Talk:Bach cantata

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Odd focus

Bach cantata (in German: Bach-Kantate) became a term for a cantata of the German Baroque composer Johann Sebastian Bach (1685–1750) ...

That says to me that a "Bach cantata" is separate and distinct from "a cantata by Bach". I mean, are not "Wagner operas" and "operas by Wagner" one and the same thing? Or "Beethoven symphonies" and "symphonies by Beethoven"?

I strongly suggest we change this to Cantatas by Bach or Cantatas (Bach), cf. Preludes (Chopin). At the very least change it to Bach cantatas. And then fix up the opening sentence to make it clear we're just talking about the cantatas written by Bach, not some special terminology about works of this type. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took the term - obviously - from the German Wikipedia, which has Bach-Kantate or Bachkantate. The plural doesn't make sense, because in 99 of 100 cased it says "... BWV xy" is a Bach cantata", typically pipe linked to "church cantata", "sacred cantata", "congratulatory cantata" - one at a time. On top of that, Bach cantatas is something else, which I found, same for Cantatas (Bach). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those last 2 links are redirects to List of cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. So, we have an article that just lists them all, and this article, which is more descriptive and historical. They're obviously closely related, but it's clear we need both articles.

What I'm getting at is that Bach's boss directed him to write a cantata each week. He was not instructed to write a "Bach cantata", just a "cantata". And so we have a large collection of cantatas written by Bach, which we sometimes refer to as "Bach cantatas". A single example would be a "Bach cantata", just as a single nocturne by Chopin would be a "Chopin nocturne". But we do not and never will have an article called Chopin nocturne. We do, however, have Nocturnes (Chopin). Did any composer apart from Bach ever write a "Bach cantata"? Did any composer apart from Tchaikovsky ever write a "Tchaikovsky symphony"? Do you see what I'm getting at, Gerda. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. Bach had many people who commissioned the works WE call cantata now, they didn't call them cantata, he didn't. It's not his language, but it's understood, look at bach-cantatas.com, so why not? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've called for backup. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 00:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Jack already noted on the classical music talk page, Gerda Arendt's work on WP is very useful and greatly appreciated. This said, might I speculate that perhaps Gerda is not a native speaker of English? To me as an English speaker, "Bach cantata" as an article title sounds very peculiar. There's no real reason, it's just customary in English to use the plural in this context. As for JackofOz's choices, I think Cantatas (Bach) would work best. Regards, Opus33 (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Pace Gerda, Cantatas (Bach) would be normal for Wikipedia. I do see however that we have few articles like this that cover a large miscellaneous group of same-genre compositions. In most cases the information is given in the form of a 'List of . . .', which makes me wonder whether any thought has been given to merging this article into the List of cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach? --Klein zach 02:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I think they serve different (if related) purposes. The List article is long enough, methinks. I was amused to see an edit conflict over an hour after the previous edit. Is your browser operating extraordinarily slowly, or are you just one hell of a slow typist? :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JackofOz is pretty much on the right wavelength here. Bach wrote what we call cantatas, just like Haydn wrote what we call symphonies and Liszt wrote what we call paraphrases, etc. A Bach cantata is no different from a Telemann one, for instance. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the problematic titling arose because the obvious equivalent of the German Wikipedia article, de:Kantaten (Bach) (it's not de:Bach-Kantate or de:Bachkantate as Gerda suggests), Cantatas (Bach) was already taken on the English Wikipedia as a REDIRECT. It turns out that only one article links to that REDIRECT, so it would be very simple to modify that article, Schübler Chorales, and move this article, Bach cantata, over that REDIRECT: Bach cantata -> Cantatas (Bach). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we seem to have a consensus, but when you say "move this article over that redirect", what exactly do you mean, Michael? I've just delinked Schübler Chorales, then I removed the redirect from Cantatas (Bach), then tried to move this article to that name - but it didn't work. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I suggested the move, the REDIRECT Cantatas (Bach) had only one edit and this article could have been moved there; since then, you edited that REDIRECT twice which prevents it from being overwritten. The page move must now be requested at WP:RM. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this article there was the very first thing I attempted after I delinked Schubler Chorales. I was unable to do so, so I then did what I said. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(squeeze) That I don't understand. There should be no obstacle of moving an article over a REDIRECT which has no edits. Your edit summary at your first edit ("fix to make way for move") seems to suggest that was not so. -- Michael Bednarek (talk)

Then I don't understand it either. I only "fixed" it after trying to move the article there, and being prevented from doing so. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we seem to have a consensus, but when you say "move this article over that redirect", what exactly do you mean, Michael? I've just delinked Schübler Chorales, then I removed the redirect from Cantatas (Bach), then tried to move this article to that name - but it didn't work. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 06:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Back here, a few answers:

A Bach cantata IS different from other cantatas and deserves special treatment. The page came into being when I was tired of having the same copied text about fundamentals in many cantatas. Also: the two existing valuable lists do not offer a chronological sequence.
The page is successful as it is, a few k hits every month, nobody yet argued about the name.
I would not like so much to code "BWV 42, is a [[Cantatas (Bach)|church cantata]] by Johann ..." nor "[[Cantatas (Bach)|Bach cantata]]", do you see what I mean? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before you move over the redirect (an admin could do it as for the Bach Passions), did you check, where the redirect is used? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you move, please write the lead for me and don't forget to also move the Template:Bach cantatas to Template:Cantatas (Bach) and the List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function to List of Cantatas (Bach) by liturgical function]], - if it doesn't matter that nobody looking for Bach will find them, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, there's no reason to sulk, and don't take my remarks personally. As I wrote, the German article is called de:Kantaten (Bach) and not, and never was, de:bach-Kantate or de:Bachkantate, and the simple and accurate English wording of that is Cantatas (Bach). As I also wrote, that REDIRECT had one incoming link, which has now been resolved. Moving this article, Bach cantata to Cantatas (Bach), will have no effect on existing articles, lists or templates, nor will it affect the accessability of this page because a REDIRECT will remain. As for the inconvenience of using article titles in piped links, please consider that the first duty of Wikipedia is to its readers, not its editors. Every article, especially in the German Wikipedia because of grammatical inflections, has to use piped links to bend article titles into the prose. In this case, because the current name will remain as a REDIRECT, editors can continue to use the old title if they want. The titles for the Template:Bach cantatas and other articles are not disputed.

