Talk:Zerreißet, zersprenget, zertrümmert die Gruft, BWV 205

BWV number in Infobox

Re moving BWV number to title: IF {{infobox musical composition}} is used, there is a parameter catalogue number, which could be "BWV 105". We should not pretend that it is part of the title. If you ask me, consistency is less important within this article but with the other Bach cantata articles, inclusing those of higher quality, which intentionally mention the BWV number higher up, to help readers not knowing German to recognize that they at the right article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking at a version that uses |catalogue= to display the BWV number, it appears lower down than in the present version, which would seem inconsistent with the argument in your final sentence. Additionally, the present version matches the visual presentation of the article title and lead sentence. Consistency within an article is privileged over consistency between articles by several of our style guides, eg. DATEVAR, CITEVAR, ARTCON. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Have it your way. - The presentation of the article title was agreed on by project Classical music in 2010, but it should be clear that the first part is the title/incipit of the piece, and the second the redirect, and also disambiguation showing catalogue number and cantata number, which should not be confused with a title. - I had hoped to make an argument for using infobox Bach composition. - Looking at this article was my contribution to 1 April. It's over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought about it, and think it's too misleading. Even one BWV number doesn't belong in the name-parameter, and two are downright confusing. This is for all articles, but I start here. The BWV number(s) belong only in the catalogue-parameter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Misleading how? The word "title" is not displayed to users at all, and the displayed position of the BWV number as of now is consistent with most of the Bach composition articles given that that's what Infobox Bach composition does. The issue of one or two numbers is separate, and I don't have strong opinions on whether we display one or both throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how the display or not of "title" would change the expectation that the top has the common name. The display of the BWV numbers is consistent, but the granularity to have it (or them) in a different parameter is lost. The new numbering system, which demands that we have two BWV numbers at times, because the traditional ones are not "former" but still valid (and therefore should not be in brackets, but on the same level, as in the source), poses a problem for display, because we still have articles dealing with more than one cantata, and then showing more than one BWV, - how should a reader tell one from the other? - I consider to merge infobox Bach composition to musical composition, - consistency the other way round. We could insert a |BWV= in the latter, to solve the granularity problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

But the top does still have the common name - it's not like I'm proposing putting the BWV number above the title, and anyways the format of title followed immediately by BWV matches what is done in the article title so I don't expect there would be any additional opportunity for confusion. Similarly, the average reader doesn't care whether one or more parameters are used to display things, as what they see is the output only. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)