Should LinkComp or LinkLib be used? Eric 22:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well spotted, it should have been LinkLib. The names of the librettists in the examples ought to be linked to this template as well, but doing so places the whole page in the "Works with text by..." categories, which is the reason they aren't — P.davydov 23:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. However, I want to question a few points.
- The introductory section mentions two new sections for external links and extra information. I do not feel that these belong in the general information section of the page, which is designed to provide merely basic facts. That is why (c.f. Bach Cantatas), Section Listing, External Links, and Sources Cited do not go in the general information section. Also, strictly speaking, that information is currently in a "miscellaneous" section in the template, not outside ;)
- Should we have a rule for average duration about pieces that last for days (I'm thinking Surreal here), just in case?
- For first performance, is this date format really necessary? I would like to know the rational behind it (also, so I can be lazy and not have to modify all the cantatas again ;)
- I'm hurt that you didn't find my "EN" template :0
- Same with "I"-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 00:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for going through that so thoroughly, and taking your points in turn:
- Within the composer page template there are already fields for external links and extra information, and I think it's reasonable to do the same here. The "Misc. Comments" section can often be a mess, and quite often people place text (or navigation boxes) after the "*****END OF TEMPLATE*****" marker
- Isn't there an organ piece that's supposed to take something like 765 years to perform? :-) If we get anything like that, then yes we'd need to review the guidelines
- My intention was that the dates would be sortable and automatically readable, so that we could easily pick out anniversaries of first performances. I did wonder about having some sort of date template instead, as with composers' birth and death dates, that would avoid having some dates in US format (April 4th, 1900) and others in British format (4 April 1900), which is currently the case. The wording "at ... in ..." was another attempt to make this machine-readable, but I've changed this to semi-colons and commas
- I didn't know about it! By habit I use Windows ALT+0150, so I've restored the links to the Wikipedia section on how to do en-dashes, and left in your handy template, so people can choose the method that suits them best
- Once again, I didn't know! But after thinking about the instrumentation I decided to suggest the simplest method possible, which doesn't use the italics or line breaks.
- I've made a few small changes to the text, including a "Related Works" section that came to me in the night. You know things are bad when you start dreaming about editing the Wiki... :-) — P.davydov 10:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Organ work by John Cage, I gather- performance has been begun even, I believe. (Probably not Sorabji- none of Sorabji's organ symphonies take more than some hours at tempi giusti(???).- then again, only two of those three works have been performed so what do I know. I am under the distinct impression that his longest work takes about 8 hours played at reasonable tempi. Not brief but under a half-day and less than Satie's Vexations.) Re en-dashes, (or em-dashes for situations where they are appropriate), for myself at least some of the time I type –, preview, copy the result, and paste it over... Eric 11:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
You know things are bad when you start dreaming about editing the Wiki... Can't say except for myself of course but I _think_ a lot of us get that really. Eric 11:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think that this is forum-ready.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 14:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I have a couple of (minor, nitpicking comments) as well:
- Should 'Number of Movements/Sections' be changed to simply 'Movements/Sections' or something similar? I ask because if this goes through consensus, it will be standard practice to put much more information than merely the number of movements (i.e., their titles as well) - so the descriptor isn't really accurate.
- Is it really necessary to use a semicolon with spaces (' ; ') as a separator? Personally, I have never seen this used on any workpage, and I don't really see why it's any better than using, say, commas (the latter having the advantage of being far more widely used, to the best of my knowledge).
- How should we separate totally different instrumentations? This guide tells how to substitute one instrument for another, but what if you had something for, say, 2 bassoons and contrabassoon or 2 cellos and contrabass? OK, I guess I just showed one way to do that ;-) but I still think it should be made clear on the guide. 'Or' wouldn't be all that clear with larger instrumentations; should we use a separated slash, maybe? (2 bassoons, contrabassoon / 2 cellos, contrabass) That would work just as well for larger combinations, if needed.
In general, though, I think this is very good. For the most part it does its best to assimilate the many differing styles already found on the site. KGill talk email 18:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for those comments, Kenneth:
- We can control the field names that the user sees displayed on the page changing the FTE:Messages file, but this doesn't affect the field names people see while they're editing the general information section. So all the pages containing the Wiki markup line "| Number of Movements/Sections=" will continue to do so, even though when the page isn't being edited we can change that to show "Movements/Sections" if we want to (and there are similar issues with other fields). Because these instructions are aimed at people editing the page, I just used the field names that people see while they're editing (I hope all that wasn't as confusing to read as it was to type!)