If it turns out that "Bach Cantata" is indeed a term used in the literature, another argument can be made to title this article that way, as a proper noun with two capitals. This seems unlikely as no existing article links to that term and and I'm not aware of Wikipedia articles for similarly constructed terms, like "Verdi Opera" or "Chopin Étude". Frankly, the whole article has no substantive source to explain itself, whether the term exists, what is meant by it, how it is different to the general baroque cantata. The German article suffers of course from the same deficiency. If titled as Cantatas (Bach), the article can at least in its current form present an overview of Bach's cantatas. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was a bit overwhelmed by the writing here over night. (I will have to look up what sulk means.) I introduced this article - name and content - more than a year ago on Classical music and wish this debate had happened then. I intended to call the article "Cantatas (Bach)" then, but the name was taken and I didn't know how to deal with it. So I called it similar to the template and still think, the two should match. - I use pipe links all the time, but rarely - if ever - going from a plural to a singular, that feels odd to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, right at the start I said that Bach cantatas would be a better title than Bach cantata. Not the optimal title, but better. That would also have matched the template exactly, thus meeting your criterion. It's currently a redirect to the List article, but that was never a big problem. However, I believe we've moved past that now, the consensus favouring Cantatas (Bach). -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both suggestions have in common that they require a pipe going from a plural to a singular and that they are currently redirects to somewhere else, - did you check those links? - I would still like to know why the concerns above were not raised a year ago, before we had a strong page history. Wikipedia is for the readers, s.a., 14532 clicked in 2011, why confuse them by a change? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this had ever occurred to you before, Gerda, but on Wikipedia, NOTHING is set in stone, including the titles of articles. I've corrected numerous article titles that had been under their original title forever, but which fresh eyes could see merited a move. Clicking on the previous title will always still get you to the article you think you want, via a redirect, so that's never a problem. It's all part of the way we do things here. It's great practice in accepting the inevitability of beneficial change (something we ought to be welcoming, not resisting), and not getting too attached to things, and letting go. It's spiritual and cosmic in its application, something I'm sure JSB would have heartily approved of. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 13:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deo gratias (but don't forget to rewrite the lead when you move). - And yes, it occured before, when a friend of mine was made a disambiguation page, without a redirect, that was much worse. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You amaze me sometimes, Gerda. You're asking me not to forget to rewrite the lead, but right back at the start when I suggested the move, I wrote "And [we should] then fix up the opening sentence to make it clear we're just talking about the cantatas written by Bach, not some special terminology about works of this type". -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 21:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Bach cantata IS different from other cantatas and deserves special treatment. -- I have to ask, why? Bach's body of works in that genre do deserve treatment as a whole, yes, but the FORM is still a normal one that was used by many Baroque composers (after all, there are a number of entries that were formerly attributed to him that weren't by him). Just because Bach wrote so many successfully doesn't mean that there's anything special about his that no other composer managed. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Sulk means schmollen, verdrießlich sein'.) I note that your original instinct was what's now proposed. If you have written any articles were awards are mentioned, you should have encountered frequent piping from plural to singular (Xxx Awards | Xxx Award). However, one doesn't have to – the term "Bach cantata" as a REDIRECT is a perfectly useable term. The naming of Template:Bach cantatas is unrelated; it follows the convention of the template is Category:Works by composer templates. As JackofOz write, the fact that a REDIRECT Bach cantatas exists doesn't preclude it from being used for another purpose – it has only 4 incoming links – although my preference would still be with the original idea of Cantatas (Bach). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ich schmolle nicht ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping back

Looking from a bit more of a distance, I see: Cantata, Sonata, Symphony, Mass (music), Missa (Bach), Chorale cantata, String quartet, Bassoon concerto, Piano trio, Opera buffa ... - all these are a singular. To my understanding Bach cantata is in that same line. But teach me, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have String quartet, and we have String Quartets, Op. 76 (Haydn) and String Quartets, Op. 20 (Haydn) and String Quartets, Op. 33 (Haydn) and List of string quartets by Joseph Haydn - but do you see Haydn string quartet or Beethoven string quartet or Brahms string quartet or Mahler symphony or Wagner opera or Piazzolla tango anywhere?

