Talk:Ach Gott, vom Himmel sieh darein, BWV 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ach Gott, vom Himmel sieh darein, BWV 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yash! (talk · contribs) 07:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will be done by tonight. Thanks, — Yash talk stalk 07:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable source?
See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is Bach Cantatas Website a RS? – I'll add a {{refimprove}} tag to the recordings section for the time being. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Francis Schonken thinks that Bach Cantatas Website uses liner notes without consent from the publishers. I don't think they do it without consent from the publishers, nor had previous FA reviewers any such concerns. It's on WP:RSN, where Wehwalt asked Francis to say why he thinks so, but no answer, to my knowledge. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This was my extensive reply to Wehwalt's remark (which was a repeat of a remark made earlier on the page, so the reply was formulated in response to the first occurrence of the remark). --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the above reply by Gerda also doesn't pass Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification: "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" (emphasis added); and/or doesn't pass WP:FORUMSHOP: "Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages ... Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible": mentioning that "previous FA reviewers" had no concerns in this respect, without mentioning that that argument has been rejected multiple times, as well in open and as in closed discussions about the same fails to present the issue in a neutral manner. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Idiosyncrasies
See detailed discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10/archive1#Francis Schonken. – many of the idiosyncrasies are present in the current GA candidate, will proceed with a detailed discussion if needed. See also #Coordinator suggestion on the same page, containing (suggestion to Gerda Arendt): "I'd advise that in future you get together with Mr Francis Schonken and iron out your differences before nominating any further Bach chorale articles. Otherwise this debacle will repeat itself...": Gerda is of course free to follow that advise or not, to ignore any risk at debacle, and/or to interpret it as only applying to FA nominations and/or not applying to cantata articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean regarding this article, Francis. - No coordinator said the above about differences, but Brianboulton who was one of the reviewers who had no problems with Bach Cantatas, - no ping because below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
& canvassing – just saw this which imho fails Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate notification ("Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions"): instead of following the suggestion of the FA coordinator "...get together with Mr Francis Schonken..." Gerda solicits possibly more sympathetic candidate GA reviewers. @Yash!: please bear this in mind if and when proceeding with a review. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Asking reviewers to do a FA or GA review is not considered canvassing. I asked not only Yash! but also Cassianto, The Rambling Man and Yunshui this time, and many others (Drmies, Dr. Blofeld, Jaguar, Montanabw, among others) in previous cases. I trust that all these reviewers are not partial but interested in quality articles. (I would normally ping them, but don't want to hear canvassing again.) None of these reviewers had any concerns regarding the Bach Cantatas Website, btw. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Media
(Compare Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10/archive1#Media review) : suggesting to include a few score extracts, that is: examples from the cantata. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not part of GA criteria. Return that when someone goes for FA. Someone will not be me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not part of GA criteria. King James Version is firstly closer to Bach's and Luther's wording that Bach knew, secondly I assume that it is the most familar English version among our readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bible translation links
(Compare some of the comments I added in the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10/archive1#Comments by Wehwalt section) : "I'd prefer a 21st-century translation. Also, a translation that is not tied to a denomination". Can {{Sourcetext|source=Bible|version=King James|... instances be replaced by, for instance, {{Sourcetext|source=Bible|version=World English|... ? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not part of GA criteria. King James Version is firstly closer to Bach's and Luther's wording that Bach knew, secondly I assume that it is the most familar English version among our readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
