes the RfC receives, the OP should have given some reflection to their wanting RfC setup rather than removing the !vote from the Survey section. Also, the OP of the RfC doesn't make clear whether this is strictly a RfC only for this article, or an RfC that is intended to have a broader field of application (in the latter case the RfC should not have been held here, but at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music – in which case this RfC is also forum shopping – I do think that it would have been preferable to hold a more general RfC about principles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music, and only come back here if that doesn't clear the approach for this particular article – all of this at least illustrating the makeshift character of the setup of this RfC). On the ground of the matter:
 * Yesterday Sonata in C major for piano four-hands, D 812 (Schubert) was GA approved. Recordings of that composition are listed and described throughout the article's "Reception" section in its 20th- and 21st-century subsections (which I wrote). I think a similar approach for recordings in the BWV 53 article is viable (but certainly not the only viable approach, see below).
 * The AfD on the separate discography article for BWV 53 is currently undecided. The option chosen for the BWV 53 article may depend on whether or not we sustain a separate discography article. Currently, I'd think, for this composition, that a discography with some (but not excessive) detail embedded in the main BWV 53 article, with the separate discography page turned into a redirect would work best.
 * Option A is problematic, while, apart from Gerda's comment below that new recordings can be excluded for too long per this criterion, it is often very subjective whether reviews can be precisely located or not. Giving some examples:
 * Robin Blaze's first recording: its page at the Hyperion website indicates five reviews, some of which are in high-profile magazines. None of these reviews appear easily accessible, so the recording may have been left out in the option A approach (assuming that, in that approach, review blurbs on vendors' websites are not in themselves sufficient to establish the veracity of a quote purportedly taken from a review). The underlying problem being that reviews of somewhat more hobby-like quality can be linked easily, so that a selection based on the proposed A criterion may result in more high-profile recordings, which have exclusively high-profile reviews, being omitted, while lesser quality is easier to include.
 * I speak and read Dutch, so I could easily locate reviews of recordings by Dutch performers (without being able to find English-language reviews for these recordings), in contrast to, for instance, the Obraztsova recording: I don't speak or read Russian, so although a google search turns up a lot of pages for the recording, I'm unable to determine whether any of these results is a review. So also from this perspective the proposed A criterion may lead to a subjective (read POV) selection.
 * Regarding the B criterion, apart from its botched representation in the OP of this RfC (see above), I also think it would need fine-tuning while, for instance, for the very first recording of the BWV 53 aria (which should be included anyway based on reliable sources) I could find no specification of the accompanying musicians, so if the proposed B criterion fails to include this recording it should be amended anyhow.
 * Can't agree with the C criterion either, while way too selective (and POV), and missing out on a substantial part of the composition's reception.
 * In sum, option D for this composition would, as far as I'm concerned, be: include the entire content of the current version of the "discography" article, unless when we continue such separate discography article, in which case the version before the OP's disruptive deletes would do fine, although working at least some of the material into the prose of a "Reception" section would be better, or an approach such as mentioned in the first bullet of my !vote above might work too.
 * Further, I do think discographies should illustrate key points about the composition, e.g. for the BWV 53 aria:
 * The oldest extant score has no tempo indication, leading to a wide variety of performance times, with a clear evolution of the performance time of the work generally being faster in modern performances, and slower in older performances. This can be presented without OR in the article, based on what is known about performance times in score publications and recordings
 * Similarly, Elste's late 20th-century remark that the popularity of the work was affected by it no longer being recognized as composition by Bach can be expanded with 21st-century material (In all honesty, I don't think Elste had foreseen the rather high popularity of BWV 53 in the 21st century: I don't know any cantata with over 10 completely new recordings in the 21st century, and as for baroque arias separated from an otherwise lost large-scale composition, I don't see much that tops the popularity of this one).
 * Also, the popularity of the aria for mezzo-soprano and contralto performers throughout the 20th century, and for countertenor performers in more recent decades (none of these voice types being the specified one in the oldest extant manuscript) can be excellently illustrated by adopting voice type in a discography overview.
 * Still a last remark on procedural matters: this RfC was initiated based on the OP's very botched version of the article, and the OP has repeatedly reverted whatever is undertaken to remedy the current List_dispute tag heading the "Recordings" section, again illustrating how tendentious the OP's setup of this RfC is. I suggest the OP takes somewhat less of a battleground attitude, and work towards solutions instead. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Option A per discussion above. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Option A per previous discussions. If selected recommended recordings are presented in a table, it might be useful to list record labels and colour code HIP. Mathsci (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Option A per the above discussionSea Ane (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC).

