Talk:Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her

From user talk

From my user talk page:

---

(...) Layout: For small screens, to have an image next to the text with translation, results in many line breaks. For an example of poetry please look at Es ist ein Ros entsprungen where it was improved yesterday. I would prefer the lead image in the infobox, as is normal, but will not argue about that ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

ps: an image of the annunciation would suit the beginning better than the adoration of the shepherds, imho, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

---

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

And more:

---

(...) Vom Himmel hoch. What I see now in this version: under "Luther's text and setting" the infobox right, white space left of it, the first pic left, white space right of it, then the image of the choral melody which seems redundant to the two other displays, then the long long text with translation (for whom? external links have it). - I liked the image that Nikkimaria suggested. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

---

--Francis Schonken (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Nikkimaria? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Francis, please keep private things on private talk pages. I know the difference. All the above is no longer relevant. In the present version, I don't particularly like:

• three images of the melody (one seems enough)
• text after tune
• long text and translation (which I would leave to external links)
• the infobox position (would prefer standard position) - was fixed by Bgwhite, but now we have again a lead image before an infobox of a type which does't accomodate an image, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• the infobox type ("hymn" has limited parameters and offers no image possibilty, compare)
• many Swedish redlinks (one with an interwiki language link would do)

I initiated some brainstorming on an image showing more heaven (because that is the first word mentioned in the text) and a bit naive (because it was written for children). Nikkimaria found two. - The German version might be a model. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Would like to see Nikkimaria's view on current version

That version...

• ...has two images of the melody, I like at least one with a standard treble clef for recognizability, while the other makes a better lead image
• ...keeps melody before text, which I prefer
• ...has text and translation imported from Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her" where it seemed less opportune (note: standard PDF generation omits this: so putting the third image, which has a larger portion of the text, in that section is maybe not such a bad idea?)
• ...has the "hymn" infobox under the lead image, which suits fine imho: that infobox template is the standard for pages like this one, and I think it best to have the lead image first (among other reasons for the unsolved standard PDF generator issue) Note: this version works fine in all sorts of zoom percentages as far as I can see.
• ...takes no side on whether or not the "hymn" infobox is OK, which is hardly the place here to discuss
• ...kept the Swedish redlinks, but I'm no supporter of those, & don't really know what to do with them, and would like input of others.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what I'm being asked or why here - the opening of this section is a bit hard to follow. I had suggested two alternatives to the Adoration image, and think that either would be preferable to the current version. I would also point out that the given source expresses uncertainty about whether Luther actually composed the melody or just the words. If you want to ask me something else, you'll need to be more specific. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Tx, I asked primarily for the lead image. I disagree, I like the current lead image better, for being better in line with WP:LEADIMAGE, despite the uncertainty about the authorship of the song (which has to be explained in the article, I agree on that). But, whether or not the authorship is authentic, it is a Lutheran chorale traditional, and I don't think an annunciation to the shepherds painting that doesn't link to this Lutheran tradition is much on its place as lead image. Why do you prefer such image over the current one (also, I still don't know what other image you proposed as alternative)? There were a few here, before I moved the text and translation from there, but none of these seem very suitable as lead image to me either (some of them also for the width/height ratio). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Francis, you've pinged assorted other people, but you seem to be engaging in a tendentious debate here that is getting unnecessarily personalized. Drop the stick on the infobox. It looks beyond weird to have an image above an infobox, that's not the proper formatting at all. This is also more of a chorale than a "hymn" so let's just use the standard box and be done with it. Montanabw^(talk) 18:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion, in the box the image is however too small to read the text. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I made it bigger. Montanabw^(talk) 00:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

