I believe that we serve our readers better with Passions not starting with a complete unknown one, but his famous St John and St Matthew. Several ways are possible, for example splitting in Passions (completely) by Bach and the others, or adding dates but not also sort by dates. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
"early version"
edit
I think that saying just "early version" about the Mass in B-minor might lead a reader who doesn't know better to thinking an early version of that Mass, - while it's only Kyrie and Gloria, which might be clearer if called Missa, also the year 1733 is more precise than "early". Now that we have a good name for the piece, why not show it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I have no problem with someone starting articles on the early versions of Part II and Part III of the Mass in B minor. When that is done we can re-evaluate how to present in the navbox, like was done a few months ago when all six Christmas Oratorio cantatas got a separate article.
For the time being: the early versions of Part II and III of the Mass in B minor are mentioned in the intro of the article linked as "early version" of the Mass in B minor, so for me that works as it is now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- It doesn't answer how a reader who is not familiar with the topic would even know there are parts, and "early version2 doesn't meen "of the Mass" but "... of Part I of the Mass" or "... of Kyrie and Gloria of the Mass". I'd say Missa, and believe that some might know that it was Bach's name for a Kyrie-Gloria mass. I'd mention 1733 hinting at how much earlier this was. - Better ideas welcome, but "Mass in B minor (early version ...)" is needlessly unclear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Re. "It doesn't answer how a reader who is not familiar with the topic ..." – I don't see how "Missa of 1733" would be any better. On the contrary, since no date of the Mass in B minor is mentioned in the template (nor should there, imho), 1733 doesn't even signify "early"; the term "Missa", being Latin, and meaning nothing else than Mass (for those who understand it), is totally unclear for "a reader who is not familiar with the topic". Missa can mean a Mass with its usual five sections, and the Latin term *has* been used for the entire Mass in B minor (among others, by Philippe Herreweghe: [1]).
- For clarity, adding too much information to a navbox is not desirable too, but I'm open to sensible improvements. As for when the other early version articles are written, I suppose something like
Mass in B minor (early versions: Part I/II/III • structure • ...) • ...
- and not what you suggest. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- just to spare others the trouble of looking at the history: I suggested to pipe Bach's Missa of 1733 as little as possible, to Missa of 1733. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Equally for clarity, I changed it back to the former format, only adapting the part before the pipe to the new page name, so that the format is equal to, on the same line,
Magnificat (early version • discography)
- Where we don't use any part of the actual article title for the early version either. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- ... I should unwatch this, but one more: For the Magnificat, it IS an early version of the whole Magnificat, for the Mass, only of about half of it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
- Re. "the Magnificat, it IS an early version of the whole Magnificat", yeah, but a more extended version, so with a different number of movements too, while, mostly, early versions rather have less movements than later versions, as it is the case for the B minor mass. So, you are making distinctions that are in no way substantive to the matter at hand. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
