Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach: Difference between revisions

Template:VA

	Johann Sebastian Bach was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 23, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 9, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed May 28, 2006 Good article nominee Listed May 30, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 29, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted May 25, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed March 16, 2012 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Musicians / Core B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Composers B‑class This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Pipe organ (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pipe organ, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Pipe organWikipedia:WikiProject Pipe organTemplate:WikiProject Pipe organPipe organ articles Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Lutheranism B‑class High‑importance Johann Sebastian Bach is part of WikiProject Lutheranism, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Lutheranism on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to Lutheran churches, Lutheran theology and worship, and biographies of notable Lutherans. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.LutheranismWikipedia:WikiProject LutheranismTemplate:WikiProject LutheranismLutheranism articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Lutheranism B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Former countries: Prussia B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Prussia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive. Template:WP1.0

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 3 December 2009. Further details are available here.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Bach was actually born on March 21 not March 31. Please change his birth date from the 31st to the 21st. 97.76.20.114 (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Old Style and New Style dates. Bach was born March 21st on the (old style) Julian calendar, which corresponds to March 31st, on the (new style) Gregorian calendar. The difference is noted in the article. Rwessel (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting a merger of Bach Festival in some capacity... maybe legacy and cutting that article down and merging to this? Pwojdacz (talk) 05:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rather see the Festival article grow and think it is better kept separate, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see the Festival article expanded and improved. There's too much material (and potential material) to incorporate in this article (already quite lengthy). Right now Bach Festival is a mess and frankly ought to be retitled List of Bach festivals or Bach festivals. It started out in 2006 being about one particular Bach Festival [1]. Then in 2009, it was turned into an article about a completely different Bach Festival [2]. Since then it's become a complete mish-mash. Voceditenore (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree with the idea of expanding the Bach Festival page and simply providing more information on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.70.59.179 (talk) 03:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree to not merge the article, so I will remove the banner as a consensus was established. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under the subheading "Legacy", I have edited the reference to the Voyager Golden Record. I made both style improvements, to bring the entry into line with the entry for Beethoven, and improved accuracy by rendering a better description of the contents of the Golden Record, and by replacing the existing erroneous New York Times citation, with a primary NASA source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poplicola1 (talk • contribs) 23:33 26 July 2012

Poplicola1: please read WP:SIGNATURE. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Categories" at the very end of the entry list Bach among the Saints of the Anglican Church, as does the list to which the link refers. However, no proof for this assertion is given. As much as Bach's music inspires in me a sense of the sacred, as much am I in doubt about the sainthood of its author. Could anyone who knows more about this than I do either provide verification, or delete this information? Thanks and greetings from Germany, Klaus Schneider--146.60.30.169 (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he has not officially been declared a saint, because the last person to be canonized by the Anglican Church was Charles the Martyr, and that happened in 1662, before the birth of Bach (source). However, canonization does not make one a saint, it just makes it official teaching, so it is possible that many Anglicans recognize him as a saint, despite not having been officially declared such. - Lindert (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for explaining the consequences of canonization by the Anglican Church, Lindert; I wasn't even aware of the canonical status of Charles I as a recognized martyr, whatever that means in practice. But as far as I can see after a short search on the web, there is no evidence that J. S. Bach has ever been declared, or venerated as, a saint, not by any Christian denomination, be it mainstream or not. The joint German Protestant Churches (EKD - Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland) commemorate Bach each year on the day of his death, as do the Lutheran churches in the US which honor their German cultural heritage embodied by him, among others -- but that's light years away from the concept of sainthood. If there is, other than his merit as one of the greatest musicians of all times, no proof for an official, or officially recognized special status of Bach elevating him above the ranks of the normal mortals, I believe this category and the link pertaining to it should be deleted. Best, and thank you again, Klaus Schneider --146.60.30.169 (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about creating and article called Handel and Bach. If you have any information on the topic, please post here. NephthysAthena (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extreme understatement of Bach's influence on the world of music. Elite music schools still teach everyone Bach's compositional styles. Also the baroque period is the foundational era of modern harmony. Thus he is possibly the single most important figure in western music. contact any music theory professor and they will tell you the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipareth (talk • contribs) 04:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

