A fact from Kyrie–Gloria masses, BWV 233–236 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 October 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christian music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christian music 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.Christian musicWikipedia:WikiProject Christian musicTemplate:WikiProject Christian musicChristian music articles
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
Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
The content of this article was Missa (Bach), specifically the four short masses. Then, to redirect the individual masses made sense. To redirect them to a general article Bach's church music in Latin makes no sense, if you ask me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Re. "Every BWV number deserves its own article" ([1]) — I'd like to keep to Wikipedia's standard mode of operation: when an article section grows out of proportion to fit in an article of normal length, it can be split off in a sub-article. See Wikipedia:Summary style.
Also, for some BWV numbers I think it unlikely they would ever have a separate article, e.g. BWV 239. Similar for BWV 242, which probably should redirect to an article on BWW Anh. 26 (if and when such article is written). --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
It does not belong to this article, but you asked here. You are right, of course: when I said "every" I didn't mean for example chorale settings, which are better handled where they appear in the context, in Passions and cantatas. The larger works, however, have their individual scores, entries in data bases, history, recordings. I therefore liked the split of BWV 120 in three. Some articles are short, for example Blast Lärmen, ihr Feinde, BWV 205a, but where is the problem? - I consider all masses such larger works. - In the template, I see two problems in your "combination" of all Missae as "short masses", they are rather known as Missa than Short mass, and BWV 232a, written in the period of mourning, belongs before BWV 243 which ended that period, while the other four belong later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Re. nav template: and? Note that all the cantatas are a single entry in that template, and they encompass much more, as well in numbers as in time range of composition (and composition places).
"Short masses" for the five missae breves works fine as far as I can see: "Missae" would be confusing as BWV 232 is also a "Missa" of sorts, and I'd support to keep that one separate; all other names (missa brevis, Lutheran mass,...) have their issues too, none is perfect, so I'd choose the one in plain English. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
The cantatas have their own template. In Bach's, looking at the years gives readers a feeling for what he did when. Nothing in 1733, besides transposing Magnificat? Highly misleading. The mass for Dresden, five parts, expansive setting in many movements, several of them new, - highly unusual.
Francis. I find your edit summary on that recent to be misleading which is why I reverted you. I won't revert again and will leave this discussion to you both, but please consider my cmt. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC))Reply
I'd like to respect Gerda's wish (on my talk page) to give some rest to this discussion for now (I'm happy to take this up again whenever Gerda feels like).
Just @Littleolive oil, could you clarify "your edit summary on that recent to be misleading" a bit, so that it's clear to me what exactly you're talking about? --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
It appears that people are giving this issue a "rest," but as I am late to the party, I will just drop by to say that it seems that almost every BWV is generally notable enough in its own right for its own article. In all seriousness, I don't think this article can really do justice to hundreds of works, it is, inevitably, an overview article and appropriate spinoffs seems to be the best solution. There may be a few exceptions, but seems to me this article should be an annotated list with a good intro and background section, then the details in each spinoff article, save for a few pieces so minor that a simple annotated list does the trick. My two cents. And at any rate, merging the spinoffs wholesale seems inappropriate, surely some are already quite comprehensive and worth discussion on a case by case basis? Montanabw(talk) 23:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Back to an article on the four masses BWV 233–236edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I suggest to tell the reader of this article in the first sentence only about the four short masses in question, not about the Mass in B minor and the Missa of 1733. Imagine someone who sees Missa in A major on a concert program, and no background, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