Threaded discussion

 * Comment: I think that the criteria may depend on the music, period and coverage, and the determination of an editor. I think that guidelines A and B are fine, and if C applies it's worth mentioning but shouldn't decide inclusion. I know that a new recording sometimes has to wait for years to be reviewed, so wouldn't want to make A a needed requirement. For some early recordings, all we may know may be that they exist, and I would not want to automatically exclude such information. I'd also like to discuss what goes into an entry, and for example find a singer's name more important for vocal music than a duration. For more than ten entries, there's always the possibility to create a separate discography article, which may interest specific readers but perhaps not all who just want information on the music. For discography articles, criteria could be broader. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that I have requested closure at WP:ANRFC. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Fork
The previously deleted article Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography has been recreated. I seek to nominate it for deletion under AfD, but this seems infeasible as the recent deletion discussion is still there. Can anyone advise please on the process in such a situation?--Smerus (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec) One of the most recent version of the article Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 seems to be a variant of the POVFORK deleted in Articles for deletion/Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography. The article was stable for 5 weeks between 9 February and 15 March. That is no longer the case: content, copied en bloc from the deleted discography article (or elsewhere in userspace), now replaces the short article. Two previous RfCs have been ignored. When radical changes are made to a stable article, the wikipedia policy WP:ONUS applies.


 * User:Hammersoft has previously given strong warnings about POVFORKs on Clavier-Übung III. He has also mentioned the WP:AN started by User:Smerus on Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde, BWV 53 / Schlage doch, gewünschte Stunde discography, summarising that this editing "paints an extremely grim picture". Other administrators, such as User:Drmies, have also commented. Mathsci (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Re. "... has been recreated" – not entirely correct: it has been undeleted (BTW, by the admin who deleted it at the end of the AfD). Please understand there was no "new" creation of the same article: the previous creation was recovered (its article history goes back to my creation of that page before the AfD). Then, still the same admin, moved the article to Draft space, then I updated the draft a bit (&listed & linked the deletion discussion from the draft talk page), and submitted the draft to be moved to mainspace, which was granted by another editor in very short time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For discussion about the WP:REFUND, see here --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * As WP:REFUND is statedly "a process intended to assist users in restoring pages or files that were uncontroversially deleted" I cannot comprehend how it came to be applied in this instance. I shall be taking this up further with User:Daniel and elsewhere. (see here for a start).--Smerus (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The deletion discussion is now up here.--Smerus (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * AFD closed as redirect. Hopefully this does not require further bureaucracy of that kind. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Odd presentation of names in recordings section and absence of record labels
The recordings section has a few odd irregularities that need addressing. The use of only last names is not usual in discographies on wikipedia, and honestly doesn't tell the reader much about who the person is (i.e. it's confusing and not informative as many singers share identical last names). The first names should be visible for clarity in my opinion, as well as conforming to what's typical on discographies elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Second, discographies usually contain labels. This helps prevent the addition of pirate recordings and self published material. (see The Dream of Gerontius discography as an example of a typical presentation) Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding your second point, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music; for your first point, it is part of what I raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music (without response yet – feel free to add one: you seem to have a few good points in that regard). --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines specifically cites MOS:DISCOGRAPHY as its modus operandi for list of recordings. Record labels are included in that MOS guide, so I don't think any further discussion is needed on that issue. Just follow the rules already in place. As for the inclusion of artist names, there are no guidelines on that point. I don't think we need to hash out an MOS guideline, per WP:CREEP. WP:COMMON would seem to suggest that using both first and last names is better for reader comprehension. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No objection to including first names. On the question of label, MOS:DISCOGRAPHY indicates that including this is optional. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok. I still think including labels is beneficial on classical discographies because it makes it transparent as to the recording's source.4meter4 (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support both first names and labels being included.--Smerus (talk) 12:47, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Great. It seems like there are no objections to these changes. I have gone ahead and made the first names of the singers and conductors visible, and I have added a column for record label. I will leave it to other editors to fill that column in. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that there is disagreement, here and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music, regarding the value of label. For that reason I've removed that pending a clearer consensus. We did just conclude an RfC above regarding limiting the listing of recordings; I don't think label adds to that. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No objection to holding off, and waiting for consensus. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)