Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Bach Digital

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Bach Digital

(
)

Created by Gerda Arendt (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 00:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC).

  • Hook content: hook fact is not accurate, the hook speaks about "most viewed work", the reference speaks about "häufigsten im Internet besuchten digitalisierten Bach-Quellen". Work refers to Bach Digital#Work pages; Quelle refers to Bach Digital#Source pages. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Also digital library → database portal (afaik there's no reference for the first description, there is for the second, see first reference in infobox) --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Also "... of composition manuscripts ..." – I'd rather write "... featuring manuscripts of compositions ..." or something in that vein. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Also "... by Bach's and his family ..." typo; personally I'd rather write "... by members of the Bach family ..." as it is in the caption of the infobox image. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "... Christmas Oratorio ..." is a WP:EGG link, it should be "... Christmas Oratorio ..." – I understand Gerda wants to promote "her" article on the first cantata of the oratorio, but a WP:EGG link in a DYK on the main page is not the way to do that. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Image caption proposed for the DYK: reads very awkward, and is incorrect. The first page of Bach's manuscript of Jauchzet, frohlocket! BWV 248 I would be the "cover" of Bach Digital Source 2451 – the picture is the start of the music in Bach's autograph score (of the entire oratorio), found at Bach Digital Source 850 (BTW, this seems to be the "Quelle"/Source mentioned in the German reference article). The image caption should rather read something like this: "Johann Sebastian Bach's autograph score of the Christmas Oratorio". --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Starting at the end: the caption is too long for the Main page, we need to abbreviate, I tried differently - I don't want to promote the article because I wrote it, but because it's a GA (higher quality) and contains the image. I tried that in Christmas Oratorio, but it didn't stay.
ALT1: ... that a survey of Bach Digital, a digital portal featuring manuscripts of compositions by the Bach family, found that in December 2016 the most viewed source was the Christmas Oratorio (beginning pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Bach's Christmas Oratorio (autograph)
Bach's Christmas Oratorio (autograph)
Maybe this image caption can work →
The WP:EGG link is still a no-no IMHO: I'd rather have no DYK than one with such EGG link. The defence for such absurdity didn't convince me. So, rewrite or no DYK as far as I'm concerned. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Francis, you probably won't argue about Jauchzet, frohlocket being the beginning of the Christmas Oratorio. Perhaps someone with too much time (on Christmas Day or before) will notice that Christmas Oratorio doesn't use a single Bach Digital reference while Jauchzet, frohlocket! uses several, and perhaps fix that, and perhaps more of that article. Trying to please you:
ALT2: ... that a survey of Bach Digital, a digital portal featuring manuscripts of compositions by the Bach family, found that in December 2016 the most viewed source was the Christmas Oratorio (beginning pictured)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, still the same, for me non-negotiable, problem: moving the WP:EGG link to the image is, let's say, "creative", but no less of a no-no. In other words: never, & please stop trying the WP:EGG trick. let's combine a slightly updated version of the text of ALT2, and a variant of the image caption I proposed above:

Autograph of Bach's Christmas Oratorio
Autograph of Bach's Christmas Oratorio
ALT3: ... that a survey of Bach Digital, a portal website featuring manuscripts of compositions by the Bach family, found that the Christmas Oratorio (beginning pictured) was the most viewed item in December 2016?

