Template talk:Infobox Bach composition/Archive 1

Abbreviations
A centralised discussion about the use of abbreviations for this box has been held here. -- Klein zach  04:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The consensus of the discussion was that the abbreviations of instrument names should not be used in the info box. So I've removed the abbreviations from the template documents. -- Klein zach  08:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Instead, you inserted in the documentation an "example" that is not a good example, because it doesn't follow the instruction "For parameters with multiple values, use (displays one per line) or  (displays on one line).". It is also not consistent between example code and example shown. - I believe that internationally understood abbreviations are the better way to Wikidata. For better understanding, I advise to look at the history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I've added Flatlist to the example code and to the example infobox in the doc. 13:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the abbreviations are "internationally understood" and therefore appropriate. Apart from assuming highly specialised knowledge with no links to the actual instrument indicated in the hovering text (which in many cases is at odds with the way the instruments are named and described in the article text), the abbreviations in the infoboxes and in List of Bach cantatas vary considerably from those used in various publishers' abbreviation systems (which in turn often vary between each other). For example you use "Oa" for "oboe d'amore", but most other systems seem to use "Oda". You abbreviate "tromba da tirarsi" as "Tt" when others use "Tdt", etc., etc. Voceditenore (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a mere WP:USEENGLISH issue. Not a reason to avoid abbreviations.  And if there is a debate within the music community, that's what wikilinking to the full name article is for.   Montanabw (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Other issues
There are still some issues with this template in terms of clarity for the reader based on the example given. It seems very confusing and potentially misleading to anyone who isn't already very familiar with Bach cantatas in general and this one is particular.
 * 1) How is the reader to know that number(s) inside parenthesis accompanying some fields, refer to the number of a specific movement? Or does it? in the "Movements" field (7, 7), seems to mean that the 14 movements are in two parts of seven each.
 * 2) The text and author fields are confusing. Why is Bible a separate field like this with no indication that this means the words are from the Bible? The value "Psalms 19:1,3 (1)" seems to say that the Bible is used only for the first movement. What about the other movements apart from the Chorales?
 * 3) The "Chorale" field is also confusing. It's not clear that this field refers to the author of the words used for the chorale.

Voceditenore (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am happy about constructive questions to the template and hope that a few changes just made improve it, and that other questions will find a solution.


 * 2. I changed the order of showing the text sources to "text, Bible, chorale" (from Bible, text, chorale), additionally linked the word "Text" to the passage in the general article Bach cantata, which explains that the typical Bach cantata draws on these 3 sources. For most cantatas, a contemporary author wrote a text, often (but not always) including Bible and/or chorale, - only very few cantatas are exclusively chorale text. The author is thus responsible for the layout and the "other movements". (For works on text other than cantatas, the parameter "text" should be used, to avoid that specific link, but those are only few.)


 * 1. I would be interested in a good, uncluttered way to clarify that the number in brackets is the movement number. For "number of movements", I changed from a comma to a +, hoping that is clear enough.


 * 3. In "chorale": if there's an article, that will be shown, otherwise its author is the next best help, I think.


 * I installed two more parameters, "vocal" and "instrumental", because in keeping with having the soloists form the choir, a parameter "choir" might be misleading. BWV 76 uses that format, to be discussed.


 * I have no more time right now, not even to change the documentation. About the instruments: the individual instruments give a cantata profile and should be visible. (It makes a difference if there's one viola part, sounding like a string quartet, or two, like a string quintet.) - I thought abbreviations would be the least cluttering way. If that is not acceptable, lets find a different way. I wrote a list in BWV 76, as an example to be discussed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What about allowing an in-article link to the section about instrumentation/scoring? That seems a less-bad solution than a long list of potentially confusing terms. It's very unclear what the function of your two new parameters is - could you clarify that when you have time? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it a "better than nothing," but not ideal, not all articles will always be complete, yes, a scoring section belongs in any good article, but doesn't mean it will be there. See my comparison to mineral infobox below.  Where there is less than a full orchestra, the details of instrumentation are very relevant. Obviously if someone doesn't want to or know how to add them, the section stays blank until someone else CAN add the material... but to go the other way just weakens the usefulness of the infobox.   Montanabw (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Parameters in comparison
After input from the people who think readers will be irritated by abbreviations, and my own thoughts about Bach not distinguishing between solo and choir singing, I propose a few parameters, listed in the documentation, open for discussion. As an example, I take BWV 76, which serves as the example in the documentation anyway. There it has many more parameters than in reality, to show the possibilities.

The template is for Bach's works in general, but the following treats only cantatas. My understanding is that they are shaped by up to three sources of text (contemporary poetry, Bible quotation, chorale) and by singing - solo and together - with instruments.

Text:

Scoring: if you look at the List of Bach cantatas, you see that the instruments are the most varied part that give a cantata a certain profile. I hope that we can find a way to reflect that in the infobox.

In the article we have at present a reduced version that tells the reader about nothing, if you ask me. It includes a link within the article to the scoring section which is against the MOS for infoboxes, and it invents a term SATB group, that is not supported by the article, nor did I ever hear such a term:

In the example we had when I wrote this:

I propose to combine the voices,as Bach didn't distinguish solo and choir:

By abbreviating the instruments we might have (I confess that I like that best, it says "instrumental" as the present version say "instruments", and adds content at a glance for those who want to know more.):

