User talk:Jmar67

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Hello, Jmar67, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Thank you! - Now I can use thank-you-clicks ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


22 August
Debussy au coin.png
Happy birthday

Thank you for your help for The Little Nigar. As for advertisement: if it was a dog article, I might be concerned, but I don't think that a reader of an article about music will change the brand of dog food. - The line (which was inspired by a conversation on user talk:Drmies/Archive 115#The Little Nigar) stands for: the music is catchy enough to serve for advertisement. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For the river of copy edits you have unleashed to date. Keep it up! Vami_IV† 17:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I support that, couldn't have said it that well, but feel the same! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Your help desk questions[edit]

I saw you got an answer to the first one, but the second one did not get a response. Did you find what you needed elsewhere?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Thank you for the follow-up. Yes, I asked at DYK. Unfortunately there is no shortcut. Would like to have one. Jmar67 (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
It might be possible to ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) but I'm not sure how that works.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


Bachsaal Schloss Koethen.jpg

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

Thank you for your help last year, including meticulous copyediting! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


Danke für deinen Dank.Sca (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Waldsauerklee, Rauenthal.jpg
... with thanks from QAI

... and the comments for the Sieben Worte! - and being back! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I am no longer following your contributions page, but ping me if there is something you think I can help you with. Always impressed with your dedication. Jmar67 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I have a section for Quality on my user page, - peer review for Nun bitten wir den Heiligen Geist. If you have extra time, you can look at new productions by my French friend LouisAlain. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I want to review only those files that are considered to be ready for CE and will not be changed significantly while I am looking at them. How do I recognize Louis' files? Jmar67 (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Those with problems are here, look at the draft ones if you have time, those marked for ce. Others need referencing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for becoming a member of the cabal of the outcasts ;) - welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Please explain the "cabal" remark. BTW, I deleted a strangely formatted reference to this from the QAI article. Looked like vandalism. Jmar67 (talk) 06:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
It's an old nickname, check my 2013 user talk page archive. The group was founded in protest to the socalled TFA cabal, because that one's head would not schedule articles by a certain user (who incidently wrote today's, and more than anyway else). So we felt like outcasts, and when one of the founding members was blocked, and another banned, the name became even more appropriate. We are sort of proud of it ;) - If you don't want to belong to such a gang (missing banned users, using inflammatory images such as a blue sapphire ...), I'd understand ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Recurring problems encountered in copy edits[edit]

cite book edition[edit]

  • @Gerda Arendt and LouisAlain: The "edition" field of the "cite book" template requires an ordinal number (1st, 2nd, etc.). I have updated the doc. Jmar67 (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, always learning ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Citations for Kutsch/Riemens and similar works[edit]

  • @Gerda Arendt and LouisAlain: This edit produces a better citation format for books like Kutsch/Riemens. Jmar67 (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
    Seen, thank you, - behind on several things ... - just translated the article planned for 1 May. C. 200 articles should be changed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

DNB reference to non-person[edit]

  • @Gerda Arendt: A DNB reference to something other than a person, such as a work, needs the "TYP=Literature about" parameter as shown here.
    Thank you, seen. Could you check Bach cantatas? - I am busy, another recent death. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Worldcat reference to non-person[edit]

  • Similar to the "DNB" problem, the template {{Worldcat subject|id=}} is needed if the subject is not a person. Jmar67 (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

in/at/on cemetery[edit]

  • @Gerda Arendt and Yoninah: Someone is buried, or a gravestone is located, in (not at) a cemetery. Jmar67 (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry, I meant @LouisAlain:, not Yoninah. Jmar67 (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    I look at the category "burials" and they all go Burials at Père-Lachaise cemetery, Burials at Arlington National Cemetery etc. So which is which? English is easy to approach but endlessly complex in the end. (Or is it at the end? Face-wink.svg. LouisAlain (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks. Let me think about that. You have a good point. Jmar67 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    I will try to remember, but while "in" for buried has some logic, the other escapes me. Two more died, sigh. I asked project opera for help for Deborah Cook (soprano). It's exhausting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Gerda Arendt: A gravestone is "within" a cemetery, shortened to "in". Isn't English an "in"-teresting language? Jmar67 (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yes it is. Ping me once per thread please, - I'm watching. All these gravestones ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    LouisAlain and Gerda: Reverting my initial comment here, sorry. I cannot find anything to support not using "at". Just a very strong personal preference for "in". "On" is wrong, however. Jmar67 (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    Learning. In German, it's "auf dem Friedhof" - which translates to "on" ;) - Like "auf dem Berg" - "on the mountain". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

on a libretto[edit]

