Talk:List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is the {{Very long}} tag still needed on this page? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course. It's a very large article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I've got some further size reduction ideas, but wanted to make sure whether there's a demand as they are rather laborious to implement resulting in maybe not more than a few 10.000 byte reduction in size. I'll start experimenting as soon as I find the time for it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

What are your ideas? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

An easy one would be doing things like this systematically. Doesn't yield much, an economy of maybe 1000 to 1500 bytes I suppose by the time all instances are covered.

Applying row templates in the vein of {{Cantata discography row}} might, if cleverly done, yield many times more. That's where some experimentation might be in order before attempting to introduce here: it might yield a great size reduction, or, alternatively, a lot of work for a minor size reduction, thus the need for experimentation.

Another was already suggested

over-referencing while retaining or restoring basic references. A bit difficult to predict what the net result would be. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 06:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: I've checked the version where I removed many redundant uses of "cantata" and the sort function still works the same. Please self-revert your revert. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect, e.g. both

BWV 654 are named after the "Schmücke dich, o liebe Seele" chorale: without the "cantata" qualifier for the first the sorting (& linking) is different, incorrect and confusing. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 06:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

No it still very much works. The aim of the sort function for words is to sort them alphabetically. The only thing confusing is whatever argument you're trying to make, and whatever alternative sorting you wish to machinate. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Example: in the current sorting (when clicking the sort button of the third column), the

cantata Klagt, Kinder, klagt es aller Welt sorts alphabetically between two other cantatas. In the sorting you implemented that same cantata sorts between an inapplicable subdivision header (Keyboard compositions) and a keyboard piece. On this page of a reliable source the same cantata is listed alphabetically between the same two cantatas as it does in the current sortable format of the table. There's no reliable source, afaik, for a listing of this cantata between an unrelated section header and a keyboard piece. I suppose we should be looking for meaningful collation orders (as indicated in reliable sources). For the wiki technicalities of sortable tables see Help:Sorting. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 10:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

None of that is my fault, it's just how the alphabetical sorting works. We don't need the genre to appear with the title of the composition. This actually causes the ridiculous outcome of a composition starting with Z appearing before a composition starting with A, when the former is a cantata and the latter is a chorale, when ostensibly sorting the column alphabetically, for example. If you are concerned about the alphabetical position of one particular composition, fear not, as the redundant genre descriptions for all the other compositions are also to be removed as "cantata" was. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Would create

WP:EGG

issues:

• OK:
  chorale prelude Schmücke dich, o liebe Seele and Schmücke dich, o liebe Seele
  linking to three different pages.
• Not OK:
  Schmücke dich, o liebe Seele linking somewhere else than the page on the Lutheran chorale (Schmücke dich, o liebe Seele
  ).

--Francis Schonken (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

In other words, no consensus on removing genre types from the third column. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Re. "None of that is my fault" – well, in combination with earlier edits such as this and this, which inactivated sort keys that had been properly set according to the guidance at Help:Sorting#Specifying a sort key for a cell, it is of course due to the editor who thoroughly messed up the sorting for nearly every column. I'd revert all that of course. Burdening the page with thrashed sort keys is not the way to go, and should be reverted to meaningful sorting. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm absolutely boggled how anyone sane could consider one needing to have a reliable source for a table that sorts things multiple ways like that. Seriously, your argument is that a listing of the cantatas only has the cantatas and thus they should be kept in that way? I can't....just cannot....fathom that not being a troll. Because I refuse to believe that anyone legitly could use that as an argument. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

One needs reliable sources for anything that is not an editorial discretion. If the editorial discretion is to build a huge sortable table that sorts in erratic ways then that's of course easily trumped by indexes in reference works. Nobody needs a huge sortable table with erratic sorting. If it makes sense, with or without reliable sources, I'm of course open to consider it a good use of editorial discretion, but sorting a cantata under an unrelated section header is not a sound use of editorial discretion even if not looking at *any* reliable source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You're the one contriving some way to use the alphabetical sort function to group compositions by genre. The alphabetical sort function should be used to sort compositions alphabetically, end of story. When compositions share the same title, a disambiguation can be used at the end. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Compare the entries at