Please discuss, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Using the abbreviations would be against the project consensus, and including the long lists would be against both MOS:INFOBOX and your own previous arguments. Your proposed "vocal" section includes separate entries for solo voices and the group of singers, but doesn't distinguish between them nor explain which is which - another point of confusion. I think if you really must have instruments in the box, the link to scoring is the best way to do it. It is against guidelines too, but in a less egregious and more productive way than the lengthy and confusing lists. Or we could omit them entirely, for simplicity. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What "project consensus?" Consensus, if any happens to exist, can always be changed.  Linking to the scoring section is a klunky solution, as not all articles will have such sections (the start and stubs often will not)  A word like "insturments" is totally meaningless.  The point I am trying to make here is that abbreviations are common in technical markup for many disciplines (my example of infobox mineral being just one).  IF there are problems with instrumentation abbreviations, then wikilinks to the article about the instrument or family of instruments solves that problem.  Linking an article to itself does not.   Montanabw (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Vocal: not distinguishing between solo and "choir" is what Bach did, likely the same singers did both, repeated in many modern performances. I believe that the link to SATB serves as an explanation, but am open to suggestions. - I am all for simplicity, but the scoring section is the one place in the infobox where the music plays. Just saying "instruments" ignores that Bach selected them carefully and in variety, many of them have solo function. The highly unusual appearance of trumpet and viola da gamba in one piece should show, if you ask me, it defines the character of the piece. - Why should we replace one exception from the guidelines by another, which doesn't serve the "at a glance" idea of the infobox? - Compromise: what do you think of combining the two: listing the instruments abbreviated (short, simple) and link that whole entry to the scoring section of the article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Gerda, there is already a strong consensus at the project to not use the abbreviations - that's not an option. As for the vocal, it currently appears as "S A T B - SATB" - an uninformed reader is going to be confused by the repetition and won't understand what you're trying to do, and the SATB link doesn't help because it says that SATB may represent either soloists or choir. If you want to suggest that the soloists and group are the same thing, then why have two SATBs at all? And if you want to say they're different things, then why not say so explicitly? You can't assume that your readers will understood compositional conventions or what you mean to say. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And there clearly is no consensus. See my expansion on this above.  Montanabw (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is one example, with four solo parts. In many cases there are only three (BWV 103) or two (BWV 134a) or one (BWV 82), sometimes four parts sing together, sometimes not, that should show. - Did you notice that the abbreviations are linked to the full text? - I am happy with the complete list unabbreviated, if you think that is the better option. I am not happy with a plain "instruments" because it disregards the important function of single instruments that are quite as important as the vocal soloists.

ps: define "strong consensus": I invite everyone who hasn't done so to read the interesting discussion of 7 or so participants, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * A project consensus carries no more weight than an essay written by an individual author. This has been pointed out more than once previously. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * SATB is a standard abbreviation and it links to an article that explains its meaning to an uninformed reader. The idea that someone would be repelled by the use of a standard abbreviation to the point where they would not click on the link to find out what it means is, I think, unlikely. The idea that the corresponding article fails to enlighten is also misleading, I think, since it tells readers what the abbreviation stands for and the details (soloist vs. choir) are there in the article itself. Readers of Wikipedia regularly encounter terms and acronyms with which they are unfamiliar. And while stylistic best practices might mitigate against the use of abbreviations, I think in this case it can be justified on grounds of space. So, in sum, I think SATB is fine. As an aside, I appreciate Gerda's extensive work on the Bach Cantata series.  Eusebeus (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My reference to "abbreviations" above was regarding the instruments, not the vocal parts. But if people can click on links for more information, then link the instruments to the scoring section. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And, as noted above, internal linking within an article is klunky and poor form. The "baroque instruments" or "Bach's insturmentation" fix might be one long-term solution, but so is linking to the individual articles on the instruments.   Montanabw (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

How would you like the following for vocal parts of some examples: --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to see you now accept the use of the word "choir". However, why use "A" when there's only a single voice? The letter has less meaning when not in the context of SATB. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean you think it irrelevant that a soloist is an alto??  Montanabw (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite. I mean if people just see the letter A, they are unlikely to understand that a soloist is an alto. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an important point. 'A' for alto is a silly abbreviation. It saves negligible space and signals that the box (and implicitly the article itself) is for specialist readers. -- Klein  zach  22:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Link it to Alto. Simple.  There is a tension between writing an article so it sounds like it is written by people who know the topic yet is accessible to non-experts, but dumbing things down isn't the way to do it, this is the equivalent of saying the H2O should not be linked to water but instead say, "two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen.   Montanabw (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting, "accept choir". I introduced it, see example in the docu, I dropped it for brevity, I re-added it as better than "group", but would still prefer brevity. What I accept is to spell out a single voice in a solo cantata, done for BWV 54. It is not between you and me, I make suggestions to be discussed by hopefully a few more people than seven. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no universal consensus against technical abbreviations in infoboxes. Wikilinks are a beautiful thing, allowing more content in less space.  Note Template:Infobox mineral where there are some things  spelled out, but also a LOT of highly technical abbreviations I don't understand.  Learning about those things is part of what makes an encyclopedia educational.  Dumbing down things is of no help, and I  see that being advocated here. To just say "instruments" is really absurd and of no help, Rock bands have "instruments"  Here, anything over a string quartet will need to be truncated to fit.  So let's do it.  Montanabw (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Wikilinks are a beautiful thing" - exactly the point. Link to the section where the instrumentation is discussed and where the reader can learn about it in detail and in context, and avoid a long and confusing list requiring multiple clicks to decode. Other templates being inaccessible is not a reason for us to do the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, Template:Infobox mineral, [{Template:Infobox biota]], most of the sciences. Technical language is unavoidable, the trick is to balance it by linking.   Montanabw (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

New day. In some of the examples above, I took the liberty not to use the template Bach composition but a similar one, to avoid three lines of heading each time. My premise is the following:
 * The infobox should reflect the content of the article.
 * For Bach's cantatas, the specific scoring is a vital part of the article that has to show.

