I have minor remarks.
- The publisher indentifier directs to only one publisher. However, more possibilities exist for several publishers: the typical example is Durand, who had several names throughout its history. I think it is correcter to mention the name of the publisher at date of publication than name all Durand publications Durand & Cie. With another example, Schuberth, the correct publication name is needed for an estimation of publication date.
- A dropdown list with publisher names, and maybe all fields separated in the addfile template, would be time saving. I don't think the current template saves a lot of time...
Cheers --Peter talk 03:31, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
- Well, the template right now is only a stub to be used while I implement the actual function of this template, which is to generate automatic lists of publishers (with date, plate numbers, etc) so that manual editing of publisher lists is not needed anymore. I know it is actually slightly harder to use than just writing the normal publisher line, but I think the benefits far outweigh this issue if we get it working right.
- Regarding the multiple names, I've actually already thought about this... the solution I can think of is to create an entry for each name (for example, you can move "Durand & Cie." to "durandcie", with the other Durands having other identifiers; of course this is possible because no one is using "durand" yet). I can group them together during the automatic generation of publisher lists. --Feldmahler 12:05, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
- Hmm.. what about various gesamtausgabes? like: Leipzig: Breitkopf, Beethoven samlische werke, ser.1, vol.1, plate xxxx, how are these going with the current template? --Funper talk 08:55, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
- I can just add an entry between the publisher name and date that is reserved for series of publications, like I will do now :) --Feldmahler 12:05, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
The issue of precise publisher name with regard to dating scores is important, especially with the widespread practice of affixing fraudulent notices after the fact on much later printings. To go back to the Durand example, everything published before the mid-1880s, used the imprint "Durand, Schoenewek & Cie.", which was followed (briefly) by "Durand & Schoenewerk", then "A. Durand & Fils", "Durand & Cie." (starting 1909), then "Editions Durand, S.A." and now "Durand/Eschig/Amphion - BMG." All for a single publisher. Add to this the firms that had separate imprints from sister companies in other countries, like "Schott Freres" in Brussels vs. "B. Schotts Söhne" in Mainz and "Schott & Co., Ltd." in London. Even so, it makes a lot of sense to have all of the Durand imprints - of whatever form - link to the single Durand page, Peters to the Peters page, etc.. There's also joint issues, like Peters and Eulenburg, Jurgenson and D. Rahter, Universal and several other publishers, legacy reissues like Costallat's of the old Richault catalog, etc., and reprints by unrelated companies like Broude, Dover and Kalmus.
Carolus 19:03, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
- Hi Carolus! Thanks for the clarification. Also, I wanted to ask you roughly how many publishers do you think we will meet on IMSLP? I just want an estimate so that I can think about how this should work. My plans currently include putting this with the add file form (first as an alternative to the publisher line), and then doing neat things with it (automatically generated publisher plate/edition number list page, among other things).
- The current "publisher identifier" mechanism is the only one I can think of that is both sufficiently user-friendly to be feasible, and yet sufficiently computer-understandable so that I can actually use the data. But if there are a huge number of publishers (say, thousands), I may need to rethink this since looking one publisher up would probably take too long.
- By the way, as a note for everyone: feel free to say why this project would or won't work... it is a large project and I need all the feedback I can get :) --Feldmahler 19:22, 25 August 2007 (EDT)
I suspect that the total number of music publishers from the start of the practice under Petrucci in the 16th century to the present time is no more than 10-15,000 (if even that). Carolus 17:58, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
- the template should be like this instead: {{Publisher|(<Place of Publication>)|<Publisher Identifer>|(<Publication Series Name>)|(<Edition Number>)|(<Date of Publication>)|(<Plate Number>)}} --Funper talk 11:49, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
- I put the publication series name at the end because most uses of the template will not need it. Also, there was already uses of this template in the wild, so I had to maintain backwards compatibility. I know the adoption rate of this template is rather low, and so I'm planning to work this into the add file form sooner or later. Though it will probably be quite a while before everything is implemented (I'm looking at about an year), as I will have many other things to do, and I'm still thinking about how to make this feasibly user-friendly. But I'm sure this will become an one-of-a-kind database (I don't think such a thing ever existed in electronic and automated form like this) once it is completed :) --Feldmahler 12:05, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
n.d.(1845). e.g.
some (most) publishers do not imprint dates. put something in the template that makes n.d.(----) possible for dates not imprinted. maybe some {{#if: thingy.. --Funper, Stockholm, 2007.talk 11:57, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
