[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Template talk:Johann Sebastian Bach

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why?

[edit]

What's the point of this "navigation" template? Aren't those "songs" normally described as cantatas? Why these? Aren't they better covered in {{Bach cantatas}}? I think a comprehensive navigation template for JSB would be way too big; this one presents an unexplained selection and is not helpful to readers. I'm going to remove it from all articles on my watchlist. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is terribly misleading to readers. What is the rationale here? Voceditenore (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The recently edited version is much better. I suggest adding to it List of Bach cantatas and List of Bach cantatas by liturgical function. Voceditenore (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion about this template at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Template:Johann_Sebastian_Bach_should_be_kept. This should be discussed there before removing it from any further articles.--Jax 0677 (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

I propose an update of this template at Template:Johann Sebastian Bach/sandbox (tryout at Magnificat (Bach)#External links). Please leave your comments here: --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Church cantatas alone are 200+. I see no way to break that down.
That being said, my next step would be to make sub-templates in {{Bach family}} style, and make {{Johann Sebastian Bach}} a kind of "umbrella" template that with appropriate parameters allows to select one or more of such sub-templates.
As for the break-down of compositions: Bach wrote over a 1000; I suppose about 400-500 articles in Wikipedia. The only subdivision I see possible there would be vocal/instrumental. Vocal compositions have over 300 articles (at least 250 "cantata" church+secular articles); the rest being instrumental compositions. Further reduction of links would be possible by linking only to overview articles when these exist, and not to sub-articles like individual "Wohltemperierte Klavier" articles, individual suites etc. This could remove individual cantata links, but also links to Mass in B minor and Magnificat (Bach) - @Michael Bednarek:how do you see this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are many more ways than "vocal / instrumental" of subdividing Bach's compositions into specific templates: at the moment we have {{Bach cantatas}}, {{Bach motets}}, {{Bach violin concertos}} in addition to the current {{Johann Sebastian Bach}}. Surely, the proposed {{Johann Sebastian Bach/sandbox}} cannot ever be made to accommodate all Wikipedia articles on Bach's works. I would prefer a solution modelled on {{Beethoven templates}}, {{Haydn templates}}, {{Mozart templates}}. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 300 links problem is fixable by, yes, using separate navboxes, and then including them in collapsed state in a master navbox for articles that need it, like this one. Articles on, e.g., clavier compositions can just use the smaller box for those compositions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: FYI, this discussion is currently stale, all issues were resolved half a year ago. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. I just followed a link from WT:REDLINK.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael: subtemplates. A fair display of Bach's works all in one would be to only present BWV numbers, which would be of little service to readers. The present display of partly numbers - partly titles gives undue weight to the latter, example "Coffee cantata", - no reason why that should appear, a bit as if for Beethoven you showed all op. numbers but Moonlight Sonata. - Also: did you ever see the proposal on a small screen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also think we have to move towards subtemplates, as I already said above.
I like the layout as in the Haydn/Beethoven/Mozart templates series as suggested by Michael.
The largest collection of "same format" works in a single template for those is the over 100 symphonies by Haydn I suppose ({{Haydn symphonies}}). That more than triples the maximum proposed by Michael Bednarek. For Bach, I repeat, the largest collection of "same format" works is the church cantatas, more than doubling the Haydn symphonies (the current template {{Bach cantatas}} has even more while including the secular cantatas, reaching about the ten-fold of what Michael proposes as a maximum). I'm still looking for an answer on how to handle that (or keep this an exception?)
A minor problem, for which I can see solutions, but that needs to be mentioned nonetheless is that I don't know how one would arrive at a Bach violin concerto page from whatever page that is not a Bach violin concerto in such arrangement of templates? What would the suggestions be regarding that, template-wise? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
About my comment regarding manageable numbers in navigation templates: there's a difference between work titles which require reading/comprehension/forming mental connections and just a list of numbers of cantatas. IOW, I have no problem navigating >200 cantatas or >100 symphonies. I recognise the shortcoming of not being able to directly navigate from every work to every other work, but that's nothing new – see Beethoven, Haydn, Mozart above; see also the 42 Shakespeare-related templates which don't cater for complete navigation, say from The Tempest (opera) to Falstaff (opera); that's the job of categories (and the reader's level of determination and curiosity). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tx. Easy navigation is the first goal for nav templates & categories as far as I'm concerned. Also for categories some improvement would be desirable: the two compositions in Clavierübung II are difficult to connect category-wise, etc. For the current cantata template: navigation pre-supposes easy recognition... not OK for that template: Himmelfahrts-Oratorium? How would you navigate to that one if you don't know its number (or how it translates in English)... Nothing that can't be repaired, but easy navigation is far from ideal currently (I found out working on the elaborate template yesterday...)
Care to take a look at the new one? #New update --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New update