What do you think of linking to the explanation of the abbreviations in the same line (if you think that readers will not find it in "Scoring"? - I don't have to repeat that a link to the respective section in the article does not serve the function to show the content IN the infobox, right? I don't have to repeat that the scoring is a vital fact that has to appear, the question is how best. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have to repeat that there's still a consensus against the abbreviations, right? Or that it's unclear to readers why SATB appears twice? And having a link needed for abbreviations is still a link elsewhere to explain the content. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So fix the template and agree on style to at least some degree, don't throw out the abbreviations, you are making a green cheese argument here. Montanabw (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "SATB twice", I thought that was solved by adding "choir", no? - Abbreviations: I was guided by the remark from the original discussion: "IMO this goes against one of the most basic rules of publishing — that you should define abbreviations first before using them.", which tells me it's ok to use them if they are explained. I tried here to offer such an explanation right where the abbreviations are used. (Very strictly following: the parenthesis could appear before the abbreviations.) I am open to a good solution to include the single instruments in a infobox without abbreviations, but haven't seen it so far. The full list is very long and contains terms such as "tromba" that are also not easily understood by the average reader. - It's a difference if a link helps to understand the content, or if it replaces the content. The version of a general "instruments" with a link to the article section excludes the instruments from the infobox and thus doesn't reflect the specific content of the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "I don't have to repeat that there's still a consensus against the abbreviations, right?" Please don't; since no such consensus has been demonstrated. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Below is a suggestion for links from names or abbreviations. What do you think? My first thought is to prefer abbreviations, because then we don't have to decide English name or Italian name in the infobox, but can give both in that article. Sure, Fg abbreviates fagotto, but bassoon would be better known. Lets assume the article to be written, Baroque instruments, had a heading "Fg" for that instrument, how should the code look for a link from an abbreviation of that name? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Instrument suggestion
I'm creating a break here as this section above is very long, and so is the comment I'm going make. :). I can see the arguments for having the scoring listing the individual instruments in the infobox. I can also see the arguments for using abbreviations for the instruments. But, and this is a big "but" they have to be clear to the reader. These are the problems I see with several of the features proposed.
 * Inconsistent and potentially confusing use of Italian and English words for the instruments (either as hovering text or as a spelled out word). Why use "violino" when you are referring to a "violin"? Is this because Bach always used the Italian words in his scores?  If that isn't made clear, then the general reader may assume that a "violino" is a completely different instrument from a violin. Why use "flauto" when you are referring to a "recorder"?
 * Inconsistent abbreviations. The abbreviations in the infoboxes and in List of Bach cantatas vary considerably from those used in various publishers' abbreviation systems (which in turn often vary between each other). Some of them seem invented. For example you use "Oa" for "oboe d'amore", but most other systems seem to use "Oda". You abbreviate "tromba da tirarsi" as "Tt" when others use "Tdt", etc., etc. Thus, they aren't transparent even to expert readers.
 * Inconsistency between the article text, List of Bach cantatas, and the infobox. Gerda, I understand your problems with modern instruments of the same name not being quite what they were in Bach's day. You mentioned elsewhere that you don't want to list "taille" in the infobox because the general reader doesn't know that it was a type of tenor oboe. Ditto "flauto piccolo" because the reader might think it's a piccolo, etc. But the confusion just grows and grows. For example, in List of Bach cantatas, "flauto piccolo" is indeed linked to "piccolo".
 * Here's an example of inconsistency and confusion at Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme, BWV 140:
 * The infobox gives the scoring as:
 * Co (hover text = "corno"), 2Ob (hover text = "oboe" Oc (hover text = "oboe da caccia"),  2Vl  (hover text = "violino", Va (hover text = "viola", Vp (hover text = "violino piccolo"), Bc (hover text = "basso continuo")
 * But the article text gives the scoring as:
 * "horn, 2 oboes, taille (an instrument similar to the oboe da caccia, today often replaced by an English horn), violino piccolo, two violins, viola, and basso continuo."
 * The word "corno" used in the infobox is not mentioned at all and has been replaced by "horn". The word "taille" is introduced in the article text and described as only similar to the "oboe da caccia" which is what is used in the infobox, and "violin" is used when "violino" is used in the infobox.

A possible solution. Obviously, this would take a bit of time, but I think it would really pay off in the long term, and would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia. Write Bach's instruments, a detailed list article which describes in some detail the instruments used in Bach's music, what he called them, and how they vary from the modern versions of those instruments or indeed from completely different instruments which now use that name. In other words, explain what Bach meant (or what scholars think he meant) by a "corno", "flauto piccolo", "clarino", "taille", "violino", "violetta", "lituo", etc. Then link each abbreviation (or spelled out instrument) in the infoboxes directly to the relevant section of that article. You eliminate the need for hovering text and the need to link to List of Bach cantatas, which simply makes reader jump through multiple extra hoops. But, do cross-check anyway to make sure that List of Bach cantatas is consistent with the new article. Voceditenore (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good approach which - as you said - will take some time. I can't start right away, also I am no expert, I will need help. Thanks for the link for lituo! Thanks for pointing out inconsistencies. I didn't make the table but took it from the German Wikipedia, therefore can't answer some of your questions. Let's make it a collaboration please. Perhaps it could be Baroque instruments? Bach had some specialities, but other composers of the period used mainly the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I think the article should concentrate specifically on Bach and the words he used for the instruments in his scores. It serves a special need, especially considering that you seem to want to continue using Italian words for the instrument names, e.g. "violino" instead of "violin" in the abbreviations, "flauto" instead of "recorder", etc. and I assume this is because those are the words that he specifically used. Other composers, even of the same period, may not have used the same words or meant the same thing when they did you use the same word. Also, there has been a lot of scholarly work done specifically on the instruments that Bach used and what he meant by the words he used in the scores, e.g., , , , , , to list a few. I could help you a bit on the article, particularly with the sourcing, but I'm not an expert on this stuff at all. That's why I don't write articles on Bach's music.


