Talk:Marktkirche Unser Lieben Frauen

Article improvement

Hello Bermicourt, thank you for your help. I made some improvements, and left out some details, added others, because the story became very complex. As Germans tend to make long sentences which are not so easy to understand, I changed your style (translation). I hope you agree. I will go on later on.Taksen (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I was expanding the article from German Wikipedia as requested by Dr. Blofeld recently. I usually get the material translated and then tidy it up. You and Gerda seem to be going great guns, so I'll stand down.

One minor translation point: Salzwirker are salt panners, not salt miners. According to the German Wiki article link Die Salzwirker verkochten die Sole in Herdpfannen zu Salz. i.e. "The salt panners boiled the brine in pans to make salt". --Bermicourt (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Salt panners, not salt miners

Hello Bermicourt, I suppose we were both wrong. Because of the tectonic fault in Halle the salt water or brine comes to the surface at four places close to the Market. There were no salt pans in Halle, where the sun or the wind did their job. The brine was brought in with buckets and boiled in kettles as far as I understand the story from the Halloren- und Salinenmuseum. It will be difficult to explain that in a few words. Thanks for your attentiveness.Taksen (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

BWV 63

In Das Kantatewerk, Vol. 4 by Harnoncourt and Leonhardt the following text can be read: "Christen, ätzet diesen Tag (BWV 63) is from a textual point of view a Christmas cantata, but the purpose for which Bach composed the work is uncertain. In view of the fact that the text is probably written by the Halle theologian J.M. Heineccius, it seems appropriate to consider the cantata an audition piece for Bach's application for the post of organist at the Church of Our Lady at Halle in 1715 or to connect it with Bach's inspection of the organ at the same church in 1716." (Ludwig Finscher 1976).Taksen (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I was not very impressed with the text of the DYK, too complicated and not encouraging to investigate the Market Church. It does not look anybody came to visit this lemma today.Taksen (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that the page view statistics didn't work for the Christmas days, for all articles. The text was made for the cantata before an article about the church existed, and I had asked if you wanted to nominate something different for the church. I understood your answer as no, sorry if I misunderstood. The picture alone would have invited me to look at the church. Let's go for GA now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The DYK hit counter goes down sometimes and if your DYK was up during that time, it sucks. PumpkinSky talk 23:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Towers

Hello Pumpkin, thanks for your help. It looks more professional! But I have strong objections against your section about the five towers. Your details are uninteresting and look like "Werbung" from a guidebook. It was mentioned already above and I don't think it needs more attention. Besides the stamp is ugly. If a pic of the real painting had been added it would made a difference, but there are already many pictures already of the towers. Please move it somewhere else where it can be of more use. It is an unnecessary repetition. Greetings from Amsterdam. Taksen (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the section and think both painting and stamp add to notability, and the artists view is nice to compare to the pics of the towers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Please go on in the Halle article. It does not belong here, it has nothing to do with the church and I am very upset, that within an hour people take advantage to put redundant information here.Taksen (talk) 10:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry you are upset. I don't think the information is redundant. At Halle, it needs to be integrated better, please, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Pumkin information made the article sloppy, I can't accept it. Why don't you start with the Gottesacker, which seems to be an interesting place. Did you go there when you were in Halle?Taksen (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

May be you could find a source for the Schübler Chorales which seems to have been written by JS for WF Bach or he performed it after he was appointed in Halle. Dutch sources do suggest this.Taksen (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope to find sources that give information about the connection between the church and the university. Where else can you give lectures for thousand students. Untill now nobody replied in Halle, may be it is not easy to prove. I asked the Stadtarchiv and the Philosophy department and still waiting for replies.Taksen (talk) 11:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your university efforts! The Schübler chorales seem less related to the church than the Feiniger Halle Cycle, but eventually I will look, interested myself. The Gottesacker is a topic itself, only related to the church by history, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The details on the towers in the lead need to be in the body and they aren't. To be GA everything in the lead needs to be in the body in more detail. Gerda asked me to help get this to GA. Then you call my work sloppy? ha. What was sloppy was the condition of the article before I got here: the refs were a mess and still need work, massive sections with no refs, oversized photos, sentence fragements, etc. And you can't accept what are clearly major improvements? Then Gerda stronly disagrees with you, you remove it, but don't even wait for me to have a chance to answer. What a complete jerk. Fine, You got it. I'm out of here. PumpkinSky talk 12:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• Wow, this is a shame, the article was well on its way to becoming a GA and possibly FA. It's a shame to see one insulting editor who doesn't seem to know how WP articles are supposed to be structured run off all the good editors working on it. I don't know what your problem is Taksen - you don't insult editors like that, content in the lead isn't 'duplicated' by being in the body, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't very good reasoning to remove content - you're supposed to make it better. I'm out of here too; good luck! Glad I didn't put too much work into it only to have it reverted like PumpkinSky did. Dreadstar ☥ 18:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marktkirche Unser Lieben Frauen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 12:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Dabsolver check: ok
• Checklinks check: ok
• Comparing with the German article, there is nearly zero information about its architecture.
• There should be neither {{cn}} tags nor unreferenced text.
• So I give you 14 days to expand this article. If you need help, please ask (I contacted the main editor; if he doesn't answer, and if you don't find more information in the public internet, then we must live with it).
• Edit I just received a message by PumpkinSky; I will close this at the request of nominator.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marktkirche Unser Lieben Frauen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406093336/http://www.aki-halle.de/thema/markt/hb12/tuerme.htm to http://www.aki-halle.de/thema/markt/hb12/tuerme.htm
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130211184843/http://www.rathausseite.de/default.asp?id=l2&b=09 to http://www.rathausseite.de/default.asp?id=l2&b=09
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120426052851/http://archive.ekmd-online.de/portal/bibliotheken/1-marienbibliothekhalle/ to http://archive.ekmd-online.de/portal/bibliotheken/1-marienbibliothekhalle/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)