[edit]

See new proposal at Template:Johann Sebastian Bach/sandbox, following Michael's and Gerda's suggestions (that is for the replacement of {{Johann Sebastian Bach}}, additional/updated composition templates are still needed). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. If we strictly go by BWV, there should be no Brandenburg concertos, - if not there should be cello suites, Goldberg Variations, ... - so probably better strict ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current proposal is very strict, using existing pages with groups of works as much as possible (and indeed it links to the page on all solo cello works, which *is* the cello suites page). Or did I misunderstand your remark? --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I missed it, "disguised" as "cello", - as I would not know that one "Cantatas" is a list, the other the article Bach cantata. - The basic question is what should the navigation achieve, and how is the part "Composition" an improvement beyond the links which the List of compositions (linked on the left) offers. As the BWV organisation has no chronology, that aspect of the present {{Johann Sebastian Bach}} is lost. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No chronology as a choice: easy navigation pre-supposes easy recognition (as said above), so it is anyhow a choice to do away with years that generally have low recognizability for Bach compositions.
Generally, from high to low recognizability: (nick)name > BWV number > composition year. Key signature largely depends on work: for "Mass in B minor" it is part of the recognizability, but for example for none of the cantatas does that play any role.
Correct: "Other solo instruments: ... cello ..." does not have a high recognizability for the cello suites, nonetheless where one would click when looking for them, so no inconvenience whatsoever (trying to keep it short also).
Here's what the "grouped by BWV" sublist does: if one clicks the links in that section consecutively all Bach compositions are reached, if not in an overview article, then at least a (sub)list, and in all cases any article on a composition of Bach is *maximum* two clicks away from the template. That's navigation aid. Not trying to sketch a history with dates (which is hopeless in templates for quick access to hundreds of articles starting with less than 30 links). So, improvement over current template.
Re. advantages over link to List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach only: would for many compositions take more than two clicks to reach the page on the composition, less navigation aid.
I also think that the two subdivisions "grouped by BWV" and "more info" are clear enough about the difference between the two "Cantata" links. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I miss something, but think that if I look at List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach I am also no more than two or three clicks away from any piece, from table of content to header with link, or even to a piece. - Recognizability of cantatas is practically zero if you only see the number, but the subtemplate has worked well for years. It's actually the only one I frequently use, so will be silent now on the general one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"maximum two" not "two or three" (& a lot more scrolling!!!), so there is navigation advantage. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no serious objections to the proposed version. I assume that the <noinclude>...</noinclude> text will be removed when the proposal is made live. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subgroups

[edit]