  • Operas are often phrased as "composed by A on a libretto by B, based on...". Is "on a libretto" a standard phrase in this context in English? It sounds strange. I have usually changed to "with a libretto", in part to avoid repetition of "on". How would you have phrased it in German?Jmar67 (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
In German it's "auf ein Libretto" ;) - Our magic flute says "to a libretto". - I heard the same thing on ERRORS. "with" makes it sound a bit like "on the side", and the wording "with music" seems particularly strange, because without that music, if woudn't be an opera. But learning. The Komposition (in German) has no preposition or conjunction, plain "eine Oper von Giselher Klebe", - never heard "mit Musik von" in that context. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
"to a libretto" is probably OK, better than "on" but IMHO not idiomatic. Could be ENGVAR. "With" in the Klebe case is not a translation but rather a "circumvention". "With music by A and lyrics by B" is very common in the U.S. .Jmar67 (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
See lead of Antigone oder die Stadt for an example of recasting to avoid the construction. Edited by Gerda. Jmar67 (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


@Gerda Arendt: When you get a few minutes (?!), I would like a brief summary (here) of the infobox controversy you have been involved in. Thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Just returned from the funeral (see my talk). My POV is on WP:QAI/Infobox. Perhaps start reading at the bottom, where admired people said good things. The last debate was on Pierre Boulez (in 2016, when he died, Archive 1). I didn't want any more of the kind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Wrong, the last debate was Georg Katzer when he died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I noticed that and thought about you. Still don't understand the objection to infoboxes. I have seen them so often that an article without one looks incomplete. Jmar67 (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
You could ask them that question, and perhaps get an answer. I asked, got no answer, but was told that I'm wrong. - I thought about bringing flowers iunstead of the question, but if the question is not understand, how will flowers be? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, how about starting a little history of the infoboxs wars which began in 2005. As other religious wars, they are not so much about a faith (infobox yes or no) but about domain, power and alliances. The prime objection to an infobox seems to be that it dominates the upper right corner (for mobile the beginning of the article), and thus snares away the reader's attention from the "beautifully crafted" (not making that up, it's a 2013 quote) lead and article, and that reader may go away without ever looking at the beauty. Therefore opposers don't write infobox, but IB, meaning ídiotbox.

I can't tell you anything about 2005, because I joined in 2009. As you know already, if you followed my project link, my history with the infobox wars began in 2012.


  • April 2012: Samuel Barber - Gerda Arendt meets the infobox wars. Infobox was added by Andy (Pigsonthewing), perhaps the most-hated player in the field, which she didn't know. It was reverted, he began a discussion. She opposed - and was converted in that discussion, by a beautiful line. The discussion is short, still on the talk, and was never resolved.

There are a few no-nos if you go to infobox discussions. Don't do it on the day an article is today's featured article (Jules Massenet today and three more days)! Don't ever mention the word ownership! Stay factual. Best advice: don't go at all ;) - Andy and I soon became friends. He (who once called an article without infobox "naked", - that was when he was forbidden by our highest court to add an infobox to an article he had created, but that's 2013 already) rarely touches an infobox discussion these days, nor do I. I just failed to look up who wrote the Katzer article, or would simply have left it as it was (so certainly no Main page appearance, with exactly one ref used inline twice). Sooo many other articles are missing. If you want to do something for the future, ask the question in the peer review of Orpheus in the Underworld. Better you than I ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to write these notes. It is often difficult and always time-consuming to wade through past discussions. Jmar67 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • June 2012: WP:QAI was founded by a few users who were unhappy with the TFA system, then run by one user who never scheduled articles by one of the members, Wehwalt. Today, we have three who alternate scheduling, one of them Wehwalt, - goal accomplished. The first on the list, PumpkinSky, and I wrote Franz Kafka, FA 14 October that year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • October 2012: The second-most hated player in the infobox field (and my friend) was Br'er Rabbit. For a sample, perhaps see Talk:Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. At the end, he quoted: "One despairs, one really does." - After a fruitful year, in October he decided to have himself banned, very successfully so. I still miss him, and am not the only one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    That was an enlightening discussion. Not sure how I would have reacted at the time. Working almost exclusively in the mobile view, the infobox follows the lead. I never gave much thought to how it looks in the desktop view. I am not persuaded by the redundancy argument. An IB is by no means objectionable as far as I am concerned. Jmar67 (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    And that was just a book. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • December 2012: Andy and I collaborate creating {{infobox Bach composition}}. (transclusion count today 221) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