... which brought back the excessive whitespace problem, so no, no improvement over what I had produced before. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I see no whitespace problem. Must just be your computer. Montanabw^(talk) 00:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Re "hymn": it's on the list of hymns by Martin Luther, I think these should all use the same hymn infobox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: sample infobox removed, - confuses inclusion count --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC) The image is as large as you want it, if you use the flexible template. - I actually don't think it matters if people can read the text (in old German that even Germans have a hard time reading) which is printed several times in the article. - Different compromise: have the adoration image in the box which you don't care about anyway and will not miss if not part of a PDF, but which will tell most readers at a glance that this is something related to Christmas, - I doubt that as many readers will get it from reading "Weihenachten". - As for "all the same infobox": will you please go to the arbitrators and request that all Bach composition should have the same infobox? They made abundantly clear that it is up to the owner of an article to make the editorial choice if to use an infobox and which, - changes can be requested on the talk of individual articles and need consensus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• There should be no images above the infobox. Not only does this look weird, but it goes against MOS. From MOS:INFOBOX An infobox template is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section, (in the desktop view) or at the very top of an article (mobile view)... This also causes problems with the mobile view. The infobox is no longer the first thing a person sees, but is further down.
• Infobox musical composition should be used as it offers more options.
• Image goes inside the infobox box. Yes the text cam become smaller, but the user has the option of making it bigger. I personally can't read the Hymn text in the image in the larger version.
• One image of the melody is enough. Any more and it really doesn't add anything.
• All the Swedish redlinks serve no purpose

Bgwhite (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• There's no "goes against MOS": "... usually ..." is not always. MOS doesn't even recommend a position.

• usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section MOS DOES give a position. There has to be a good reason to go against MOS, there is none in this case. Concensus on this talk page also says to put it there. Bgwhite (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Re. "The infobox is no longer the first thing a person sees" - so and? With a standard PDF export one doesn't even see it at all, not anywhere (which is not the same for an image outside the infobox).

• If looking on a mobile device it should be the first thing, not in the middle of the article. Personally, I don't care about PDF export, that is what web print if for. The PDF extension is new and was enabled at the end of October. A known problem is printing with tables, well actually the lack of printing tables. An infobox is just a table (try PDF printing Periodic table (large cells)). Just because PDF currently has problems with tables, doesn't mean we don't add them because it will be fixed in the future. Bgwhite (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Infobox hymn should be used for an article on a hymn.

• The infobox is just named hymn, it doesn't mean the article should use it. It is also a musical composition, thus Infobox musical composition also works. Besides, it will be deleted soon enough. Bgwhite (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't add the third ([1]) There is one image of the melody in current music notation. The music notation of the 1567 publication is akward to read for most people acquainted with music notation in the early 21st century, the 1541 is even worse, it's more about the text, and the look and feel of publications in those days.
• Swedish redlinks, agree, but still don't know what to do best with them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: the alternatives are the two on the left, below. I don't much care whether one is the lead image or used later in the article; I just think either would be far better than the current Adoration image, shown on the right. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I only see selection on "nice image", with a vague attitude of who cares whether it's related to the actual topic of the article or not... So no, the two images on the left don't qualify as lead image, neither anywhere else in the article per Wikipedia rationale. The Augsburg image is better on several levels (except for the pictural quality, I agree): it is the right region, right time (at least for Bach), and is about the idea of "scenic representation" which the "Vom Himmel hoch" is about: it has the look and feel of a Lutheran approach to the nativity: too Italianate doesn't seem right (we're not talking semi-Catholic Dresden here either yet...). --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Francis, you don't get it, so why not just drop the stick and let other people do the formatting. You don't know what you're talking about here. Montanabw^(talk) 00:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A note that disagreement and "disruption" are two different things. It is not "disruptive" to disagree. Here, there appears to be at least a 3:1 consensus to insert infobox composition over the poorly-designed infobox hymn. I take no position, by the way, as to which image is included in the article, only placement. Montanabw^(talk) 00:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

"...You don't know what you're talking about..." is ad hominem, ergo disruptive as a comment on the contributor instead of on the content. Remove it and I'll answer to whatever reasonable arguments you may have. --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Statements of fact are not disruptive. In short, as has been stated above, the positioning of an image above an infobox is improper per WP:MOS, particularly where there exists an infobox that can incorporate an image. Gerda, myself and @Bgwhite: all agree on the formatting. That equates to consensus, which does not have to be unanimous.. Montanabw^(talk) 02:36, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Please remove "...You don't know what you're talking about..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 02:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The image in the infobox is big enough for me to read - and at my advanced age, that pretty much guarantees anyone can read it. The only objection I have been able to glean from the above is that there is whitespace next to the infobox. So what? Any attempts to remove whitespace are doomed to failure as we have no control over the size of the screen on which it is viewed. When I view this article in a window that's 3920 pixels wide, it's almost all whitespace. On my mobile phone, there's very little. Worrying about such trivia is not the job of editors here and trying to pack every inch of the screen with content is a quixotic enterprise. There's no good reason why a standard infobox with image shouldn't be used - and Francis, you need to learn that you won't get your own singular preferences by edit-warring against multiple other editors. I've restored the version preferred by the majority here. If there are any genuine grounds for a different version, let's hear them. --RexxS (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Whitespace problem has been solved, is no longer a problem in either version.