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

ALT3, and previous image (caption) proposals, withdrawn, in favour of ALT4 below, for reasons explained extensively in what follows. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
To link Jauchzet, frohlocket! to the cantata of the same name is no Easter egg, and to supply a link to the same substandard article twice is not in the interest of our readers, imho. I tried to say something for Christmas which isn't too Christmassy, but we can also word a hook about Bach Digital that has nothing to do with Christmas. The picture slot will most likely be given to Johnbod's Christmas card anyway, - we have traditions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Eleanor Vadala. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Re. "to supply a link to the same substandard article twice" – you're speaking in riddles, afaics neither ALT2 nor ALT3 link twice to the same article. On the other hand, ALT2 doesn't even link to the Wikipedia article on the composer of the Christmas Oratorio, which is another rather surprising fault of it.
The reference article ("Weihnachtsoratorium beliebteste Bach-Handschrift im Internet") speaks about "Weihnachtsoratorium" (Christmas Oratorio) and "Die sechs Kantaten des »Weihnachts-Oratoriums«" (The six cantatas of the »Christmas Oratorio« – my emphasis), not about the "first cantata of the Christmas Oratorio", as long as you try to link "the work of which the manuscript was most often visited on the web in December 2016", on which we have an article, to the Wikipedia article on "Part I of the Christmas Oratorio" instead, that is EGG linking. Jauchzet, frohlocket! is the incipit of the Oratorio as well as of its first cantata: the DYK proposal mentions the Oratorio, not its first cantata, thus neither image caption nor DYK text should link to the article on the first cantata, but to the article on the Oratorio. I can only conclude that you don't seem to grasp WP:EGG. I cleaned up the intro of the Bach cantata article recently, where I encountered a few EGG links (church cantata instead of church cantata; chorale cantata instead of chorale cantata), no need to ask who put them there I suppose? For the umtieth time, familiarize yourself with the diverse aspects of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, including, but not limited to, MOS:LINKCLARITY and WP:EGG. Not so long ago you came complaining to my talk page that I applied MOS:LINKCLARITY correctly (sic)! It is about time, for the seasoned editor you are, that you adapt your editing style to established practice. You make your fellow-editors lose time and energy for something that is not acceptable, not only trying it once, or twice, or ten times, but trying it uncountable times (I include the times when I cleaned up your EGG links to "structure" articles where they should have plainly linked to the article on the composition), and then, when you are corrected, come back multiple times (on this page already three times for the same EGG) trying to have the unacceptable thing passed nonetheless. The answer is "no", and that is final as far as I'm concerned. Please stop coming back again with the same in yet another variation. Get acquainted with the applicable guidance and apply it henceforward, period.
Maybe best this DYK gets rejected, if this coming back with yet another variation of an unacceptable EGG doesn't stop. Enough time lost on this non-starter. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Francis, do you expect anybody, such as a potential reviewer (or me), to read the wall of text? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Reviewer, all you have to look at is ALT3. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: please read the wall of text (and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking which is quite somewhat longer than the three paragraphs above), so that I never, ever again have to be confronted with your WP:EGG links. Thanks.
Reviewer, please reject this DYK proposal, I have quite enough of Gerda making others loose time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Just passing by. How about ALT3 with a caption reading "First page of Bach's Christmas Oratorio manuscript, the cantata Jauchzet, frohlocket!"? Jmar67 (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Francis, I assume in good faith that you are simply not familiar enough with DYK. I removed one of the image suggestions - which as explained will probably not even appear - for less confusion. Francis, while piped links should (of course) be as close to the target as possible in articles, DYK-hooks are a different story. On the Main page now ... that in Der Ring in Minden, the orchestra played at the back of the stage,
and the singers all turned towards it to listen to the music at the end? - with two links piped for brevity, less German, and approach to a general reader.
J, thank you for the offer, but that image caption is too long, and - again- this hok is not likely to get to the image slot. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Re. "On the Main page now ... that in Der Ring in Minden, the orchestra played at the back of the stage,... and the singers all turned towards it to listen to the music at the end?" – neither are WP:EGG links. Please familiarize yourself with the actual Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking guideline, and stop promoting idiocycracies in contravention of that guidance in true WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT style.
If the image isn't going to be used, meaning that the image caption containing the Bach link would not appear joined to the DYK text, that's one more reason to abandon this DYK, and every ALT proposed thus far.
Re. "I assume ... that you are simply not familiar enough with DYK" – please stop your attempts at insult, I'm familiar enough with DYK, thank you. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

