Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 14

< August 13	August 15 >

August 14

Template:Black Pink

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Black Pink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Way too soon for a navbox. This girl group just debuted and they don't have enough articles yet. The album article is currently a redirect. Random86 (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, only navigates one article. Frietjes (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough links to provide navigation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to navigate, they've released one single and none of the members are individually notable. Fences&Windows 17:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Catholic mysticism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Catholic mysticism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Christian mysticism (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Catholic mysticism with Template:Christian mysticism.
Since User:Jujutsuan failed to gain WP:CON to rename Template:Christian mysticism in this discussion, he chose create Template:Catholic mysticism as a duplicate of it instead (see WP:FORK). While he has added some new Catholic-related links to the (already long) Christian Template, the template itself is added to the bottom/top of some pages that already have the first template. It just makes no sense to have two template on the same pages with most link duplicated in both. One obvious fix would be to only keep the currently duplicated links in just one template or the other, Jujutsuan objects to this as unnecessary. Jujutsuan has (so far) mostly added the Template:Catholic mysticism template to pages (that he thinks are) about mysticism literature, but has never given a reason to have the two similar templates. tahc ^chat 16:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is WP:SUBPOV. This was actually Chicbyaccident's idea, not mine. The original version of this, which was quickly redirected to {{Christian mysticism}} to let the RM finish, was deleted to make way for the un-userfying of the current version, but you can check out its talk page and the RM to see that it's true. I'd say I added a lot of new links, to plenty of people as well as literature. I don't just think they're relevant, they were all (or virtually all) in categories that indicated their relevance. I mean, we could merge Christian mysticism into Catholic mysticism, but then the template would be undeniably Catholic-oriented. (Tell me, are any of the links in the Catholic one not about Catholicism?) So here's the choice, Tahc: change the name to "Catholic mysticism" and merge, or have two separate templates, one as an overview, one more comprehensive about the Catholic SUBPOV. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 17:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either merge into the Christian mysticism template or, better, change the Catholic template to a footer. Side and footer templates are used on the same page, even if they contain duplicate listings, so to differentiate the two that would be one solution. As said, if not a footer, merge into Christian mysticism (maybe some of the literature should be in both templates as well). Randy Kryn 13:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

reformat Template:Catholic mysticism as a footer template, as suggested by Randy Kryn. Frietjes (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Template:Catholic mysticism into Template:Christian mysticism. They are the same thing for the first 1,000 years of church history anyway (when East and West split) and, as far as Protestants are concerned, the same thing for the first 1,500 years, so there is a huge overlap. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Deprecated and unused. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, don't need it. Frietjes (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:UK trademark

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2016 August 27. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:§§

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:§§ (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Complex external links template, supporting eleven jurisdictions, but with only three transclusions in all. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. way too complicated for just three articles. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question how many articles would need to link to it in order for it to be retained? --Bermicourt (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Bermicourt, what is the point of {{§§|URL|2=http://www.buzer.de/gesetz/7831/l.htm|3=Synopse der Änderungen und Texte der EnEV 2007, 2009 und 2013}} when you can just write [http://www.buzer.de/gesetz/7831/l.htm Synopse der Änderungen und Texte der EnEV 2007, 2009 und 2013]? the problem here is that if this template were only used for linking to pages at bundesrecht.juris.de, the code would be one line, and far more useful. Frietjes (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, the links in Kreditwesengesetz would be much less complicated without this template. Frietjes (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The template links to the laws of 11 countries or states and I created it in anticipation of it being used on many of their articles (as on de.wiki). The original reason given for deletion was a lack of links. That problem is easily fixable, but I don't want to waste time fixing that unless there is a consensus against deletion. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bermicourt, the links in Kreditwesengesetz would be much less complicated without this template, so deploying it in that manner would be a bad idea. a better idea would be to create one just for bundesrecht.juris.de. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - someone should look at Template:German law section as well. the documentation is not particularly helpful if you don't speak German. Frietjes (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well spotted, it looks like much the same thing only no-one's translated the text. I'd be happy to do it provided it's not also put up for deletion. Just don't like wasting my time on nugatory work. ☺ --Bermicourt (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Now up for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it isn't really plausible that someone is going to remember all the parameter quirkiness for several different national jurisdictions – almost all lawyers, legal scholars, and law students (the most likely people to be using such a template) are specialists, not generalists in the legal codes of a swath of countries. It could conceivably be the case that someone will have a paper source on hand providing the details needed to fill in the template, but it would take less time, probably, to find it online and provide the URL than it would to read the template documentation. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 17:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:FC Baden squad

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:FC Baden squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Current squad is outdated, the last modification was in July 2012. The club plays in Swiss third tier nowadays and has very few notable players. No transclusions. Kq-hit (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, no enough working links. Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:UD Salamanca squad

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UD Salamanca squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Club dissolved in 2013 Kq-hit (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, defunct. Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:CS Otopeni squad

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CS Otopeni squad (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Club dissolved in 2013 Kq-hit (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, defunct. Frietjes (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Latest preview software release/Internet Explorer

