Template:Did you know nominations/Vom Himmel hoch (Mendelssohn)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Gatoclass (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Vom Himmel hoch (Mendelssohn)
Mendelssohn, drawn in 1833
... that Vom Himmel hoch is a 1831 Christmas cantata by Felix Mendelssohn (pictured), who used Luther's chorale "Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her" in both selected unchanged stanzas and the tune?Sources: several- Reviewed: Coccinellidae
- Comment: Intended for Christmas, 25 December. - Not all movements use the tune, but hard to add that and still remain short.
Created by Gerda Arendt (talk) and Grimes2 (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 18:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC).
- If I may suggest an alt hook after seeing the nominator comment?
- Alt1: ... that Felix Mendelssohn's Christmas cantata Vom Himmel hoch is based on and named after "Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her", but not all its movements use the tune?
- (courtesy ping nom @Gerda Arendt:). Kingsif (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the offer. From what I see: I don't know a single chorale cantata that is not named after the chorale, therefore it seems a waste of characters to mention that. If you read the enthusiastic quote by the composer about Luther's text, it seems rather worth telling that he used it unchanged (while only 2 out of 40 chorale cantatas by Bach did that). I don't think we can rely on readers knowing that the chorale is by Luther, both text and music, which is also unusual , so worth saying. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- You may not know a cantata that is not named after the chorale, but I couldn't even name one of either unprompted, so it is worth stating for me. Mendelssohn may have been enthusiastic about using the chorale unchanged, but 1. the relevance of this means little to me (even with you explaining that Bach usually changed things, something you can't message every reader) 2. other hook options are allowed to be considered anyway. Sure, we cannot rely on readers knowing the chorale is by Luther; we similarly cannot presume they would find it unusual, either. Even to those who do remark at it, we do not need to overload the hook with all the related information. I think you could use some of this response as constructive criticism to find ways to tweak your hooks for improvement, and I would like this hook to still be considered. Kingsif (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- What do you think about ALT2a below? The fact that Mendelssohn used a song that was hundreds of years old, and a model that was about 100 years old, is perhaps the key fact about this piece. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think that alt2a says neither of those things. Do you expect people to know that Luther's piece predated Mendelssohn's by hundreds of years? And, even if so, should the key fact not be stated explicitly anyway? Kingsif (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I do expect readers to know that Luther is credited with beginning the Reformation in 1517, and that Bach is Baroque, and Mendelssohn Romantic. Mendelssohn conducted Bach's St Matthew Passion hundred years after it's premiere, - it's one of the trivia most people seem to know about this composer. Now we could of course add years to song and chorale cantatas, but I'd fell as if I tried to say when the French Revolution was, or the founding of the U.S. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- You realise that many Americans still only think of MLK when they read "Martin Luther", right? And any expectation of knowledge about composers that isn't their name, besides maybe Beethoven being deaf, is probably too much. I'm not kidding, so maybe adjusting your expectations as to what should and shouldn't be considered specialist knowledge sooner rather than later could make the whole process smoother. And again, regardless of if the fact was as universal as "the sky is blue", if it is the key fact of the hook, it needs to be said. Kingsif (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I realise that but those would probably not be likely to click this article anyway. We do have links for the song and the cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- They would, though, or you should aim for it at least! Do you really only write hooks for people already interested, rather than aiming to get the uninitiated newly interested? If there was a hook that appealed to something with broad interest, which a surprising time gulf is just by itself if you point it out, those people might click through. Kingsif (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I also don't know what you're hoping to achieve by saying there are links in the hook to the song and cantatas. Hooks being interesting gets people to click through. If you are relying on people clicking non-bold links to find the information that might help them get why the hook is interesting, your approach to DYK is wrong. Kingsif (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I realise that but those would probably not be likely to click this article anyway. We do have links for the song and the cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- You realise that many Americans still only think of MLK when they read "Martin Luther", right? And any expectation of knowledge about composers that isn't their name, besides maybe Beethoven being deaf, is probably too much. I'm not kidding, so maybe adjusting your expectations as to what should and shouldn't be considered specialist knowledge sooner rather than later could make the whole process smoother. And again, regardless of if the fact was as universal as "the sky is blue", if it is the key fact of the hook, it needs to be said. Kingsif (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I do expect readers to know that Luther is credited with beginning the Reformation in 1517, and that Bach is Baroque, and Mendelssohn Romantic. Mendelssohn conducted Bach's St Matthew Passion hundred years after it's premiere, - it's one of the trivia most people seem to know about this composer. Now we could of course add years to song and chorale cantatas, but I'd fell as if I tried to say when the French Revolution was, or the founding of the U.S. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think that alt2a says neither of those things. Do you expect people to know that Luther's piece predated Mendelssohn's by hundreds of years? And, even if so, should the key fact not be stated explicitly anyway? Kingsif (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Look how many times our dear readers were already informed about Bach's chorale cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I do not see what relevance the sheer amount of Bach cantata hooks you have written bears. Kingsif (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I shows that readers had plenty of occasions to get informed about Bach's chorale cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- No? Ok, I have dozens of DYKs about Venezuela, if you can give any of the facts from them I will consider that maybe some readers have retained knowledge they read in a Bach DYK over the last decade. (Though I look back and see that you brought this up because I said you can't explain your hook to everyone who will read it, and I said that as an afterthought, too. Both points still stand: if knowledge is needed to "get" the hook, say it, not that I find it interesting in this case anyway.) Kingsif (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I shows that readers had plenty of occasions to get informed about Bach's chorale cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I do not see what relevance the sheer amount of Bach cantata hooks you have written bears. Kingsif (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- What do you think about ALT2a below? The fact that Mendelssohn used a song that was hundreds of years old, and a model that was about 100 years old, is perhaps the key fact about this piece. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- You may not know a cantata that is not named after the chorale, but I couldn't even name one of either unprompted, so it is worth stating for me. Mendelssohn may have been enthusiastic about using the chorale unchanged, but 1. the relevance of this means little to me (even with you explaining that Bach usually changed things, something you can't message every reader) 2. other hook options are allowed to be considered anyway. Sure, we cannot rely on readers knowing the chorale is by Luther; we similarly cannot presume they would find it unusual, either. Even to those who do remark at it, we do not need to overload the hook with all the related information. I think you could use some of this response as constructive criticism to find ways to tweak your hooks for improvement, and I would like this hook to still be considered. Kingsif (talk) 15:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Alt2: ... that Felix Mendelssohn's Christmas cantata Vom Himmel hoch is based on the eponymous Christmas carol by Luther, but is influenced by Bach's cantatas? Grimes2 (talk) 11:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the offer. I don't think we need Christmas twice, on Christmas day, and I doubt that Luther's work is well described as a Christmas carol. No need to link the famous composer, and Felix is default for the surname, I believe. I also think we should spell out Luther's because there is another beginning with the same words.
- ALT2a: ... that Mendelssohn's 1831 Christmas cantata Vom Himmel hoch is based on Luther's "Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her", and on the model of Bach's chorale cantatas?
- It works, but misses Mendelssohn's faithfulness to Luther's poetry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- I still think some variant ALT2 is a better option here. The German name is more-or-less already redundant and probably not necessary to the intriguingness of the hook. Maybe this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Alt2b: ... that Felix Mendelssohn's Christmas cantata Vom Himmel hoch is based on a carol by Martin Luther, but is influenced by Bach's cantatas?
- As for the "missing the faithfulness" aspect, that can be explained in the article and doesn't actually need to be in the hook. Hooks should never be about overwhelming the reader with information. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the offer. As above: Mendelssohn is among the composers (like Mozart and Beethoven) who don't need a given name. He composed the melody of "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing", for example. Same for Luther. It's not just Bach cantatas, but precisely Bach's chorale cantatas, and deserves a link. I see no justification for that "but". So playing with it:
- Alt2c: ... that Mendelssohn's Christmas cantata Vom Himmel hoch, based on Luther's carol, was influenced by Bach's chorale cantatas?