External links
The External links section may need some attention (e.g. currently including a WP:ELNEVER link, which I'll tag, also: do we need so many links to hobby sites?); suggesting to take to WP:ELN to get more input. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a look. If someone's hobby (Mincham, Grob and others) enhances the appreciation of a reader for Bach's work, I tend to show it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Breadth of coverage
(WP:GACR #3.a) I'd suggest to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Articles about compositions which contains some WikiProject level guidance on how to approach this, e.g. in the subsection about reception topics "...How and when was [the composition] published?...": Reception topics currently in the BWV 2 article make a jump of about two-and-a-half centuries (first performance in the first half of the 18th century → recordings in the second half of the 20th century), as if the composition only lay around in archives in the intermediate period. A quite standard way to bridge that gap is to write something about the first publication of the piece (second half of 19th century for almost all Bach cantatas). For this cantata specifically: it was included in the very first volume published by the Bach Gesellschaft, which may be worth mentioning. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, thank you for your iniative, but please respect that a GA review is done by one reviewer. I suggest to place your concerns on the talk page. I have no time right now, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The box on top of the article talk page contains "Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer." (emphasis added). My comments above conform completely to the instructions regarding GA candidate articles.
Re. "I have no time right now, sorry" – suggesting to put this GA candidate assessment on hold until Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Review of a decision to remove an external link per ELNEVER is formally closed or archived, and until nom has more time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"no time right now", when I wrote it, meant that I had to leave the house that moment, actually was late leaving, so had no time to explain that. How about assuming faith? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, Francis Schonken. I won't call it canvasing when one asks another user for a GAR. I just follow the criteria and I don't have any sympathetic opinion about these topics (if anything, I refrain from reviewing topics that I have a sympathetic point of view about). But I understand your point. Until the issue of references is resolved, I will put this on hold. As for the other issues you've raised, I will have to check on that — the criteria for GAs are relaxed comparative to FAs. I appreciate your comments and involvement. Best, — Yash talk stalk 09:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Yash! Can we do the following: I was in a bit of a rush with the nomination because I hoped to see this on the Main page on Sunday, the day for which it was created. I gave up that idea, so we can take more time. I will hopefully address the tags mentioned above, not right now but within the next days. I have several things (WP and RL) that need to be done first, and will travel. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Gerda Arendt. Let me know if you want to take your time and work on it. I can go on and close this review for now. You can always nominate it later on. Cheers, — Yash talk stalk 18:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the seven days should be enough, - you could still close it later if not. I will be off for the next two days, but then can look again. I listened to a great concert, so saw your ping before checking what else developed. Wehwalt had a good comment in the RS question, - did you follow? - I noticed that Telemann has an anniversary tomorrow, so wrote 2 articles, - thinking that was more important than GA or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did see that. With my time being limited, I cannot properly justify my participation in the discussion. That should be the priority then. I am very patient so take your time, and let me know whenever you're ready. Good luck! — Yash talk stalk 09:01, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: please refrain from qualifying comments given by others in another still open discussion as good or bad or whatever. The open discussion is at WP:RSN, and that's where I replied to Wehwalt's latest comment: whether you appreciate my response there (or not) is imho not a topic for this GA nomination page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back after break[edit]

