Talk:Was willst du dich betrüben, BWV 107

}}

Image
This is a chorale cantata, only distantly related to the Gospel. The image of the author of the chorale is relevant to the music, not a painting showing a scene from the Gospel, painted a century before Bach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Some themes of the Gospel are echoed through several movements; the portrait is poorer in quality, also not in the time of Bach, and doesn't show what the music means. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree about the quality. However, does the picture illustrate the "few themes"? And even if, would it be more suitable to be the first meeting of a reader with the article than the face of the person who wrote the chorale which inspired the complete text (some paraphrased)? - I used the Bernardo for the later cantata which is closer to the Gospel. For the chorale cantatas - compare others - an image of the hymn writer has been consistently the first choice if available, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Why would a poorer-quality image that does not illustrate the music be the first choice? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I try again. The cycle of chorale cantatas by Bach is unique in history: week by week a cantata based on a hymn, most of them "old" when he composed (by Luther, Speratus etc), some written closer to his time. For the chorale cantatas, the ideas of the hymn were often the only, always the major source of inspiration. I believe that it is a good idea to present the author of this hymn, even in poorer quality. Also: cantatas written in Weimar show the Weimar location, chorale cantatas the author of the hymn, for consistency. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Holy consistency"? "Poor quality images...should not be used" (MOS:IMAGES). If you feel strongly that the current image is not sufficient, "Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic". Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say "holy", I wouldn't say "not sufficient" about the Gospel scene, but (third time) not to the point of this cantata and therefore not even wanted below, certainly not in the top position. An image of "poorer quality" was used for a TFA. I believe that we should not apply the same quality standards for reproductions of older print but be happy that we have them at all and show them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ps: the image of the poet illustrates the title line well, "Why do you want to distress yourself?" --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In the case of the TFA, an image of a person on an article about a person is obviously representative of the article subject, and no free alternative presents itself; here, the image of the person does not show the music, and there are other free and better-quality images to be used. If you'd like to either remove the image, or propose a different image altogether, feel free, but unfortunately others have quality standards higher than those you espouse. Besides, if the image was "not even wanted below", then why was it the original lead image? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've swapped in a different image. That should resolve this. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It does, thank you! If you find more of Bach's own writing feel free to add! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Guess it doesn't: the image doesn't fit any better where it's pushed into the "Music" section by the infobox, and it's no better quality now either. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The image is, with a short interruption for what I thought a "better pic" 5 Aug, but returned 6 Aug as the "distressed pic" on the special wish of Marrante. The article is known with that image which shows distress perfectly, - I don't mind the lack of technical quality for expressiveness. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how long a problem exists, when we see it we should fix it. That image does not appropriately illustrate the "Music" section where it ends up because of the infobox. And our standards advocate higher quality than that. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The picture is not a problem, seems to be one for you alone. The music uses the text, - how should it not be in the music section also? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a problem to be using low-quality images, particularly where better alternatives exist. Swapped. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Was I so unclear about the fact that I thought as you do now on 5 August 2011, but was a day later encouraged to use the image showing him in distress (with "almost Barlach" quality, as Marrante said). What do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Third opinion: I personally like the one that has the face larger and doesn't have the yellow background, it looks clearer on my laptop (i.e. small) screen.  But either way, I also moved the image so it is in a better layout position.   Montanabw (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)