In English, we do talk of these things colloqually ("This new work reminded me in some ways of a Tchaikovsky symphony") - but an encyclopedia cannot use such loose language. If a reader is interested in knowing about all the cantatas of Bach, they'd expect to find it at something like Bach cantatas, or Cantatas by Bach, or Cantatas (Bach) - but not Bach cantata. If they were interested in a particular cantata by Bach, they'd look for it under its title or BWV number. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I seem not to be clear enough: "Bach cantata" is NOT about "knowing about all the cantatas of Bach" (and a reader coming with that expectation, guided by such a title, will be disappointed), but about knowing what makes a Bach cantata a Bach cantata, as in Sonata what makes a Sonata a Sonata. - Do you consider Bach Cantata Pilgrimage loose language? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by the term "Bach cantata", Gerda? Apart from the fact that Bach wrote it and Handel didn't, how exactly is it different from a "Handel cantata"? -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at my comment above which was never answered, and again, I ask why? What makes BWV 60 different from BWV 160, outside the fact the later was actually written by Telemann? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bach cantata

My language problem:

In German it's Bachkantate. In English I found (!) "Bach cantata" ("Bach Cantata") and thought it means the same and everybody knew what it means. Obviously at least one of these assumptions is not true. The University of Alberta uses the term and seems to mean what Bachkantate means. St Luke, Chikago is a random pick from more than 900,000 google results for "Bach cantata", as opposed to 17,000 for "Telemann cantata".

I don't know the two works of the two masters mentioned above. I never sang a Telemann cantata, so I can't judge and don't want to. I see the Monteverdi Choir on a pilgrimage of the Bach cantatas, not of Telemann's, not even of Monteverdi. I see that Alfred Dürr devoted his life to Bach's cantatas. I had the honour to write a concert program (in German) recently on some of them and started: "We have 6 Brandenburg Concertos of Johann Sebastian Bach, but around 200 cantatas."

Bach Cantata or Cantata (Bach) is fine with me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, you acknowledge you have a language problem, and up above you asked for guidance. Yet you seem unwilling to accept any advice or explanation offered to you. Sooner or later you're going to have to accept that the article you've written is a general article about the cantatas (plural) written by Bach. And it's fine to have such an article. But it's not fine to give it a name using the singular word "cantata", because it is not about any one single cantata (quite a number of different cantatas are mentioned). That is simply not how English works. Trust me. Bach Cantata or Cantata (Bach) are NOT fine. Please accept what we've been at pains to tell you.

When you say I never sang a Telemann cantata, so I can't judge and don't want to, let me tell you that I've never sung a cantata at all, but I can assure you a Telemann cantata is essentially no different from a Bach cantata. There is no special sub-genre of cantatas called "Bach cantata". You will look in vain in any other music reference work for anything called a "Bach cantata", except in the obvious sense of a reference to a specific cantata written by Bach, as opposed to Telemann or anyone else. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 11:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I feel sorry about your pains, but Cantata (singular) is also NOT about one single cantata, can you help me understand the difference? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cantata is about the musical genre called "cantata". It provides lots of information about what a cantata is, the history of cantatas, the names of the most important composers who wrote cantatas, etc - in short, anything a reader who had never heard the word "cantata" before, and wanted to find out all about them, might be interested in knowing. Similarly, the article on the genre called "sonata" is Sonata. And so on, for any genre you care to name.

Now, when we come to writing an article about the set of cantatas written by a particular composer, the title must reflect that we're talking now not about a single genre of music, but about the multiple examples of that genre written by the same composer. You will see an article about the préludes of Debussy, called Préludes (Debussy); an article about the mazurkas of Chopin, called Mazurkas (Chopin); and we would expect to find an article about the cantatas written by Bach to be called Cantatas (Bach).

A native speaker who saw Cantata (Bach) or Bach cantata would think: "Hmm, I wonder which particular cantata by Bach this is about". But it's not about any one particular cantata by Bach, it's about ALL the cantatas by Bach. That requires a plural. The singular word "cantata" misleads and confuses the reader, and that's a bad thing. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 12:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it that way, but I take it. The German lead: "Die Kantaten von Johann Sebastian Bach haben in dieser Gattung eine derartige Bekanntheit erlangt, dass sich für sie der eigene Begriff Bachkantate eingebürgert hat." Sing a Bach cantata some day, such as "Erfreut euch, ihr Herzen", it will make you feel better, promised, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take you up on that.

The rubbishy machine translation is "The cantatas of Johann Sebastian Bach in this genus have enjoyed such a reputation gained that for them, the concept of Bach cantata has naturalized". Looking past that to the germ of the meaning, I have to say that I disagree with that statement. It reads to me like a throwaway line some German editor has dreamt up as an introduction to the article. I'd really like to see a citation that talks about how cantatas by Bach are so fundamentally different from those by Telemann, Handel or any other composer, that the special term "Bach cantata" has been coined. It's not like the Wagner tuba, which is indeed a special type of tuba. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Begriff" should not be concept but term. Bachkantate - one word, bolding not mine but in the article, + I didn't write that lead nor would I have done it like that - is a valid and frequently used term in German, a fact I don't need to explain. I believe you - after all you wrote - that "Bach cantata" or "Bach Cantata" is not used in the same sense in English. It looks to me, though, as if for instance the University of Alberta does use it like that, coining their set "The Bach Cantatas". But go ahead, I said "taken" before and mean it. - I heard "Erfreut euch, ihr Herzen" (our 2000 recording) again this morning and certainly was revived. Can you tell me how to phrase the sudden outburst of vital energy in measure 3 in decent encyclopedic English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful article. I don't personally think the current title is that odd, but then I'm also probably too familiar with the German. A Google-Book check shows Bach's cantatas gets 12 400 résultats in English and would probably be more natural. We can have plural titles on en.wp if the subject is genuinely considered as an encompassing genre. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can only comment on the features distinguishing a Bach cantata from any other cantata by reading the articles and their references - and I claim no other expertise - but it does seem to me that a Bach cantata is sufficiently differentiable from a generalised cantata that the term should exist, not least because the form reached its peak in these works. I always find it worthwhile to re-read Wikipedia:Article titles to help in these sort of discussions and the following points are made there:

"Use the singular form ... Exceptions include ... the names of classes of objects" (WP:SINGULAR)
"Natural disambiguation: If it exists, choose an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title" (WP:NATURAL)

If everyone can agree that Bach cantatas are a class of objects, then using the plural would fit with our naming guidelines (which would otherwise demand the singular Bach cantata). Parentheses such as in Cantatas (Bach) are used on Wikipedia to disambiguate, but are not preferred otherwise. If a natural phrase, which is common in sources, is sufficient to identify the subject of the article, then we don't disambiguate. The title Bach cantatas certainly seems to fit that part of the policy and we would need good reason to ignore that. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am too pragmatic, but the normal way to link to this article is from one single cantata (some 200 articles, plus DYK, plus mentioning in other articles), - if it was plural, it would look like this: [[Bach cantatas|cantata]] - seems strange, but so is policy many times ;) For the plural, there's List of Bach cantatas. Please also note that the original discussion ended in 2011. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I spotted the plain link/piped link issue, but that is true for all topics which are classes, e.g. an [[Arabic numerals|Arabic numeral]] or a [[Bantu languages|Bantu language]]. It's because pipes are cheap, that is, easy to make and consume little resources (as are redirects of course), so we can afford to place articles at what is the most natural name. I'm not worried that we have the article at 'Bach cantata' right now, and the original debate is stale, but it's sometimes helpful to add a comment, in anticipation of the next time somebody wants to rename the article. Happy editing, Gerda! --RexxS (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across this page, which I found very well written for the most part, but the title and lead sentence did strike me as being rather odd. I see I'm far from the only person to have noticed this. The way the title and the lead sentence uses "Bach cantata" seems to suggest that it's a proper name that means more than simply "a cantata written by Bach", in the same way "Wagner tuba" means something more than just "a tuba made by Wagner". Generally, "four Wagner tubas" and "four of Wagner's tubas" mean different things. But I don't think there's any context where "four Bach cantatas" and "four of Bach's cantatas" aren't interchangeable.

Or looking at it in a different way: calling the article "Bach cantata" rather than "Bach cantatas" or "Cantatas (Bach)" implies that it is possible for anyone to write a "Bach cantata", just like how you don't have to be German to write a German sixth, or be Wagner to make a Wagner tuba (but you do have to be Stradivarius to make a Stradivarius violin). I realize the distinction between "Bach cantata" and "Bach cantatas" may not be immediately apparent to a non-native English speaker, but I think this is what people are getting at when they suggest we rename the page. Cobblet (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If possible read both threads above and see that the name is by now years old and established, - I think we have more important things to do than another move. The article Bach cantatas links to here. Please note that the link is mostly used in lines about a single one, such as "so and so is a cantata by JSB", - again singular. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that it might be more convenient to keep the name as it is: just trying to explain why a native speaker will perceive a difference in meaning. Cobblet (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about the following, which preserves the information in the lead but makes it less likely that the reader will think "Bach cantata" means something more than just "Bach's cantatas":

The German Baroque composer Johann Sebastian Bach (1685–1750) was a prolific writer of cantatas. While many of them have been lost, at least 209 Bach cantatas (German: Bachkantaten) have survived.

Cobblet (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A good approach, thank you, but - compared to other articles I know - the term mentioned in the title appears very late. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, but this is related to the point that the construction "Bach cantata" in English is a bit unnatural to begin with. If you don't mind me adding something to the lead, I might start with something like the following (I'm sure references could be found to back up the words "significant" and "celebrated"):

The cantatas of Johann Sebastian Bach (German: Bachkantaten) are among his most significant and celebrated compositions. While many have been lost, at least 209 of Bach's cantatas have survived.

Cobblet (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, try it. Then you can also try moving to the plural. All articles are written, and the redirect function can take care of the inconvinience of a piped link that looks wrong ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the lead sentence, but I'll leave it for others to decide whether to move the page to "Bach cantatas" or "Cantatas (Bach)". I'm not familiar enough with article-naming policy and common practice on other articles on classical compositions to know which one should be preferred. Cheers, Cobblet (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German words in italics

I've put some of the German words used in this article in italics. As I understand the Wikipedia MOS, foreign words that are not usual in English should be in italics. See: MOS:FOREIGN : "Use italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that are not current in English." Words such as Ratswahl, Glückwunschkantaten and Huldigungskantaten are clearly not "current in English". The Wikipedia MOS is following standard practice - the use of italics for foreign words is a common convention in publishing. In the article the words are glossed (as they need to be) but my feeling is that this doesn't remove the need for italics. Aa77zz (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The words are not bold (glossed?), but others are which are redirects. My point was: I would understand italics if the terms were left untranslated. But they are recognizable as "foreign" because they are capitalized, and they are translated. Why confuse by italics which normally indicate titles? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox on this article...

