Talk:Geist und Seele wird verwirret, BWV 35

message: I  the work of improving this article to Good article standard to Alakzi, for precious support making the tables possible by shaping and polishing  and , --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Thank you for taking "occasion" on board. I don't understand - with all the white space I see - why you drop the precise date of a performance (Bach wrote pieces that were possibly not performed, so that/when it was performed is additional information) and the location (we have cantatas first performed at various places, and should not assume that readers study his biography to find out where he was in 1726, and even then he performed elsewhere also). How about spreading facts and knowledge generously? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The only whitespace I see - between TOC and infobox - would not be resolved by adding more to the infobox, which is already pushing the next image almost into the section after that. Thus, I would be reluctant to add more there, particularly when additional information can be found to the left. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I should not have mentioned the white space, sorry ;) - Content: is the template documentation unclear? "If the date or at least year of a performance is known, use  with  , otherwise note a period in ."? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What period are you thinking will be listed, other than Baroque? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously the documentation is unclear. Important is the first part: "if ... known, use". If a performance date is known, use it. - "Period" in  expects a year or a range of years, - how can that be clarified? There is no . --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "If a date or year of performance is known, use  with  ; if not, indicate the composition year or range of years with "? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parameters 

message: "The text describes the healing of the deaf mute man and connects it to the thoughts of the believer who is left deaf and mute in awe looking at the healing of Jesus and God's creation." No, it doesn't describe, - it takes the healing of someone deaf and mute as a starting point to thoughts about the believer/listener being deaf and mute when looking at the miraculous deeds of Jesus (the healing) and more generally God (the creation), connected to the last line from the gospel: "He hath done all things well" (KJV), - help with wording that welcome, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "The text connects the healing of the deaf man to the thoughts of the believer who is left deaf and mute in awe"? What was there originally didn't make sense at all, sorry. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for trying, but sorry, this is too short, - that awe (what awe?) is unexpected and unexplained. The connection from the single healing to "hath done all (!) things well" is a jump already in the gospel, but I would not count on many readers studying the linked prescribed readings start to finish, -where it is the last line. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: New day. Looking at the infobox, I am still unhappy with separating scoring, have the voice above the image (in ), while the instruments are at the bottom. If  seems to appear unexpected we could have a header for the scoring. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: (I'm assuming your proposal is reflected at right - if you mean a header above the image please clarify.) Scoring doesn't currently display as a header, but as a blank parameter; I think it makes sense to retain scoring as a parameter for the situation you mentioned above, as "neutral", rather than converting it to a header. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's better without, - thanks for changing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of mentioning Alto 

message: The term "BWV" is used 23 times in this article, with, best I can tell, exactly 1 wikilink, tucked in the info box where I didn't see it. I suspect other readers also aren't going to find it there, and I don't think that's anywhere near enough links. I suspect that readers who know this subject well will know what "BWV" means, but this article should be more accessible to general readers. I added a link to the first usage, which I now understand was poor placement, because I put it in a bold-face reiteration of the title. The problem is that the every usage of the term is in a bad place - the reiteration, links to other articles, table titles, table entries, or references. I can't think of a better solution, but the current near-total lack of links is not good. Rks13 (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the link is best included in the lead, where you put it - while I understand the argument for omitting it, I think in this case it would be more beneficial to the reader to do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  On balance, I think I agree with you, Nikki. However, my first choice would be a brief sentence in the first paragraph quickly explaining what the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis is. If we keep readers on the page by explaining jargon, rather than forcing them to follow a link just to understand something, we are more likely to retain their interest. Obviously, it's an even greater consideration for those who read our articles in a printed version, where they can't follow links. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, but I would be careful of over-extending that argument - someone reading a print article can follow no links, is it really feasible to summarize all linked articles sufficiently for them to understand if they don't already know the basics? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think there's likely to be an optimal middle-ground between explaining a bare minimum of jargon and trying to summarise all linked articles. I find the advice at Wikipedia:Manual of Style #Technical language to be worth examination:  I admit that my experience is more with medical articles where we have to try in the lead at least to define unavoidable technical terms, rather than forcing the reader to follow links just to understand. If you want a ripe example, take a look at Tracheotomy and see if you can figure out where the incision is made. It's better than it used to be - I remember having to follow links three-deep to get the info the first time I looked at it. Anyway, it's nowhere near so bad with these articles, even if I still think a quick explanation of Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis would be an improvement. There must be a lot of readers who know (vaguely) what an oboe is, but who think BWV is a make of motor car. --RexxS (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hope I understood that right and inserted a footnote as in BWV 22. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikilinking 

message: These links were there but  by Finnusertop, and per the following discussion the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: At present, FAs and a few GAs (including this one) have a footnote. Alakzi offered to write a program which automatically adds the footnote to articles which have BWV in the title. Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote? 

message: Given the length of the subsections discussing each movement - no longer than a paragraph each, one as short as a sentence - I think it makes more sense to consolidate that into a single undivided section, or possibly divided into Part 1 and Part 2. The revert mentioned links from the table, which can be supplied by anchors if needed, and discussion in GA review - the GA review here did not discuss this, without knowing which review I can't be sure but possibly that article had longer subsections. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but anchors are hidden, while the movement numbers with links visible. It's a standard arrangement - compare other articles such as BWV 165#Music. The consistent numbers serve for predictable linking to a specific movement from anywhere in Wikipedia, - if you know the movement number you can compose the correct link. Compare Messiah Part II#44. On FA level, the paragraphs will get longer, perhaps next year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: And when they get longer, as they are in those examples, we can revisit this point - but for the moment the advantages of using headers over anchors for predictable linking are outweighed by the disadvantages of creating microsections that chop up the flow of text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still think that being able to predictably link to a movement and to represent the structure of the piece by sections is worth it. It shows at a glance which movements received more comments. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We represent the structure of the piece already in the table, and can predictably link using anchors. What about dividing the section into Part 1 and Part 2? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsectioning