Tausig Scarlatti
I may be mistaken, but I have searched through Scott Ross's box in vain for No. 5 (the others were easy finds). What's the verdict?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Grove lists it as 'doubtful', but Tausig mustn't have thought so :-) — P.davydov 10:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
William Wallace Gilchrist
Hi P.davydov, you're one of three admins/librarians (p.davydov, KGill, and Massenetique) that Carolus suggested I contact regarding the formatting of titles for the composer William Wallace Gilchrist. As none of his works were assigned an opus number I've been posting them in the format of "Title, Schleifer nnn" which references the number in Gilchrist's catalog of works compiled by Martha Furman Schleifer. Carolus was wondering if there was a preferred abbreviation for referencing Schleifer's assigned catalog number. I certainly have no idea. I've posted this query to the other two admins/librarians as well. Many thanks! --Cypressdome 06:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Cypressdome. I can't find any sources with abbreviations for Scheifer numbers, and the few references I can find use "Schleifer xxx" as you have done. I can understand Carolus's concern that this causes the titles to be a little longer than they might otherwise be, but in the absence of a standard abbreviation it might be better to carry on as you have been doing, rather than to come up with an abbreviation that's unique to IMSLP — P.davydov 10:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your guidance. It would seem that the consensus is to continue using the current format. In the catalog at the end of her book on Gilchrist Schleifer doesn't use her name or an abbreviation in the numbering of Gilchrist's works. They are simply numbered (within categories and sub-categories) 1 to 493. It would be interesting to know if the references on other sites to Gilchrist's works using the Schleifer catalog number pre-date or post-date the posting of his works on IMSLP starting in late July, 2010. Perhaps IMSLP's format is helping to set a standard.--Cypressdome 03:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
- That is an entirely normal practice by many cataloguer’s own standards – within the catalogue itself, these often don’t refer back to the same catalogue reflexively by adding a self-descriptor; the assumption is that when referring to item 259 (or 32 or 64), the reference is to the current document rather than having to redundantly state “Schleifer 259”, say, or “Holoman 32”, or “Charteris 64” to take two other examples. Cheers Philip Legge @ © talk 03:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, by BWV number
Hello P.davydov,
why is this page blocked for editing? I'm adding BWV files and I'm not
able to add them to this page. It was no problems a few weeks ago.
I see, that it was a hard work to create the tables but blocking it is
no solution in my opinion. --TobisNotenarchiv 18:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hello TobisNotenarchiv. Another user has recently been editing that page very badly, with the result that the layout was disrupted and the columns wouldn't sort any longer. I had no choice but to revert their edits and protect the page, but this is only a temporary measure, and the protection should be lifted very shortly. Sorry for the inconvenience — P.davydov 21:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that's really sad! Okay, I will wait until the protection ist lifted :-)--TobisNotenarchiv 22:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your patience, and if it helps I've added a link to BWV Anh.46 — P.davydov 22:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- ... and to all the others. You have been busy! — P.davydov 22:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
BWV Anh. 43
Hi P.davydov,
you write: "spurious; composed by Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach (Wq.233, H.776)"
but Wq.233/H.776 is a cantata "Die Letzten Leiden des Erlösers" in E-flat major?!
--TobisNotenarchiv 19:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's right, the fugue is section No.18 from the cantata — P.davydov 21:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Spurious
These new BWV anhang additions bring us back to the "spurious" question. Shouldn't we be moving these to pages for their respective composers and linking them? Can we include this on some page?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 20:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- In cases where a work was previously attributed to JSB, I've redirected to the 'true' composer where this is known, while leaving the redirect page in JSB's category. So clicking on the familiar name of the work under JSB's name will lead to the workpage for the other composer, which will have a big infobox at the top explaining that it was formerly attributed to JSB (like this one). If a work is definitely not by JSB, and the real composer isn't known for certain, then we've no choice but to leave it in Bach's category, with an infobox at the top stating that it wasn't really by him. I didn't bother with infoboxes for works that are only 'doubtful', and just put a note in the "Misc. Comments" section at the bottom of the page (and it's quite possible that I missed a few redirects/infoboxes, particularly in the lower BWVs). Does this sound like a practical solution? — P.davydov 21:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Where in the manual would this go?-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 21:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure. That whole set of pages is really confusing! :-) — P.davydov 21:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea to leave the file at the "old" composer like Bach and make a redirect to the "new" composer. Also the Infobox is a good idea.--TobisNotenarchiv 22:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Permission (Category Walker)
Hi Davydov. Every now and then I will run across a red link for an arrangement category (part of the category walker). It's not worthwhile to create the page for a category with less than 10 works in them (according to your previous talk page discussion). Every now and then I run across a category for a certain type arrangement that does have over 10 works in it. I was wondering if it would be okay for me to create such pages. Thanks, Lndlewis10 21:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it's fine by me. KGill's been looking after that side of things, but he could probably do with a hand — P.davydov 21:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
BWV Anh
Hello P.davydov,
I've uploaded BWV Anh. 82-84 as separate files and with separate work pages.
But feel free to change it to one work page with 3 files if you think this is better.