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was delete. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latest preview software release/Internet Explorer (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Empty template. Will never be used again. (For the original purpose, please see Template:Infobox software/doc § Moving release data outside the article.) Codename Lisa (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete, not needed. Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:WikiProject Arkansas

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2016 August 31. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Arkansas (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

Template:Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. But, there is consensus to fix the redundancy by either (a) having multiple non-overlapping templates or (b) merging everything into one navbox. Please feel free to continue the discussion at Template talk:Johann Sebastian Bach, or renominate this template, or renominate this template for merging with other templates. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Redundant fork of {{Bach cantatas}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — logical subset of Bach's cantatas, see List of secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: when the template was created it was not a subset of Bach cantatas, but the cantatas listed in the template for discussion were removed from the traditional template. I reverted that because I believe all cantatas should be in one template. NOW it is a subset. I don't think it's necessary, but also not harmful when shown in addition to the other. It has (more than the other) a lot of German titles, which I don't think will help the average reader. Nice, but not needed, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't have problem with "shown in addition" why did you remove them from
  - BWV 36a
  - 36b
  - 36c
  - 66a
  - 134a
  - 210
  - 210a

instead of just re-adding the general template?

The rest of the reasoning (and in fact also the nomination) is undiluted WP:IDONTLIKE. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attempt to speak for me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bach's secular cantatas form a meaningful set, see List of secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach and Category:Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. Your argumentation reads: "redundant fork ...", then see WP:NOTDUP: "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. etc."

So I stand with my assessment of the arguments in favour of deletion that were brought to this discussion: WP:ATA/WP:ATADP, in particular WP:IDONTLIKE. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being a forked navbox, the navbox under discussion is redundant to the navbox from which it was forked; not to a category, and not to a list. Your overly verbose, hectoring responses and attempt to paint my logically-reasoned argument for deletion as a matter of mere personal distaste are facile, if not transparently dishonest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A navbox with all cantatas by number, without context or even names, is entirely unpractical for navigating the secular variant subset. A navbox that accomplishes that is not "redundant". --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as redundant. if it's useful to split the list, then split the list in the main template, or split the main template. however, this is clearly redundant navigation. Frietjes (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – following the suggestion in the previous !vote, the template has been split (see also discussion on the talk page of that template). No cantata article is in both templates any more, so redundancy has been reduced to zero, meaning that this discussion can be closed without further action. Can someone do so, we don't need the "at TfD" message lingering on all the secular cantata articles. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Your edit there has - rightly - been reverted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re. "- rightly -"... which brings us straight back to WP:IDONTLIKE, all that is left of the reasons opposing that split. For me, {{Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach}} is viable, whatever happens to {{Bach cantatas}}, which never has provided adequate navigation for Bach's secular cantatas (and probably will not do so in the foreseeable future). It is a navbox with some 250 numbers, meaningless to an average reader. Which ones of these numbers represent secular cantatas? Nobody can tell, so, whether that template contains the numbers of the secular cantatas or not, a navbox that does the navigation of the secular cantatas of Johann Sebastian Bach in a more suitable way has a right to existence. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your overly verbose, hectoring responses and attempt to paint my logically-reasoned argument for deletion as a matter of mere personal distaste remain facile, if not transparently dishonest. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - This was extremely facile: "Oppose per Gerda" is the only text you contributed to the talk page that discussed the split. Gerda's reasoning was a verbose WP:IDONTLIKE, to which you subscribed. That's all there is to say about your opposition to the split. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as redundant per WP:CSD#T3. We don't need multiple navboxes to link the same articles. If further clarity or separation is required, this should be dealt with at {{Bach cantatas}}, although this is probably unnecessary as anyone specifically looking for the secular cantatas will find a list article linked anyway. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems a few other recently created templates should probably be deleted under the same rationale. Couldn't all his compositions be merged into a single template {{Works by Johann Sebastian Bach}}? I don't think this would be too large. See {{Bach's short vocal works and mixed collections}}, {{Church cantatas, motets and oratorios by BWV number}}, {{Organ compositions and contrapuntal works by Johann Sebastian Bach}}, {{Masses and Magnificats by Johann Sebastian Bach}}, {{Bach's church cantatas up to first cycle}}, {{Bach's third cantata cycle and later}}, {{Chorale cantata cycle}}. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That had been my first approach, this is what it would look like:

