Talk:Brandenburg Concerto No. 5

	Classical music portal 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 supported by Compositions task force.

This page should not be speedy deleted because...[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Handled by uninvolved admin ([1]). --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because...

There's enough material in reliable sources to give this concerto an article in its own right.
WP:Summary style: the concerto is treated at Brandenburg Concertos#No. 5 in D major, BWV 1050 as well as at Keyboard concertos by Johann Sebastian Bach#Concerto in D major, BWV 1050 (Brandenburg Concerto No. 5) – neither place treats the concerto comprehensively.
Neither of these other places has much info on the early version BWV 1050a, while, for instance, the Dirksen article, which is indicated as a source here, has 28 pages of scholarly literature on the early history of the concerto
Neither of these other places has a by-movement analysis of the concerto, nor a reception history of this concerto in its own right, etc. (which would be too much info in these other places).
Please understand that the {{stub}} tag indicates that this is still under development.

--Francis Schonken (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see, the Brandenburg Concertos#No. 5 in D major, BWV 1050 is more comprehensive. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

repeating #5 above: "Please understand that the {{stub}} tag indicates that this is still under development" – whether or not any of the other places is "currently" more comprehensive is not the issue here: neither has a comprehensive treatment of the early history of the concerto (which predates the 1721 "Brandenburg" set, so doesn't really have a place there), and is, as we speak, already treated more comprehensively in the Brandenburg Concerto No. 5 article. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I just checked WP:CSD A10, which is given as a reason to delete in the CSD tag on the article: the article is not eligible, not by far, for a WP:CSD A10 deletion. Among many other reasons why CSD A10 can't be applied here is that the condition "... and where the title is not a plausible redirect" (emphasis added) is not fulfilled. So please find it in your heart to get off the back of your fellow editors for now, let people work and develop the content of this article: if after that there are still doubts whether it is feasible as a stand-alone article then stay away from CSD rationales and apply {{mergeto}} or take to WP:AFD in a regular process where others can give input. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stub tag, imported content[edit]

(watching:) The stub-template is no indication of planned growth. Many articles stay a stub for all their life. I usually write something such as "a start" when I create a stub, and had only few deletion problems. Is there a different template than showing "under construction"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once past the {{stub}} stage, with at least one section (or the intro) more or less developed, {{incomplete section}} tags can be added to the sections needing most work. That's at least what I do usually: if someone removes the "stub" tag (which I rarely do for an article I initiate), I add "incomplete section" tags to sections which are still far from comprehensive. What that looks like can be seen, for instance, at Schübler Chorales. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

God idea. - Different topic: this article relies on the one on the Brandenburg concertos. An attribution on this talk page doesn't hurt. (I just wrote an article about a soprano, to find out later that she has an article in Slovenian, - so I added the translated template.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, as far as I contributed to this article thus far it doesn't rely (yet) on content imported from the general article on the Brandenburg Concertos. Don't let that stop you or anyone else to start importing such content from that place or from Bach's keyboard concertos page, with proper attribution of the origin of such content in the edit summaries. Only after such content starts appearing in the article, which someone will have to get around to eventually, an attribution on this talk page is warranted. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ERROR in "Reception" section[edit]

Under "Reception", there seems to be an error. The 2nd to last paragraph reads, "In 1943, IRVING BERLIN wrote the highly-successful song Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas, whose main tune reduces the doubled notes to single notes..." --- I agree that the melody is very similar to that Christmas tune, but on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_Yourself_a_Merry_Little_Christmas, the text claims it was "written in 1943 by Hugh MARTIN and RALPH BLANE" !!! Ecw4w44 (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]