After the entry on "The art of the fugue" you have to give an indication of Bach's entry into the Correspondierende Societät der musicalischen Wissenschaften of Lorenz Christoph Mizler. Bach joined this Society after a long formal preparation, which was necessary in this Society. Bachs membership had the following effects:
1st Bach's composition Einige canonische Veraenderungen, / über das / Weynacht-Lied: / Vom Himmel hoch da / komm ich her (BWV 769) [1].
2nd The famous Haussmann-portrait.Those portraits had to be submitted by each member of the Societät. Some of these portraits are existing in the Musikalische Bibliothek, other portraits where planed to be published in the Musikalische Bibliothek [2].
3rd The canon triplex á 6 voc. (BWV 1076) on this portrait , which was dedicated to the Society [3].
4th The Societät insisted on a necrology of each member. Thus began the history of the Bach-biographies [4].
5th It was often argued other late works would have a connection with the music theory based Societät [5].

In my recently published PhD about Mizler [6] these relationships are first explored to a greater extent. This work was done in close collaboration with Prof. Dr. Hans-Joachim Schulze (Bach Archive in Leipzig).

[1] Musikalische Bibliothek, IV.1 [1754], 173, (Source online)
[2] Musikalische Bibliothek, III.2 [1746], 353. (Source online), Felbick 2012, 284 Source online)
[3] Musikalische Bibliothek, IV.1 [1754], 108 and Tab. IV, fig. 16 (Source online)(letter of Mizler to Spieß, 29.6.1748, in: Hans Rudolf Jung und Hans-Eberhard Dentler: Briefe von Lorenz Mizler und Zeitgenossen an Meinrad Spieß, in: Studi musicali 2003, Nr. 32, 115. (Source online).
[4] Musikalische Bibliothek, IV.1 [1754], 158–173, (Source online) [5 Hans Gunter Hoke: Neue Studien zur »Kunst der Fuge« BWV 1080, in: Beiträge zur Musikwissenschaft 17 (1975), 95–115., Peter Schleuning: Johann Sebastian Bachs »Kunst der Fuge« – Ideologien – Entstehung – Analyse, Kassel 1993, Alberto Basso: Frau Musika. La vita e le opere di J. S. Bach, 2 Bde, Torino 1979/1983, Hans-Eberhard Dentler: Johann Sebastian Bachs »Kunst der Fuge« – Ein pythagoreisches Werk und seine Verwirklichung, Mainz 2004 Hans-Eberhard Dentler: L’Arte della fuga di Johann Sebastian Bach, Milano 2000. Hans-Eberhard Dentler: Johann Sebastian Bachs »Musicalisches Opfer« – Musik als Abbild der Sphärenharmonie, Mainz 2008.
[6] Lutz Felbick: Lorenz Christoph Mizler de Kolof – Schüler Bachs und pythagoreischer „Apostel der Wolffischen Philosophie“. Georg-Olms-Verlag, Hildesheim 2012, ISBN 978-3-487-14675-1 (Hochschule für Musik und Theater „Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy“ Leipzig – Schriften; 5). Here you will find a lot of further argues for the complex relationship between Mizler and his "very good friend" Bach.Musikalische Bibliothek, I.4 [1738], 61, Source online). --Felbick (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Felbick (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. Felbick, one more edit and you're free to edit the article. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping--Felbick (talk) 07:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Swedish translations of the texts that Bach composed are done by Eva Hedlund, Hjo, Sweden, who also works with religious texts of e.g. Händel, Mendelssohn, Poulenc, V Williams, and with Latin hymns, e.g. Stabat mater. 79.99.169.105 (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I would like to suggest to mention the finalization of the first book of the Well-tempered Clavier in 1722 in Bach's Köthen time. It is of course hard to evaluate works against each other, but in my view this work goes beyond the cantata which is mentioned, and potentially also beyond the Cello or Violin solo works. Thank you Philip Goeth (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Philip Goeth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.8.228 (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I would like to suggest to insert a link to my website www.bachwelltemperedclavier.org into the Genereal Reference section of the Link Section. Thank you for your consideration. Regards Philip Goeth (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Philip Goeth[reply]

