Talk:Ihr werdet weinen und heulen, BWV 103

message: The problem with this infobox is that it doesn't summarise the article.  General readers will not understand Occasion: Jubilate or Chorale: Paul Gerhardt. In order to understand the box you have to read the article. Now, in order to be a good editor you need to understand the reader and edit for the reader — these articles are not for private enjoyment. --Kleinzach 07:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Infoboxes are not the same as a lede. The WP:LEAD is the summary, an infobox conveys other critical information in a concise manner   I often compare to Infobox mineral, which to me, a non-geologist general reader, contains mostly gibberish to my eyes.  However, it is clearly a useful addition to gem and mineral articles with important scientific information.  There is a parallel here. Why the classical music projects are so against infoboxes is beyond me.  Montanabw(talk) 17:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am interested that, as a non-geologist, you can be so certain that Infobox mineral is 'a useful addition to gem and mineral articles with important scientific information'. And, further, if you are prepared to accept it on spec on the basis that that is clearly the consensus view of geology editors, why it is that the consensus view of classical music editors (which happens to be opposite) does not deserve the same approbation? As you will gather, I myself am not a supporter of infoboxes in classical music articles; but I accept that this should be balanced against the views of editors who are largely responsible for particular articles (as in the present case).The issue here is that the infobox if it is to be used at all should surely be convenient and comprehensible by specialists and non-specialists alike. If only for the former it is just clutter.--Smerus (talk) 09:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

text: If you have a better word for "occasion", please say so, - I think it is a common understandable word. Some works were written for a wedding, others for a liturgical function, oly very few without an occasion, - I fail to see a "problem". Jubilate and Paul Gerhardt have a link, helping those who don't know. - The place to raise concerns of a general design should be raised on the template talk, not a single occurance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was about to do the GA review for this article to pass an idle evening, but I suggest it is better to sort this issue out first. The two queried entries in the box do seem in fact a bit mystifying as they stand. 'Jubilate' is not an occasion, nor is 'Paul Gerhardt' a chorale. I would suggest for clarity that you give Jubilate Sunday as the full text against 'Occasion', and that you change the text against chorale to 'by Paul Gerhardt'. These two small changes would make the infobox considerably more comprehensible. I would make them myself under WP:BOLD, were it not, of course, for considerations of politeness and respect.--Smerus (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken, thank you, that helps! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Would you have a solution also how to show that the Bible quote is the text for movement 1, the chorale for movement 6? In Franck texts, the Bible quote is movement 2, in some cantatas there are several, in others several chorales: it would say SO much about the structure! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

text: In the context: please check and improve Baroque instruments to be, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Starting in the end: Bach himself of course didn't even call them by what we now use instead of a title, the first line of the text (which sometimes doesn't mean anything). (Wagner gave his works singular titles, such as Der fliegende Holländer. For Mozart, we need to disambiguate many masses in C major.) The discussion about the addition of BWV number in all works by Bach (with the exceptions of the few which have an English common name) was in 2010, summary: BWV is the ONLY thing within a lot of German which tells the reader that it is a work by Bach. We need to disambiguate many (cantata title vs. two other cantata titles, vs. a motet, vs. Gloria in excelsis Deo, vs. a chorale, - let's make it consistently so. - If a piece is performed, the BWV number will always be given in a program. For that reason, I would like to keep it on top of the box, but will try to hide it in the box. (I say "try", because I am a beginner in infoboxes.) - I will try to incorporate the other suggestions. "Bible text" means changing the infobox for all Bach works, but I think it makes sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

text: I tried not to show the BWV number, didn't work, will have to ask. However, in many cases we will have "related", showing more works, typically by those numbers, so perhaps it is even better to keep it. I changed to Bible text, and showed the movements, using "movement" once, assuming the next time would be understood without,  - what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suggest that instead of just '(6)' (which  is not clear as it stands), you use '(movt. 6)' - the abbreviation will be clear from the 'Bible text' section.--Smerus (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought it was clear enough from the 'Bible text' section but followed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox problem