- Alt2d: ... that Mendelssohn's 1831 Christmas cantata Vom Himmel hoch, based on Luther's 1534 carol, was influenced by Bach's chorale cantatas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Alt2d Grimes2 (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree here. We are writing for general audiences, not specialist audiences. We can perhaps get away with not referring to Mozart or Beethoven by their first names, but not somewhat lesser-known composers like Mendelssohn (I'd argue that more people know the Wedding March by melody than its composer). The reference to "Luther" is also extremely vague even with the link: at first glance, people might not even make the connection to Martin Luther. I would be open to some version of ALT2d but it would at minimum need to mention Mendelssohn and Luther's full names and perhaps Bach's too (or at least J. S. Bach). Not everyone is going to be well-versed with classical music composers and we need to take their interests into account. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think, Bach and Luther are public property, don't underestimate the knowledge of the typical Wikipedia user. Mendelssohn is linked. Maybe we should add the English translation of the carol "From heav'n on high". Grimes2 (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I can see Bach, but Luther would really need clarification since people might think he's a composer and not Martin Luther. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Luther was the composer of the hymn tune. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Luther is known primarily as reformer and priest; not all user know, that he composed hymns. Grimes2 (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Priest? Really? - I was only replying to "Luther would really need clarification since people might think he's a composer and not Martin Luther". - These people would be right, so I didn't understand the comment. He was also a composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Priest and later ex-Priest? You are the expert, Gerda. Grimes2 (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- He is known as much for being a priest as Jesus for being a Jew. Both true but not "known for". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Merry Christmas. Grimes2 (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Gerda, I do not think you are an authority on what everyone knows Martin Luther for. Indeed, this website has him "known for" being a Protestant reformer first, not a composer. And, in any case, a user (and one who reviews DYKs so, I assume, has a little more general knowledge than most people) has indicated that they don't know. It's actually quite patronising for you to insist that everyone does in the face of that. Please, be a little more open to accepting that other people have different knowledge pools to you and yours. Though, frankly, it shouldn't even take that; in discussions of hook improvements, most nominators are open to suggestions that add statements of the obvious, since another word or two is rarely detrimental. Yet you are against it on seemingly no basis. What would be so wrong with including given names? Seriously? Kingsif (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Why, instead of all this, don't you just approve ALT2e? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- This has been a long-running issue for a while now regardless if ALT2e is approved or not. You have indeed been relatively unopen to hook suggestions or feedback, particularly if they do not include information that you want to see in a hook. In many cases, the hook facts themselves were perfectly fine, they only needed to be reworded to make them clearer or more intriguing, but you tended to veto these suggestions. Referring to what Kingsif said: what is wrong with adding clarifying information to make hooks more understandable to non-specialists? The goal of DYK, especially now that the recent RfC outcome has been implemented, is that hooks are required to be intriguing even to people with little-to-no background on the subject. Refusing to include certain clarifying matters that would make hooks less specialist, or even proposing hooks that appeal only to a specific audience, goes against both that goal and the intriguingness criterion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I may have a language problem but don't see me giving a veto in this discussion, only pointing at things that may be considered. So I ask you why don't you simply support ALT2e, which looks like a promising compromise to me. And if you think it helps to say Felix, in God's name add it. Just that in the last DYK about his works (3 October, 28 August - and not by me), he was simply Mendelssohn, as Bach was just Bach since 2009. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Consensus can change. What may have been allowed before may not be allowed anymore if circumstances permit. It's worth noting that those two Mendelssohn happened before the recent RfC. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I may have a language problem but don't see me giving a veto in this discussion, only pointing at things that may be considered. So I ask you why don't you simply support ALT2e, which looks like a promising compromise to me. And if you think it helps to say Felix, in God's name add it. Just that in the last DYK about his works (3 October, 28 August - and not by me), he was simply Mendelssohn, as Bach was just Bach since 2009. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- This has been a long-running issue for a while now regardless if ALT2e is approved or not. You have indeed been relatively unopen to hook suggestions or feedback, particularly if they do not include information that you want to see in a hook. In many cases, the hook facts themselves were perfectly fine, they only needed to be reworded to make them clearer or more intriguing, but you tended to veto these suggestions. Referring to what Kingsif said: what is wrong with adding clarifying information to make hooks more understandable to non-specialists? The goal of DYK, especially now that the recent RfC outcome has been implemented, is that hooks are required to be intriguing even to people with little-to-no background on the subject. Refusing to include certain clarifying matters that would make hooks less specialist, or even proposing hooks that appeal only to a specific audience, goes against both that goal and the intriguingness criterion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Why, instead of all this, don't you just approve ALT2e? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- He is known as much for being a priest as Jesus for being a Jew. Both true but not "known for". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Priest and later ex-Priest? You are the expert, Gerda. Grimes2 (talk) 13:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Priest? Really? - I was only replying to "Luther would really need clarification since people might think he's a composer and not Martin Luther". - These people would be right, so I didn't understand the comment. He was also a composer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Luther is known primarily as reformer and priest; not all user know, that he composed hymns. Grimes2 (talk) 09:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Luther was the composer of the hymn tune. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I can see Bach, but Luther would really need clarification since people might think he's a composer and not Martin Luther. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think, Bach and Luther are public property, don't underestimate the knowledge of the typical Wikipedia user. Mendelssohn is linked. Maybe we should add the English translation of the carol "From heav'n on high". Grimes2 (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree here. We are writing for general audiences, not specialist audiences. We can perhaps get away with not referring to Mozart or Beethoven by their first names, but not somewhat lesser-known composers like Mendelssohn (I'd argue that more people know the Wedding March by melody than its composer). The reference to "Luther" is also extremely vague even with the link: at first glance, people might not even make the connection to Martin Luther. I would be open to some version of ALT2d but it would at minimum need to mention Mendelssohn and Luther's full names and perhaps Bach's too (or at least J. S. Bach). Not everyone is going to be well-versed with classical music composers and we need to take their interests into account. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Support: Alt2d Grimes2 (talk) 07:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- I still think some variant ALT2 is a better option here. The German name is more-or-less already redundant and probably not necessary to the intriguingness of the hook. Maybe this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for the offer. From what I see: I don't know a single chorale cantata that is not named after the chorale, therefore it seems a waste of characters to mention that. If you read the enthusiastic quote by the composer about Luther's text, it seems rather worth telling that he used it unchanged (while only 2 out of 40 chorale cantatas by Bach did that). I don't think we can rely on readers knowing that the chorale is by Luther, both text and music, which is also unusual , so worth saying. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I see: Alt2e: ... that Mendelssohn's 1831 Christmas cantata Vom Himmel hoch, based on Martin Luther's 1539 carol, was influenced by Bach's chorale cantatas? (There are 900 million Protestants worldwide) Grimes2 (talk) 09:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
- Throwing in Alt2f: ... that Mendelssohn's 1831 Christmas cantata Vom Himmel hoch, influenced by Bach's chorale cantatas, was based on a carol by Martin Luther composed nearly 300 years earlier? Kingsif (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think ALT2f is better here since it emphasizes the fact that Martin Luther composed the hymn, something that most general audiences may not have known he actually does. Alternatively, if ALT2f is considered too complex, an alternate version could drop the Bach part altogether and simply mention that it was based on a Luther hymn, again emphasizing the intriguing fact that Luther was also a composer. So something like:
- Alt2g: ... that Mendelssohn's 1831 Christmas cantata Vom Himmel hoch was based on a carol by Martin Luther composed nearly 300 years earlier?
- Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Alt2h: ... that Mendelssohn's 1831 Christmas cantata Vom Himmel hoch was based on a carol by Martin Luther, setting an interpretation of the birth of Jesus from Gospel of Luke to music? Grimes2 (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think ALT2f is better here since it emphasizes the fact that Martin Luther composed the hymn, something that most general audiences may not have known he actually does. Alternatively, if ALT2f is considered too complex, an alternate version could drop the Bach part altogether and simply mention that it was based on a Luther hymn, again emphasizing the intriguing fact that Luther was also a composer. So something like:
Hi y'all, here from WT:DYK :) hmm, let's take a look. I do want approve one of these: i fully recognize the compromise, haggling, and hard work that went into this nom, and I do want to reward that. But what I think, if I'm being honest, is that these hooks don't really represent a significant improvement on the previous hooks we've proposed and run in this field, without success. So unless y'all can emphatically agree on a hook, or at least achieve some kind of roughshod consensus, I'm going to mark this for closure in a couple days; I think the best thing we can do is move on. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you all for suggestions. Just for clarification: Luther composed the tune, but more importantly also wrote the lyrics of a song that could be played as a nativity play. Mendelssohn was enthusiastic about the text (see quotation in the article). That Luther wrote both text and music, however, is hardly what Mendelssohn's piece is about, nor the elapsed time between 1534 and 1831, nor that the song is of course about the nativity ;) - Mendelssohn was the one to revive interest in Bach (in the world, Bach was forgotten at the time), as the lead of his article says, so why we'd skip over Bach is a mystery to me. I therefore like ALT2e best. By the way, and in case you don't know, that "old" song is still regular sung for Christmas in Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Alt2i: ... that Felix Mendelssohn's 1831 Christmas cantata Vom Himmel hoch is based on a 1539 carol for which Martin Luther wrote text and tune, and the model of Bach's chorale cantatas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I added the details about the hymn to the article, with a new source. The one in the hymn article comes with a security risk (for me at least). The text is probably from 1534, but Luther's melody from 1539, therefore I changed the year in the hooks. - This is my Christmas gift to the world, freely given, sorry if you don't like it. Merry Christmas from Gerda, who thinks that Reformation is a work in progress. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Try to find consensus: I prefer Alt2i. Thanks, for the nice Christmas gift. Grimes2 (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- All righty – Kingsif and Narutolovehinata5? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose ALT2i: it's far too complicated and tries to include too much information in one hook. If this is really the angle we'll be going for, I would still prefer ALT2g. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- In my opinion ALT2g gives not enough information about the music. Most user already know, that Luther lived 300 years before Mendelssohn and that Luther is the author of the hymn. Boring hook!!!! Grimes2 (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think what Kingsif stated above is right. Saying that "most readers" "already know" that Luther lived 300 years before Mendelssohn would be assuming too much knowledge from our general readership. They probably at best know that Martin Luther started the Reformation and Mendelssohn was a composer (who composed the Wedding March among other things), anything else may be expecting too much. As for ALT2g, the reason why I like it is because it highlights that Luther is a composer, a fact that may not be known even to most Protestants. If some additional explanation is needed (i.e. the mention of Bach), I would be fine with ALT2f. ALT2i is too complex (there's no need to mention Luther writing the text and tune explicitly, that can be explained in the article), it's sufficient to state that the carol was by him. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- 1831/1539 gives the information "composed nearly 300 years earlier". Text and tune by one person is not obvious. Bach should be mentioned, because it characterizes the music. Grimes2 (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- (ec) I still prefer ALT2e, but then felt the wish to speak about the composition of the tune, and tried to get it in. Sorry if I failed, again. This looks like an overview over European cultural history, and I remember no other of the same depth. I don't think the "nearly 300" have to be worded, when 1539 and 1831 are given, therefore I prefer e to f. f also doesn't really say that Luther composed the tune, - when we say "carol by" we mean the poet. (While when we say "opera by" we usually mean the composer.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think what Kingsif stated above is right. Saying that "most readers" "already know" that Luther lived 300 years before Mendelssohn would be assuming too much knowledge from our general readership. They probably at best know that Martin Luther started the Reformation and Mendelssohn was a composer (who composed the Wedding March among other things), anything else may be expecting too much. As for ALT2g, the reason why I like it is because it highlights that Luther is a composer, a fact that may not be known even to most Protestants. If some additional explanation is needed (i.e. the mention of Bach), I would be fine with ALT2f. ALT2i is too complex (there's no need to mention Luther writing the text and tune explicitly, that can be explained in the article), it's sufficient to state that the carol was by him. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- In my opinion ALT2g gives not enough information about the music. Most user already know, that Luther lived 300 years before Mendelssohn and that Luther is the author of the hymn. Boring hook!!!! Grimes2 (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose ALT2i: it's far too complicated and tries to include too much information in one hook. If this is really the angle we'll be going for, I would still prefer ALT2g. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- All righty – Kingsif and Narutolovehinata5? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Try to find consensus: I prefer Alt2i. Thanks, for the nice Christmas gift. Grimes2 (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Interim conclusion: We are close to consensus, the only point of contention is: 1539/1831 vs. long "composed nearly 300 years earlier". Grimes2 (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- Consensus attempt: Alt3: ... that Mendelssohn's 1831 Christmas cantata Vom Himmel hoch, influenced by Bach's chorale cantatas, was based on a 1539 carol by Martin Luther? Grimes2 (talk) 11:15, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- While I think emphasising the time elapsed would serve better, I am happy with alt3. There are many interesting things about the subject and the history behind it, and hopefully an interesting hook will get people to click through the article, where the history should be elucidated and may get some readers more interested in the subject and using Wikipedia more. Kingsif (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with a hook with wording similar with ALT3 that gives the number of years, but not really ALT3 itself since the years gap may be easy to miss. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- I honestly don't see the necessity of specifying 292 years (or the longer 300-year approximation) as opposed to 1831 and 1539 dates. This is still a pretty loaded hook, and if the distant dates don't capture interest, the three composers might or the differing types of works. While I'd be happier with a shorter hook, I think consensus is reasonable for one this long. My thought was the following:
- ALT3a: ... that Mendelssohn's 1831 Christmas cantata Vom Himmel hoch, influenced by Bach's chorale cantatas, was based on a 1539 carol composed by Martin Luther?
