Talk:Liebster Gott, wenn werd ich sterben, BWV 8

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical music: Compositions This article is supported by Compositions task force.

I think it is more common to leave out the punctuation marks (here quotation mark) at the end of the cantata titles. --Mst 21:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using the Grove dictionary as my primary source, and they include incipit-final punctuation in all cases. Most of the other secondary literature I have does the same. Microtonal ^{(Put your head on my shoulder)} 23:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The book by Alfred Dürr and the (German) music publishers omit them, also the NBA (Neue Bach-Ausgabe). --Mst 08:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check out the Dürr tomorrow, as I haven't looked at it in years. I suppose I ought to have done before I started doing the cantatas, but I don't think I've done anything that can't be improved. I'd love a look at the new edition of Dürr, but our library doesn't have it yet (no surprise there, given that it just came out last month), and it's prohibitively expensive to the individual buyer (~$350 retail, last I saw).

The German paperback edition is slightly cheaper (~$35)... --Mst 10:09, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, this may be a language difference, in which case, I'm inclined to let the German usage take precedence in cases where Bach's own usage is in doubt. I'll spend some time concentrating on this particular issue when I get back into the library tomorrow. Microtonal...(Put your head on my shoulder) 09:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@

Francis Schonken, please match the existing citation style of the page, which was inline {{cite}} family templates NOT sfn. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not an excuse to delete citations. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to add citations using the existing formatting if you think they're lacking, although I disagree that the article currently warrants a refimprove tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, for the more complicated cite templates I prefer one line per data field, which is far easier for editing. That style was present in the article, before you destroyed it for some, and kept it for others. Even for the ones for which you destroyed it your editing was haphazard with random whitespace, hard coded new lines after a random number of data fields and whatnot. I suggest you restore the style *as it was*, thanks. Your arguments would be more convincing if improving references for this article, which is still far from finished, wasn't met with random unhelpfulness. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, before I started to add references and sources recently, there was a "==Sources==" section, which I'm going to restore anyway, while that going back to the situation before the discussion started. (the cycle is BRD, the R, emphasised, meaning that one goes back to the situation before the bold edit in which that section was removed, and then discusses). There was certainly no consensus on the "CITEVAR" to remove the "==Sources==" section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previously there was a Sources section that contained

general references, not cited sources. Your version included a Sources section of cited sources, linked by sfn. Those are different citation styles. If you feel it would be helpful to move up the general references from the external links section, fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Having looked at the page's history now,
   WP:CITEVAR
   , so I don't think, generally speaking, it is up to Nikkimaria to dictate a style for the references.
2. Re.
   WP:GENREF
   – as the relevant guidance advises against it (it was OK as long as the article was "underdeveloped" – which it no longer is) I'd not go that route.
3. My principal objection (apart from destruction of material from the references), that complex cite templates should preferably have a separate line for each parameter value, and no half-cooked mess should be created, was not replied to by Nikkimaria. Nikkimaria, again, could you please restore that style which was present in the article before I started editing it, at least for the references I added in that style? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   If you've looked at the page's history, you will have seen that I was "the first contributor to add citations", here - which was done using an inline citation template without line breaks between parameters. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Indeed,

   WP:V policy). Whatever way it is turned, you've got some clean-up & restoration to do afaics. Are you prepared to do that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   "the first contributor to add citations" is in fact a direct quote from CITEVAR. What reference content specifically are you wanting restored? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Let's concentrate on the good: thanks for at least trying to limit the damage, and asking how to proceed. Your spurious defence "... is in fact a direct quote from CITEVAR" must of course be rejected: it is a quote out of context, not, according to the CITEVAR guidance, a style which later editors should defer to. I'd still like the following addressed: The Bach Digital references looked like this:

   "Liebster Gott, wenn werd ich sterben [1st version] BWV 8.1". Bach Digital. Leipzig: Bach Archive. 2020-04-08.

   They were transformed into:

   "Liebster Gott, wenn werd ich sterben [1st version] BWV 8.1". Bach Digital. Retrieved 28 June 2020.

   (and similar for the others) If you want to add the accessdate, OK, then we'd have something like:

   "Liebster Gott, wenn werd ich sterben [1st version] BWV 8.1". Bach Digital. Leipzig: Bach Archive. 2020-04-08. Retrieved 28 June 2020.

   Can you restore the content and links of these references, the way I introduced them? Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   The Bach Digital site states that it is a joint project, not that Bach Archive is the publisher. I have added dates and linked the website name. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   This can easily be addressed:

   |publisher=Bach Archive; et al.

   Or:

   |publisher=Bach Archive |others=[https://www.bach-digital.de/content/impressum.xml?lang=en Et al.]