I want to know if he ever got married. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.217.202 (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He married twice. It's all there in the article. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead mentions Bach's chorales. As long as the linked article is not clear, it should say more precisely "chorale harmonisations", because only very few "chorale tunes" are composed by Bach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this would be clearer, and the linked article is pretty atrocious. However, most modern people use the term "chorale" to mean a 4-part harmonization as well as just the tune, just as they do with hymn. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I come from German, it's different there. I would prefer a native speaker to perhaps suggest changes to both Bach and Chorale, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example: I saw Bach credited with "Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme". I doubt that even a modern person could say about it "Bach's chorale", - it was Philipp Nicolai who composed the tune, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please add: Category:People from Thuringia Saxe-Eisenach was already part of the Thuringian states. If all persons from the Thuringian states are only listed according to whatever principality, duchy etc happened to be in charge at the time, there will be some very small categories and people from the same town, even the same family, may end up only in different categories. For this reason, it is better to list all such persons in the "People from Thuringia" category (though it's fine to have a "People from Saxe-Eisenach" category as well). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LivingPresence (talk • contribs) 15:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

i think johann sebastian bach was born on march 21st and not on march 31st as wikipedia suggests 74.101.89.97 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the note by the birth dates. It would seem that J.S. Bach was born on March 21 based on use of the "old style" Julian calendar, which was in use in Protestant Germany at the time of his birth, but when matched with the modern-use Gregorian calendar, he was born on March 31. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closed edit request per above response. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should singer not be added to all the other musical epithets at the beginning of the article? Wasn't it a choral scholarship he won in his youth? Did he not work as cantor for 27 years? He seems to have had been a singer more than he was a violist or violinist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.82.50 (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi--a first-timer here, be merciful.

This sentence: "The structure of the Easter Oratorio, BWV 249, resembles The Crucifixion." has footnote 93, which links here: http://www.bach.org/bach101/other_vocal/easter_oratorio.html

That's the first time I've run into that idea; and since I'm researching the Easter Oratorio now, I was eager to read the argument. The link does lead to text describing the Easter Oratorio, but nowhere in that text, as far as I can see, does the author make the claim that the structure of the piece resembles the Crucifixion. I'd be sorry to see the only sentence mentioning this piece be struck from the Bach article, but it ought to be either properly substantiated or replaced. Thanks.Sangerinde (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment of the source; the sentence should be removed. However, I think that source ought to be mentioned in the Easter Oratorio article as external link. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Sebastian Bach
Portrait of Johann Sebastian Bach by Elias Gottlob Haussmann, 1748
Born	(1685-03-21)21 March 1685 (31 March [O.S. 21 March] 1685) Eisenach, Saxe-Eisenach
Died	28 July 1750(1750-07-28) (aged 65) Leipzig
Occupations	Composer Cantor Organist Conductor
Years active	1703 (1703) – 1707 (1707): Arnstadt 1707 (1707) – 1708 (1708): Mühlhausen 1708 (1708) – 1717 (1717): Weimar 1717 (1717) – 1723 (1723): Köthen 1723 (1723) – 1750 (1750): Leipzig Thomaskantor
Style	Baroque
Spouses	Maria Barbara Bach (1707–1720) Anna Magdalena Bach (1721–1750)
Children	Wilhelm Friedemann Bach Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach Johann Christoph Friedrich Bach Johann Christian Bach
{{Johann Sebastian Bach}}
Signature

I suggest an infobox, which includes a link to his navbox --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. Toccata quarta (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on whether there could/should be an infobox, but a link to a template's page when that template is already transcluded on the article page is completely inappropriate for any infobox. Voceditenore (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Infoboxes are very useful and provide a great overview of a topic. Many people often use them. PumpkinSky talk 15:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox would add nothing to the article. It's useless. Toccata quarta (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are badly informed. The infobox would add the following classes to information in the article: vcard; fn; bday; birthplace; dday; deathdate; deathplace; role; vevent; dtstart; dtend; location; category. None of those are included in the article at present. All of those make the job of scraping information from the article much easier for third-party re-users. In addition, an infobox can be used by more sophisticated tools to extract and aggregate information in ways that you don't seem to be aware of - see Intelligence in Wikipedia for some of the possibilities. Additionally, we expect a brief summary overview of a topic at the top right of Wikipedia articles.