List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach by BWV number. I could live with that. That is however not a size reduction logic. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 20:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

We're sorting by alphabetical order. NO ONE needs reliable sources for that. The genre isn't part of the title, it should be in its own column. Bach never wrote a work called "Inventions and Sinfonias No. 3 – Invention No. 3" now did he? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The table used to have such separate column, based on the genre classifications in

BWV^2a. The column was removed. Also for this proposal, which I'd support whether the former column is revived or a new column is created e.g. based on the genre classifications of the Bach Digital website, there is of course no size reduction logic. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 07:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Moving the genre into another column would also be a significant reduction in size, as long as the cells are merged. However, I don't see a reason why we need a column for genres. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't shoot me, just thinking out loud regarding Melodia's last suggestion – in this suggestion I'd abandon the near unsortable section headers based on BWV^2a, replacing them by the Bach Digital genre indications (3rd column):

Would something like that work (if we get sorting & size under control, for which I'd develop a row template per my suggestion above)? A work-in-progress proposal, open to further adjustments. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This genre column is far too specific. If it is to exist, its cells need to be merged. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Re. "If it is to exist, its cells need to be merged" – can't make any sense of that: afaik, two columns with merged cells are a single column. Or could you explain how that would work? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Size reduction proposal

Trying to make the Genre/occasion column a little less conspicuous, and a different (more logical?) sequence of columns:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Now with the row template idea implemented. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

BWV 1–13 now complete in the example above, using newly created {{ChCR}} or {{SCR}} templates for most rows. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Size reduction proposal)

Implementing this systematically would result in a table around 100000 bytes less than the current table at List of compositions by Franz Liszt, so I'd propose to go ahead with this without further delay. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This is an example of the genre cells being merged:

We absolutely shouldn't have a table where all the cells in the genre column are different. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

As far as size reduction goes this seems less effective than putting the genre qualifier in a row template (as I did). Comparing,

Genre qualifier in rowspan:

Genre qualifier in row template:

... The second example has by far a smaller byte size, because the row template also implements other size reductions: the size reduction by rowspan does far from compensate these other size reductions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, with over 50 chorale cantatas (and over 250 cantatas) the genre qualifier would surely be off-screen when starting to read the table if the rowspan option were implemented. I'd oppose that while not user-friendly. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the content of cells being off the screen. The table you're proposing has far too much detail. You're honestly just wasting your time if you think you will get any approval to change the table from one format into another. It would be a better use of your time if you proposed individual changes instead. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The size reduction by row templates can, of course, as well be realised on the current arrangement of columns. To illustrate that, I condensed 10 rows with the {{ChoR}} template, resulting in a size reduction of 521 bytes. As this template can be applied to around 195 rows, the total size reduction that can be realised with this row template would be above 10000 bytes. And that's only one template applicable for less than one seventh of the current table: a size reduction with several 10000s of bytes is within reach with this technique. Note that these templates are flexible: different row arrangements can be implemented via the templates, needing the adjustment of say 5 or 6 templates instead of over 1000 rows if and when such change would be decided. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Size reduction proposal 2 (without NBA)

When referencing is restored, and we have a separate genre column, I'd be inclined to drop the NBA column: that column does not really work as a reference (page numbers in the Critical Commentary volumes should be given for that instead of the page numbers in the Score volumes); it allowed "sort of" a by genre sorting, which is however becoming more and more tenous (with NBArev etc.); further, NBA volumes are indicated in the BD references, both to Critical Commentary and Score volumes (for those who are interested in them). Using the {{MotR}} template in the ensuing example:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Size reduction proposal 2)

• Proposed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The article has the wrong spelling "Jesu, Leiden, Pein und Tod" (organ prelude, by Vogler), and I am unable to find in which module that is hidden. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

[1] (BWV Anh. page). --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that should have dawned to me, but didn't, I searched in chorales and organ music ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

As the list now includes Bach's writings on music (BWV 1129–1134) we might consider to rename the article to

Do you volunteer to go and change every other composer's composition list to 'works' as well? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of other composers' lists that contain other works than compositions and aren't already renamed to "list of works ...". So, no, my proposal above just follows the