These are the changes involved in the revert:

1. Image in or out of infobox
2. Image size
3. Text content of infobox conforming to referenced article content or not
4. General infobox or "hymn" infobox
5. Section title for text (& translation)
6. Displaying 1541 Gesangbuch or not
7. Text and translation announced in table or out of it
8. Text layout in table

In the same order:

1. Outside infobox: there is no downside for small screens (tested on mobile phone), there is an advantage for standard generated PDF version. That the guideline implies the infobox "should" be in the upper right corner is obviously not what the guideline says. Also, as long as we're discussing this, this should return to the state prior to the start of the discussion, which is image above infobox: [2]
2. 260px suffises for me, no need to make it bigger either
3. There should be no disparity between content of the article and content of the infobox
4. Let's wait outcome of template merge discussion
5. "Text", while the translation is not always visible
6. See above "note: standard PDF generation omits [text and translation in table]: so putting the third image, which has a larger portion of the text, in that section is maybe not such a bad idea?" – I stand by that reasoning
7. Better in table for standard PDF generation, otherwise announcing something that isn't there in that version
8. No reason to add more whitspace there, undiscussed revert.

Further, there is a {{primary}} template on top of the page, could we maybe concentrate on that, and when these "primary" related issues are adequately handled, maybe some of the primary source content/images we're discussing now will be automatically handled too? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Please stop reverting. Consensus is clearly for the infobox. Four people have now voiced in favour
2. Infobox hymn will be deleted. You continuing to insist on hymn is clearly moot.
3. You were told to "If there are any genuine grounds for a different version, let's hear them." Not revert what you only want and them here them.

Bgwhite (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't suppose it is up to you to decide what consensus "is". There's no consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Consensus does not require unanimity and you don't get to use a lack of consensus as a veto for your personal preferences. You are edit-warring and editing disruptively here. Do I have to ask an uninvolved admin to examine your conduct? --RexxS (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The 1541 Straßburger Gesangbuch image is pretty cool-looking, but it didn't look right at the top of the section. I put it back in, but at the bottom of the section instead of the top. The article is a bit image-heavy in general, but that one was pretty cool. As for the standard pdf generation, that software is totally f****d and really should not be used. (the bug has been reported to Village pump technical for over two months now...tables also don't render) The "printable version" is a better way to get a downloadable copy of an article. Montanabw^(talk) 20:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

"Translation"

Some parts of the translation are very free versions of the original, perhaps better called a version rather than a translation. I have not yet checked, but what is the standard translation in various English language hymn books? (if this is it, it should be specified) DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Could we focus on improving the article rather than tagging it?

Regarding the newly added tags, they seem like WP:OVERTAGGING (if not WP:TAGBOMBING) to me. I see nothing in the article that needs copyediting; if someone feels it does, can they please copyedit this extremely short article instead of tagging it? That would take less than a minute. In terms of the lede, it seems adequate to me; if something else from the very short body text bears mentioning, could someone add that instead of tagging? That would also take less than a minute. In terms of this citation [3], unless there is proof of error in it, or unless someone wants to replace it with another citation(s) instead, it seems a helpful English-language overview, complete with its own sources, for this German hymn. In terms of religious texts, this is not a religious article and does not deal with theology or theological interpretation; it is an article on a song/hymn. In terms of citations needed, could we please find and add them rather than tagging, or tag inline; this is one of the shortest articles on Wikipedia and it does not need a tag at the top for that. In terms of external links, if they are remiss, please gain consensus and trim rather than tagging at the top. I just wandered into this article by some stroke of accident (although I do have some familiarity with the hymn from attending German Christmas Eve services, and of course from Bach), and would like to see the article helped rather than tagged. Sincerely, Softlavender (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The tags are needed, so please concentrate on addressing the issues instead of attacking the tags. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just detailed at length above why the each of the problems that the tags seem to imply do not exist. If you believe any of the problems do exist, please gain consensus that it/they exist, or fix it/them yourself, or remove the tags (or all three). Thank you, Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Re. "unless there is proof of error in [a website]" – that's not how WP:RS works: Wikipedians "proving" errors in the used sources would be WP:OR. Take the source to WP:RSN if you want to use it for the article.