 * I know a bit about the very basic "mechanics" of music, and am used to reading articles on musical criticism, but I find the current infoboxes and their inconsistencies, both confusing and sometimes downright mystifying. We shouldn't be doing that to our readers. Until the article gets written. I think a good start would be to directly link each abbreviation to the WP article that comes closest to the instrument it represents. A (better?) alternative would be to put anchor links to each abbreviation in List of Bach cantatas, in the same way that allows Acte de ballet to link to the relevant cell in List of opera genres. The current use of hovering text in Italian combined with a general link to the abbreviations in List of Bach cantatas causes more problems than it solves. Voceditenore (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with your fundamental premises of 1) scoring listing the individual instruments in the infobox, 2) using abbreviations for the instruments, and 3) to be clear to the reader.  That said, wikilinking abbreviations is at least a short term solution.  However, creating multiple instrument list articles might be cumbersome, but another might be to create a list or glossary of "classical instruments" - names, variants and abbreviations - for ALL of the major orchestra instruments, at least, so "violin" is listed with all variants seen, whether Italian, German or English, for example.   That way, the list of instruments could use the abbreviations common to a given composer or composition, then link to the list once complete.  Would that work?  Montanabw (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that could work too in the even longer term, but it's an even bigger and more exhaustive job. That's why I suggested a more limited and clearly explicated Bach instruments article. Especially, because scholars are still debating what he meant by the various terms. Note that a lot of the instruments being abbreviated in Infobox Bach composition are not major orchestra instruments at all, many of them are no longer used, some are only available as reconstructions and used by period instrument orchestras. Voceditenore (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point there, but I would note that when a whole wikiproject dives in, a glossary can go up in no time at all; we had glossary of equestrian terms up in about two weeks in raw form, though the details, as always, continue to be tweaked, the only rule we had was to source as you go if at all possible.  Montanabw (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion and I think it shows an awareness of where the problems lie with the information on the instruments. It's important that we are as clear as possible about these issues and this makes it all the more important to avoid abbreviations. The idea that abbreviations make text look more authoritative is fallacious. In any case, the use of abbreviations has been recently rejected by WP:CM.  Klein zach  22:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no such "recently rejected" consensus there, I just see the same three people having the same argument over there.  Montanabw (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Three? There are two people expressing support for the abbreviations there (you and Gerda), and five against (Smerus, Kleinzach, me, DavidRF, Voceditenore). A previous discussion saw Gerda supporting again, and a further oppose (Brambleclawx). That adds up to more than three participants, and more than a supermajority opposed. This is at least the second time you've made a clearly incorrect statement about the discussion; please be more careful. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see "five against." I favor abbreviations, but more to the point, I favor having instrumentation and vocal summaries in an infobox.  Even more to the point, I think infoboxes are very helpful in general and I think most articles benefit from one.  I interpret your efforts as strongly against all of the above (as far as I can tell), and all the others here appear to be discussing various ways to meet the legitimate need to include instrumentation in the infobox. I don't see 100% agreement on anything, nor do I see unanimity of opposition.  Seems there is a spectrum.   Montanabw (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * A "supermajority" is not "consensus". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Instrument links
I suggest we can start like this: we create articles such as Trumpet (Bach), Oboe (Bach), that we use consistently in the infoboxes with this template. Such an article can be first a redirect to trumpet, later changed to a redirect to the planned article on Bach's instruments. I can't help that some instruments have an Italian name even in English, such as oboe d'amore, others don't. In text, I prefer to use the English name, as did those who wrote on Bach's cantatas before me. In the example, I created trumpet and showed how oboe would be used. I didn't find a history section in trumpet and find a bit confusing that Baroque trumpet shows an "invention" of the 20th century. Please discuss. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The Oxford Dictionary of music defines a 'Bach trumpet' as a 19th century instrument in D, "specially made (with valves) to play high tpt. parts in works of baroque period. Ravel, Stravinsky, and Britten have included it in certain scores, and Maxwell Davies wrote a sonata for it." I think you need to be careful when titling these articles. Have you checked Grove on these instruments?  Klein zach  12:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To add to the confusion, there's already a page which redirects to Piccolo trumpet which is about the instrument Kleinzach is describing. There's also Natural trumpet which could be relevant. And there's Slide trumpet which has a section on the . I'm not sure I see the point of the placeholder pages. Perhaps it would just be better to link the instruments in the infobox directly to the best current WP page (or section thereof) leave it at that. Voceditenore (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Who am I to say what this "best current page" is. I don't want to be the one who changes about 200 articles when the "best current page" on violin changes to another. The placeholder here was only to make the example work. I started a page on the instruments in user space, but I will need more time. Can you imagine the links going there? - Anyway, I applied the advice to link the instruments directly, as shown here, much better than the general version it replaced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't been commenting here (life's too short), but I want to disspell Voceditenore's doubt about the usefulness of linking to redirects for obscure instruments: those REDIRECTs might turn into articles one day, and until then they give an indication how often a tromba da tirarsi is linked, so I think they are very useful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point! Voceditenore (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The latest version: --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)On reflection, I think the easiest solution would be to write a tabular List of baroque-period musical instruments. This would enable you to enter short descriptions of the instruments, with the various names in different languages (in different columns). Entries that become longer can later be turned into standalone articles. There are plenty of models for this kind of list. As you have yourself said, the instrumentation of Bach's music is a very important subject. Engaging in this kind of work would be a great learning experience, and help to re-integrate you with the community following your unfortunate experiences with infoboxes. I'd be happy to advise on the copy editing, and I'm sure Michael Bednarek would be willing to help you on the technical side. -- Klein zach  05:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, I started such a thing yesterday. It should mention related articles, such as the various articles on trumpets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the table entries should summarise and link to articles when the articles exist.  Klein zach  14:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you think of List of Early Music instruments, because there will be some overlap to Renaissance. Viola da gamba was already old fashioned when Bach used it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There's already a List of medieval musical instruments. However it's not developed. One problem with List of early music instruments is the definition, also the usual east/west inclusion/exclusion thing. According to the article on Baroque music, dates are 1580 to 1750, already a long period. BTW this article itself has a list of Baroque instruments.  Klein zach  14:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, to be considered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sometimes, two so-so lists can be merged into one halfway decent one. Just a comment, FWIW.  22:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that Gerda needs to be "re-integrated with the community" is an outrageous slur; a clear breach of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Kleinzach should strike it, and apologise. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