Awaiting more "subgroup" templates for compositions, is it OK to use this general template on Bach composition articles for which there is no subgroup template yet? --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subgroup or not: why would it be used on any composition if no composition is navigated to? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it is on many composition pages that are no longer linked directly after the last overhaul of the template (e.g. Latin compositions...).
Navigation = going from one article to another; with the "maximum two clicks" to get to any other Bach composition I think it a defensible choice to use this template on any article that has no dedicated subgroup template yet.
In general, that was also my problem with the previous template architecture: from {{Johann Sebastian Bach}} it wasn't so easy to get to the violin concertos, and from {{Bach violin concertos}} it wasn't too easy to get to any other type of Bach composition (not even the concertos for keyboard, violin and flute). The new Bach templates architecture tries to make a balance so that reachability in all directions is somewhat more levelled and it acts more as a group of compositions, and that's why imho this general template can now be used more generally. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion on super templates on Classical music, and the changes to this template should have been discussed there as well before implementing it, imho. I remember the comment: "Its cool that it can be done, but I don't want every Beethoven template transcluded into every Beethoven article." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re. discussion on super templates on Classical music – tx for the link, but nothing here that contradicts that. There was no closure for that discussion, so everybody can pick from it what they want.
Re. "this template should have been discussed there as well before implementing it" – no, there's no rule in that sense. It would have been forum shopping, when there was no problem achieving consensus here. Please no attitude telling others what they should have done. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...
(e.c.) ... announcing there OK (I just did), discussing there not OK as long as it is a discussion about the same topic happening in two places at the same time. Please stop making "rules" that don't exist and go against Wikipedia spirit. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, could you elaborate how you want to extend this template? As for this template's usage in articles: while there is a general recommendation of bidirectionality, that's clearly impractical for a template that potentially covers >1100 articles. Which usage(s) is/are specifically in dispute? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it being used in BWV 1128 (uncollapsed then), and think a use of this large template in individual compositions doesn't make sense because none of them appears. Every composition by Bach links to Bach, never more than a click away. Ironically, just recently we were reminded of not using templates because they allegedly increase loading time, for small templates such as {{od}}. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(e.c. @Michael Bednarek:) I don't want to extend this template, where did you get that?
I said I liked the Beethoven/Haydn/Mozart templates better, with separate templates for subgroups. Things like {{Bach violin concertos}}, but then more based on the Beethoven/Haydn/Mozart layout.
The question is: what do we do with the composition articles that have no subgroup template yet, can the general template be used as a temporary solution?
And what about the articles (like half a dozen articles for Latin compositions) that used to have a direct link from the template, but no longer do? Do we remove the general template there?
This was triggered by this --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I misread your opening phrase about "more subgroup templates" to mean that this template should be extended. I think the idea of having specific Bach templates along the lines of the Beethoven/Haydn/Mozart is excellent. We already have {{Bach cantatas}}, {{Bach family}}, {{Bach motets}}, and the already mentioned {{Bach violin concertos}}. All these and those to come should be documented in either {{Beethoven templates}}, analogous to {{Beethoven templates}} etc. – a method I'm not particularly fond of – or better in a Category:Bach templates. The matter of naming these is of course somewhat more complicated because of the potential of such things for other Bachs, but, crossing that bridge when we come to it, I think "Bach" is fine for Johann Sebastian. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Subgroups 2016

[edit]

@Michael Bednarek: I started Category:Bach templates as you had recommended above, in 2014. Over the last weeks I had been developing several "break-down" templates with groups of compositions by the composer (so there are already plenty templates in the new category) – one of the new ones is however already at TfD: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 August 14#Template:Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach. I find surprisingly little support for the navboxes with manageable quantities of composition links (per the Beethoven/Haydn/Mozart navboxes examples). The idea of a super template with all composition-related articles of the composer in one big navbox has resurfaced. So please, anyone reading this, have look into that deletion discussion, and voice whatever you think the best option.

@Gerda Arendt: I do think the navbox with over 250 links to Bach cantata articles less useful than the four break-down navboxes, with logical groups, which I have been developing lately ({{Bach's church cantatas up to first cycle}}, {{Chorale cantata cycle}}, {{Bach's third cantata cycle and later}} and {{Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach}}). So if this set of four can't coexist with the "numbers only" {{Bach cantatas}}, while not enough support for that cohabitation option, I think the latter should go in favour of the set of four. If you think co-existing is possible a bit more support for that option at the current TfD would be welcome. Alternatively, if you don't think that a viable option, that may be worded more clearly too. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waking up to this: I have no time to even read it, for days. Patience please. I see no reason why an article on a cantata should not have both, the general {{Bach cantatas}} and a more specific one, both collapsed. If we can't have both, then the general one, please, because why should we restrict a user's navigation to just pieces within the same group? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more time now. We used to have, for Bach's cantatas, a navbox by BWV numbers. It has in the footer the links to all specific articles dealing with cantatas. For me, that is enough. Example: to navigate to chorale cantatas, I link to the list and find them all. I don't see the improvement by a more specific navbox for only chorale cantatas, with a lot of German titles in the English Wikipedia. When several of these navboxes appear together, I think they even clutter a page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just added these to List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach: {{Church cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach}} {{Secular cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach}} {{Bach motets}} {{Masses, Magnificat, Passions and Oratorios by Johann Sebastian Bach}} {{Short vocal works by Johann Sebastian Bach}} {{Instrumental music by Johann Sebastian Bach}} {{Bach spurious}} I hope they more or less coherently cover all articles related to compositions by Bach (or otherwise in the BWV catalogue). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up:

  • Re. {{Instrumental music by Johann Sebastian Bach}}: it has been suggested "...to create a navbox with organ music by Bach...", so I resuscitated {{Organ compositions and contrapuntal works by Johann Sebastian Bach}} in its former form. Don't know whether this complies with expectations? --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like a navbox for all Bach's organ compositions, even those without a serious article. By a serious article, I mean something which approximates to a summary of what's in the main scholarly English-language texts (in this case the main reference is the late Peter Williams' 3 volume and later 1 volume CUP set). I don't think the organ compositions should be listed alphabetically but, following the main sources, should proceed by BWV number. When the cantata template was created, it contained all the cantatas: seeing the redlinks was useful for those who might wish to fill in the gaps (me for example). The same applies to the organ works: missing works should be listed. In that connection, I should say that there are errors in the List of organ compositions by Bach. Most seriously, perhaps, recent Urtext editions and scholarly texts refer to BWV 525–530—following Bach himself—as "organ sonatas" (or "sonatas" when the context is clear) not "trio sonatas". The recent Breitkopf & Härtel edition of 2010 uses this designation (it has a very long and detailed preface). So do Carus and Baerenreiter ("Six sonatas"). So I suggest a navbox, ordered by BWV number, including all the missing articles (of which there are many). The book of Peter Williams is a useful starting point. Two long collections were published within Bach's lifetime, Clavier-Übung III and Orgelbüchlein. Both have title pages describing the collections of pieces and their purpose. I see no reason to group harpsichord pieces with the organ works (WTC I & II, Goldberg Variations, etc). The Ricercars from the Musical Offering and the Art of the Fugue are works often performed on the organ, but probably fall into the category of "transcriptions". I have two for the Ricercar a 6, Hermann Keller (1942) for Peters and Jean Guillou (2005) for Schott; and there is a third by Helmut Bornefeld (1975), recently republished by Carus.
So I would like to see a comprehensive navbox exclusively for organ works, including redlinks for missing works (mostly secular) and an ordering by BWV number. Mathsci (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might look somewhat like this:

Not my cup of tea, but I'll wait to see what others think. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC) IMHO, this would be Wikipedia editor's navigation (redlinks are much more suitable at a list than in a navbox), not a navbox that is most helpful for a reader wanting to explore Wikipedia's content (which is what navboxes are usually for). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a split of the "Instrumental music" template at {{Instrumental music by Johann Sebastian Bach/sandbox}} --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proceeded with the split – here's the full set of navboxes I'd use on articles regarding Bach's compositions:
I'll wait some days to see if there are any further comments, otherwise I'd implement these consequentially. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

Will wait some time again before further implementation of the full set I proposed above, to see if there are any further remarks, questions or suggestions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Subgroups 2017

[edit]