Re. "very short body" – the body isn't so short.

Re. "would take less than a minute", if you think so, you're welcome to perform the updates. I'd think it would take considerably more time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

{{religious text primary}} is intended for "The song represents the Annunciation to the Shepherds as part of the Christmas story (Luke 2:9–12)." Note that also "The first five stanzas are sung by the angel, addressed at the shepherds and thus the listener also." needs a ref, either to an adequate primary source, or to another reliable source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, you only have to read the text itself. The sky is blue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, any score of the Christmas Oratorio shows the use of the melody in Part II. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Francis, you've been editing on this article for more than 2-1/2 weeks. From my perspective as an outsider to the conversations above and the edit history of the article, you've been edit-warring, arguing against consensus, and, especially given the fact that today you placed five extremely dubious tags on the article and removed a helpful citation rather than try to improve or add to the article, in my view you are editing disruptively, and I imagine many or most of the other editors participating here would agree. I invite you to reconsider your approach to the article, and to work collaboratively with the rest of us here to improve the article rather than tagging it. On that note, I am going to remove the tags as lacking usefulness. Rather than tagging, please start discussions about any problems you have with the article on this Talk page, if you would, using a separate thread for each issue, so that other editors can respond to each issue in a devoted thread, and a consensus can be observed. That's what Talk pages are for. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've explained the issues, really going in denial is not a solution here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, going in denial is nowhere a solution. As long as the issues aren't resolved the tags can be up to attract attention to the ongoing talk page discussions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Softlavender: please help in addressing the issues instead of making us loose time with this redundant tag discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I added a bit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

... this version.

The article as it stands now has multiple issues, in my view, enough to make me hesitate to work on it at all.

• an image above the infobox (see above)
• infobox hymn (how many times did you try that now, Francis?)
• too many too complicated headers
• 3 images for the melody while one would be fine (see above)
• long text (for whom?) and translation (questioned above)
• an image for Pachelbel with no explanation for readers who don't know how to read music
• an image next to Bach which has nothing to do with the Christmas Oratorio

I could add to the article, there's a lot about theology, other compositions etc., but don't have the time nor the right mood, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The Pachelbel issue is handled (I think), the rest are indeed opinion matters with no consensus. Failing mood and time it is best to keep the tags up until consensus can be found. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Did anybody tell you yet that inline citations are required only for contentious claims? This is true up to FA level. It is no OR to see in the text that the annunciation goes from stanza one to five, for example, - the generously supplied text shows that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It's about the considerable difference in the text between Luther's first five stanza's and Luke 2:9–12. The way it stands now (equalling these stanzas with the gospel text) it might seem like they are some sort of translation, while they appear more like a poetic interpretation to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Not intended. Feel free to find a better wording, such as "paraphases", or your "poetic interpretation" - I like that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The "tag-bombing" is unnecessary and @Softlavender: nailed the issue. Time to go back to content. WP:POPE is a good guideline for what MUST be sourced as opposed to what is nice to have sourced if you want to take the article to GAN or FAC. Best to not edit war on this. Montanabw^(talk) 06:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Move without discussion?