5 May 2013
Derived from the above, we have at present the shown infobox in our example cantata. My comments:
 * 1) I don't see any reason to collapse even part of this rather short infobox, and certainly not the part about text and music.
 * 2) I would like to get away from the link to "scoring" because at present it links to Bach cantata, specialized to cantatas. I therefore suggested vocal and instrumental, with the intention to link the latter to the the proposed list of instruments, the former to a similar article on the voices. Right now I don't have time for those, but would like to limit changes to the Bach cantata infoboxes until we made progress there, to avoid having to change again later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments (1) Shouldn't the infobox title should be that of the article, i.e. Die Himmel erzählen die Ehre Gottes, BWV 76? I thought that was the convention. No? (2) Surely the BWV field is redundant? (3) Shouldn’t ‘Performed’ be ‘First performed’? (4) Is Type: 'Church cantata' really needed? Is there any difference between 'church' and 'sacred' cantatas? Perhaps this field is only needed for exceptions, i.e. the secular works?-- Klein  zach  03:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The cantata titles are very long (and in German), which would make an infobox very broad. That is the reason why Bach compositions have their own infobox, similar but not equal to musical composition.
 * 2) BWV is not redundant as the "title", but we perhaps don't have to show it again. (But perhaps we should, together with the title.)
 * 3) "first performed" would be long as well. The parameter is meant to be major performances, for example revised versions, first performance of St Matthew Passion by Mendelssohn, etc. These were there but removed. Sometimes we don't know the date of the first performance but a later one.
 * 4) There is a difference (see Bach cantata and the template documentation), "church" used for the regular occasions of the Liturgical year, "sacred" for Town council inauguration, wedding etc. "Type" could be Christmas cantata, Chorale cantata, within genre cantata, which is not shown as redundant, but shown for oratorio, Passion and others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Infoboxes are supposed to be easy to understand . . . What do other people think?  Klein zach  12:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Long titles should wrap; BWV number, however displayed, should be in a separate parameter, to make them more easily query-able (e.g. a separate parameter in Wikidata); "premiere" is shorter than "First performed". I agree that collapsing is unnecessary; indeed, it's unhelpful to our readers. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This infobox is far easier to understand than, for example, Template:Infobox mineral which is longer and contains a lot of technical material. I would not say "easy to understand" so much as "fast review" of the basic things one wants to know about the subject. And, there is no reason to collapse text in the infobox, given that the items in question are a small section. BWV could be a separate parameter.  Wrap text as needed.  I have no position on the "first performance" issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 19:36, 6 May 2013‎
 * I added a list of instruments to the template documentation, please check and expand, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Bach composition vs. Musical composition
As pointed out on Talk:Mass in B minor structure, it would be desirable if two templates would be more similar, or even merged: and, see our example. Differences at present:
 * the parameters in Bach are lowercase, in the other one uppercase, and they seem to be case-sensitive.
 * Bach's name appears in (almost too) big letters on top of Bach, no composer on top of the other.
 * The (unique and common) BWV catalogue # appears on top of Bach, a title on the other.
 * Bach has parameters for relation between composition and different text sources that the other doesn't have.

Questions to make them more similar:
 * Is it possible to drop the case-sensitivity?
 * Can Bach's name appear smaller?
 * Can the default BWV # be replaced by a title if that makes sense?
 * Can the automatic "italic" format for the title be dropped, because some "titles" should not be italic?
 * Can the composer appear on top of an image for Musical?

Caution against merging: for a different type of instruments in Bach's era, and the specific parameters, I would not merge them at present, but am open for discussion, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * case-sensitivity can be handled by having Infobox musical composition accept both upper and lower case, which is easy to do. merging the templates seems like a very good idea. Frietjes (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are big differences between types of musical compostion. I don't think one size fits all. -- Klein zach  05:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer to keep them separate, but think it's worth thinking about how they could look similar and use similar parameters. It's nonsense that we have to think about capital here, lowercase there, image here, cover there. The model for one was Infobox person, the other Infobox book. Good to hear that Infobox musical composition could easily take lowercase, that would be a good first step, as long as the existing uppercase is also accepted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why we have optional parameters. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The documentation for this template is a Bach special, images for example. Eventually we may have an article of Bach's or Baroque's instruments, that size would also not fit all. I am tempted to first make this one as good as we can, than model the other after it. But the acceptance of lower case and different parameters for the same thing in the other template could start right away, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If an example from other wikiprojects helps, over at wikiproject equine, we have two different templates for individual race horses and other individual horses in general; the main reason being that racing stats are highly relevant to one and not the other, (thus optional parameters get really complicated if we want a one size fits all) plus racing uses some unique terminology that is not common in other equine disciplines. Works well there.   Montanabw (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * optional lowercase parameters added [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_musical_composition&diff=556604353&oldid=552856323 here], let me know if you want more. Frietjes (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I just saw that, great, and a good example, looks like I could do it myself next time. How do we insert a different title in the Bach one, and get his name in smaller print? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * are you asking to move the title to the top, and move the composer to a composer field to better match the format of infobox musical composition? if so, yes, that would be easy to do, but I would like to make sure there are no objections first. Frietjes (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest two things:
 * Usually have the BWV number on top, but have the option to replace it by the title if that is wanted, - normally for short titles, the question came up with the Mass in B minor, which at present has "Musical" because the title was wanted there, rather than only the BWV number.
 * I think the composer should be in the same location for both templates, above the image or below, but would like to hear other voices. Pro for above: in case of ambiguous titles (Requiem, Symphony No. 3, ...) you know who did it even if you don't recognize a person on a pic. Pro for below: in many cases it may serve as an image caption. For Bach: the one and only free pic we have, on which he is too old for 99% of his compositions, doesn't appear in any infobox I write ;) - Let's discuss. For the moment: is it possible to render "Composition by Johann Sebastian Bach" in the position, but a bit less prominent? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Abbreviations for instruments
Abbreviations for instruments still appear in the template. Why is this? I thought we had all agreed not to use them. -- Klein zach  00:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. I've now cleaned these up. -- Klein zach  05:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You got it right, they appear, - not as recommended for using, just informative (and actually simply because they appeared where I copied it from). Why you think it's cleaner without them is beyond my understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Violetta? "Questa donna conoscete"?
What is the instrument listed as a violetta on the template. I can't find it in my (admittedly limited) reference books. -- Klein zach  05:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The list is from German, the instrument is mentioned in Herr Gott, dich loben wir, BWV 16, I don't know about the ones I didn't look at yet, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is stuff on the "violetta", , . From a quick reading, they seem to think it was probably what they called today's "viola". But it merely illustrates how mystified modern scholars still are by what various baroque composers meant by it as well by "violetta picciola" "violno", "violino piccolo", "viola", "viola da gamba", "viola di braccio", etc. and how much guesswork is still involved today. Their meaning varied widely even between composers of the same period and was almost idiosyncratic to each composer.


