Talk:Chorale

See also: Talk:Lutheran chorale § Lutheran bias

DYK?

@Gerda Arendt: I'm thinking of launching a DYK proposal, something like, for instance, "DYK ... that Alma Mahler reproached her husband of having included a churchy chorale in his 5th symphony?" – but don't know when would be the right time to initiate such proposal (nor very well how to do that; nor whether the eligibility of this re-created article would be acceptable in DYK proceedings). Relying a bit on your experience in the matter: could you help and/or give some advice? Tx, would be much appreciated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, - some replies:

• To be eligible for DYK it has to be brandnew (which this is not really) or expanded more than five times (which may be possible, looking at the outline), or explain that is actually new content even under an old name.
• It needs to be nominated no later than a week after "creation" = adding the new content, so to be safe don't add bits slowly. If you think it may take more than a week from starting it, do it in a sandbox or user space.
• The process is easy: Main page, DYK section, follow below "Nominate an article", then follow instructions, 1.1, place the article title in the field provided, and fill an easy template. I can always help if needed.
• Minor: "Fifth Symphony" if you want to stay with that hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Tx,

• Would go for "explain ... new content ... under an old name"
• Would aim at removal of the #redirect[[Lutheran chorale]] instruction on top of the page in less than a week, that is: not before the epigrammatic style of the outline has been converted into readable prose with a basis of references (should be possible), and would submit the DYK nomination around the same time. Where you can help:
  1. Feel free to contribute to the article (I have no prerogatives in creating its content & references); making this operation successful precedes for me any interest I may have in a DYK resulting from it.
  2. I know that quite some pages have something like this: [[Lutheranism|Lutheran]] [[chorale]], which is a true WP:SEAOFBLUE and should thus be avoided, especially as we now have the Lutheran chorale article. I'd be very happy if someone could address that in these many articles.
  3. Connected to #2, the Lutheran chorale article (especially its intro) may need a bit of an update to its current article title and scope; would be very happy if someone could attend to such revision (which doesn't seem to be too complicated).

Well, that's what should happen first imho, will see about the rest later. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I simplified the sea-of-blue-links (not even 40), but am not the right person to rewrite the lead for Lutheran chorale. It-s not a melody ;) - but what is it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK check says it's a 5*expansion of 18 October. Time to nominate 25 October. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Submitted

See Template:Did you know nominations/Chorale --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

chorale vs. hymn

FYI

 – conversation moved to Talk:Lutheran chorale#Lutheran hymn redirect --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Confusion

Moved here from my talk page:

---

Hallo Francis

I came across your draft for "Chorale" when the redirect turned up in Category:Stubs while I was stub-sorting. It's just too confusing for everyone to have a draft being developed under the form of a redirect, so I've moved your work-in-progress to User:Francis Schonken/Chorale. When you've got it into a main-space-worthy state, as it'll be all your own work you could just cut-and-paste it back to over-write the redirect at Chorale. PamD 13:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• I have no intention to make this necessarily "all my work" (anyone is invited to contribute, see talk page); I'll remove the stub tag (while that seems confusing) and continue developing the article in mainspace, under the redirect instruction. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
• @PamD: please merge the page history of User:Francis Schonken/Chorale with the page history of the Chorale article (with the article at that latter place), and the page history of User talk:Francis Schonken/Chorale with the page history of Talk:Chorale (also with the page history at the latter place). I know your action was well-intentioned, but this is not the way I intend to develop the article, nor appropriate to separate the mainspace talk page edits from their edit history. After the history merge, I'd prefer User:Francis Schonken/Chorale and User talk:Francis Schonken/Chorale would be turned into redlinks again. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, Francis, I don't know anything about how to merge page histories. I just know that a redirect is one thing and an article is another thing and that it confuses other editors if you start constructing an article on what is still a functioning redirect. PamD 14:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, thought you were an admin. I'll ask someone else then. Assuming you won't make any further objections provided that there will be no confusing stub tag any more until it goes live (i.e. not topped by a redirect instruction). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • (watching:) Pam, at least please make the talk of Chorale also a redirect, for consistency. I don't know if a redirect from draft is any better than what we had before. I added the same message now both talk pages, because I had not realized the move to draft. We need one history for Chorale, from the beginning, not only from being moved to Lutheran chorale. If you can't do it, perhaps someone else, such as Graham87? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
    • @Gerda Arendt: no redirects to my user (talk) pages please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

---

@PamD: I find it very confusing to have article talk in my user talk space, and even more confusing to have article talk page history and article page history in my user space and user talk space. I would like to get that out of there, and merged with the current article and its talk page as explained above:

please merge the page history of User:Francis Schonken/Chorale with the page history of the Chorale article (with the article at that latter place), and the page history of User talk:Francis Schonken/Chorale with the page history of Talk:Chorale (also with the page history at the latter place). I know your action was well-intentioned, but this is not the way I intend to develop the article, nor appropriate to separate the mainspace talk page edits from their edit history. After the history merge, I'd prefer User:Francis Schonken/Chorale and User talk:Francis Schonken/Chorale would be turned into redlinks again.