Now, if you want to argue that the infobox doesn't look right to you; or takes up too much room; or that this sort of subject can lead to misleading summaries which are over-simplified, then you would at least have a credible argument. But the "add nothing/useless" argument was discredited five years ago, and rolling it out again does tend to insult our intelligence. --RexxS (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose infoboxes for the reasons that have been repeated many times in discussions like this one, as well as visual reasons, just to be clear. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The box opposite would mislead the reader into thinking that Bach was equally important as a cantor, organist, and conductor as a composer. In any case giving pre-modern composers 'occupations' is anachronistic. The pro-boxers never seem to get the anachronism thing. Did none of them ever study history? --Kleinzach 03:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a valid argument, but falls short by ignoring the point that having the information does not always imply equivalent importance (however importance may be judged). What it does do is allow Google (or whoever) to answer a question like "Was Bach a singer?" quite quickly because they can make semantic relationships between "Was X a Y?" and "occupation=Y" even it is anachronistic. Once you establish that a "Cantor belongs to the set of types of singer", then the answer can be supplied automatically. Not only did some of us study history, we also studied linguistics and information processing. YMMV --RexxS (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS: Ha! I think you need to read Cantor (church). This is quite amusing! You've now demonstrated that this infobox can actually be an infotrap, or should I say a booby trap, leading the innocent reader to the wrong conclusion! Kleinzach 04:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the right conclusion, surely. Bach was indisputably an accomplished singer from his youth. Nevertheless you may have a point if there are examples of cantors who were not singers, so I take your objection seriously. There will always need to be a balance between supplying information and over-simplification. The answer is to be smarter about how we supply information, not to suppress it. --RexxS (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bach was a child singer. The cantor post was that of a (musical) schoolmaster. Did he perform as an adult? Was he a tenor or a bass? It would be interesting if you could provide some information — with sources. The current article doesn't explain anything much about Bach's singing, despite the (apparent) suggestion from the infobox that this was a notable aspect of his work. Kleinzach 04:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/mild oppose Avoiding infoboxes seems to be common practice for composers. Of the first five classical composers I checked at random (George Frideric Handel, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Joseph Haydn, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Sergei Rachmaninoff), all followed the same infobox-less format. This appears to be something of a standard for these projects. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers#Article_structure states "It is the consensus of this WikiProject that the lead should not contain an infobox, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Biographical infoboxes, "without first obtaining consensus on the article's talk page". Which in turn says “We think it is normally best, therefore, to avoid infoboxes altogether for classical musicians, and we prefer to add an infobox to an article only following consensus for that inclusion on the article's talk page.” So I'd lean towards oppose unless there was a good reason this article should be different. Rwessel (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may well be the consensus of a WikiProject, but the RfC called by members of the project concluded that "WikiProjects are free to publish guidelines and recommendations", which is what you you cite, "but do not have the authority to override a local consensus on the talk page of an article.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per PumpkinSky & RexxS. An infobox such as that shown here would have enabled the above casual reader to quickly answer their own question, for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as reductionist, unbalanced, and contrary to the WMF's Strategic Goals. As has been previously noted, there is no technical reason why the metadata Rex supports above could not be provided in a less obtrusive manner. Note: I've also changed the section header to better reflect the topic being discussed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only are infoboxes not "contrary to the WMF's Strategic Goals"; their emission of metadata has been praised by the WMF's technical director. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are mistaken: one of the WMF's key goals is to attract new editors in general and women in particular, and to increase accessibility for these groups. The complexity of wikimarkup - being confronted with a wall of template text upon hitting the edit button - is one of the most commonly cited reasons for both groups not becoming editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the counter-argument, Nikki, is that filling in a template with informative labels is much easier and more natural than writing the raw html to supply useful classes for re-users. I do accept though that new editors often find the edit box and wiki-markup a barrier, although my experience is that new women editors are just as capable of dealing with those barriers as men. We should be looking for better technological solutions like the visual editor and collapsible editing elements (so the editor doesn't see the content of templates until they expand them) to encourage new editors, not repressing our current technology because it's less than perfect. --RexxS (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per your edit summary Fighting with women doesn't do much for the atmosphere, to be honest. There probably is something to be said for the argument that women in general are more likely to walk away from bullying - and there has been more than a bit of bullying in the infobox issues. I think in that sense Nikki's argument is quite strong. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rex, expecting a new editor to deal with a large template as the first thing they see when they hit edit is not any more reasonable than asking them to use another method to supply classes...but why on earth should we expect newbies to be doing those tasks? (I do agree with you about the wiki-markup being no more or less intimidating because of my gender, but the publications appear to disagree with us on this point, and of course TK also has a very valid point). I also agree that we should be looking for technological solutions, which is what I said in my initial post - find a less obtrusive way of providing this data to reusers, rather than continuing to push a poor substitute. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think we disagree on the effect on new editors, Nikki: I accept that in full, but I just don't accept that women cope less well with wikimarkup than men. As I've trained dozens of new editors - both men and women - over the last year or so, I'm going to claim some insight, anecdotal at least. Sadly, it has taken us years to make progress on the visual editor and it's still got some distance to go, so we put up with wikimarkup, on the assumption that new editors don't have to use it because it can be tweaked later. I still see infoboxes and citation templates in the same light: article improvements from a technical perspective, but they have to be balanced against other valid issues. At present only infoboxes do the job we want for Google and other re-users, probably because the problem of creating a non-intrusive replacement is not trivial. If we ask a developer to provide us with a substitute, how do we answer them when they reply, "You already have something that does that job for you"? --RexxS (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • As a woman (and yes only a single example) I have to disagree. I'm not entirely unsavvy techwise, but I find templates to be difficult and intrusive in the edit window. If I have to fight about them, as I've spent much of the last year doing, then I'll withdraw my volunteer time spent writing here. This article can do with a great deal of maintenance and clean-up - i.e there are over 30 redundant links creating a great deal of unnecessary blue. Rather than fighting yet another infobox war, and I find this to be provocative at best, perhaps someone should work on bringing it back to GA status. If we're only concerned about the tidbits given to Google, then an entire section of the editor base is unneeded - and the women will leave first because to them this is not a video game to be played over and over. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Saying "something exists" has not been a barrier to saying "create something new" for the devs - cf. initiatives like Article Feedback. To my knowledge things like persondata, which also provide metadata, have never been objected to...because those, unlike this, are unobtrusive. Surely that template family could be improved/expanded to serve the purposes you require? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I believe I have previously referred you to the essay in which I explain Persondata's shortcomings. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I teach Wikipedia editing, to a variety of audiences, and estimate a 60% female attendance. I've yet to encounter a woman who couldn't understand and edit an infobox. However, your allegation is one worthy of further investigation. I invite you to make that point in an RfC proposing to remove all infoboxes form Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I invite you to re-read the above and respond to what I actually said. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to sleep on it, but I woke this morning still troubled by the "infoboxes are contrary to the WMF's Strategic Goals because their mark-up is complex and confronting (especially to women)" argument – which, in the absence of empirical or statistical evidence, has to be treated as (sorry to say) a guess.