- The semi-colons with spaces are used as spacers in library catalogues, and I'm suggesting them here because quite a few alternative titles, for example, are very long and include multiple commas, so it might not be clear where the information starts and ends. In the case of catalogue numbers you can find "Op.65 ; Z.432, 498, 521", where a semi-colon is more useful than a comma to separate the two different numberin systems
- I think either of the solutions you suggested in your example would be OK, and there'll no doubt be other special cases we'll have to consider as we go along. I wanted to come up with something as simple as possible, since attempting to standardizing the instrumentation field has defeated us so often in the past :-) — P.davydov 18:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi P.davydov - just a little remark (as small as my technical skills): I personally find very convenient, when I make a search, to have mention of the Opus number in the title and fear that without it many composer's pages may become very unclear.--Squin 19:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think there was ever any intention of abolishing the Op. numbers from the actual workpage. That would be a huge inconvenience. Lndlewis10 19:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
...in the main title --Squin 19:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's what I mean. Lndlewis10 20:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Just to allay any concerns you might have, Squin, the opus number will still appear in the title of the workpage. It will also continue to appear under the "Opus/Catalogue Number" heading of the general information section. So it isn't needed in the top line of the general information section (the part with the dark red background), which will be the same as the title of the workpage without any keys or opus/catalogue numbers. For example, the page for Symphony No.9, Op.125 (Beethoven, Ludwig van) will continue to have the same title, but the first line of the general information section will say "Work Title: Symphony No.9" (as it does now, in fact), with "Opus/Catalogue Number: Op.125" underneath (again, as it does now) — P.davydov 20:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks : I'm as relaxed as after a good Valium now ! and think everything else is very much welcome --Squin 20:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Date orderings in the First Performance field
Might I suggest the use of a template to handle date orderings in the First Performance field? This would solve the issue of specially having to use the backwards format (year, month, date) since the output of the template would be more or less standardised. We already use a similar scheme for composers’ dates, when these are exactly known, e.g.
|Born Year=1723|Born Month=12|Born Day=22<br>
|Died Year=1787|Died Month=6|Died Day=20
The presence of both the month and day variables in a date could then be used to add a work to a category, e.g. works premièred on 1 April, which can then be searched for anniversaries. (In fact I’m not entirely sure why we haven’t looked before at having similar composer categories to track similar anniversaries.) Philip Legge @ © talk 21:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, Davydov, I just noticed you’d already considered this idea above in one of the in-detail replies. My suggestion stands nonetheless. Philip Legge @ © talk 21:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that a template would be the best solution, but the one on the composer page uses complicated INT parser functions that are way too technical for the likes of me, so it would have to be done by someone more experienced :-) — P.davydov 22:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. I wonder if the code from the composer page can be easily adapted to this... Philip Legge @ © talk 07:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- That uses an INT:totaldate function to display the birth and death dates as a range, which doesn't work on a single date. I've had a look round Wikipedia but can't see anything we might readily adapt from there — P.davydov 17:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Overall I think this is very well fleshed out. I have a few possible additions to the style guide, but the thoughts are probably trivial.
1). While editing the librettist field I have come to notice that often times a secondary librettist will be mentioned as having started a work (e.g. Percy Bysshe Shelley (after Lewis Carroll)), or something along these lines. It would be my preference to link the person to have completed the libretto - Percy Bysshe Shelley - but this is not clear according to the style guide. Do you think an additional clause would be worthwhile to denote rules for such a case?
I. I agree completely with the generalization that instrument names should appear in English, but what if the instrument has no English translation? Hopefully it can just be assumed that the foreign spelling is acceptable in such a case, but perhaps it should read "Names of instruments and ranges should be given in English unless no English version exists, and [...]". This comes up often in Eastern music (e.g. Dulzaina, Dizi, etc).
II. With regards to the examples of instrumentation, I would only repudiate the following:
Piano (solo), 2 flutes, 2 oboes, 2 clarinets, 2 bassoons, 2 horns, 2 trumpets, 3 trombones, timpani, strings
To only a minor extent. The simple suggestion would be that I think from a visual standpoint, it may be more effective to have:
Orchestra ~ 2 flutes, 2 oboes, 2 clarinets, 2 bassoons, 2 horns, 2 trumpets, 3 trombones, timpani, strings
Or something along these lines?
These are just some minor and nit-picky points that are probably fallacious anyway, but until I'm renounced I adhere to the opinions ;) Cheers, Lndlewis10 04:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for those comments Nick.
- The wording was intended to include these 'secondary librettists', because they all have a copyright claim on the text. In the example you gave, Shelley acting as librettist had adapted a literary work by Carroll, so both Shelley and Carroll are copyright owners. In this case both are long dead, and there's no claim, but imagine if a librettist who died in 1920 (and whose work is therefore PD) set the text of an writer who didn't die until 1950; it might look at first glance as though the librettist's work was all public domain, whereas the original source for the text he used could still be copyright in some parts of the world. I'll tweak this section to try and make this clearer...
- I'd say that "Dulzaina" and "Dizi" are English versions of the names of instruments in oriental languages :-)
- The aim is to keep the instrumentation field as simple as possible, as previous discussions have suggested that a lot of our less-experienced contributors struggle with things like italics and dashes, and there would also be debates about what exactly constitutes an 'orchestra'. What about using a plus sign after the solo instrument(s), e.g. ("Piano, violin, cello (solo) + 2 flutes, 2 oboes, 2 clarinets...")? — P.davydov 08:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, this makes it much more clear.