 * This points up what I think is the major issue here. There should be zero difference between the names of the instruments in the article and the names in the infoboxes. The article can be used to further explain that Bach sometimes called the instrument something else in his scores, or that the actual instrument no longer exists, but is closest to today's X, where necessary. But from what Gerda has said here, it seems she is just taking German Wikipedia's terminology at face value and isn't even sure what they're basing it on. Was it from the manuscript score? If so, how is the reader supposed to know that's why the infobox is full of names of mystifying instruments like "violino" and "violetta" which are not used in the article itself. I pointed this out before in this section above, and it doesn't just apply to the stringed instruments.


 * Ditto the German WP abbreviations which are unlike any of the ones used by music publishers today (and even they vary slightly from each other). The German WP ones seem invented to keep as many abbreviations to 1 or 2 letters if at all possible (to fit in an infobox better?). Even for voices, only the "SATB chorus" is universally used. Many systems use "sop", "ten", etc. when abbreviating soloist parts, at which point what's wrong with just spelling out the voice type? it's just a couple of letters more for each word.


 * It seems to me that discussions on minor issues like whether or not to collapse some fields, etc. or which/if abbreviations should be used are completely pointless until a reasoned approach to the consistency issue between article and box is agreed. If you've got a confusing, mystifying bunch of stuff in the box, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference whether it's collapsed or not. Either way, you're still doing a great disservice to the reader if you don't get the contents right. Voceditenore (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that the instrument abbreviations were a good faith attempt to address those who were collapsing infoboxes and complaining that the infobox was "too long." So it's a Catch-22.  I personally see no problem with spelling out the instrument names in small type, and compared to infobox Presidents or infobox mineral, these composition ones really aren't all that long, even with voices and instrumentation listed. So, I think Voceditenore has a point that we CAN spell out the instruments, but then we have to deal with other people here with their unders in a bunch about infobox size.  I favor accuracy and completeness, however we get there.  So FWIW, that's my view.   Montanabw (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * We DO spell out the instruments, abbreviations are only present where nobody got to change them. I believe we don't have to collapse them, and certainly not with a template of questionable quality. Thanks for Violetta! The article on the instruments will come soon, at least a start. Mass first (please copy-edit, "Quintkanon"?), then BWV 176, the last of my "third cycle", still needs music, recordings and complete translation, - please have patience ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Montanabw and Gerda: I think you are both missing Voceditenore's point about consistency and accuracy. Can you actually read what she said? My view is that dubious information should not be in the box. It can be discussed and explained in the article, then the limits of our knowledge will be clear to the reader.  Klein zach  10:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Klein, please do not make snaky remarks that question if we read something, it doesn't help advance the discussion. I do not believe that what instruments are used or what voices are used is "dubious" information, the issue is how they can best be noted in the infobox.   Montanabw (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No, Montana, first we have to decide how to explain the information in the main text — the box comes afterwards because it summarises the article. Likewise sometimes in a conversation you need to listen before you speak.  Klein zach  23:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I generally don't bother listening to condescension and snark. This is a discussion about infoboxes.  You can argue about instrument names in both cases, but the issue here is if instruments at all should be in the infobox, if they should be collapsed, and so on.  Yes, you started this subsection with an instrument questions, but Voceditnore brought the infobix issue down here as well and hasn't been back since to discuss the instrument issue. Call it hijacking your thread, I think the issue here isn't a debate over an instrument, the infobox will parallel the article, and if a spat in article space, then it will obviously be an infobox question too (though many articles have some undesirable inconsistencies between infoboxen and text... birth dates, birth places, all kinds of stuff, just the usual ongoing wiki-work).  I think you are trying to make the prerfect the enemy of the good here.   Montanabw (talk) 02:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I am against the use of instrument abbreviations in this box and especially the invented ones brought over wholesale from German Wikipedia. I think uncollapsed should be the default state of this box unless the size of the box interferes with other image layout. Now see below. Voceditenore (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Bach composition/doc needs improvement
My point in the above section (and it is entirely relevant to discussing the template as a whole), is that there should be something explicit in the template documentation to the effect that the instrument names in this box should be the same ones used in the scoring section of the article, i.e. not "corno" in the box and "horn" in the article. I have repeatedly pointed this necessity out. It does not apply simply to "violetta". It applies to multiple instances where this misleading discrepancy occurs. If you want to have a instrumentation section, then you have to get it right, and provide the guidance for getting it right. Voceditenore (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Second problem with the Instrument section in the Template documentation: What is the rationale for labelling the second column "Italian" word"? This is extremly confusing. In the first place, some of these are incorrect. The word for "recorder" in Italian is not "flauto". It is  "flauto dolce" (or less commonly "flauto diritto" or "flauto a becco"). As in English, "flauto" (flute) is a generic term referring to all types of flutes (including recorders), and if anything its default meaning is the "flauto traverso". In Italian, a "flauto piccolo" does not mean a "descant recorder". It means a "piccolo" (It's also called an "ottavino" in Italian scores.) "Taille" is not an Italian word at all—it's French. Is that "Italian word" column actually intended instead to list the terms that appear in Bach's manuscript scores? If that is the case, then it should be clearly labelled as such, not as "Italian word". Voceditenore (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The mixture of English and Italian instrument names, if Italian, English type of plural vs. Italian type, is one reason why I would prefer abbreviations. - Please understand that I am travelling and can't be of help now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no rush, but this needs to be sorted out eventually. Using abbreviations does not help at all, especially the ones that seem to have been invented by the editors on German WP, and is in fact even more confusing—both to the reader and to anyone else wanting to use the template. There is still a discrepancy between the so-called Italian word it abbreviates and the actual instrument the word refers to in Italian. For people who know the standard abbreviations used by music publishers today (a small minority of our readers), fl. = flute, not recorder. When you get back, you'll have to clarify what that second column is actually supposed to represent and re-label it. It clearly doesn't accurately represent Italian words. If it's supposed to represent the words Bach used in his scores, then it should be labelled as such, or something like "Baroque era name", e.g.
 * {| class="wikitable sortable" style="margin-right: 0;"