The problem is that you didn't talk with me *before* your unilateral actions leading to a confusing use of my user (talk) space. I understand you're not an admin so you can't clean up this mess yourself, but could you please find an admin to do it for you? Tx, that would be much appreciated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Tx Graham87, operation successful! --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries, @Francis Schonken:, but here's what I was about to write before I got edit-conflicted: Done, after much toing and froing, but I can understand why PamD did what she did ... putting article text behind a redirect is highly non-standard. This sort of thing historically caused crazy database problems. The draft namespace was designed to hold drafts like this, and would be a much more suitable place to work on an article. Graham87 04:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, that's why PamD should've talked before unilateral action: draft namespace would've been another possible option. But as said, I saw the good intentions. For clarity, it's just still some transforming of keywords to phrases, and some references to go with that, not as if there's much to do, nor anything that would take much time (see also talk above). I'll try to make it as short in time as possible, even if nobody else would assist with the updating. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Graham87 and Francis Schonken: I'm sorry to see that the situation has been put back to where it was: a draft article sitting on a redirect page. Maybe I got it wrong in userfying it, but it should be in draft space rather than where it is. There is a WP procedure for WP:SPLITTING an article: perhaps it would have been best to use that to split the "Chorale" article into "Lutheran chorale" and the rest, with all the correct attribution. I was inclined right now to comment out the whole text but note that Francis is actively editing at the moment so will leave this alone in the hope that the situation will be sorted out very soon. I probably made a suboptimal decision when faced with the "highly non-standard" sight of a load of text on a redirect page: yes, contacting Francis about it was one of the options I considered. I can't now remember why I chose userfication over draftifying, commenting out the text, or discussing it with him. I was just stub-sorting and found this strange page which I believed needed some action and made a decision. Thanks, Graham, for helping sort things out. PamD 08:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@PamD: please disengage. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Confusion continued

@Graham87 and Francis Schonken: We still have a series of bullet point notes for an article, sitting in mainspace under a redirect. Please will one of you either move this to draft space or just put comments round the text so that we do not have such a highly non-standard entity sitting in mainspace. I note that Francis has not edited it in the last 12 hours, although he has made many other edits in that time. Thanks. PamD 22:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@PamD: I've put comments around the text. That's the action that's most easily reversible when needed. Graham87 01:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@PamD: please disengage. Re. "We still have a series of bullet point notes for an article, sitting in mainspace under a redirect" – yes and? There's no prohibition against that afaik. Re. "not edited it in the last 12 hours, although he has made many other edits in that time" – How is that your problem? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Graham87 and Francis Schonken: WP:REDIRECT says Redirect pages can contain other content below the redirect, such as redirect category templates, and category links I do not interpret this as including draft articles. That's consensus. Commenting out the "work-in-progress" while it is not being actively edited, rather than plain deleting it, is a friendly compromise. Why should I disengage? Do I detect WP:OWN? PamD 17:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

What you quote from WP:REDIRECT doesn't say that it cannot also contain other things, and indeed, a further section of the page (WP:EDRED) says a redirect can be edited to turn it into an article (doesn't say it has to happen in a single edit or session).

I don't want to comment out or move this under-construction content elsewhere to keep this as open as possible for anyone to edit during the conversion to article, which is the opposite of WP:OWN.

I'd call WP:IAR if there was a rule I'm ignoring, but as it happens I don't appear to be ignoring any rule. So please disengage from your filibustering. I'd be happy if you contributed positively to the conversion from redirect to article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I'm pleased to see that your new article at this title has now "gone live". Next time you start to draft an article please do so in Draft space and not in mainspace as a non-standard redirect page. That's what draft space is for. It's not what redirect pages are for. Thanks. PamD 15:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, the situation here was quite exceptional: I've never seen an existing article so completely missing the scope of its article title that it had to be moved elsewhere; What I did was addressing that situation as good as possible. So here's my recommendation to you: don't mess around like you did here when the temporary situation follows from a prior discussion. In other words: don't patronise me. I know well enough how it works. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Choral

In case of interest: de:Choral.

Meaning different things in history:

• Originally: choraliter (de:Gregorianischer Choral = Gregorian chant)
• from the 16th century: the melody of a Kirchenlied = hymn
• from the 18th century: the complete hymn and its setting, also derived forms such as for organ.