Thank you for patience. The RS is open.

Unreliable source?

Recordings, a bit of article history

To say now, after 8 years, that these recordings don't come from the Bach Cantatas Website seems simply not true.

Idiosyncrasies

I don't see specific concerns regarding this article.

External links

Several sites have been moved from references to external links. They are informative.

Breadth of coverage

A section about publication can be added. I usually do that on FA level (Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin, BWV 125), not GA (Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56) but why not sooner.

These were the unanswered concerns from above, afaik. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to the "... after [x] years ..." argument in the active RSN discussion ([1]).
I hope we can all agree that this GA deliberation should not be finally closed before the RSN discussion about the Oron source is closed or archived, and enough time has been allotted to implement its consequences (i.e., if any for the BWV 2 article)
I didn't detail yet how I see the "idiosyncrasies" material applying to this GA candidate (see above "... idiosyncrasies are present in the current GA candidate, will proceed with a detailed discussion if needed"), but I do protest against the attempt to brush this over by "I don't see specific concerns regarding this article"-like declarations. Either ask for the detailed analysis (which might take some time to put together), or for the time being I don't bother you too much with improvement suggestions (the idiosyncrasies might solve while you improve the article) and then I'll return with an analysis later (if any would still be needed by then). Just don't pretend the unresolved issues aren't there currently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to say that have to "brush" over some of your remarks, because I don't have the time to read them all. I suggest that we take our time: Bach wrote the cantata for last Sunday, - too late for 2017 anyway. - I ask Yash for points to improve the article, as he regularly gives. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "...I don't have the time to read them all" – there's a certain WP:IDHT ring in that response (you replied to most of my earlier suggestions in this regard, often with lengthy argumentation, so I suppose you at least read my suggestions then). There's a difference between not wanting to take the time now to revisit these, and not seeing them, as you wrote earlier on this page. For the time being I'm happy with you not pretending these suggestions don't exist. It might take some time to sort the earlier suggestions out in view of what might apply at GA candidature level: as said I'll help with that if asked. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do what I can, trying to understand, but for example the lengthy thread "Liner notes" in the RS thread is too much for my limited understanding. I was also trained to offer two comments to a discussion, no more, and feel it's a good concept (so I try not to revisit there). - My mind is elsewhere, in RL. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "I was also trained to offer two comments to a discussion, no more, and feel it's a good concept (so I try not to revisit there)" (emphasis added) – ambiguous: either you stop commenting (which means accepting whatever way the consensus develops), or you keep participating in the discussion until the thing is decided. Either way, keeping an eye on a developing discussion is recommended, if you have an interest in it. Anyway, rebooting a discussion on the same somewhere else is generally not recommended per WP:FORUMSHOP. You asked a question at the RSN: it looks like that question is more or less answered by now, so live with the consequences or participate in the still open discussion there to influence its outcome.
Re. "lengthy thread "Liner notes" in the RS thread is too much for my limited understanding" – let me summarize: <snip> (moved my proposed summary to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Redux, which is the proper place to discuss this --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Re. health issues: take your time, nothing urgent here. Your "I think the seven days should be enough" above, with only two more days remaining of that week, seems a rather shortish time period to get it all sorted for the BWV 2 article though. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I was not clear: I am still interested in what Yash! has to say about possible improvements to this article. Then he can close it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since Yash has disappeared, I'll do a quick look to see if there's further issues before closing this. Wizardman 15:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everything checks out to me, so I'll pass this. sorry for the delay, forgot I said I'd take a look. Wizardman 16:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tag on External links section[edit]