Articles have many edit buttons, and I don't believe that new editors are likely to start with the one at the top (thus avoiding the infobox syntax); instead, they are more likely to click the edit button for a section (as a result of reading something they wish to update within the bulk of the article). Evidence for that claim? Looking over the history for this article (and discounting vandalism, reverts, bots, and scripted edits), the vast majority of edits have edit summaries that start with a grey comment (the section heading).

Perhaps it's the enlightened part of the world in which I live, but I find (what amounts to) an argument that new editors (and especially women) are less likely to be able to scroll past a well-structured listing of infobox parameter=value pairs (all in clear English) to be, frankly demeaning. In contrast, strong empirical evidence has been presented ("I've yet to encounter a woman who couldn't understand and edit an infobox" – from a teacher of Wikipedia editing). A many-more times difficult-to-surmount editing challenge is to get past the vast swathes of in-line referencing/citation syntax (for which WP has developed efficient and elegant alternatives); but watch all hell break loose when an attempt is made to implement those alternatives in music-related articles – in an attempt to simplify the editing challenge for new and casual editors. If you are to adopt a fight about what is "contrary to the WMF's Strategic Goals", could I respectively suggest that you help those of us who are trying to drag music-related article referencing out of the nineteenth century?

Template {{Infobox person}} is used on at least 125,000 articles, so the ship on whether they are "contrary to the WMF's Strategic Goals" has well-and-truly sailed, and is not a cogent argument to be applied to a single instance of debate here.