! Common name !! Baroque era name
 * trumpet || tromba
 * recorder ||flauto
 * }
 * recorder ||flauto
 * }
 * }


 * Voceditenore (talk) 16:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have occasional minutes. Good idea, the column header, just change it please, perhaps add a column for a plural, - I am never sure if it should be (we better use) oboi d'amore or oboes d'amore. I have no objection to using full names of instruments, as long as they are not taken as an excuse to hide them as too long. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is a hopeful discusion! Curious about - and supportive of -- you folks who know this subject well to doing up a detailed chart as the primary component of a separate article (List of baroque instruments?) would be a good idea, infobox issue aside.  A chart, especially with sortable parameters would have names in English and Italian (and/or whatever language the composer originally used, if not Italian), plurals, etc... could be a fanstastic resource   Montanabw (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I started in user space, feel free to improve, add plurals, add sections for individual instruments and groups of instruments below the table, - I will join you later. We might mark instruments that are Bach specialties and add others, we might add links to articles about reconstructed instruments such as Baroque trumpet, and look where instruments have alternate names, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Plurals
I'll list the plurals below, rather than adding a column to the table at this point because a. I hate doing tables and b. It might be a waste of time. You need to decide a guideline on when to use the Italian plural forms. Personally, I'd only list plurals in a third column for the instruments that do not have English or anglicised names. Or, it might be better to simply list the plural in parentheses in the second column.
 * {| class="wikitable sortable" style="margin-right: 0;"

! Common name !! Baroque era name Note that the plurals listed below are strictly as they would be used in an article written in Italian, but not necessarily what would be the best way to pluralize these words in an article written in English. • tromboni
 * trumpet || tromba
 * tromba da tirarsi || tromba da tirarsi (pl. trombe da tirarsi)
 * }
 * tromba da tirarsi || tromba da tirarsi (pl. trombe da tirarsi)
 * }
 * }
 * Italian plurals

• trombe

• trombe da tirarsi

• clarini

• corni

• corni da caccia

• litui

• flauti

• flauti piccoli

• flauti traversi

• oboi

• oboi d'amore

• oboi da caccia

• fagotti

• violini

• viole

• violoncelli

• violoncelli piccoli

• viole d'amore

• viole da gamba

• violette

• violoni

• organi

• cembali

• liuti

• litui

• bassi continui

• tailles (This is a French word and would be pluralised with an "s" as in French)

Manual of Style/Music doesn't give a lot of guidance, apart from the requirement to be consistent within the individual article. My suggestions:

1. Where the word has an English name (or anglicised name), use it in both the infobox and the article. Pluralize them in the article per English. For example, you wouldn't say "She owned two celli". These would be: • trombones

• trumpets

• horns

• oboes

• recorders

• transverse flutes

• bassoons

• violins

• violas

• cellos

• harpsichords

• organs

• lutes

• lituuses

2. Compound Italian terms and rare/extinct instruments with Italian names not in common use in English are more tricky. I'd suggest using the Italian plurals, e.g. "oboi d'amore", "violoncelli piccoli", "violette", "violoni", etc.. And, use the same term in both the article and the box. For most of these (at least in the cantatas), there appear be only one of each. So the problem shouldn't arise too often.

