Talk:Membra Jesu Nostri

	Classical music portal 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
	This article is supported by Compositions task force.

Should Salve Mundi Salutare have its own article?

There appear to be sufficient reliable sources to justify giving Salve Mundi Salutare its own article. Would there be any objections here? I ask because the article is currently a redirect here. Andrew³²⁷ — Preceding undated comment added 05:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, you are welcome, just check the links before you overwrite the redirect and change those that mean Buxtehude's work, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

I added an infobox, it was reverted, I restored it back so that a meaningful discussion has a base, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox badly deforms the article, pushing the musical examples down, displacing the section headings and creating large swathes of whitespace (and some strange spacing within the box too). The information on "movements" is not clear and seems to contradict between different parts of the article. A different title for the text source is used in the box and the article body - a likely source of confusion, as is the differing notation between solos and choir. Actually, the inclusion of that distinction at all is problematic given that the articles says they may or may not be the same thing - much clearer to explain in text and not mislead readers. Same with instruments - listing reduces readability, much clearer to explain. "Comment" is also a very odd parameter to have - if there's no "dedication" field, better to leave it out, it's rather trivial anyways. Of course the most important fact in the lead cannot be included in the box, which makes it seem rather unhelpful as a quick survey anyways. There are a number of smaller issues, including inconsistent capitalization in the title, and of course the whole thing is unsourced, but so is the article - perhaps that would be something to improve before worrying about templates. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this infobox — like so many others – is that you have to read the article to understand it. Instead of the box summarising the article, it's almost the other way round. So I think this article would be better without a box at all. --Klein zach 01:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]