  • March: Andy and Voceditenore (and I a bit) begin and develop {{infobox opera}} (today 1030 transclusion), a discussion happens about the sense (?) to collapse an infobox, and a discussion on Robert Stoepel who is a composer among other activities leads to him having an infobox (inspite of the 2010 guideline by WP:Composers that composers are too complex people to simply say when and where they were born and died, - a guideline still linked in discussions in 2019 such as Georg Katzer, believe it or not). Gerda Arendt thinks the infobox is over. This line will be a mantra for years to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 14 March: I experimented with infobox opera on Motezuma. It was reverted and called "disruptive", the first time I was called that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 21 March: The "wars" were not over, as I noticed when I suggested on the talk page to give Bach an infobox, as a birthday gift, and the resulting discussion (first thing: someone changed the thread header) made GFHandel leave forever, missed much. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 30 March: I add an infobox to the Sparrow Mass, resulting in a little edit war including article protection over Easter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 4 May: A short notice on project opera said that {{infobox opera}} is under development. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 16 May: In preparation for the bicentenary of Richard Wagner, I following advice by Newyorkbrad, to place an infobox on an article talk page if it was not wanted in the article. (It wasn't wanted, as the peer review had shown, article by Smerus.) So. See what happened. - The kafkaesque thing is that nothing was supposed to happen, - the design was planned to sit quietly on the talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    It is astounding how long these threads (and those on MOS) can be. My contributions are always short because I am entering with my index finger. But the idea of a collapsible infobox is interesting. Was that ever discussed? Jmar67 (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, also around the time. It's in place (and was heavily discussed) for Frank Sinatra and Peter Sellers, and is in place for Little Moreton Hall (without so much ado). It was disccussed in great length in general (March 2013), showing its absurdity to me because it was there that Moxy said how much trouble he has to click the "show" button to open the hidden stuff. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 30 May: The Rite of Spring, a discussion which became a major topic in ARBINFOBOX, and which is still on the talk. Unfortunately, the lead image was deleted in the meantime. It was a colourful image of a stage set, looking like a painting of a landscape, - nothing which would make you think of dance and music without explanation. Btw, it was this discussion in which "beautifully crafted" was coined. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • 3 June Project opera announcs infobox opera as ready to be used, and on 18 June (end of the same long discussion) announces that it has been inserted as an option in the project guidelines. It means that the traditional side navboxes of project opera (compare Rinaldo (opera)) can be replaced by a combination of bottom navbox and infobox (comare Carmen). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

IPA pronunciations[edit]