Voceditenore (talk) 09:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Baroque instruments
I started the article, based on the above, all improvements welcome. Ideally every instrument and "family" deserve some prose. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Genre on top
Compare opera, L'Arianna, it is desirable that the reader gets a feeling for what the topic is, right on top above the picture. "Genre" by "composer" seems a good way to do so, for cantatas it would mean a line "Cantata" by "J.S. Bach" in smaller print, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This line would be redundant to the "type" parameter in use on almost every instance of this template, and would seem to remove the metadata that some feel is so important. Furthermore, if we really wish to argue for consistency, the approach recently adopted at the cited example is a) not yet stabilized, given ongoing discussion regarding that template, and b) a far less common approach; most articles that use infoboxes have the page title as the only heading and the only thing to appear above the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't have sudden consistency, - I am willing to wait. Orchestras say what kind of orchestra, - for Bach's works, a bulk of often German would be better understood with the added line in small print. The line is not redundant, the type is not the same but explains it further. For harpsichord concertos, cello suites and and overtures, there will be only one line. The cantatas are more complex, which should be reflected, if you ask me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The type includes the genre, making the genre line redundant, and even if it weren't redundant it would not be appropriate to crowd more and more information into the space above the picture. Orchestras say what kind of orchestra only because of a similar approach in adding the type despite objections. And no, not only is it impossible to adequately reflect the complexity of a cantata in a box, it is undesireable to attempt that, per "The less information [the infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose ... present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content". Nikkimaria (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about having only genre on top, and drop type? Do you agree that the German title and BWV number are not informative for a random reader? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, no, and no. Increasing the amount of information shoved into a heading is unhelpful and is not a design we should pursue. Type provides more information in a short form than genre alone, because it includes genre. And the suggestion that a "random reader" will read only a heading is even stranger than arguing that they will read only a box and ignore the first sentence of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * One "no" is enough for me. We seem to have a language problem. My goal is not to "increase" the amount of information in the heading but to make German title and catalogue number understandable. A simple "Cantata" serves that purpose better than "Church cantata". Can we agree on that? - The opera example will go to FAC with the genre below the Italian title. Why not match that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You asked three questions, you get three answers, and to the fourth and fifth the answer is no as well. The opera example will go to FAC with only an "identibox"; we could certainly adopt that model for the cantatas, but you object to it there and I would guess you would here as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the nos better, thank you. I think the "identibox" for cantatas might be a good idea for "your" articles. The arbcom case made abundantly clear that (at least in classical music) editors rule their articles and may keep them free from an infobox. How about the editors who want one to inform the reader, and want to tell him that the article deals with a cantata right on top? I seriously thought that this was not contentious but an idea (not mine) that everyone could follow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How about the editors who want to avoid wasting the reader's time by repeating the same thing yet again? If the reader does not read the box, then what is the point of having it? The first sentence of the article does so much more to inform the reader. Nikkimaria (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to repeat that in the article it takes a German title, a translation, an abbreviation and a number, until the reader finally gets to "cantata", - or is it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So your answer to "How would you feel..?" is "no"? Your answer to "Why..?" is "no"? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Composer
I suggest to change the appearance of the infobox, showing the composer on top of the image, to inform readers who don't read German and are unfamiliar with "BWV", and matching infobox opera, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean by "showing the composer on top of the image" and how that is connected to "BWV" and Infobox opera, but a link to Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis for "BWV" might be helpful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * A reader new to a Bach cantata article sees a lot of German and an abbreviation he may not understand. Adding "Bach" on top might look like this (we had it before but it was reverted), similar to operas, see L'Arianna. (No further mentioning of the composer below the image in the infobox, of course.) I would not link BWV then, it's linked in the lead and would be accented too much by bold blue, if you ask me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, there is no need to further increase the amount of information in the header; the composer can be found easily already. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that he can be easily found. (At present bolded, in bad style.) However, he can't be seen yet at the first glance which I think would be helpful. He will not be recognized in the picture, because the one free image we have shows him way too old for 99% of the cantatas and is not a good illustration. Several images show a poet who is not Bach, - more reason to mention Bach above the image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We can certainly unbold the name, I agree it is a suboptimal style choice. But shifting more information into the header is not a good solution no matter what the picture might be, whether Bach or a poet or something else altogether. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Unbolded. The header would contain only two items: the title and the author. It's correct that it means only shifting, not adding (actually we would reduce by the word "composer"). I see no reason not to help the reader to find something recognisable immediately. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That goal would be better served by getting rid of the infobox entirely, or by shifting to an identibox model: the latter would use a header and image model (which actually allows for the at-a-glance information that some have argued infoboxes provide), while the former would appropriately shift the reader's attention to the actual article, which very neatly explains what the title means. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see how the goal would be fulfilled any "better" by an identibox because it would look just the same on top, see L'Arianna again which has one. In the article, the word "Bach" appears "neatly" after the long title, the long translation, the BWV number and the genre, - not what I would call easily recognisable, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a reader can read a single sentence, and in your example "Bach" appears in the first line, above where "Bach" in the header would be. And no, infoboxes are not designed with so much information in the header; what L'Arianna has is an identibox rather than a traditional infobox. Again, we can discuss transitioning this template to that model, but you had previously objected to doing so. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Bach" is hidden in a bulk of other text in the article, but standing out above the image. Infobox opera is designed with more header (also showing "genre"), see GA Fatinitza, others are less advanced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Just an aside, an "identibox" is just another name for what looks to a casual reader like an infobox. They look quite similar to the non-wiki insider. The issue of an infobox, as we have discussed ad infinitum, ad nauseaum, is really a discussion of what to put in the infobox, as the reality is that it's either in or out by whatever name you call it. All we have going on here is the usual suspects once again doing a big "OMG! Someone mentioned 'teh dreaded infoboxen' again!  LALALALALALALALALAAAAAA!" I've long held that the issue is mostly a graphic design and layout question, that infoboxes across all subjects on wikipedia, from the sciences where they are common, to the fine arts, where they are more hotly debated, should have a similar general concept and look. Really, must we crank this all up again? Infoboxes are the future, let's embrace it and keep moving forward, not backwards. Montanabw (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As there was only one voice of objection, I changed the template, showing "by J.S.Bach" with a link on top of the image rather below which resulted in the image caption appearing before the composer. Please let's try that for at least a week, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I said "Please let's try that for at least a week", but it was reverted without comment here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)