After inspecting the links (per a request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music), I have removed this tag. All of these links are useful and comply with WP:EL, The first is a link to Bach scores on the IMSLP, extensively used on Wikipedia and de dirgeur, frankly. The second is to an English transltion of the text, again very useful to the reader. The third is provides a readily accessible breakdown of the structure for those who may not have access to Durr.The fourth is by Julian Mincham whose site has been recommended by WGBH [2], a major classical music station in the US. Again, this link provides useful additional information. Voceditenore (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the discussion is at WP:RSN: until that relevant discussion is closed the tags should stay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, this is not an issue of "reliable sources". It is an issue for the External links noticeboard, if anything. Voceditenore (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but in the discussion there I suggested to take this to WP:ELN, which I normally wouldn't do before the RSN discussion is closed or archived. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are two entirely different issues, and you know it. You should take it to EL noticeboard and leave an notice on the Reliable sources board to that effect. This whole issue about 4 simple and useful external links is a manufactured and pedantic dispute on your part. Ditto your re-addition of the tag and insistence that it must be settled on a board that is not designed to settle it. But I know from long experience that it is utterly useless to try to reason with you. I will make no further comments here. Voceditenore (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on both accounts: the Bischof site offers, as Voceditenore said above, "a readily accessible breakdown of the structure", relating the voices and instruments to the movements, found nowhere else that clearly. All information on that page looks reliable. The Leonard description, however, easy to find by those interested, indeed offers nothing that other sites don't have, with the exception of a (too) short summary of the content. Not worth a link, imho. (It is used for other cantatas where he has more to offer, compare O heilges Geist- und Wasserbad, BWV 165.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re-instated the tag, and the Bischof EL. Once the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Cited elsewhere (sub)section is archived or closed, and if, by then, there's no agreement yet on which links to use in the External links section I plan to take this to WP:ELN, as said before. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have been told that EL has nothing to do with RS, so you will probably not listen to me saying the same. We are talking here about this article, and the usefulness of Bischof's page for it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On the Bischof webpage I wrote "is not a reliable source". You wrote "I disagree". Let's stop discussing this here: the discussion on whether or not Bischof is a reliable source is still open at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Cited elsewhere (and that discussion started before the discussion on the same same topic here). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not going to say anything more here, but this latest action by Francis Schonken is the height of absurdity, obstruction, and deliberately contentious editing. He agreed that without the Bischof link, this section was OK, removed the link and removed the tag. Simply because someone disagreed with him here, but did not re-add the link, he re-added the link himself and the tag, and now claims that neither can be removed until the issue of whether it is a "reliable source" is settled at one and possibly two noticeboards. I am going to remove the link and the tag. The common sense way to handle this to remove the link for now and re-add it if there is agreement at the noticeboards. It is not to restore it, then festoon the section with a huge tag which implies that the whole section is problematic, and leave it there for weeks. Voceditenore (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not Bischof is a reliable source plays a role in whether or not we include it as an external link. At least for me it does. Generally we don't include external links that wouldn't pass as reliable sources. There are exceptions, but I don't see one that would apply here. Now, whether or not Bischof is a reliable source is apparently still contentious. That discussion is elsewhere, and still open. I think it best to indicate by a tag that a discussion is ongoing for all who pass by on the article and want to have their say before the matter is decided. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
People are having their say at the RS board. Plenty of them. They are also aware of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. The purpose of a maintenance tag is not to advertise a discussion elsewhere, especially since you refuse to discuss here and insist on the RS board. Nor is it to be used as a weapon in a dispute with another editor, and frankly that's exactly what it looks like. You have no justification whatsoever for restoring a contentious link that you yourself feel should be removed and then restoring the maintenance tag that disputes your own the re-addition of the link. Really, this is absurd. Voceditenore (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "The purpose of a maintenance tag is not to advertise a discussion elsewhere" – disagree: many maintenance tags automatically contain a link to, or allow to link to, the place where the discussion is taking place. Whether or not a maintenance tag contains such a link to the discussion, it can always be enveloped in {{Multiple issues}}, which also automatically contains a link to the discussion page.
Re. "...refuse to discuss here and insist on the RS board" – keep the discussion in one place is a sound principle (not doing so would be an infringement of WP:FORUMSHOP).
Re. "...weapon..." – please tone down your language: I insist on WP:CONSENSUS, that's all, and your belligerent language is as well missing the point as being completely unhelpful for a consensus-seeking discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A link - to my understanding - has NOT to be a RS to be in external links. So far I understood that a source that is not "RS" enough to serve as reference can still be of enough value to readers be an external link, for example Mincham. Why not Bischof? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
? afaik Mincham is connected to some academic school of music, and writing about music in a professional capacity. Yes, seems like all of this would need to go to WP:ELN at some point: this is not about some sort of grey area between reliable and not reliable. An External links section is not a dumping ground for unreliable sources afaik: since you apparently don't want to take my word for it, WP:ELN would be the way to go I suppose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tag on Recordings section requiring additional sources[edit]