Infoboxes for each cantata are fine. But having one for a general topic article? That's a bit....mmm....cheesy? I dunno how else to explain it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't know what "cheesy" means. I short overview of the time range and the BWV# range, where's the cheese? Providing meta-data is a service. I will restore it so that people who want to discuss it can see it, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual for editors to find infoboxes unanaesthetic and that's a valid argument. The balance to that is the service a well-written infobox can provide to a visitor who just wants a quick overview, and the ability of an infobox to provide metadata to re-users of our content. The latter is not visible on the page and is often insufficiently weighted when deciding on whether to have an infobox or not. My advice in general is to try to improve the infobox so that it meets the aesthetic concerns of editors while retaining its other value. We could just copy it to this talk page and work on it here if that was necessary, but seeing it in the context of the main article page is probably more useful. Perhaps Melodia could try to explain the concern a little further, as I really am unable to find a German word that corresponds exactly with "cheesy" to help Gerda - it's a bit more than unecht. --RexxS (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess basically because it's an overview topic, rather than a specific item out of a whole. It's more conceptual, as it were. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So for me I think it begs the question "Is there less demand for a quick summary or for metadata on an overview or conceptual topic?" I don't know of any reasons why there should be less need, but I'm open to be told of any. --RexxS (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Church cantata

Since the content of this article seems to be limited to church cantatas, I suppose it should be merged with Church cantata (Bach). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Seems". It isn't. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merging of Template:Bach cantatas

Template:Bach cantatas has been nominated for merging with Template:Cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bach cantata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111109233859/http://www.leipzig-online.de/thomanerchor/motettenprogramm.html to http://www.leipzig-online.de/thomanerchor/motettenprogramm.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bach cantata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930135711/http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=386 to http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=386

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bach cantata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101010012823/http://www.jsbachcantatas.com/index.htm to http://www.jsbachcantatas.com/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Header "Name and titles"

@Gerda Arendt: Not clear that "name" refers to "Bach cantata". The text calls it a "term". But I would simply reduce header to "Titles". Jmar67 (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. It's just a major curiosity, that most of what we call a Bach cantata wasn't even a cantata for Bach (only solo singing was, not choral). If you can word that better, you're welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have also skimmed through the previous discussions concerning the article title and may have some comments in that regard. Jmar67 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, but today, we do call these things Bach cantatas ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interest in an RM?

I came here looking for a list of Bach cantatas (which I see is in another article). The title was a bit startling. From the previous discussions, I gather that the article is intended to discuss the particular musical form or genre. That is not clear from the present title (although it might be clearer on the German Wikipedia as "Bachkantate"). What I would like to propose is an RM discussion focusing on an altered title such as "Bach cantata (musical form)". Jmar67 (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "musical form" here. Just a very stupid title. The title should be "Cantatas (Bach)". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the title was Cantatas (Bach) I'd expect something about more than one ;)

Bach cantata (musical form): - I don't like a long title when a short one will do, and next will be JHunterJ saying the dab brackets are not needed because there's precision enough. Also: the genre is cantata, and Bach's very specific type of cantata is no musical form, just a subset of the genre, warranting its own article. Keep simple, I'd say: leave as is. Make redirects to this and to the list as you see fit. Cantata (Bach)? How would that be better, and who would care? We have Chorale cantata (Bach), because nobody says "Bach chorale cantata", but "Bach cantata" is said a lot, like Mozart opera and Brahms Requiem (which is no Requiem). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet as you might notice, Mozart opera is a redirect to the list because other people know how dumb that actual title of an article would be. For the Brahms, it redirects for the proper title. I don't even see why you bring that up. Again, BACH'S CANTATAS ARE NOT SPECIAL. Why can you not get that through your head? Bach wrote in a popular genre/form on the time, he wrote a lot of them, and while it's true they are considered one of his best achievements you don't go around saying that Beethoven's symphonies aren't anything but symphonies by Beethoven. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this article is flawed, and this fact has been extensively communicated in the sections above over the years. It shows a misunderstanding of the language in that a two-word phrase commonly used in running text (e.g. "Wachet auf is my favorite Bach cantata") is not necessarily fit to be the title of an encyclopedia article. But "Bach cantata (musical form)" is no better. What will it take to finally correct the title? Hftf (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melodia, Mozart opera is a redirect to a list of his operas, but List of Bach cantatas is a different thing. This article is about what makes one cantata a Bach cantata. If you have a better name than the present one, which has been stable for many years, propose it and convince the community. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and don't tell me that Bach cantata is a musical form, or genre, - that's cantata. That article also doesn't say Cantata (genre), - so why should this? Keep simple. We are supposed to use the common name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and looking at page views around 100 per day, it seems to be found as it is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again — counting the number of page views, clicks, or hits per month, et cetera, is not a successful argument for the article’s title, just like it wasn’t 8½ years ago, as spelled out by User:Michael Bednarek; and nor is calling the title of an article beset by strong ownership “established” or “stable” a successful argument either, especially considering the recurrent opposition to it on the talk page (it is clear there never was any consensus in favor of this title). Nothing in the lead section (or body) of this important article gives any reason to support its title being "Bach cantata," which would denote a far more reified, distinct concept than "the cantatas composed by J. S. Bach," which is what it actually discusses. "Bach cantatas" or "Cantatas (Bach)" or really almost anything with the plural noun "cantatas" would be much better. Hftf (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going by your user page and past things you've said I assume you're not a native English speaker, so I'll try to explain it /once again/. The issue is that calling the page "Back Cantata" implies, at least in English, that there is a 'thing' that is, specially, called a 'Bach Cantata'. But...there isn't. There are cantatas, and some of them are by Bach. As I've said before, a simple change to Cantatas (Bach) fixes this issue right up. There is no "common name" of anything called a 'Bach Cantata' -- I doubt there's any other article that is similarly mangled like this. Nothing actually makes a Bach cantata anything beyond the fact Bach wrote it. Sure they share characteristics but that's because....surprise surprise...they were written by the same composer. I don't know how to make this more clear (and honestly I'm not sure why no one else chimes in about this VERY OBVIOUS PROBLEM WITH THE ARTICLE TITLE). You know barely edit WP these days -- shit like this is why. I cannot stand to see such IDIOCY being considered 'good' because....I dunno...people are messed up in the head? *shrug*. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary remark: the actual current title is "Bach cantata" not "Bach Cantata" – capitalising the second word would imply there is only a single instance of the type, as opposed to the description of a type with multiple instances (several hundreds in Bach's case). Compare:

Arpeggione Sonata – single instance of the type
Church cantata – multiple instances of the type

On the content of the matter at hand: a Bach cantata is of the same genre and musical form as a cantata by another composer. So, "... (musical form)" would hardly be a disambiguator in this context. Stylistically Bach's cantatas and those of his German contemporaries are late baroque cantatas of the Reformation. Stylistically there is much overlap in that group e.g., use of basso continuo, they all have movements like recitatives, arias and chorales, etc. What sets a Bach cantata apart is however not limited to slight differences in style:

context: the context of Telemann's Leipzig (early 18th century) is quite different from the context of Bach's Leipzig a few decades later. And the context of Telemann's Hamburg, around the same period as Bach's Leipzig, couldn't be more different. As an example of such context differences, the context of the publication of Bach's BWV 71 is completely different from the context of the publication of a cantata cycle by Telemann.
lyrics: there is for instance scholarly literature about the fundamental difference between the librettos written by Gottfried Heinrich Stölzel for his own cantatas, and the ones employed by Bach.
style: there are of course stylistic differences between a Bach cantata and the cantatas written by his contemporaries. Authenticity discriminations like those of BWV 15=JLB 21 wouldn't have been possible without outlining the stylistic differences between compositions by Bach and by his third cousin.

I think it would be possible to expand the content of the current article with more info about the specificity of a Bach cantata compared to the cantatas of his German contemporaries. There's no shortage of reliable sources about such topics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem likely that any of the proposed alternatives would garner enough support in an RM. Bach cantata, the current article title, seems to work fine: it is correct for the article content (which is indeed a topic in reliable sources), and seems to conform sufficiently to WP:AT-related guidance. I'd save editors the trouble of going through the motions of a more-than-likely fruitless RM. If the "Bach cantata" topic weren't that expanded in reliable sources the content of this article could be merged into List of Bach cantatas as an introduction to that list, but that would make that page unbalanced, with more introduction than actual list. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(As a friend of Gerda, but also significantly interested in Bach (organ work and masses)/disclaimer), I don't see need nor reason to move. As we have a very active editor here, who is almost dedicated to the topic, and for reasons of plain English, I agree with Francis Schonken. Ceoil (talk) 06:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. I've just re-read this whole page after a break of some years. The clear, clear consensus, expressed by various editors in various ways, is for this article to be moved to Cantatas (Bach), making the current title a redirect.

Can I hope that some editor with the requisite skills and knowledge can finally just make this happen? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't see that consensus. And what would you do about Bach Cantata Pilgrimage and List of Bach cantatas? If you really want to waste time, please begin an requested move. At least 2 of the users in the discussion - including the one who started it - don't edit. We better ask current editors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Waste time? You do go too far sometimes, Gerda.

When I first raised this issue, there were about 10 editors in agreement with me, and you were the sole editor arguing for the status quo. No amount of patient explanation seemed to cut any ice with you. You created the article, and you seem to have a very strong attachment to it staying exactly the way you want it to be. That, as you know, is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Nobody "owns" any article here. Consensus rules. And if you re-read the above as I have just done, you will see a very strong consensus for change. You may not agree with what others have posted, but you cannot deny a change is desired and therefore required. No indivdual editor outweighs any of that.