@Gerda Arendt, LouisAlain, and Elmidae: I recently tried my hand at adding an IPA template for Hans Günter Nöcker. It now occurs to me that many of the German-titled articles lack such templates. I would be willing to add them where I think they would be helpful, such as Bundesjugendorchester, provided that a native speaker checks them. Einwände? Jmar67 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know my way around IPA, I'm afraid, so I would be quite useless for checking these... when one isn't acquainted with the details, they readily "sound about right", which probably isn't quite sufficient :) As a general proposition, sure, go for it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
You could ask the Help desk where certainly s.o will help you. LouisAlain (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I can generate the template, but it's a question of having a native speaker look at it and judge whether it gives the right pronunciation and stress. See Help:IPA/Standard German for the symbols, sample German words, and English approximations. In fact, the finished template links to this page. I have now updated BJO as an initial step. Jmar67 (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm no friend of IPA, at least where it normally is, after the name, then IPA, then translation, then - finally - what it is. Could they go to a footnote, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I have always seen IPA shown like this in the lead. Seems reasonable. Jmar67 (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Same for me, but look at Peter and the Wolf and see how long it takes until we even read that it's a composition, and by whom. And that is a short title. If at least it had an infobox ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I have noticed that you are "impatient" :) in that regard, but I appreciate the additional info up front. Jmar67 (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Why a "t" for the end of "jugend"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that's the type of feedback I wanted. Would you pronounce as "d"? I thought it was closer to "t" (not voiced) if not stressed. That's how I would say it. The Duden audio seems to agree. See also note 2 on the help page. Jmar67 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
It's like "Sand" and "Land" which are somewhat like English (not the vowel, of course). May vary with dialect how hard the ending sound is, softer than "bunt". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
By the way, how do you pronounce the end of your last name? Jmar67 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
"t", you don' hear the "d". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I am not familiar with IPA, but can tell you that the "ch" in Bach is a completely different sound from the "ch" in Verzeichnis. Both don't occur in English, while I think "x" is common in English, as in "six". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I should have recognized this. There are two pronunciations given for "ch", one for "nach" and one for "ich" and "durch". I suspect Verzeichnis should be the latter. The "x" represents "nach". "Six" would be "ks". Jmar67 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Feedback might be better on the article's talk page, but I do appreciate it. Jmar67 (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I think I better leave my ignorance for IPA here than expose it openly. The "x" sound (ks) is so different from the "ch" as in Bach that I wonder if others won't derive "Baks" reading the IPA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
That is a risk, but most interested readers would know how to pronounce Bach already. Seeing the other "strange" characters will hopefully take them to the help page if they have any questions. I find the IPA fairly easy, but you should not worry about "exposing yourself". Once you get used to it, you can sound like an expert. And feedback from a native speaker is essential for quality. Jmar67 (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I hear radio speakers pronounce his name wrong (too long vowel, k-sound in the end) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
The "listen" in his article is fine. I am not sure about "zeich", especially the vowel which is a diphthong, - missing the "i" part. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that myself while doing Mädchenkantorei Limburg and fixed it. I am just going to do the ones I think people might really stumble over. Jmar67 (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
for that article: the first vowel is a straightforward ä sound, is that the one you gave it? (Where's the list, for me to check without asking you. The "o" is also long, should that show. The stresses are on "Mäd" and "rei". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Click on the IPA to get the list. I will investigate. "Always learning." Have now changed per your suggestions. For some reason, when I edit in the desktop view I am being logged out and the edit uses my IP. Jmar67 (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
One more question in the Kantorei: in Limburg Cathedral? Would be "in the cathedral", no? And Limburg just says which cathedral. It's not really a name, just a shortcut, because the official name would be too long. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
That's somewhat controversial. :-) I prefer it with "at" and without article since it is effectively a proper name (treated that way as the article title). There was a similar complaint on WP:ERRORS recently about Canterbury Cathedral, preferring no article. Jmar67 (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


The volwel sound in Wächter is as in chair (but short), however, the short ä has "Ende" and "hätte" which have completely different sounds, "Ende" like "Wette". For the short a, why not say "but" which seems really close, instead of "father (but short)"?

Bach cantata and related articles[edit]

