Actions

Template talk

Title

From ChoralWiki

Disambiguation &c

I notice the template can't easily be applied to, for example, Salve Regina a 6 1604a (Orlando di Lasso) without there being an awkward line break before the disambiguation note, which I think belongs in or next to the title field. Richard Mix (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

And again, at Beatus Laurentius 4vv (Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina) & Missa Clementina I (Alessandro Scarlatti)
Richard, your suggestion that "the disambiguation note … belongs in or next to the title field" bears on the discussion of overall structure of a work page. Based on your suggestion, I started to develop an improved Title template (Title2), to include comments, alternate titles (next topic below), and larger works. But I stopped when I realized that notes and comments (including such things as "Also see") have been put all over work pages – and this makes database management more difficult, especially in light of recent attempts to put all data in templates. It would be relatively easy to add a optional comment to the Title template, to incorporate items such as "disambiguation notes," but then we would have to add such a comment field to every other work-page template (Composer, Arranger, Lyricist, Pub, Voicing, Language, Description, External links, Original texts, Translations, etc.). I feel that such comments and notes would be easier to manage if they were in a general catch-all template – Description or its generalized successor (note that User:Claude T has already started putting these into a new template, Descr); there are several reasons for this. I will start a new forum thread on this topic soon, and link it here.
Anyway, I suspect that you would prefer having these comments strewn about the work page, wherever they need to be to facilitate notice by users. That doesn't sound bad, but it does make things more difficult for database management, and it could make things easier for users if comments and notes appear in the same place every time. So what would you prefer? An optional comment field attached to every template? Or all comments and notes in one generalized field? — Barry Johnston (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Afraid I haven't grasped the difficulty. In the short term I guess I could have put everything in one argument as at Als die Geliebte sich trennen wollte, WoO 138 (Ludwig van Beethoven) instead of wishing the line break could be unforced. But with Template:Lyricist I have a predictable syntax and just type {{Lyricist|Stephan von Breuning| 'nach dem Französischen des Soulié}}; with Template:Title I get:
Title: Missa Clementina I
Larger work: (a different work from Missa Clementina II)
How does Template:Opus play with Title? Richard Mix (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps some examples will help:

  1. Salve Regina a 6 1604a (Orlando di Lasso) – the text "one of 3 6-part settings. This is the first (No. CCCLXII) of 3 published in ''Magnum opus musicum'' and has a homophonic opening." is not contained in any template. Where does this belong? In the Title template, or in a (new) Comments and discussion template? (I think the latter, since more than Title is discussed.) (PS. Title field doesn't match page title.)
  2. Als die Geliebte sich trennen wollte, WoO 138 (Ludwig van Beethoven) – the text "(Empfindungen bei Lydias Untreue)" is not contained in any template. Where does it belong? (I think in the Title template, as a subtitle or alternate title, but a case can be made for putting it in a Comments and discussion template.) In the same work, the text "nach dem Französischen des Soulié is not understandable (to me, at least), and demands an explanation more than just adding these words to Lyricist: would be much better in a Discussion template, where source of the words could be spelled out and discussed.
  3. Missa "D'ung aultre amer" (Josquin des Prez) – the text "'''See also:''' Individual score page for [[Tu solus qui facis mirabilia (Josquin des Prez)|''Tu solus qui facis mirabilia'']]" is not contained in any template. Where does it belong? (Perhaps a new template AlsoSee? Or Comments and discussion?; I think the latter).
  4. Sumer is icumen in (Anonymous) – the text "'''See also:''' [[Summer is ycoming in (Robert Lucas Pearsall)]] (SSATBB)" is not contained in any template. Same questions, but in a different location; some consistency in placement would be helpful.

I have many more examples. — Barry Johnston (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, cases should be easier to discuss:
1. Salve Regina a 6 1604a (Orlando di Lasso) To me explanation of the title clearly belongs next to Title:
2. "(Empfindungen bei Lydias Untreue)" is in fact contained in the template, along with the primary title. If separated by a pipe, the template adds the heading Larger work: (for my taste the L.W. display could read instead Love bade me welcome (from Five Mystical Songs (1911))
2b. "After the French of [the otherwise unidentified] Soulié". Vier Gesänge für Frauenchor, op. 17 (Johannes Brahms) takes advantage of Lyricist not having a line bread built in, but it's a problem having neither Ossian nor James Macpherson linked to the Lyricist page.
3. Tu solus qui facis mirabilia (Josquin des Prez) is transmitted independently (Motetti de passione de cruce (Ottaviano Petrucci) for one) so instead of merging appropriately in See also:, but see also below:
4. Summer is ycoming in (Robert Lucas Pearsall) is a related but distinct reworking: See also: most comfortably next to External links: Richard Mix (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The most recent example of extra content: on Hark!_The_herald_angels_sing_(Joseph_Knapicius) ;-) I wish all fields content over 254 characters (except the 'underlay text' one) should be added to the (mostly empty) corresponding discussion page. This should work for works, composers, lyricists, etc. This could be done using an automatic redirect through an anchor (not an asterix but asterix-like) in the future, and a manual postponement using the same anchor, for the past. This should be a better solution than creating a mostly empty "Comments and discussion" template in each field of all tables of the database. I'll be able to know all fields exceeding 254 characters when all fields will be delimited by double curly brackets. Barry, regarding that, I've not been able to insert description text into {{Descr|}} template, because I don't have your skills when there is one or more CR/LF inside. Could you do it for all works with other prefixes than "Z"? Thanks in advance. Then there will only the last field be left (regarding work pages) 'External websites', that often has one or more CR/LFs inside. Claude (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Claude! I think this conversation needs to end, anyway. I don't seem to be getting anywhere. — Barry Johnston (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Me neither, but I take it as a sign conversation needs to continue. Claude, what does CR/LF stand for? Richard Mix (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Carriage return and/or line feed Claude (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Alt titles & incipits