I would suggest removing the explicit mention of "Aryeh Oron on the Bach Cantatas Website" from the article text. It's a rather unencyclopedic approach. While this site has also been recommended by WGBH (see above), it's probably better to simply reference each recording either to its OCLC number or AllMusic. (I've done the first two as examples.) That is more than adequate for the simple credits. References for period instruments/historically informed performance being used on the recording are harder to come by, and I'd suggest removing that column from the table for now, especially since this is up for GA status. If a review or similar (not from bach-cantatas, but in scholarly sources, established journals, magazines, etc.) can be found for the recording which states that it uses period instruments, that can always be annotated as a footnote or in a replacement column called "Notes" to replace both the "Orchestra type" and "Choir" columns. The use of a whole "Choir" column simply to annotated that one recording uses OVPP, is also unnecessary. That can go in the Notes column, providing a reference is found. Voceditenore (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same as previous section: discussion is at WP:RSN. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a meaningless comment. I have not removed the tag. I have made suggestions to improve the recording section so that the tag might eventually be removed. Voceditenore (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please discontinue to discuss the same topic at two different places at the same time. The discussion is at WP:RSN#Is Bach Cantatas Website a RS?. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were entirely appropriate to this talk page and concern removing the source to which you object and restructuring the recordings section. However, as I said above, I know from long experience that it is utterly useless to try to reason with you. I will make no further comments here. Voceditenore (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the comment by Voceditenore, I changed the introduction of the table, removed the choir type and found an additional reference for every recording. However, these (WorldCat and AllMusic) lack the amount of detail that the Bach Cantata Website offers, which lists for example individual choir singers and instrumentalists, and has a better (chronological) overview than WorldCat, for the convenience of our readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "I changed the introduction of the table" – See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#Lists of works and timelines: the current one-sentence intro of the table falls a bit short of that, e.g. "... it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points". --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A {{Cleanup list}} or some such may be used to indicate the issue until it is addressed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(I haven't tagged anything in seven years on Wikipedia.)
  • I fixed some of the links, - sorry, my first encounter with the jungle of the WorldCat.
  • I repeated now some of the introduction which is found in detail on Bach cantata, although I find it repetitive. Certain ensembles are simply playing HIP or period or however we shall call it ("Period" seemed short but not as uninviting as an abbreviation.) The discographies of Bach works (such as Mass in B minor discography were arranged in 3 sections, one for traditional orchestra, one for HIP with choir, one for HIP with OVPP. To mark the type here in a similar way is meant to help a reader to see the difference at a glance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two additional recordings of the cantata I encountered:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bach cantatas Website has those two, and three additional ones. Feel free to add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering whether we need to give so much attention to and detail about the recordings of the cantata included in the (nearly) complete Bach church cantata recording sets. The impression from reading the article as it is currently is that this must surely be one of Bach's less important cantatas: nearly nobody seems to record it unless as an unavoidable item in a complete cantata recordings set... seems a bit out of balance in the recordings section if you ask me (at least it somewhat distorts the picture as it actually is). Imho the focus should be on those performing artists who thought it worth while to record without it being obligatory in a "complete recordings" layout. The complete recordings each work with their pool of performers (which can be detailed at the articles of those sets), but maybe need not be repeated here? At least the other significant recordings should get as much attention as those in the complete series. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add. I want to upgrade not this cantata for last Sunday, but those for tomorrow, which is both Visitation and 3rd Sunday after Trinity (+ I completely overlooked St. John's Day's over all this). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "Feel free to add" – ? I suggested to remove something. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of reference[edit]

Please see here, "... if the liner notes are copyrighted it would apply to them, but does not apply to other pages on the site". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no, that was not in the central discussion, which now is archived. Nikkimaria had every chance to participate there (and did so in the early stages of the discussion). Again, splitting a discussion across multiple pages at the same time is a form of WP:FORUMSHOPping, which is disallowed by policy. Also, a user page's (very, very) "local" consensus doesn't trump an elaborate discussion on one of the official noticeboards (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which is also part of the WP:CONSENSUS policy). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your revert: The discussion was archived, which does not mean closed. In it, you asked "Can we summarize ...?" Nobody answered. Do you call that a consensus? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic[edit]

AllMusic has come up at WP:RSN#AllMusic. For clarity, I'd support how it is used as a reliable source in the BWV 2 article currently. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD[edit]

Our policy on using bold text MOS:BOLD requires us to render the article title and words that are plausible redirects in boldface when they are first mentioned in the text, usually the opening sentence. The abbreviation BWV 2 is not only a part of this article's title, but also a plausible redirect. There is no reason why it should be rendered other than in boldface at its first appearance. The footnote is sufficient to explain the abbreviation and provide a link to Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis for those that need it. --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ach_Gott,_vom_Himmel_sieh_darein,_BWV_2&oldid=1204483729"