(note: 2014 version – I think that in the mean while there was a substantial growth of articles on compositions by Bach). The idea was soundly rejected at the time. Quoting from the rejection reasons: "I still think that any "navigation" template with more than ~30 entries fails to serve as a navigational tool; I count >300 in the proposed template. Bach's compositions ought to be covered in several navigation boxes, organised by category." For composers like Bach (or Beethoven etc.) all compositions in one box is not feasible (if the 2014 consensus on several composers still stands). My attempt to break down Bach's "cantatas" navbox in 4 subboxes (each 40 to 80 links) still follows from what I learnt in that discussion in 2014. I understand that some editors still think that navigation by the (for cantatas meaningless) BWV numbers should be possible for all cantatas: that can only be realised by combining 2 navboxes on every cantata article page: the general one + one of the subtemplates. Alternatively I'd discuss the 250-link "general" cantata navbox at TfD, and see whether it is an option to do away with that general template with the "meaningless" numbering sequence, in favour of the four navboxes which allow "meaningful" navigation (in which case any cantata article would have only one of those four boxes). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a perfectly reasonable navbox to me, and by no means one of the largest that we currently have... --11:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's the twist: we can't start deleting "break-down" templates, developed according to the outcome of the discussion at Template talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#Update before we know consensus has changed ({{Beethoven templates}}, {{Haydn templates}} and {{Mozart templates}} show it apparently hasn't). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gave the mega-navbox idea a fresh try:

(vocal works only, a similar one could be developed for Bach's instrumental music) --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the instrumental music one:

--Francis Schonken (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – proposing to continue this conversation at Template talk:Johann Sebastian Bach#Subgroups 2016. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

v t e Compositions for Organ, Keyboard and Lute by Johann Sebastian Bach
Organ	Fugue in G minor, BWV 131a (doubtful) Sonatas, BWV 525–530 Prelude and Fugue in D major, BWV 532 Fantasia and Fugue in C minor, BWV 537 Toccata and Fugue in D minor ("Dorian"), BWV 538 Toccata and Fugue in F major, BWV 540 Fantasia and Fugue in G minor ("Great"), BWV 542 Prelude and Fugue in A minor, BWV 543 Prelude and Fugue in E minor ("Wedge"), BWV 548 Eight Short Preludes and Fugues, BWV 553–560 (doubtful) Fantasia and Fugue in C minor, BWV 562 Toccata, Adagio and Fugue in C major, BWV 564 Toccata and Fugue in D minor, BWV 565 Prelude (Toccata) and Fugue in E major, BWV 566 Fugue in G minor ("Little"), BWV 578 Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor, BWV 582 Orgelbüchlein, BWV 599–644 Schübler Chorales, BWV 645–650 Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, BWV 651–668 Canonic Variations on "Vom Himmel hoch da komm' ich her", BWV 769 Neumeister chorales, BWV 1090–1120 Chorale fantasia Wo Gott der Herr nicht bei uns hält, BWV 1128
Keyboard	Aria variata alla maniera italiana Capriccio on the departure of a beloved brother Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue English Suites French Suites Goldberg Variations (discography, Gould recording) Inventions and Sinfonias Italian Concerto Six Little Preludes Overture in the French style Partitas for Keyboard (No. 4, No. 6) Prelude in E minor, BWV 855a The Well-Tempered Clavier, BWV 846–893 (Preludes and Fugues in Book I: C major, BWV 846, C♯ minor, BWV 849, G minor, BWV 861; in Book II: C major, BWV 870, F minor, BWV 881)
Collections	Klavierbüchlein W. F. Bach Clavier-Übung III: Prelude and Fugue in E♭ major ("St. Anne"), BWV 552 – Chorale preludes, BWV 669–689 – Duets, BWV 802–805
Lute	Suite in G minor, BWV 995 Lute Suite in E minor, BWV 996 (Bourrée) Prelude, Fugue and Allegro in E♭ major Prelude in C minor, BWV 999 Fugue in G minor, BWV 1000
List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach List of fugal works by Johann Sebastian Bach

v t e Chamber music, Orchestral works and Transcriptions by Johann Sebastian Bach
Solo	Sonatas and Partitas for Solo Violin (Partitas No. 1, No. 2, No. 3) Cello Suites Partita for Solo Flute
Ensemble	Flute Sonata in B minor, BWV 1030 Flute Sonata in E♭ major, BWV 1031 Flute Sonata in A major, BWV 1032 Flute Sonata in C major, BWV 1033 Flute Sonata in E minor, BWV 1034 Flute Sonata in E major, BWV 1035 Sonata for two flutes and continuo, BWV 1039 Six Sonatas for Violin and Harpsichord, BWV 1014–1019 Viola da Gamba Sonatas Canonic Trio Sonata, BWV 1040
Concertos	Violin Concerto in A minor, BWV 1041 Violin Concerto in E major, BWV 1042 Concerto for Two Violins, BWV 1043) Sinfonia for violin and orchestra, BWV 1045 Brandenburg Concertos, BWV 1046–1051 Keyboard concertos, BWV 1052–1065, and Triple Concerto, BWV 1044
Suites	Orchestral Suites (BWV 1066–1069) Orchestral Suite in G minor, BWV 1070 (doubtful)
Various	The Art of Fugue, BWV 1080 The Musical Offering, BWV 1079 Notebook for Anna Magdalena Bach
Arrangements	Air on the G String "Alphabet" "Ave Maria" by Busoni "Everything's Gonna Be Alright" Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring "Lady Lynda" "They"
Recordings	The Art of Fugue Bach's Greatest Hits Back to Bach Jazz Sebastian Bach Switched-On Bach Switched-On Bach II
List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach List of fugal works by Johann Sebastian Bach