- That way, by adding one word, you clearly get the oddity that Martin Luther composed the carol's music, you have the very different years of composition, and it comes in at 150 prose characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Melody and text! Grimes2 (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Adding "melody and text" would make the hook too long and more complicated than it has to be. We could just simply remove "composed" and just say the carol was by Martin Luther, with the fact that he wrote both the melody and text being discussed in the article proper itself (so something like ALT3 or a hook to that effect). However, if it were up to me, I'd just simply cut the Bach mention and simply focus on the Luther angle instead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Melody and text! Grimes2 (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ironic: ... that Mendelssohn, who composed 200 years earlier the Christmas cantata Vom Himmel hoch, influenced by Bach's chorale cantatas, who lived 300 years earlier, was based on a carol by Martin Luther, who composed nearly 500 years earlier and 300 years compared to Mendelssohn? Grimes2 (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- At this point why not just use alt0? Kingsif (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: The original hook does not solve the issue of the mention of Luther being ambiguous, not to mention the fact that it has details that seem too specialist and may not necessary be understood by non-specialists. Even as someone with an interest in music myself, "selected unchanged stanzas and the tune" is rather hard to understand. If we do go with ALT0's hook fact, we could go with something like this then:
- ALT0a ... that Felix Mendelssohn's Vom Himmel hoch is a 1831 Christmas cantata whose melody and text are partly based on a carol by Martin Luther?
- ALT0b ... that Mendelssohn's 1831 Christmas cantata Vom Himmel hoch is based on a carol by Martin Luther?
- That avoids the issue of the years vs. year range entirely while still mostly sharing the same idea. As for ALT0b not mentioning that it was only partly based on Luther's carol, that can be discussed in the subject's article, and even a partial basis is still a basis. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think, the year 1539 is impressive (on many beer bottles it says "brewed according to the Reinheitsgebot (purity law) of 1516"). I think, Luthers famous Christmas carol should be linked. Ergo: Alt3. Grimes2 (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- I like BlueMoonset's ALT3a best. Please consider that. I have been often told that "compose" can also be used for text-writing. Striking the original if not understood. How would I have known? - I don't like "partly based", - how is it even "partly" if every word is by Luther? Which is a much greater faithfulness to Luther's text than in Bach's Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ, BWV 91 (also a chorale cantata for Christmas based on a hymn by Luther). Pictured DYK on Christmas Day 2010, in one of 4 sets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- I think, the year 1539 is impressive (on many beer bottles it says "brewed according to the Reinheitsgebot (purity law) of 1516"). I think, Luthers famous Christmas carol should be linked. Ergo: Alt3. Grimes2 (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Kingsif: The original hook does not solve the issue of the mention of Luther being ambiguous, not to mention the fact that it has details that seem too specialist and may not necessary be understood by non-specialists. Even as someone with an interest in music myself, "selected unchanged stanzas and the tune" is rather hard to understand. If we do go with ALT0's hook fact, we could go with something like this then:
- At this point why not just use alt0? Kingsif (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- I honestly don't see the necessity of specifying 292 years (or the longer 300-year approximation) as opposed to 1831 and 1539 dates. This is still a pretty loaded hook, and if the distant dates don't capture interest, the three composers might or the differing types of works. While I'd be happier with a shorter hook, I think consensus is reasonable for one this long. My thought was the following:
- I'd be fine with a hook with wording similar with ALT3 that gives the number of years, but not really ALT3 itself since the years gap may be easy to miss. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I have not been involved in building alt3a, so go for it. Needs promotion by admin as Christmas set now in queue. Kingsif (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)