Although included in what was discussed last year, the merging of {{Organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach}} into {{Compositions for Organ, Keyboard and Lute by Johann Sebastian Bach}} appeared problematic recently ([1]). Is it? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained myself above and have had WP:IDHT replies from Francis Schonken. I cannot see any point in mixing lute music with organ music. Organ music is a huge part of Bach's output, one of the most significant parts of his output. It is usually discussed separately in the literature. I can think of no Urtext scores which mix organ and harpsichord music. The Schonken template contains original research: Clavier-Übung III oi explicitly designated as an organ work, not a "mixed work", a term invented by Francis Schonken. I remember when the cantata article had redlinks for missing cantatas and would favour moving back to that. It fixes priorities on creating articles. Some editors shy away from creating content. Mathsci (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Best not to use section links in a navbox: it prevents the link from turning black&bold on the page it links to. In general I would also preferably avoid three separate links to the same page in a single navbox. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's very good advice. Which keyboard instrument do you play? Mathsci (talk) 08:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "Which keyboard instrument do you play?" – the appropriate question would be "Which keyboard instruments do you play?". Your prejudice seems to be that I play only one. Further: tangent, irrelevant to the discussion at hand (information derived from experience with playing instruments would be WP:OR for Wikipedia's purposes). For Wikipedia's purposes such private stuff is irrelevant.
My general experience with navboxes, and with Wikipedia navigation of topics related to classical composers and compositions is the more relevant part here.
Navboxes navigate articles, not sections of articles. If you want a navbox to have separate links for BWV 552, BWV 669–689 and BWV 802–5, it is maybe time to create these as separate articles. If I remember well that has been proposed a long time ago, and with the current bulky content of the Clavier-Übung III article it is maybe time to proceed with spinning out some of its content.
But that's not the issue here: whatever way it is turned {{Organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach}} is currently a redundant fork of {{Compositions for Organ, Keyboard and Lute by Johann Sebastian Bach}}. Issues need to be settled for each active template: splitting a navbox for POV differences is not an option. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think you're in a position to comment. Very often you seem to show a lack of knowledge of the literature and more generally baroque music. That statement is evident in your edits which have various problematic features: a systematic failure to seek out relevant commentary in the most up-to-date literature (often not on the web); and an over-eagerness to write as if a Bach scholar (thus displaying adeptness at using only primary sources). You use primary sources to write about things which are in fact discussed in the current literature (i.e. secondary sources), which you often do not bother to check. In the case of Twelve Little Preludes, that is easy to illustrate. There was no attempt to locate obvious expert secondary sources; namely the discussion by David Schulenberg in his book on Bach's keyboard music. You concocted a bogus commentary based on 18th and 19th century primary sources and titles of random scores you had dug up on google, without having any way of evaluating them. But your commentary—written in wikipedias's voice with the same authority as a Bach scholar—misses a crucial point made by Schulenberg, a true Bach scholar. That NBA had rejected the late 19th century decisions, rendering the collection a historical curiosity from the point of view of Bach, but nevertheless a reasonable album for beginning pianists. If you knew more, you would realise that in the 1890s people had difficulty establishing authorship; and that of course scholarship in baroque music has advanced significantly. So I think your attempts to speak with authority, as you did in Twelve Little Preludes, are a complete sham, aka WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Yet for that article a short stub based only on Schulenberg's book would be adequate. There is a table there which conveniently contains almost everything a reader might want to know. So the normal practise of not using primary sources but only secondary sources would result in a sensible article, as opposed to the misleading and unreliable mess which you created.
In Twelve Little Preludes you wrote about pieces for beginners, quite a few of them not by Bach. At the other extreme, in the case of the masterwork Clavier-Übung III, which I wrote (and most of which I play), you seem to be completely out of your depth. Yet you put yourself forward as some kind of authority. But again you fly in the face of Bach scholarship, which you conveniently ignore. Mathsci (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does that affect either of the templates under discussion here? --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The template had no sourcing, so the only way to determine how decisions might have been made was to look at the articles concerned. I examined one such article and discovered its adequacies. That was directly related to the template. Mathsci (talk) 07:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the Twelve Little Preludes article is not mentioned in nor linked from either template, so whatever relevance it may have had for the template discussion has now expired. Remains the merger of the templates: can we agree on that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed Twelve Little Preludes. I see no point in a merge. Instead I would suggest moving your template to one purely on Bach's keyboard works, removing organ works and lute works. That would be useful. Mathsci (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will give it some time to see if there's input by other editors. As long as {{Compositions for Organ, Keyboard and Lute by Johann Sebastian Bach}} isn't split {{Organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach}} is a redundant fork.
Wouldn't split {{Compositions for Organ, Keyboard and Lute by Johann Sebastian Bach}}: the split templates would necessarily both need to appear on both List of organ compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach and List of keyboard and lute compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach while some "keyboard and lute" compositions ended up in the "organ" range of the BWV and vice versa. Similarly the WFB & AMB notebooks both contain both keyboard and organ compositions (so would require both templates), etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discographies

[edit]

I added a subgroup 'selected discographies' (see) but this was reverted by User:Francis Schonken because there are "too much links in the template", he wrote. First, this is why templates are for, to let you find anything related to the main subject and as such they have many links. Second, this template is found under St John Passion discography etc., however there are no links to the rest of selected discographies. I myself wanted to navigate easily between those discographies and I couldn't so I added this subgroup. I find no sensible reason why my edit was reverted. Dimboukas (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Johann_Sebastian_Bach&oldid=1232376299"