@Gerda Arendt: Would like to discuss this informally. I do think a move is desirable, but it might be better to have the discussion here, as we both find time to do it. I want in particular to make sure I understand your reasoning for retaining the current title. Jmar67 (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The most important person to include when it comes to precision of article names is JHunterJ. The article title Bach cantata has been stable for years which is one of my reasons to oppose a move. I'd be more intersted in moving Mass for the Dresden court (Bach). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
What is the issue there, not German? Has it been discussed? Jmar67 (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
We have the title page, it says "Missa", we could say (as before) Missa in B minor (Bach), until User:Francis Schonken moved it (31 October 2014), with whom to discuss a lifetime is too short. It would clarify that this not any mass but the Kyrie and Gloria which became part of the Mass in B minor. It could also be called Missa in B minor, BWV 232a or Missa, BWV 232 I, and variations. Francis is blocked, though, and I kind of find it unfair to do anything while he's away (September). All I wanted to say is that we have worse titles than Bach cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
About "Bach cantata": German WP has "Bachkantate" redirecting to "Kantaten (Bach)". I doubt that the stability of the English title is due to consensus that it is valid but rather only that others have given up (or are no longer active). There was strong but mostly polite opposition in the last discussion. I might favor the current title if there were a qualifier such as "genre" or "musical form" to soften the strong impression that Bach wrote only one, which is the main problem. Again, just trying to understand your position. Jmar67 (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the question is regarding precision for this topic, but Bach cantata is an unqualified title, so it's fine from a precision point of view, and Cantata (Bach) would be worth qualifying, but English Wikipedia prefers "natural" disambiguation to parenthetical disambiguation, so Bach cantata is preferred over Cantata (Bach). Mass for the Dresden court (Bach) is wrong from a precision point of view, since Mass for the Dresden court doesn't exist, so the disambiguator is not disambiguating anything. It should be moved: if there's a better title for it (such as Missa in B minor, BWV 232a or Missa, BWV 232 I), to that title, if not, to Mass for the Dresden court. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Or Mass for the Dresden court should be created as a topic article or a disambiguation page or a redirect, if the Bach composition is not its primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, both. There is no topic. It is this piece, which isn't even a complete mass, only Kyrie and Gloria, the first two of five sections of a complete mass. That is what Bach called a Missa, as the title page says. Francis was afraid that Missa and Mass is not sufficiently different. I don't know where he got the present title from. Yes, it was written for and dedicated to the Elector's court in Dresden, but it's not really a title. I'll boldly move and see what happens. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Cool. For what it's worth, "Missa" and "Mass" are sufficiently different (WP:SMALLDETAILS), with any potential confusion handled with hatnotes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I cannot comment. Please do what you think is right. Jmar67 (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. In my view, the problem with "Bach cantata" concerns the title vs. the content of the article. As the article is currently structured, the title would be more appropriate in the plural: "Bach cantatas". The equivalent German WP article title (translated) is "Cantatas (Bach)". I have no problem using "Bach cantatas" on our side. However, If the article were to clearly focus on the specific type of cantata Bach wrote, then "Bach cantata" is ostensibly more appropriate. But it is not precise in that it does not sufficiently convey the concept of "type". To most people coming to the page (including myself), the first impression is "But he wrote more than one!" In the interest of precision, a qualifier is needed. My preference at the moment is to retain the article content as it is and move the page to "Bach cantatas". The specialized term "Bach cantata" can then be discussed in the article. Jmar67 (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Then Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals) might apply, particularly the second bullet about things that are distinct but usually considered as a set. But this is really a good topic for the article talk page, either as a requested move or not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I had been trying to find that discussion, which Gerda had alluded to once. I wanted to talk "privately" with her before suggesting an official RM. Hope this thread does not violate any WP policy. Jmar67 (talk) 14:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Not that I know of. But I guess I don't see the benefit of it either. The eventual consensus will out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
For a title Bach cantatas, I'd expect speaking about them (plural), but the main concern of the article is to explain what one cantata is, typically linked from an individual cantata, singular, of course. If it was a plural, every link would have to be piped. Not worth discussing, imho. - At present, the plural title redirects to the list of all, which I think is fair. We have several dedicated articles to the cantata cycles, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── A good compromise solution would be Cantata (Bach), justified by the singular/plural ambiguity of Bach cantata. There are also Church cantata (Bach) and Weimar cantata (Bach) as precedents. The question also arises as to whether the latter need to be separate articles. Jmar67 (talk) 11:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Not a good compromise, as JHunterJ and I explained above, for different reasons. Weimar cantata needs the sperate article, parallel to the other 4 cantata cycle articles. Church cantata (Bach) has the specifics of Bach's church cantatas vs. Church cantata in general. Not without irony, I typically link to the latter for Bach compositions, because it has readings and hymns. Bach's chorale cantatas are unlike any other chorale cantatas, and certainly deserve their own article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC) All these articles - not Bach cantata - are by the absent Francis Schonken, so let's be polite and not touch them. --
If JHunterJ is still opposed to Cantata (Bach), currently a redirect, as the actual article title, I cannot say any more. Jmar67 (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
"JHunterJ is still opposed" → "the article titling policy is still consensus". A good compromise might be a WP:RM to see if there's consensus for WP:IAR in this case to use the parenthetical disambiguation instead of the natural disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


@Gerda Arendt: de:Hermann Weil (Sänger) on DYK today. Our article is Hermann Wilhelm Weil. Jmar67 (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Eventually, booked for a while ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Bagger 1473[edit]

Would you be willing to take a look at the above article and see if you can find any additional sources? I suspect that the subject is not notable, based on what I could see from its German Wikipedia entry, but I wanted to check if you can find other German-language sources before I open an AfD. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lord Bolingbroke and Gerda Arendt: I will see what I can find. May take a week or so. Gerda may be able to help. Jmar67 (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks like local prominence to me. To what would it be connected. But I would just leave it as it is, - why delete? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you ...[edit]

Raps, Ehrenbach.jpg
... with thanks from QAI

... for improving article quality in May! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)