For clarity: I just had a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Der Ring in Minden: it took endless discussion, and more than 10 ALT proposals before the WP:EGG link of the original proposal (a symphony orchestra, my emphasis – indefinite article refers to no context) was changed to a non-EGG link (the orchestra, my emphasis – definite article refers to the context of the DYK text). @Gerda Arendt: please familiarize yourself with the guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking, thanks.
This rather begs the question how familiar Gerda is with DYK "traditions": WP:EGG links are routinely rejected in DYK proceedings, as Gerda knows very well, why then does she continue to propose them in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT style? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The image is the attention getter here. Without it the hook would be less interesting. Another caption idea: "Bach's Christmas Oratorio manuscript". The term "autograph" is irritating, albeit correct, because of the common connotation as a signature (Unterschrift, Autogramm). Jmar67 (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
(ec) I already proposed (above) "Bach's Christmas Oratorio (autograph)" as image caption
The last image caption I proposed (above) is "Autograph of Bach's Christmas Oratorio"
Then I said (above) that I'd think an absent image caption, i.e. failing to deliver the "Bach" link somewhere near the DYK text, would be unacceptable.
So, in what universe would one see "Bach's Christmas Oratorio manuscript" as an improvement? Thanks for the suggestion, but doesn't help much, also, as Gerda already said, repeatedly, that there's quite likely not going to be an image (so also not an image caption). I keep with my suggestion to end the DYK request, no more time sink please. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Re. "manuscript" instead of "autograph": there are seven manuscripts which qualify as "Bach's Christmas Oratorio manuscript", see Bach Digital Work page 00314 – there are eight documents marked as "original source" ("original source" meaning that it is a document which Bach is known to have prepared for his own use), the last of these, Bach Digital Source 25367 is however a print, so not a manuscript. Leaves seven "Bach's Christmas Oratorio manuscript"s. The German article used as reference for the DYK hook proposals thus far says "Bach-Handschrift" (i.e. lit. "Bach-handwriting", "manuscript in Bach's hand"), for which only one of Bach's seven extant manuscripts of the Christmas Oratorio qualifies, that is the autograph manuscript, RISM 467003200 (=Bach Digital Source 850; =D-B Mus.ms. Bach P 32). That's the one in the image proposed for the Main Page DYK. The other six manuscripts of Bach's Christmas Oratorio are only partial autographs. So, no, "manuscript" is confusing in this context: at least lacks the precision expected from an encyclopedia (and certainly its main page). So, get over it: "autograph" is the correct term, and for those not acquainted with that meaning of the word (which is nonetheless in every dictionary, even the simplest one), there's a link to the autograph (manuscript) article. Again, I think it best to have no DYK, rather than a sloppy one which fails to name things by their correct name, links confusingly, and whatnot that has already been proposed thus far in this DYK. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Still confusing to me at the moment. Jmar67 (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Also, the hook could conceivably run any day from 25 December to 6 January. Jmar67 (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
True, but that's not what is being proposed. Gerda could take up that suggestion if she still thinks the Bach Digital article is worth a DYK. I've come to see it primarily as a time sink, which I would like to see stopped. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposing a new ALT for the Bach Digital DYK: no image (only causes confusion, see above), not bound to Christmas Day (also problematic, see above), or even the Christmas period, no problematic links (see above), nor foreign-language titles or extraneous terminology (see above), and different content & source for the DYK hook (this time the source is in English, also an advantage to avoid confusion):