WP:NCM guidance, and, afaics, only involves this list page. --Francis Schonken (talk

) 05:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Changing to "List of works..." would make more sense if writings are included, an alternate proposal might be to follow

List of compositions and writings by Hector Berlioz – which seems to face the same predicament as Bach's list. Not really following Melodia's comment that other lists would have to be changed, there wouldn't be any change in precedent. Aza24 (talk

) 05:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Re. Berlioz's list: [2]

Re. precedent: there's at least

List of works by P. D. Q. Bach (which may not be very representative, nor a very well-chosen page name, but it is a clear precedent). --Francis Schonken (talk

) 06:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

By "precedent" I mean that changing Bach's page name wouldn't change some precedent that would call for the name of Beethoven's composition list to change, for example. Whatever the change be, either would be preferable to the current. Aza24 (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

The proposed page move seems pretty completely uncontroversial to proceed without further ado (see also the Berlioz RM above, which succeeded without the slightest opposition):

• I proposed a
  List of works by Johann Sebastian Bach
  ;
• After such page move there's still some work to complete the operation, e.g., there are nine navboxes at the bottom of the page, in each of which the link to the page has to be redefined as the actual page name. Unless where helped by others, I'll proceed with such indicated updates ASAP after a successful page move.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 10:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• How does a minority of "precedents" override the direction in which Category:Lists of compositions by composer points? Toccata quarta (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

  ?? Let's not make this more complicated than it actually is. These are the rules (see

  WP:NCM#Lists

  ):

  • If a list only contains compositions by a composer, it is named "List of compositions by ..." (emphasis added); this is the case for most composers, and was the case for Bach until recently when the powers that be decided that a few writings by the composer should be added to the list (BWV 1129–1134: see
    BWV#Numbers above BWV 1126
    for an overview of these new numbers);
  • If a list contains both compositions and writings (or other works that are not compositions), the rules say that the list should be named "List of works by ..." (my emphasis). That is the case for a few lists, including, but not limited to the Berlioz and P. D. Q. Bach lists already mentioned above. Another example is List of works by Dizzy Gillespie (this list contains compositions, recordings, and filmography).

  --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Toccata quarta: (ec) Thanks for posting here following the message on talk WikiProject Classical Music. On that page, I already asked a question which led User:Smerus to ask whether "composition" or "work" was preferable. Presumably that was what also prompted Toccata quarta's query. Ar the moment there are probably no clear precedents.

Since 2008, I have been involved in creating articles on organ works of Bach and more general works. So the

Membra Jesu nostri. But the same also applies to Heinrich Schütz, Claudio Monteverdi, George Frideric Handel, Henry Purcell, etc. Mathsci (talk

) 08:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

• weak oppose Bach is so overwhelmingly known as a composer that compositions is fine, even if there are these marginal writings.
  Berlioz are different producers, writing substantially. There should be redirects, of course. If more others prefer works I wouldn't argue further. --Gerda Arendt (talk
  ) 08:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose on the basis of User:Toccata quarta's reasoning. In that category of "Lists of compositions by composers", there are only a handful of "List of works by ..."; many "List of operas by ..." and "List of ballets by ..." In that sense, we must rely on what's already out there on wikipedia—so Gerda's instinct was correct. There's also the separate category of "Lists of operas by composers", which is quite large. (As I commented, the volumes of organ music normally are called "organ works" not "organ compositions". For Max Reger, we again have '"orgelwerke". I don't know what happens for French 19th-century composers.) Mathsci (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
• Mildly oppose. Is not the simplest answer to restrict this list in this article to compositions and simply to make a note in this article that BWV 1129–1134 refer to writings, not compositions? I note that, by the way, for Richard Wagner we have, inter alia, List of works for the stage by Richard Wagner and List of compositions by Richard Wagner but no list of his writings, although there are categories Category:Essays by Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner --Smerus (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Re. "... simplest ..." – simplest is likely not to bother at all, or follow Gerda's reasoning that a few writings in a list that is essentially about compositions should not make a difference. If the proposal is to remove the writings from the list, I suppose I'd prefer a
    WP:RM to decide. Which is also fairly simple. --Francis Schonken (talk
    ) 11:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)