And when this article is finally moved to its proper title Cantatas (Bach), as it surely will be, I wonder who will be seen to have been the "Time Waster General" in this long debate? Hmm? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had no time to read anything but this thread, sorry. You didn't answer my question: what would you do about Bach Cantata Pilgrimage and List of Bach cantatas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, we can rename articles here. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Gerda Arendt: Those two articles can stay as they are. We do indeed refer to individual works as a "Bach cantata", a "Rachmaninoff concerto" or a "Beethoven symphony", etc, in some contexts. But this does not mean that any of those names is suitable as the title of a Wikipedia article. It might be fine in German, but it's not fine in English. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see the difference between "Bach cantata" and "Beethoven symphony", I'm afraid I can't help you, and that may be entirely my fault, for lack of English. There's no Beethoven Symphony Pilgrimage, nor a Beethoven Symphony Website. This article was created before we had the more specific ones about his church cantatas in a specific cycle. It was meant to be linked when an article began "... is a cantata by JSB", - note: singular - instead of the more general cantata (note: singular). I like the present title - Bach cantata - as short, and showing when someone uses the search function for Bach. Having said that, I'll unwatch now, because in the end it doesn't matter how this articles is titled, and I meant "waste of time" for any move requests that don't change much. The title has been stable for a while (12 years?), - why not just leave it, and write articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Melodia and JackOfOz. The article itself redirects to the list article on de.wiki and fr.wiki. The usual naming convention follows Scherzos (Chopin), Concerti grossi, Op. 3 (Handel), etc. Bach Cantata Pilgrimage is a CD set of John Eliot Gardiner that redirects to a section of Monteverdi Choir. Content that could easily be sourced to Alfred Dürr and Gilles Cantagrel has been overlooked. Mathsci (talk) 09:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 February 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bach cantata → Cantatas (Bach) – In line with ~~Cantatas (Bruckner)~~ Organ Sonatas (Bach). English Suites (Bach), French Suites (Bach), Cello Suites (Bach), Partitas for keyboard (Bach), Sonatas for viola da gamba and harpsichord (Bach), and similar articles. This has been extensively debated over a number of years, but the consensus for change remains. Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support change to [[Cantatas (Bach)]], as already explained in the previous section. Mathsci (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~--Oppose as already explained in the previous section, and since 2010.~~ A "Bruckner cantata" is not a term people use, but a "Bach cantata" is. This article should not be brought in line with things to which it doesn't compare. Cantatas (Bruckner) is an article about Bruckner's cantatas, while this not about Bach's cantatas (List of Bach cantatas is), but about what makes a cantata a Bach cantata. If move, then to Cantata (Bach), please, singular. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing 'makes a cantata' a 'Bach Cantata' except your weird imagination. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a fading memory, but I still remember why I wrote this article, basically a translation of de:Bachkantate (a definition), not of de:Liste der Bachkantaten (a list). Consistency is there, Cantatas (Bach) redirecting to List of Bach cantatas, as Cantatas (Bruckner) redirects to List of cantatas by Anton Bruckner. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia naming conventions are easy to understand, e.g. Organ sonatas (Bach). English Suites (Bach), French Suites (Bach), Cello Suites (Bach), Partitas for keyboard (Bach), Sonatas for viola da gamba and harpsichord (Bach), etc. Content about Bruckner is clearly WP:OFFTOPIC. Mathsci (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand these, and still hold that this particular article is not in the same category: about specific works. I would not have mentioned Bruckner if he wasn't the one and only given in the move request. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about memory once more: the article I remembered was this. In the meantime, Francis Schonken made drastic changes, including adding a list. I guess the best thing we can do is forget this article. I probably unwatched it long time ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose after I looked at what the article is now, - my bad: not looking sooner. We should not move the present article to Cantatas (Bach), because that is - as it should be, consistent with Cello sonatas and the others - a list of the works with a short introduction. This article, however, was meant to be a longer introduction (2010), basically using Dürr. It was transformed by Francis Schonken beginning in 2020 (as I noticed only last night) by adding a detailed list of the cantatas according to the BWV of 1998. Perhaps this article should be split, and/or partly merged? Perhaps we could just write a longer introduction in Cantatas (Bach), instead of a separate introduction? Perhaps we could give the long list a better name? (Who needs that detail anyway?) So: move to some other title, such as List of Bach cantatas according to the BWV of 1998 or Bach cantatas listed in the first chapter of the Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis (1998), but not to Cantatas (Bach) which is a sensible redirect we want to keep. We might rather rename List of Bach cantatas to Cantatas (Bach) if that helps consistency. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes where arbitrators found that Gerda Arendt "has added infoboxes to many articles systematically,[1] and without prior discussion.[2], including articles where she knew or should have known that adding an infobox would be controversial." Bach cantata looked like this in February 2013[3] and like this in November 2015.[4] Gerda Arendt "appropriated" infobox material from Herr, gehe nicht ins Gericht mit deinem Knecht, BWV 105 before an infobox had been been added for the cantata. This "Comment by Mathsci" from July 2013 spells out some of the problems: nothing very much has changed (except for a 2nd hard copy of Dean & Knapp's "Handel's Operas, 1704–1726" received this morning). The renaming of an article is straightforward. The change in size of the article from ~ 40,00 bytes to ~ 287,000 bytes is a separate issue that's not up for discussion here; the short introductory article de:Bachkantate on de.wiki has no equivalent on fr.wiki, es.wiki, it.wiki, pl.wiki, nl.wiki, etc. Mathsci (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about an infobox at all. (Also please note that I have been free of restrictions since 2015.) I talk about the scope of this article, to which a list of 100k+ characters was added in 2020. This should not be called Bach cantata but get a list title, and be a list article. I don't care about the introduction anymore. Delete, merge, what you want. Is that clear enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One obvious point that's been omitted so far is that Church cantata (Bach) exists and follows the usual naming conventions. It was started in 2005 and has involved multiple editors. It is used as a wikilink for all articles on church cantatas composed by JSB. The only foreign language link is to tr.wiki. Mathsci (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Church cantata (Bach) exists, but was created under the name List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function, moved only in 2014, by Graham87. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding {{see also|Church cantata (Bach)|Chorale cantata (Bach)|List of secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach|Bach's early cantatas|Bach's first cantata cycle|Chorale cantata cycle|Church cantatas of Bach's third to fifth year in Leipzig|Picander cycle of 1728–29|Late church cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach}} to List of Bach cantatas in an awkward and unreadable position had no consensus. It seems extremely WP:POINTY. Mathsci (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I try again: back in 2010, we had 1) List of Bach cantatas, 2) List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function, 3) Bach cantata, 4) Church cantata.