I notice we haven't made provision for what IMSLP calls "Alternative Title". Barry has fashioned a Template:FirstLine which could fit on the 2nd line of General Info, but there are still odd cases like Als die Geliebte sich trennen wollte, WoO 138, subtitled Empfindungen bei Lydias Untreue and with the incipit «Der Hoffnung letzter Schimmer sinkt dahin». Could one template do this with t= at= fl= lw= arguments? Comments/disambiguation links would be nice too! Richard Mix (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Another nice feature would be a 2pars= parameter, as featured in the table at Motecta_quatuor_vocum_liber_primus_(Jacquet_de_Mantua)#List_of_works Richard Mix (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Good idea, to somehow codify whether a work is the second (or third or fourth etc.) part of another work, as was fairly common with motets and madrigals and some lieder. I have noticed that some editors have all parts on the same page with part 1, as in your Mantua example, and some editors have separate work pages for the "parts", as here. (I prefer the second way, so that page lists would include the Part 2 title.) On which page would your proposed parameter appear? On Part 1 page, or Part n page? (n>1). I would think it should be on Part n page, the Part 1 page would have a list of all the parts later down the page. Given this variation I feel this is best handled in an alternate title parameter, which I will implement here shortly. Please have a look at my test Template Title2, tested on the pages I vo piangendo a 6 (Andrea Gabrieli) and O dolcezze amarissime (Seconda parte), SWV 2 (Heinrich Schütz). Please also see this forum. — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
First line and Opus need to be separate templates on the work page, so that they can be properly dealt with in lists, especially tabular ones. — Barry Johnston (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
My bias is toward the integral "work" of the "work page", with 2nde parte as redirects, but that's a whole other current discussion. SWV 1 & 2 is maybe a point in your favor, though I note Gardano dodges the issue. I would find it annoying to have identical files linked on different pages, with the chore of adding "Edition notes: This 2nda parte may be found beginning on page …" Both pages (if separate) would have to be linked to each other.
Thanks for the tests: apart from length and upper case Seconda, O dolcezze amarissime (Seconda parte), SWV 2 (Heinrich Schütz) looks fairly good. 2 things jump out about I vo piangendo a 6: 1) there's no hand-added linking to part 2 (default blue with optional piping would be ideal) and 2) no disambiguation link for I vo piangendo N ≠ 6. If one is seeking the wrong I vo piangendo one might know where to go next, I suppose, but … Richard Mix (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I forgot to try the template myself; useful features and some weird italicizing at WoO 138 but FirstLine seems made for a different job. Richard Mix (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I have fixed Title2 so that WoO 138 looks better. Thanks for trying Title2 - that's what I was hoping for. Do you think we've about got it now? — Barry Johnston (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes, alt= is looking good! For large= I chose Vidimus stellam (Heinrich Isaac) thinking it's probably on your watchlist, but Denn es gehet dem Menschen wie dem Vieh (Johannes Brahms) would be a blue link: in preview it doesn't work either. Vier ernste Gesänge, Op. 121 (Johannes Brahms) should be piped or maybe stripped of (composer) in any case. Richard Mix (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I fixed Title2 so that it will take text instead of the linked page; see Denn es gehet dem Menschen wie dem Vieh (Johannes Brahms), Vidimus stellam (Heinrich Isaac) and the description at {{Title2}}. — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

default for parameters

Sorry to be a whiner, but do I really have to remember to type {{Title2 to avoid this unexpected behavior? Richard Mix (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

And I am sorry too. So far not enough people have commented on Title2 to be able to implement it across the whole site. It's still experimental, though that could change in the next few days, I hope. I have been very busy finishing up with implementing {{Descr}} and {{EdNotes}} everywhere, long tasks — Barry Johnston (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I can hang on then, and of course I keep forgetting the part before the pipe can be as long as necessary. 2 little things still: Alleluia: Dulce lignum (Book 2) (Heinrich Isaac) 1) the title resists being italicized 2) the dash — before the 'comment' (actually a parenthetical disambiguation) could be left up to people's taste.Richard Mix (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions! About the title resisting italics, see this forum topic. Title2 is (temporarily) programmed to ignore the '', working towards having all titles in regular font. The dash is programmed in, but it can be removed; my concern is that some people (like me) won't remember to manually insert whatever punctuation is appropriate. I thought a dash would be generic enough to cover most cases: do you have a better suggestion? — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)