ALT4: ... that according to academic Yo Tomita, the Bach Digital portal website has largely replaced printed reference works as first point of entry for Bach scholarship? Source: Tomita, Yo (2016). "Locating sources". In Leaver, Robin A. (ed.). The Routledge Research Companion to Johann Sebastian Bach. Taylor & Francis. pp. 49–51. ISBN 9781315452807.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Lovely, thank you Francis. I tried to get this for Christmas, because there are usually only few, and the few about hymns and such. A digital website would have been a nice change. I'll write about about another hymn then. Yesterday, I listened to Jauchzet, frohlocket!, and the background of every single page was the upper half of the iconic image. I recommend to find some other image for ALT4, just because it's more attractive. I rarely nominate without an image to attracts a revewer, knowing that in 7 of 8 cases it will not be taken. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Re. "other image": don't think this very well possible: whatever manuscript image is not a very apt illustration (these manuscripts can be found elsewhere, see "websites of libraries" below, and e.g. also IMSLP now often showing such manuscript facsimiles in a resolution many times higher than a DYK image can do). A screen shot of the website (if this could be done without copyright issues) would even be more absurd, while the detailed info (which makes the Bach Digital website specific) would of course be unreadable on a thumbnail image. A photograph of Uwe Wolf might be possible, but none seems available, and would probably need a large caption to connect it to the ALT4 hook. If this fails to attract a reviewer: it is no top priority of mine to get this on Wikipedia's Main Page. Neither is "credit" (as you suggested above) much of a priority to me: what is, is trying to avoid half-boiled info which is no credit to the encyclopedia appearing on Main Page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The reference does not say that (?). It cites BD as an example of an online database. And it is not particularly surprising that an online search is a first point of entry. Also, I would not hyphenate "Bach-scholarship". Jmar67 (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The clue is further down the page: "They [=Bach Digital and its predecessor since 2008 merged into Bach Digital] have become the preferred initial source reference tool for most Bach scholars." ("... have become ..." contrasting with the opening sentence of the section "The usual starting point for Bach scholars has been to consult [printed sources X, Y an Z (a few mentioned in footnote 4)]". --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
"They" refers to "online databases", not BD. Jmar67 (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, "online databases" which "... allow filtering by scribe, approximate date of copying, Bach's compositions contained in the source, ..." and "... also offer high-resolution color scans of Bach's original manuscripts held in public libraries in Germany", which only applies to www.bachdigital.de and www.bach.gwdg.de – the second being the (former) Göttinger Catalogue which is now fully merged into Bach Digital. So, indeed Bach Digital, and nothing else, for the "first point of entry" for most Bach-scholarship. Further on in the same section Tomita mentions:
  • websites of libraries (Berlin State Library, Bavarian State Library and SLUB Dresden), which indeed have high-resolution scans (only of what is in their own library though), but no search facilities allowing to "filter by scribe", etc... – Bach Digital is a portal (with such filtering by scribe etc) giving access to scans made available by such other libraries (and to such scans of what is in the Bach Archive itself).
  • RISM, which has neither scans, nor allows much detailed filtering
Tomita does not mention his own web-database (Bach Bibliography) which does, however, not deal with manuscripts or scribes, nor with scans.
I stand by my ALT4 hook, it summarizes correctly material found in Tomita's "Locating sources" section of the Research Companion book. --Francis Schonken (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Tomita may indeed believe ALT4 but he does not state it that way. My suggestion at the moment would be:
ALT5: ... that academic Yo Tomita cites the advantages of the Bach Digital portal website over printed reference works as the first point of entry for Bach scholarship.
Jmar67 (talk) 07:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but this fails the WP:NPOV policy (and should for this reason never appear on main page or elsewhere in Wikipedia): Tomita also cites disadvantages ("... the amount of detail available in online databases is limited ..." etc). Also "... the advantages ..." (my emphasis), as if the advantages cited by Tomita are the only ones in existence, is a WP:NPOV no-no. A DYK hook in the sense "... Yo Tomita cites advantages and disadvantages of ..." falls flat, and is hardly an interesting DYK imho: the interesting point is imho the increased usage (i.e. what happens in reality, as opposed to possibly merely theoretical advantages and disadvantages), in scholarship, of the Bach Digital web resource, which more or less marginalises printed sources as first point of entry. But again, I'm spending too much time on a DYK I think neither essential, nor a big asset to Wikipedia. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
What I would think an interesting DYK for Wikipedia's Main Page is, for instance, something like "... that autograph not only means a collectible signature of a celebrity, but also a manuscript written by the author of its content?", but current DYK rules are incompatible with that kind of DYK hook: these rules are rather about giving credit to individual editors than to the Wikipedia encyclopedia as a whole – so be it. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Autograph (manuscript) - we will see. If it doesn't work, you could find a hook for Bach Digital mentioning autograph (linked), and you will be pleasantly surprised how many views the article will get even when not bold. DYK is not about editor credit, and to say so discredits the efforts of people busy in the project to educate. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  • evrik, I see no sign that this article has ever been reviewed for the standard DYK criteria, such as newness, length, verifiability, neutrality, copyvio/close paraphrasing, image, QPQ, etc. It's just been reams and reams of discussion about hooks and suitability. Please supply a full review below. Many thanks. (Also, ALT4 is missing an initial "that", and I don't believe there should be a hyphen in "Bach-scholarship".) BlueMoonset (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: at the time of its nomination, it was new enough and long enough. QPQ is done. It appears neutral and passes the earwig test I Looked at the article before I approved it, and thought the review had been done. --evrik (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Approving Alt 4. --evrik (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Bach_Digital&oldid=1061606679"