"Put parameter=value pairs in other mechanisms such as Persondata" argument has exactly the same problem as raised by others here – to do with the over-simplification and distortion of summary information (and you can safely forget the extension of Persondata to encompass composer-related fields). I am sympathetic to that point of view, but what I'm not sympathetic to is the "this is too hard to solve therefore we shouldn't even try" approach that is evident here. Wikipedia has numerous talented editors and programmers, and just because a problem is difficult doesn't mean that it shouldn't be attempted, nor does it mean that there isn't a solution. I propose that a workshop page is created and that all of us start to kick around the parameters, ideas, problems, and solutions that could make this work for all of WP's readers (and yes, that includes those who quickly want summary information). That doesn't mean that a solution will definitely be found (let alone implemented), but at least we can say that we gave it a significant shot (and the considered and patient input from those who understand the problems would be more than welcome).

It will be interesting in this case to see if the closer looks beyond the "as per" votes and instead tries to get to the consensus of substantive debate? ("Oppose Per obvious"?) In other words, "most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis on consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule". Anyhow, I've had more than my fair share of input now, so I'll leave it alone. Could someone please let me know if/when a serious attempt is made to see if a solution to this is possible (because I would love to be involved)? Cheers.

GFHandel ♬  22:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per Nikkimaria, and the many many many other previously made arguments against infoxboxed being imposed on this subject area. Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This infobox has the typical problems of infoboxes. (1) It gives very prominent representation to not-very-important data, such as the sequence of minor German cities Bach lived in while starting his career. (2) The shoehorning of information into the infobox format introduces factual distortions; in particular, a reader of the infobox might think that Bach had only four children (a spectacularly wrong conclusion, as you will learn if you read the article text). Unlike some editors above, I think we should not customize WP for readers who just want to browse for trivia -- we are a reference source, not a trivia outlet, and other WP policies emphasize this point.Opus33 (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that - in order not to make the infobox too long - it has at the bottom a link to the navbox which provides a timeline of his compositions and much more? It would be easy to add how many more children he had, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, Gerda -- but on the other hand, it makes the infobox longer and longer. Take a look any chemical element article to see the nightmare this can lead to. Also, please note that I mentioned the kids as an example of inaccuracy, but it's also an example of trivia that should not be prominently displayed. Both are problems for infoboxes. Yours truly, Opus33 (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And also above I see, its not just anymore about making the article easier for supposed two second page hoppers, but reducing so as to make it easier for "third-party re-users" to "scrape". Ceoil (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why the scare-quotes? Do you have a problem with our content being re-used? Did you even look at Intelligence in Wikipedia from a Google talk dated 2008? Infoboxes have always had a function in presenting data in a fairly standard way as well as marking up microformats - both of which are used by third parties. --RexxS (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Did you even look at Intelligence in Wikipedia from a Google talk dated 2008". Read what you said there again. In all fairness. I have a problem with content being subverted for secondary use. Ceoil (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per Opus33. The oversimplification mandated by the infobox concept seems particularly ill-advised for articles on artists of all sorts, including composers. The complex nature of "classical" music in particular resists this sort of Disneyfication. Dumbing down Wikipedia composer articles like this trivializes the article. Save it for the "Classical Music for Doofuses" websites.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per several, including Opus and JK. We have to take a stand somewhere against the dumbing-down of Wikipedia. Infoboxes compete against the article, and lazy eyes pick up their oversimplifications, trivia, and distortions. We're an encyclopedia, not a trivia site, and only the article itself can present the appropriate nuance. To casual readers: read the first paragraph. Antandrus (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of the causal reader referred to above, the opening paragraph does not mention Bach's two marriages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Infoboxes are useful for biographical articles in a handful of categories—professional athletes for instance, whose uniform numbers and career statistics can be presented in quick-reference reductionist format without making a mockery of their life's work—but are generally detrimental in articles about artists. Ewulp (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• blah blah blah infoboxes suck and should never be on composer articles because they are just so special and anyone who wants them is a lazy idiot. blah blah blah (etc.) (and in case you didn't get it, that was a parody of the arguments that people usually use. Over and over and over again. And again. Ad nausum) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Nikkimaria, Opus33, Jerome Kohl, Antandrus, and Ewulp, all of whom have made strong arguments against trivialising this article about one of the greatest and most important composers of all time. --Kleinzach 03:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't believe that an Infobox is trivialising or dumbing-down. It is about supplying information to a wide range of readers – something WP is in a unique position