Talk:Gott, man lobet dich in der Stille, BWV 120

	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.

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Genre[edit]

In consistency with operas, it is desirable to tell the reader right on top what the strange German and the perhaps unfamiliar catalogue number are about: a cantata by Bach. It was removed, I restored it. It would also be desirable to specify that this is a cantata of the type "sacred cantata", used in a church service. Nikkimaria, please restore that, or explain your removal of the"type". - I will not repeat that for all cantatas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As is made clear by the template documentation, including the genre parameter for cantatas where type is specified (as it is here - it was not removed, please check more carefully) is redundant. There is no need to be consistent with a change that is in the early stages of being implemented elsewhere, particularly given that the cantata articles themselves will not be consistent. Your addition of the redundant parameter was reverted and you've restored it; I would suggest you revert yourself. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted the template itself, so there is no need to remove a wanted parameter which makes this kind of composition comparable to others. Thoughts about parameters that don't show are under way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a need, because the redundant parameter still shows here, just in a different position. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only because you changed the template. I suggested on the template talk to drop type and have genre on top. Let's focus the discussion there. Until then I see no need to revert a parameter only to perhaps need it again tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The parameter was visible both before and after the change to the template, and was/is in both instances redundant. In the meantime, if the parameter is needed tomorrow it can be re-added tomorrow; it shouldn't have been added yesterday. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]