The article was moved from Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her to Vom Himmel hoch. That is fine until we need Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt, probably Christmas 2015. Why move to start with, without a discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Definitely should not be at Vom Himmel hoch. Need to move it back, and rewrite the lede. The title of the hymn is Vom Himmel hoch da komm ich her, with or without the comma, with redirect (I personally prefer no comma; that's how Bach and other subsequent composers use it, and how it reads in the infobox image). Da komm ich her is part of the well-known title and Vom Himmel hoch da komm ich her is the WP:COMMONNAME and unambiguous. This move needs to be reverted as it was made without discussion or consensus. Softlavender (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• Agreed, this is a controversial article and should have been discussed. Restored title per WP:BRD. I see a 3:1 consensus NOT to move. Montanabw^(talk) 22:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 January 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Other than the nominator, all !votes are in opposition, citing valid arguments that the longer form is either more common or at least as common, and that the longer title also satisfies WP:NATURAL for disambiguating with the other "Vom Himmel hoch". (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her → Vom Himmel hoch – (1) WP:PRIMARYTOPIC compared to Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt – I've done many internet searches these last few weeks using "Vom Himmel hoch", the "o Engel" variant did not really come up. I suppose the English Wikipedia article for Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt would be at From Heav'n on High The Angels Sing or Susani (song); (2) The variants for the current article title include Vom Himmel hoch da komm ich her and Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her – with these interpunction variants it is difficult to determine which format is most often used; (3) also "Vom Himmel hoch" is used very often, e.g. choralwiki:Vom Himmel hoch, first interpolation of Bach's 1723 Magnificat, Weber's first composition, Mendelssohn's cantata,... Francis Schonken (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose – The proposal would make the creation of "Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt" unnecessarily difficult because it would then require a hatnote on this article. The current title establishes exactly which work is meant. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  True, but the hatnote would be needed anyway, with the current article in the format:

  "Vom Himmel hoch" redirects here. The term may also refer to Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt.

  I wouldn"t make Vom Himmel hoch a disambig page, as there are only two candidate article titles, one obviously the primary topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: relevant sources have more than "Vom Himmel hoch", including the current Protestant hymnal, followed by the German Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME and unambiguous. Even the original German article is Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her. Definitely should not be at Vom Himmel hoch. The title of the hymn is Vom Himmel hoch da komm ich her; that's how Bach [4] and other composers [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. who use the melody have it. Da komm ich her is part of the well-known title and Vom Himmel hoch da komm ich her is the unambiguous common name by which everyone refers to it. Shortening it would be unfortunate, unnecessary, inaccurate, and confusing. Softlavender (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment – could my co-editors please stop quoting German-language sources? They have no relevance, per WP:AT policy. We're looking for reliable English-language sources, like this one. Agreed, the German-language sources have proven more valuable for the article content, but article titling is a different matter, and should go for the common name in reliable English-language sources. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

These are all English-language sources that have been quoted: [9] [10], [11], [12], [13], and in terms of Stravinsky: [14] [15]. All of those are English sources. And in general: [16], [17]. To abbreviate the title unnecessarily would confuse the issue and misidentify the recognized title of the piece. We already have a redirect, which solves all issues. Softlavender (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Still, nine external links with no relevance whatsoever for the naming issue... the first is a self-reference, IMSLP has a leaning towards the original language (e.g. it has Weihnachts-Oratorium, BWV 248 (Bach, Johann Sebastian), while Wikipedia uses Christmas Oratorio, which BTW is an illustration of Wikipedia's WP:PRIMARYTOPIC principle unknown to IMSLP), etc.

It is irrelevant how many links there are for "Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her", when there are more for "Vom Himmel hoch", and none of these (without further qualification in the source) refer to other topics. Google books has nine links to English-language books for "Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt" I'm pretty confident that when whatever English-language reliable source uses "Vom Himmel hoch" without further qualification, like the source I mentioned above, it is always the topic of this article that is meant.

The only thing I can't confirm mathematically is whether or not there are "many" more that use the shorter form in reliable English-language sources. That's only an impression I got after performing many internet searches on the subject of this article (without thinking about the naming issue when I did). --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As an American, I can assure you that in English it's known by its full title (not by the shorter version) in conversation, speech, and broadcast media. The fact that online and even in some writings it's occasionally abbreviated does not change that. We need to preserve accuracy, reliability, and correct information, and there's no reason not to use the correct title; doing otherwise would imply that the correct title is the abbreviated one, which is not true. Softlavender (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Tx, but I think "correct" is an overstatement in this context. "Vom Himmel hoch" is correct too, that's throwing a red herring in the discussion. Martin Luther's title is "Ein kinderlied auff die Weinacht Christi", that title is "correct" but would surpass WP:USEENGLISH, WP:COMMONNAME and whatnot when used as an article title in English Wikipedia.