Where in time are we? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I had a look at de:Choral:

• The article does not cite references for its contentions and might be very badly written (I don't know, in English Wikipedia it would fail WP:V, so apart from the general unreliability of user-generated content there's no straightforward way to check the reliability of its contentions).
• "Im 16. Jahrhundert wurde im protestantischen Sprachgebrauch die Kirchenliedmelodie im mehrstimmigen Gesang, der cantus firmus, Choral genannt (entsprechende Komponisten: Johann Eccard, Michael Praetorius, Samuel Scheidt)" seems rather dodgy to me: I haven't seen a single pre-18th century source that calls a hymn tune a Choral (in German) or chorale (in English). Might be true, might be a misinterpretation (e.g. that in modern speech these hymn tunes were retroactively called chorales). So we'd need other sources for that than German Wikipedia. Also, Scheidt is rather 17th than 16th century.
• "Seit dem 18. Jahrhundert wird im Protestantismus das Gemeindelied insgesamt mit Melodie und Text als Choral bezeichnet. So heißt auch die in Kantaten und Oratorien abschließende Strophe „Choral“." – probably more or less correct, but mark the internal contradiction: Chorales in the meaning of the second sentence are not the same as what is explained as being a chorale in the first sentence, so the second sentence starting with "So.." is nonsense: it does not follow in any way from what is being said in the preceding sentence. "abschließende Strophe" is also not worded very well, for instance I don't know many oratorios that would actually fit this, also "Strophe" would rather have to be translated as "movement" than "stanza" (which is the normal meaning of Strophe) to make it more or less correct when translated in English.

I'd be a bit apprehensive before taking unreferenced content of German Wikipedia for granted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Additionally I had a look at the links provided in de:Choral#Literatur

• "Choral" in Austria – irrelevant for an English-language chorale article (reason: this is a history of Gregorian chant and a Catholicism-oriented discussion of later practices in Austria, I don't see a single word in the otherwise very interesting piece that could be translated as "chorale" in English)
• Catherine Winkworth's Lyra Germanica translation – the word "chorale" does not appear once in that translation: it's all about hymns. It would not be reasonable to link this text form the en.Wikipedia article on chorale

--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't want to take any of that (German articles typically come without sources, my daily problem when I translate), but note that the word meant different things at different times. Our article (until you moved it) seemed to support the "16th century" view, saying "is a melody". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Re. "the word meant different things at different times" – sure, that's why I thought it useful to split off the "Lutheran chorale" content. Further, in English Wikipedia it is mainly about the English word "chorale" having a mixed bag of meanings, which is quite a different mixed bag than the meanings of "Choral" in German. Many of these meanings of "Choral" (e.g. Gregorian chant in Austria) can not be translated as chorale in English, so seem quite irrelevant here apart from maybe mentioning in passing that German "Choral" and English "chorale" are far from covering the same concept in many instances. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Re. "... the "16th century" view, saying "is a melody"." – well, I doubt that (as might have been clear from what I wrote above). I haven't seen a single *reliable source* contending that (as opposed to Wikipedia editors contending that without being able to produce a single external source, not even an unreliable one). --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with both, - just this very article said so until quite recently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:V-defying "general unreliability of user-generated content [without] straightforward way to check the reliability of [the] contentions" applies to that too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

So, let's get out of this set of contentions that can only be based on a WP:CIRCULAR unreliability: do you have any reliable external sources that can help out here? Would be greatly appreciated. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

No ref, but perhaps helpful: de.wiktionary.org Choral, with a link to Kirchenlied, which has no English counterpart. The entry comes with 4 "refs", #2 might be useful: "strophisches Kirchenlied (das von der Gemeinde gesungen wird)". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Alas, already rejected before I read it: just more WP:V-defying general unreliability of user-generated content without straightforward way to check the reliability of the contentions. Apart from the WP:CIRCULAR ones the only external one feels to fall short for the same reason. Its example ("Gregorianische Choral" = Gregorian chant, usually neither strophic nor sung by the congregation) is not even an example of the definition ("strophisches Kirchenlied (das von der Gemeinde gesungen wird)" = church hymn). So, please, please, please, bring in some *reliable* on-topic sources or I will discontinue to reply here: above there is some pressure to get this job over and done with ASAP, these extensive analyses of yet another *unreliable* source are just a loss of time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Accepted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

(ec) For clarity regarding Gregorian chant:

• the most extended body of Gregorian chant is singing of psalms (which are not hymns)
• then there are the canticles: Magnificat, Canticle of Zachary, Old Testament canticles and the like, sung to psalm tones and specific settings, but also these are not hymns
• then there is an extended body of responsories, Mass-related chants, and the like, none of them hymns
• then there are *some* hymns (strophic, metrical text, with a melody associated to the specific text): later tradition (late Middle Ages?) afaik: in any case a *very limited* body of Gregorian music: a prayer service in Gregorian chant times had always multiple Psalms and other non-hymn chants, and only exceptionally a hymn, like "O Salutaris Hostia" sung on the Feast of Corpus Christi.
• Luther picked "hymn" as closest to *his* intentions (something that could be sung by the congregation and was closest to popular non-church singing), and steered it in a completely different direction (e.g. converting Psalms such as this one to German-language hymns such as this one): the result of this became known as Lutheran chorale, but, in English, even the Gregorian hymns are not known as *chorales*: they are hymns, not chorales (whatever they are called in German). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)