- Kèn bầu? Đàn tam thập lục? :-)
- That makes it more clear, but I still insist that the break is more clear. Doesn't matter though, it'll be easier for new users to use the + sign.
Another thing item I think may be a good idea to add is the use of the dash when referring to something such as "Piano 4-hands", which there doesn't seem to be a clause for. And indeed, when "piano 4-hands" listed under the common instruments ("Keyboard"), there doesn't seem to be a dash used. Is this intentional? Lndlewis10 15:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- Since that is the overwhelmingly common usage across the site, probably yes. KGill talk email 16:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I've noticed it oppositely. I guess your right though... Lndlewis10 16:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Update (30 January)
I've just made two tweaks, taking into account some of the above comments:
- Dates of first performance should be given in the YY-MM-DD format (so that 22 November 1863 would be "1863-11-23")
- In the instrumentation field, solo instruments/singers are separated from ensembles by a + sign, for greater clarity
P.davydov 09:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
What should be done if the first performance of a work was fragmentary, and it was only completely performed later? Or if the complete premiere of a work is not known/listed anywhere, only premieres of each individual section? (See Ciclo brasileiro, W374 (Villa-Lobos, Heitor) for an example of the latter case - Villa-Lobos, Heitor is particularly rich in examples of both.) Thanks, KGill talk email 22:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've edited the page to show one possible layout for this information. Just to mention as well that the keys for each piece can be given in the "Section Listing" field, if there isn't one tonic key for the whole work — P.davydov 06:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also, in general, what should be done with pages like this? There are 11 albums there with several pieces each...all of which are (currently) individually detailed in the Misc. Comments section at the bottom. Thanks, KGill talk email 22:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Judging from the work history, this page might be better split into its component pieces, e.g. Guia prático, W277-284 (Villa-Lobos, Heitor), Guia prático, W358 (Villa-Lobos, Heitor), etc. — P.davydov 06:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response(s). Ciclo brasileiro now looks much neater - I'll go through several of the other pages at some point to change it to that format (which is significantly more efficient). Personally, I would prefer to leave Guia prático (piano) as one page, because the essential conception of the piano suites was of one large work rather than eleven separate works, or two or three segments (despite the varied composition dates and publication history). The other Guia prático (i.e., the original 137 collected folk songs) would get its own page if we had it on IMSLP. This is partially to avoid confusion in browsing the category - Guia prático was a label applied by Villa-Lobos to basically two different large works, and to split them up into 12 total pages (well, currently it would be 2 since that's all we have, but in an ideal world) would be to greatly obscure that. If you have other arguments then I'd be happy to hear them, but even if we do end up splitting the page, I think it might be a good idea to at least plan for a situation with a similar number of components in a piece where splitting is not a viable option. Cheers, KGill talk email 02:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- The first performance of Berlioz’s Troyens was fragmented in exactly this way, and given that operas are meant to be produced with staging, the workpage lists no less than five (5) separate performances:
- 1. First performance of excerpts (with vocal soloists and orchestra)
- 2. First staged performance of Acts III–V (albeit with cuts)
- 3/4. First concert performances of Acts I–II (two performances by different orchestras and conductors in Paris on the same day, if you can believe that!)
- 5. First staged performance of entire work (again with cuts)
- Since the last of these performances entailed some usual cuts stemming from the time of the second, if one were really pedantic one would also include the first complete, staged performance that didn’t involve sizeable cuts… but anyway, feel free to consult the page to see how this example was handled. Because of there being five well-documented performances each of considerable importance, rather than cluttering up the “General Information” box these were handled by having a short summary in the general info box, and the full list of details given as descriptive prose under the “Misc. Comments”. Regards Philip Legge @ © talk 02:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Mr. P.Davydov. This is excellent draft for general information field. I have question with concerns to average duration section. Do you think exception should be made for pieces less than 1 minute? For example, I've seen certain dance pieces [not belonging to larger collection] to be short under 1 minute? Some even 10-20 seconds! Should, maybe, a clause be made to express this circumstance so it is not left as 1/2 minute. If you believe differently we can let it be however. Cheers - Emery 21:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- We don't have many of these, but your suggestion is very sensible, and I've added it to the new page at IMSLP:Score submission guide/General Information — P.davydov 22:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
As the proposals have been up for discussion since 23 January, and we seem to have broad agreement, the draft has now replaced the existing rules at IMSLP:Score submission guide/General Information. I've made one tweak to the "Average Duration" section (see above), and for technical reasons the lists under Related Works, External Links and Extra Information can't be bulleted, so <br> will serve as a line break if needed in these fields, which are now all working!
Further comments should be made at IMSLP talk:Score submission guide/General Information, and thanks to everyone who contributed to the discussion — P.davydov 22:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)