Now, we still have 1) and 3) while 2) was renamed to Church cantata (Bach) (in May 2014), and 4) was split, and the core is now at List of church cantatas by liturgical occasion (September 2021). Now, we also have 5) Bach's early cantatas, 6) Bach's first cantata cycle, 7) Chorale cantata cycle, 8) Chorale cantata (Bach), 9) Church cantatas of Bach's third to fifth year in Leipzig, 10) Picander cycle of 1728–29, 11) Late church cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach, and 11) List of secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. Individual cantata articles that I know rather link to those specialised aarticles and lists instead of Bach cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add these new names in the articles. They are in the navbox, but who looks at a navbox. Repeating: when this article was created, we had List of Bach cantatas, and this was created in consistency with it (and not for some German bias). Cantatas (Bach) is - correctly as I believe - a redirect to that list. This article can be renamed to whatever but please not to a name that has worked for a different article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The prehistory of these articles predates Gerda Arendt. The articles stem from Church cantata (Bach) (2005) and List of cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach (2003). A systematic subdivision of lists of cantatas started in 2016. In principle any administrator can now relabel the articles to bring them back in to order. Excuses that the article Cantatas (Bach) was already a redirect don't seem tenable. Mathsci (talk) 08:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, when will you understand that what is now Church cantata (Bach) was until 2014 List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function? I gave the diff of the move twice above. I integrated the links to the more specific articles, - is that better. (I think is less clear but try to please.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree that "Bach cantata" is a term that is commonly used, and the current title is a perfectly acceptable usage of WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose No reason to deviate from the standard naming convention. We also talk about "Chopin etudes", but the article is at Études (Chopin). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JackofOz: I'm confused by your rationale of In line with Cantatas (Bruckner) and similar articles. Cantatas (Bruckner) is just a redirect to List of cantatas by Anton Bruckner. So how is that example relevant? Colin M (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I should have mentioned the examples quoted by User:Mathsci above. Amended the move request accordingly. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant support. I think it's a very bad practice and informal convention, but long-established. Leave the resulting redirect of course, and move on. Andrewa (talk) 14:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following is copied from User talk:Andrewa:

I am not sure that you see the problem I see: The proposed name Cantatas (Bach) points at the List of Bach cantatas, and that makes sense. To use the name for an introduction article is misleading. Bach cantata is an article that is no longer needed, do you understand? The introduction is now found in more specific articles, and the super-detailed list at the end is only for specialists. It could have any name, from Cantata (Bach) (for its 2010 beginning) to List of Bach's cantatas according to the BWV of 1998 (for what Francis Schonken added to it in 2020). The article that remains needed for the average reader is the other, and better with the traditional redirect, consistent to cello suites and motets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps JackofOz is also interested? In a nutshell: nobody needs the article Bach cantata, - the relevant article is presently called List of Bach cantatas, and I wouldn't mind if THAT would be renamed Cantatas (Bach). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, having these side discussions away from the main debate is very unhelpful. If you now acknowledge that "Bach cantata is an article that is no longer needed, ...", the place to state that is at the debate about the name change, not anywhere else. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was stated at that discussion, on 16 February: "We should not move the present article to Cantatas (Bach), because that is - as it should be, consistent with Cello sonatas and the others - a list of the works with a short introduction." Bach cantata, a long introduction, is not needed, and articles don't link to it any more because we now have better introductions in other articles, which I also listed on 16 February. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have it your way, you always do. But in the end, consensus will triumph. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict:) If you think this would help on the RM page, please feel free to move it there. I believe it's only a duplication, but may be wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(End of copied text)
- While it's quite valid to discuss deletion or redirection here, I'd suggest the deletion would require an AfD nomination and that redirection would be a better option anyway. Andrewa (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some days I don't think I speak English. How is "not needed" the same as "to be deleted". Unwatching. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your English seems OK but your logic is another matter. Nobody said they were the same. I'm sorry that you have given up, it's not a good way to achieve consensus but we move on. Andrewa (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unfortunately I missed a chance to contribute to yet another round of move discussion by a couple weeks, so hope it's fine to comment here. (And thank you for copying over the FORUMSHOPped discussion from a user's talk page.) I found several statements in the discussion to be confused. Note: when I refer to "this article" below, I am imagining an idealized hypothetical version of this article, i.e. what an article on this topic "should be," such as before the unilateral 2020 addition of a giant table by a now banned editor.

That this is an introduction article: As far as I'm aware, "introduction articles," in the sense that the same topic is consciously "more fully covered elsewhere," do not really exist except rarely for highly technical subjects in the sciences, where article titles all begin with Introduction to. By "more fully covered elsewhere," I am not talking about a list (meaning something mostly in list or tabular form like List of symphonies by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and not in prose like List of symphonies by Anton Bruckner) nor about an article on an individual member of a collection (such as Partita for keyboard No. 6 (Bach) etc. linked within Partitas for keyboard (Bach) – please note that title!). The concept of Bach's cantatas clearly deserves an analogous article to Partitas for keyboard (Bach), and consistency means it should be kept at the title Cantatas (Bach).
However, if "introduction article" is meant to describe an article like Partitas for keyboard (Bach), then I agree, but would prefer a different term to refer to an article on a group or series of individual works that discuss the whole aggregate as a single topic, such as Haystacks (Monet series). Perhaps "article about a collection" for the sake of understanding, as it's not an outline article, index, etc. There is a reason for being precise as there is a key difference between a special type of article (list, introduction, outline, index, overview) and a normal article about a notable subject (I hesitate to say "concept" due to the misunderstanding noted in bullet 3) that happens to be a collection or series.
That "The proposed name Cantatas (Bach) [already] points at the List of Bach cantatas, and that makes sense": It may make sense, but it is a poor argument to keep the status quo. In general, if there is a superior use for a title, then redirects sometimes need to be updated as articles change, and there indeed is a good reason to change the title.
That "Bach cantata" is somehow its own defined term or concept that is distinct from just "a cantata by Bach": This is wrong; see the many repeated discussions above, as well as WP:NOTNEO. So just as the article on Composition VII would not begin with Composition VII is a Kandinsky composition, neither would an article on one cantata by Bach begin with … is a Bach cantata.

There are more confused arguments above, but the consensus (of more than 10 years!) is very clear and the requested move is a no-brainer. I would support. Hftf (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]