Here's an ngram showing that "Vom Himmel hoch" is used many times more often than "da komm ich her" in Google books. I don't suppose this is conclusive but it gives an indication.

I agree with Bgwhite's approach below "This really comes down to what a person thinks it should be" – with this addition, that I'd rather trust a native English speaker in this context, in other words, for me there's more weight in Softlavender's opinion than in my own in this matter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• weak oppose This reminds me of the accent/diacritic wars from a few years ago. (So many SciFi jokes I could make about "diacritic war") I see both versions of the title used in English sources. There is no way us mere mortal Wikipedians can say one is used more or is more common than the other. I can't see anything in WP:AT that would favour one title over another. This really comes down to what a person thinks it should be. Title should be the longer version as that is the work's name. A redirect should be made for the shorter version. Bgwhite (talk) 08:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Gentle oppose It seems both the short and long versions are common in English-language sources, so either are possible. The decision then comes down to which has the advantages. Electrons are cheap, so there's no value in using a shorter title, per se, in an online encyclopedia. Whereas, the admittedly slim chance of confusion of "Vom Himmel Hoch" with "Vom Himmel hoch, o Engel, kommt" seems to me to be a genuine disadvantage of the short title for this article. The overriding principle of article titling on Wikipedia is convenience for the reader: anyone visiting this article without any knowledge should be able to see that they have arrived at the correct page. For these reasons I have a preference for the longer title, "Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her". --RexxS (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• To my understanding, our names for hymns, anthems, cantatas etc. are normally their first lines. I think this means their full first lines. We have "O Sacred Head, Now Wounded", "Remember not, Lord, our offences", Erfreut euch, ihr Herzen, and would not shorten them (even if sources did). We might use shorter versions in the article once the full title is established. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant, there are many Wikipedia articles with an incipit that is shorter than the first line as article title, Magnificat to name only one. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • It's rather rude to attempt to dismiss an argument as 'irrelevant', Francis. Please reconsider your choice of words. It is relevant that many of our articles - and generally published sources in English - refer to title hymns by their full first lines. It's not an overwhelming argument, because sometimes exceptions occur - as you rightly point out. Nevertheless it must carry some weight in this discussion. --RexxS (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Clarification: I didn't say articles in general, but specifically articles with no title, such as hymns, anthems, some cantatas (while some others have a title). A book normally has a title, even some German one have on in English if a translation was published. A Bach cantata has no title, - we take the first line, as the BWV has it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The distinction between "has a title" and "has no title" is futile, and, in general, doesn't occur in the context of the nonetheless very extended body of article titling guidelines and policies. Everything treatable as a separate Wikipedia article has at least one name a.k.a. "title" candidate in the sense of Wikipedia:Article Titling.

    All cantatas have at least one title: the BWV catalogue lists such titles.

    More examples:

    • Schleicht, spielende Wellen, BWV 206, first line: "Schleicht, spielende Wellen, und murmelt gelinde"

    and,

    • Hine Ma Tov, first line: "Hine ma tov u’ma-nayim"
    • The World Is Too Much with Us, first line: "The world is too much with us; late and soon,"

    As there is no "rule," there are no exceptions to the rule, which is the long explanation of "irrelevant" in the context of Wikipedia article titling guidelines and policies. This aspect is IMHO, a mere loss of time without anything tangible to say.

    The introduction under #Survey above says: "please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles" (bolding added) – inventing new rules on the fly (that on closer inspection touch no base) is imho not the most constructive contribution to this discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Ftancis, we have a language problem. I say "To my understanding ... normally", you say "rule". Trying harder: I don't mean Wikipedia titles, but those in real life. For some works, Bach wrote a title, but not for his cantatas. People did that after his death, we normally use what they agreed on, such as the BWV catalogue. For this hymn, I suggest to take the name in present-day German which the Protestant and Catholic hymnal use, which is the title now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, "please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles" – please, as a minimum, adhere to its terminology in order to avoid confusion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