Then I'd like to know, if it is okay to upload PDF-Files with the lyrics for the lost cantatas
BWV Anh. 1-19?
Best wishes
--TobisNotenarchiv 21:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Hello TobisNotenarchiv. I think it's fine to have BWV Anh.82–84 as separate files. If you could upload the texts for BWV Anh.1–19 as individual files, that would also be better. Thanks for all your fine contributions — P.davydov 22:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I will upload the texts in separate files, but my question is if it is allowed to upload just text instead of music scores?!
--TobisNotenarchiv 21:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- It is a little unusual, but it has happened before (usually with librettos of operas), and there's no rule against it, so long as the text itself is out of copyright — P.davydov 23:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi P.davydov, indeed - it's rather complicated. Thanks! --Ralph Theo Misch 22:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Davydov! I see that you marked this for cleanup, but it seems that it can't be split due to the layout of the pieces. Perhaps you think differently, but it seems that the best course of action would be to link the early dance version page with the existing work pages (D.145, D.146, D.779, D.783) for Schubert. Normally I would go ahead and do this, but since you marked the file I'm more careful about what to do here. Cheers, Lndlewis10 09:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, you're right. We'll have to treat it (and tag it) as a "compilation", and just cross-reference the contents to the individual work pages. Thanks for checking — P.davydov 09:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure? It seems to me that with image editing software, we could split this-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 16:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Davydov,
I hope you don’t mind the extra code I’ve added to this template, which essentially generalises it to behave like all the other members of the {{LinkX}} family. I updated the thread over at the forums with a more complete description of what it does, which may not be exactly obvious at the page itself. Thanks for the work you’re doing. Regards, Philip Legge @ © talk 02:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Philip. Actually I intended this to be used instead of your "LinkComp" template to give a quick way of linking to a person's category without defining them as a composer, editor, arranger, etc. An example of how it might be used is given here, where Eric was uncomfortable with using "LinkComp" to someone who wasn't a composer — P.davydov 06:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Oh. sorry. My comment there was ambiguous. That wasn't my problem :) I wanted to have LinkComp display the full name, patronymic etc. included, while linking to the composer/person page (the only way I can see to do that would be - using the example from the Tchaikovsky valse-scherzo - [[:Category:Kotek, Yosif|Iosif Iosifovich Kotek]] or something like that, which is unwieldy (and when overused can gobble space, which is why I like the CSW template in another context, but anyway...) - I would prefer that LinkComp or similar have that functionality in an additional optional field or fields, and should have gone and suggested it in the appropriate forum. Eric 22:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you would want to do this? Every person on IMSLP has a standardized form of their name so that we don't get into a muddle with page titles. If you think the standardized version of a name is wrong then you can always challenge it. As I recall, I used "Iosif Iosifovich Kotek" in the dedication field for the Valse-scherzo long before a category was created for "Kotek, Yosif", but the latter is how his name is spelled by the Library of Congress, and you were right to make it consistent :-) — P.davydov 22:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Steltz
Hi Davydov. If you wouldn't mind, would you please give Steltz admin rights, as per here and the forum discussion? Many thanks, KGill talk email 20:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, it's done now — P.davydov 21:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Tagging
Hi Davydov. Yesterday evening a few page titles were changed from "piano sonatas" to "harpsichord sonatas", and therefore the tags also had to be changed. Do I have permission to change the tags for pain-stakingly obvious files when something like this occurs? This would avoid a lot of annoying messages on librarians' talk pages. Thanks, Lndlewis10 21:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see why not. It would be far more annoying for librarians if they went uncorrected :-) — P.davydov 21:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I had to ask so you wouldn't get mad for me changing tags without permission ;) Lndlewis10 22:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- As if :-) — P.davydov 22:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hp va
Really should have noticed that. Sorry! Eric 22:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- No problem — P.davydov 22:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Davydov. I went ahead and posted a recording policy as a subordinate of the performers portal. It's just the set of rules as discussed on the forums with some modification. Do you have any opinions or objections? Cheers, Lndlewis10 00:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
New feature in MW:G
Due to the unholy length of MW:G, I've taken the liberty of adding an "include" feature to MW:G. For example:
+ [[MediaWiki:Genres/Orchestral]]
will include the text of MediaWiki:Genres/Orchestral in MW:G (with or without [[]]). It has only one limitation: it only works if the genre category tree is split at the root (i.e. you cannot split off anything that has a parent node, but only things with one star * at the beginning). Otherwise anything can be split, including tags. Remember, however, that tags depend on categories defined before itself, therefore any use of categories defined after the tag will be the same as a use of an undefined category (this applies whether or not include pages are used).
Hopefully this will bring MW:G to a much more manageable size, and ease editing. This will also be good for the server because currently each MW:G edit adds half a MB to the database. --Feldmahler 21:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
deletion of Category:Requiems
Hi,
I'm wondering what to do about this edit at CPDL. Has category:Requiems moved or been replaced, or should the link point to the IMSLP search page? Richard Mix 10:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Richard. If you use the category name "Requiems" instead of "Requiem", then you should be OK — P.davydov 12:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