to do. I choose not to assume the worst about our readers; instead, I believe that each reader will get out of our articles what we can supply and what they want – and if a reader comes to the article to find obvious facts, then it is WP's duty to present such information in a consistent way across similar articles. BTW, the bulk of the article is still there for those who want to dig (and really dig sometimes because similar information for Bach, Handel, Mozart, Cage, etc. is always presented differently in the prosaic text). I have written a large amount of WP-database XML scraping software, and it is a refreshing change to find well-formatted infoboxes that allow me to acquire information consistently (so there really is a downstream argument in this debate). The wise approach here would not be to jettison the suggestion with trivialisations, but to work on improving the infobox layout so that it is both useful and unobtrusive. Such an approach might be to create collapsible sections (such as already happens with {{Handel}}). I am dismayed about (what I can only describe as) the Luddite mentality that pervades composer and music pages (as I frequently see in referencing/citation discussions), and I live in hope that one day a refreshing and clean wind will breeze through – dragging these articles out of their current appearance (which can best be described as being from a nineteenth-century book). Discussing this in an intelligent, calm, considerate, and open-minded way would be a very good place to start. GFHandel ♬  04:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be most helpful to discuss this in a calm and considerate manner, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:COMPOSERS and the other "oppose" votes here. Toccata quarta (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:COMPOSERS is not binding here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, a piece of clutter which is contra WP:COMPOSERS policy for very good reasons many of which are given above. It is rather naughty to use Bach as a catspaw in trying to change this - it would be more polite and transparent to engage discussion at the project page.--Smerus (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:COMPOSERS is not binding here; and nor does a single project have control (this article is under the umbrella of many). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: A single project has been selectively canvassed about this debate. Readers are invited to guess which, before visiting that link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm...perhaps the one with which this subject would be most strongly associated? Note also the other side. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Infobox composer}} is hardly "the other side". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not always a fan of infoboxes on biographies but I feel this would be an improvement.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 15:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per obvious plus other well-argued opposes. --Folantin (talk) 15:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Bach is of wider interest than for only project composer, that's why I brought the topic here. Bach is a vital article, as other artists such as Michelangelo and Franz Kafka. Readers and editors seem to be able to deal with infoboxes there. If editors are not trusted to understand the edit-mode of an infobox, there could be a helpful comment at its beginning. I am female, I didn't need it ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project composer has found solutions for infoboxes on composers for Philip Glass, Robert Stoepel and others, after interesting discussions. A key feature was to stay factual and avoid parameters such as |known_for= and |influenced=. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is only a suggestion, we can discuss which fields should be included, and what part of every single one should be shown. I didn't include works because they are covered well in the navbox, and a duplication seems not desirable. (Needless to say, if the navbox was transcluded in an infobox it would not have to be repeated at the bottom.) I was surprised that both Bach's wives have an article, good to know in "Women in history"-month, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the infobox would look like if you transcluded the navbox. Did you mean simply linking to it instead? If so, using {{Johann Sebastian Bach}} with the curly brackets is a terrible way to link, it's counter-intuitive and counter the MOS. For inexperienced readers and editors, the curly brackets are quite mysterious. In any case, no, it wouldn't make the footer navboxes redundant. Believe it or not, many, many readers ignore the infobox and actually read the article, all the way to the bottom. Even if they skim, they, and most editors, are expecting the navboxes to be at the foot of the page. To avoid confusion, you'd have to transclude all three Bach navboxes into the infobox, i.e. this. For people with short attention spans, no time, inability to read English, and/or roaming data-bots (the alleged reasons why we "need" infoboxes) how do those seas of links transcluded in (or linked from) the infobox enhance their knowledge, quickly, transparently, and without distortion? Even if you transcluded all of them, they still wouldn't tell the reader that Bach had more than 4 children, or contextualise the assertion that one of his "occupations" was "singer". Voceditenore (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry that I used the wrong term, I meant link (I actually saw what transcluding leads to, by mistake.). Would you rather recommend to list works in an infobox? Any way to avoid their repetition (which is likely to cause errors)? - Number of children: normally I don't mention children at all, as too private information. Children with an article are a different story. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise infobox is still an infobox. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GFHandel: you have deleted my last message to this talk page. You have also reverted my closure (with archive tags). You are entitled to revert the closure, but not to delete the message. Kindly put it back, GFHandel. Now. Kleinzach 01:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]