And, also repeating myself (see above), Luther gave a title to "Vom Himmel hoch": "Ein kinderlied auff die Weinacht Christi". Again, the title/no title distinction (IRL or not) has no tangible bearing on this discussion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"Ein Kinderlied" means "A children's song" : that is not a title but rather a category, nothing specific to this song. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"A Song for Simeon" is a valid (article) title. Really, the distinctions you're trying to make become more and more obscure, and irrelevant to the article titling issue we're discussing here, which was my first summarizing comment on this. Or would the next distinction be that "A Song for Simeon" is a poem and not a hymn? Irrelevant to the discussion. The reason we don't use "Ein kinderlied auff die Weinacht Christi" is in WP:AT, and has nothing to with it beginning with an indefinite article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, incipit is a useful concept for article titling, see e.g. WP:NCM#Definitions - italics, WP:NCB#Poems and lyrics. The suggestion to equal incipit with first line for certain categories (as suggested above) is new to me, and doesn't stand when taking a closer look (see examples above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Catholic songbooks"

What is meant by "Catholic songbooks"? Hymnals or what kind of songbook? The current Catholic hymnal Gotteslob has "Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her" as #237 [18][19]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"katholischen Gesangbüchern," see source as indicated in the article. Note also "16. Jahrhundert" in the source, translated as "16th century" in the Wikipedia article in the context of the songbooks containing Triller's version. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

See also :

Erst mit dem für alle deutschsprachigen Bistümer einheitlichen katholischen Gesangbuch "Gotteslob" wurde 1975 schließlich Luthers Text mit den Strophen 1–6 und 15 übernommen, jedoch weiterhin mit der vorangestellten Triller-Strophe "Es kam ein Engel hell und klar"

in the last paragraph of the same source. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: "Gesangbuch" is "hymnal" ("Liederbuch" would be "songbook"). No contradiction: the current Gotteslob dates from 2013. The source must be older and referring to Gotteslob (1975) which can be historically interesting, but not the latest on the topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

wiktionary:de:Gesangbuch lists "songbook" before "hymnal" as English translation. The reference gives three instances of such 16th century Catholic Gesangbüchern: "songbook" without doubt being a correct qualification for all of them, I'm not taking a stance on whether they would all be "hymnals" too. When it can be confirmed they are, no problem to update the article accordingly.

This is BTW independent of the question of how much detail English Wikipedia should give on the successive Gotteslob publications. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I am German, and I can confirm that Gesangbuch is only a "songbook" used in a church, never secular, - I understand those are hymnals or hymn books in English. Ready to learn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

An article Gotteslob should mention that there is a revised version, and an article on this hymn should mention that (quite surprisingly) this and other hymns by the Protestant reformer were included, and that this one is in the latest version pure Luther without a preparatory stanza by someone else. (I am willing to both, but have no time now.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Anchor template

The idea of using an anchor for incoming links to sections is a good one, but annoyingly, the anchor template has limitations. The main annoyance is that edit summaries for section edits no longer link to the section, turning checking from a watchlist or article history into a chore as the article grows. Anchors inside sections can use the template without problems, but for section headings, an empty span with a corresponding id is the normal work-around. I think the changes I made should resolve the issue, but if anyone has any problems, then please ping me and I'll try to fix them. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

presenting alternative infobox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

If that one were used, I don't think the translator or translation publication should be mentioned in the infobox. It's a German song/carol, virtually not used or sung in the U.S., plus the information is trivial. In this case, and for this iconic and well-known German song, I prefer the infobox as it stands now in the current article, as to my mind it contains more material of interest to the reader (image; English meaning; etc.) Could add the date of the text to the current infobox. Softlavender (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Best solution seems to be to have different infoboxes, - or even different articles. The German title of the first melody seems of rather little relevance to me. About the old-fashioned parameters (such as TradMelodyName) of infobox hymn see the merge discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Pointeless, when that and the current infobox are being discussed for a merger. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Clarify: by "different", I didn't mean "composition" and "hymn"m but an extra one for the translated version, for example, both composition, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Text squeezed by images

I personally find this article very hard to read, in particular the "The 1539 melody in other compositions" section, because of the overlarge images. I think this probably even violates Wikipedia image policies. Is there any way this can be remedied? I've checked on a number of browsers and skins, and in what I consider a normal-sized viewing window, text-reading is quite squeezed. Softlavender (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks better now. Softlavender (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Balulalow

Why does "Balulalow" redirect here? Why does a carol written in 1919 by the English Peter Warlock redirect to a 16th century German carol? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)