   Or:

   |publisher=Bach Archive, SBB, SLUB, SUB Hamburg [de] and Leipzig University

   Anyway, giving one publisher (i.e. the one that is usually listed first) when there are many is not wrong. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Nor is it necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside whether it is desirable, removing it is not a "style" issue. In other words,

WP:CITEVAR doesn't cover this, as I said in the edit summary of my earlier revert. On content, whether it is desirable, I'd say a definite yes. It is not still very long ago that the legitimacy of Bach Digital as a reliable source was doubted, thus naming at least the main publisher (which is a renowned institution) of its text content is no redundant luxury. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Anyone doubting the legitimacy of this source can and should look at its site to understand how it is created and supported, and make an appropriate judgment based on that. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't cover the removal as a so-called style issue. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What would you call it? It's not a verifiability issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inadvertently counterproductive damage to the content of a sound reference? Other than that I don't see much benefit in actually naming it, as, afaik, there seems to be no Wikipedia guidance sanctioning it. Returning to the crux of the matter,

MOS:CITEVAR sanctions "imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles" as a standard practice which is generally considered helpful. That's what I did with my June edits, which for that reason should not have been reverted. I'm resuming my plan, as already mentioned in the #Infobox section below, to get this article up to GA level. This will, quite naturally, mean that the referencing system of the article is further streamlined, along with implementing other suggestions already mentioned on this talk page (e.g. in #Ideas below), getting this in line with other applicable guidance (e.g. regrouping content in line with Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines#Structure), etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Proposal →
--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the proposal which could be useful once the article gets much longer. Even then,

• The BWV number should be visible above the image, to avoid confusion with the hymn article.
• For the infobox, it seems enough that it is a cantata by Bach. The inclusion of a setting by a different composer for just a 4-part hymn seems not worthy of mentioning there.
• I don't think we need to mention the author of the hymn as the hymn has a link.
• I don't think the term "premiere" is suitable for sacred music.
• I don't think the instrumentation needs to be specified for individual movements.
• --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Re. "... once the article gets much longer" – many of the Bach cantatas are GA or FA (only BWVs 5 and 8 are neither in the BWV 1–12 range), so expanding this article, trying to get it to GA level would, imho, be an excellent idea. Trying to address your concerns in a split variant proposal ↓ --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or, split

Like the first proposal, I agree with Gerda's suggestion that such more elaborate box(es) are only appropriate when the article has grown. Lead infobox (presented without image for talk page size: the image would be the same as the current one) →

Second infobox (could be inserted at

Or, this short version for the second box →
--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked the occasion as you proposed, and have proposed a new version of |based_on=. Beyond that I think discussion of expansion and/or addition of a second box should be postponed until the article has grown enough to warrant it. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re. "discussion of expansion and/or addition of a second box should be postponed until ..." – disagree: whether planning to expand, trim or split, discussion can continue here, even if such discussion would come to a consensus that certain adjustments (expansion and/or trimming) to the article content are a prerequisite for updating the template in mainspace. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other proposal

Proposing to remove the infobox, apart from the lead image (and its caption) enclosed in it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

Researchers on the Bach Archive have created a link to this article.

Content from the 1978 book of Whittaker has not yet been incorporated in the current wikipedia article. On wikipedia the 1971 Taschenbuch of Alfred Dürr has been used for other cantatas. It is available on archive.org. I checked that for BWV 8 it contains less information than the 2006 book of Dürr & Jones, available a while back as an ebook on google books. Content about the reaction to pietism has not been added. The German version of Dürr's 1992 book is not available electronically. The reference for BWV^2a, now available as an electronic resource, has only recently been added. Mathsci (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article above concerns a Lutheran chorale with the same title as the cantata. The content there, however, is only concerned with the statement that Vetter's closing chorale was "borrowed" by Johann Sebastian Bach. No Bach commentators, many of whom are or were connected to the Bach Archive, have disagreed with that assessment. The borrowing from Vetter and its labelling as "spurious" is currently described in one paragraph of the "Music" section of the current article. There a single reference to Emil Platen's 1975 Bach-Jahrbuch plus one line on the small BWV^2a listing of 1998, which is linked to Platen's discussion. The article on the Lutheran chorale seems to be out of balance with the article on the cantata, often in a contradictory way. Mathsci (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liebster Gott, wann werd ich sterben? is the article on the hymn, with the text. It's a different question where material not related to the hymn itself should go. A link to the text should be part of the cantata article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

(ec) The article is nevertheless unbalanced. For this current article, there is a slightly problem in finding appropriate English translations for the arias. For

IMSLP. The chorales of C. S. Terry have survived. Mathsci (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Gerda, Talk:Liebster Gott, wann werd ich sterben (that is the talk page of the hymn article) is currently a redlink: feel free to initiate – whatever improvement suggestions regarding the hymn article are of course welcome there. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some ideas I'd like to implement for this article include:

• By movement subsections, i.e. subsections where each movement is discussed separately (see models in many Bach cantata articles)
• Reception section, i.e. approaching reception as a whole
• Winterfeld's analysis, in Vol. III, pp. 308–309, of the difference between how Bach treats the older chorale melodies rhythmically as compared to how he does so with those closer to his own time (like Vetter's).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The use of out-dated 19th sources, such as those of Winterfeld, does not seem appropriate and appears to be original research. These aspects of the article "
  Liebster Gott, wenn werd ich sterben?
  " unbalance the article on the cantata. Giving different images of the same chorale seems unusual when it is done in "wikipedia's voice." At the moment there seems to be no consensus to incorporate this kind of material on the cantata at the moment.
• Use of contemporary scholarshiship is now the norm, but needs care. The
  reliable source
  , although it is a starting point.
• In other comparable articles on cantatas, some of which are featured articles, there are no comparable sections on reception. Sometimes transcriptions are mentioned.
• All of the content concerning Dürr's 2006 has been extracted. There has also content from Christoph Wolff which has been incorporated. Passages from Hans-Joachim Schulze and Leisinger have also been used. As has already been commented on this page, the pages on the book of William G. Whittaker still await summary. Mathsci (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image moved here from mainspace while I don't see the connection to the topic of this article →

I'd be very happy if someone could explain? Thanks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I expect these updates to be unproblematic, but to make sure, I put them here for further discussion, if needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]