# Talk:Nun jauchzt dem Herren, alle Welt

The entirety of some piece of text. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

But what if it can't be shortened? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I tried anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
:) 98.4.124.117 (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Merged from user talk pages
As I said, I don't think that having the text of another hymn, which is not a translation of the German (unlike, say, for Ein feste Burg and it's direct English translations) and is sung to a different melody, is relevant. There are surely quite a few hymns based on Psalm 100 but I don't think listing the other variants in each article about such a hymn is relevant. As I said, the best place to put this would be at the article on Psalm 100, if it is not already there. Sorry for the revert, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  22:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I just "replied" your talk, giving you a job ;) - Should we merge this on the article talk, or is it just between us? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I searched for a translation of "Nun jauchzt", and hymnary gave my "All people". I realised then that it was earlier, but still think its juxtaposition to the German would help readers understand where Denicke departed from the plain psalm rendering. Also: we don't have the complete text of "All people" anywhere. Will you write an article about it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
As for the suggestion to place "All people" on Psalm 100: that has too many translations already, we don't need several metric versions there on top. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Maybe you should have answered on your talk page to avoid having the conversation over multiple pages Well, both texts are based on the same Psalm so it is unsurprising that they have similar features. It remains that hymns are usually considered as a grouping of text + music and "All people" is not usually sung to the tune of Nun jauchzt (read between the lines: I have only ever heard it sung to one tune and you know which one)... Regarding what I suggested on Psalm 100: no, not placing it there; the Psalm_100#Musical_settings section has no text and we could mention there that there are multiple hymns based on the text (without giving the full text there, naturally). I see the same article already gives the full text by Kethe: Psalm_100#Kethe. I'll see what I can do on making an article for "All people"; the only resources I have access to (currently) is what can be found on the internet (i.e. mostly this; hymnary; and the digitised version of John Julian's A Dictionary of Hymnology) and partial access to this wonderful website. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  22:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Go ahead creating that article, - and any help finding a real translation of this hymn is welcome, - I was misled. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Possibly missing something, but "All people" would fit better under Old 100th. Jmar67 (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jmar67: "All people" has enough notability of it's own (independent of the well known tune) to warrant a dedicated article. Same thing as, for example, Alleluia! Sing to Jesus (which is currently only a redirect since I haven't taken the time to write the article... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  13:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Do not understand why you feel the need to use "by" in the infobox. I have deleted that frequently in other articles. The name is sufficient. Jmar67 (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jmar67: This is how it is described in the template documentation, see Template:Infobox musical composition. Since this would be a large change and probably would be worthy of a bot task if there's consensus to remove it I suggest your bring it up at the template talk and possible leave a notice at the Wikiproject page so more people are aware of the matter. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  00:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The parameter is to give "text" not "text author". Very often, the text has a name, such as a Requiem, some poem or hymn, a Bible pasage. In the cases when it has not a name, such as all hymns we add "by", or it would mean a text named Denicke. Perhaps frequently restore? It's a result from merging template:infobox hymn into this, for historic background. That template had a parameter "text author" (or hymnwriter, or however it was called, - and there was strong resistence to the merge). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree that the simple name is ambiguous. Maybe there could be two parameters: "Text source" and "Text author". My irritation stems from the belief that all entries in the second column should be capitalized. While I often see such errors, I do not always want to take the time to fix them. Editing on an iPhone is cumbersome enough. Jmar67 (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Please take all this to the template talk. There are many things I never capitalise, such as a number of movements (four), or why should the first instrument in a list of several be capital when the following ones are not? We do have a parameter librettist but it doesn't fit hymns. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
It is a basic style principle  in English that text in a table entry begins with a capital letter. That is not the case in German. I had to get used to that. Also, you should use a numeral instead of "four" in this case. I have made that change on occasion. Jmar67 (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
How do I justify 4 vs. four, being asked to spell out numbers one to twelve. We probably have an exception from an exception? An infobox is not a table, to my understanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: It's just a matter of consistency and convention: numbers 1-10 are spellt out, above they're usually not. The reminder of this discussion should take place at template talk. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  13:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we need to move this to template talk, nor an official close, when it is about numbers, nothing specific to that template. You and I said spell out "four", but Jmar67 corrected to "4", and I'd like to know why when. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: i.e. the discussion about "by" and that should go to template talk. Sorry, I was unclear and didn't get the point. In text: spellt out; In tables: depends; often they're not (for eg. BWV 1). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  13:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
In BWV 1, it's a number because it was corrected in the infobox - possibly by J - and I'd like to understand why, certainly not for space reasons (which would be a good reason in a true table, such as the movement numbers in the table of movements, while Brian pointed out to me that movement numbers should also be spellt out in prose. Btw, one ping per thread is enough for me, I'm usually watching, and pings interrupt my other threads of thought, and I often forget where I was, getting older and feeling it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

As in other hymn articles, common for the two hymnals EG and GL means that they are not just any hymnals in German, but the hymnals common (copies supplied in churches) for German-speaking countries Germany / Austria / Switzerland and more, in all dioceses or church districts, - creating more notability than any simple hymnal would. Any better short word for that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I try to avoid "current", hardest ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
"present-day" is worse. We should not say anything that - unless we maintain it - will be wrong in ten years. Nothing needed in the lead, and the body has the years. - I wonder if we should have Lutheran somewhere, because that's how it started. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I knew what you meant, but that would not be clear to most readers. I would understand "common" here as "gängig" rather than "gemeinsam" or "einheitlich". "German-language" was a suggestion (maybe "official German-language"). I have made that change in other articles, knowing that it applied to AT and CH as well. Jmar67 (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Any other word? ... because "official" sound too official. They are just the hymnals in practical use, primary topics when saying German hymnals. The Gotteslob is a rather recent thing (1975), and those who are so proud they finally achieved a hymnal "gemeinsam" for all German-speaking Catholics are still alive. - ... while I understand that there are tons of hymnals in English, just by the many denominations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I have changed it to "the modern", since that implies that they are the primary topic and keeps the information that they're current without using the forbidden word... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  17:35, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
That sounds fine. In German, it would not work, though, - modern has a different meaning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Warscheinlich, aber dies ist die Englische Wikipedia, so das ist keine Probleme für uns. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  17:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nun jauchzt dem Herren, alle Welt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Aza24 (talk · contribs) 07:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Happy to review this article – expect comments in the next 24 hours or so. Aza24 (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


### Prose
### Other things
Lovely work here Gerda, passing now – congrats! Aza24 (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)