Thanks for the head up on the Ferdinand David hoax. That's one I didn't know about! You'll now see your little note on the Ciaccona page, moved over the David where it belongs. Carolus 00:46, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
Cleanup - thanks!
I'll second that. Nice work on adding all the viola work info. Please don't get rid of the "Op." in the Opus/Catalog No. field, as there seem to be new catalogues of composers added all the time, so it's useful to have the letter designation - even for the plain old 'Opus' - as additional catalog numbers surface. Thanks, Carolus 07:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
New works list
- Hello KGill, If you think the list would be better arranged differently, please feel free to do so. I didn't know quite how to sort it. Best, Hrdinský 16:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- For examples, you can check Category:Sortable Composition Lists. The syntax is really quite simple, you should have no trouble with it (if I can do it, anyone can ;-)).
Also, I apologize for sounding obnoxious/officious; it's just that I thought if one were creating a new list, one might as well make it sortable.
Is the list finished? If so, I can transform it today or tomorrow if you wish. KGill talk email 17:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- No Problem. Absolutely no offense taken. And thank you for the information on sortable lists. I'm sure the Veracini composition list is incomplete. There's not much "scholarly" work there on my part. As I was trying to figure out which opus the "Sonata in E minor" belongs to, I just quickly compiled a list from Wikipedia and the sources I have here at hand. As with many early composers, there seem to many unknowns (dates, instrumentation, etc.). Hrdinský 17:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Smetana sotable list
Hi Hrdinský. I see you've added a sortable list for Bedřich Smetana, which looks very good!
Just to let you know that I changed the format of the earliest sortable lists, as a result of gaining experience working on them. It looks like you've copied the Dvorak model, which is an early one I did, and the only one left in this format. The others now look something like this: Sortable list of works by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky or this: Sortable list of works by Johannes Brahms. The Dvorak will soon be changed as well.
I don't want to cause you extra work, and I'm quite willing to change the Smetana list to the same format (just moving columns around). This shouldn't take very long at all, and then you could carry on where you left off. It would be easier to do now than later, and it would be helpful to keep all the sortable lists in the same format. Would that be OK? — P.davydov 17:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I'm rejigging the Smetana list now, and it should be ready in around half-an-hour... — P.davydov 19:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
... or about 20 minutes as it turned out. It should sort OK now, and it won't take long to do a second table for the cadenzas/arrangements.
In answer to your questions, the sortable lists are only a few months old, and I started by working on Tchaikovsky, Dvorak and a few others, learning from my mistakes along the way. For example, the Dvorak list (as it is now) doesn't allow for sorting on the names of pieces that form parts of a larger cycle, e.g. individual songs or piano pieces that make up sets. This is possible with the later lists, and I've been going back and converting the earliest ones to make this happen; Brahms and Tchaikovsky are just finished, and I'll be starting on Dvorak soon.
The order of the columns was chosen deliberately, and it's best to keep these consistent, but the list can be sorted on any column to start with — it doesn't have to be the first one. So it's absolutely fine that you sorted Smetana on the genre column. For composers with fairly complete opus or catalogue numbers (like Mozart's Köchel numbers) they could be sorted on the date or title columns, but the whole idea is that the users of the site can change to whichever column they find the most helpful.
If a column includes letters as well as numbers, then they will sort out of sequence, so "Op.1" will be first, then "Op.11, Op.12, Op.13...Op.19, Op.2, Op.20", and so on. This can be stopped by putting in leading zeros to "Op.01" and "Op.02", but hiding these extra characters with a little code. You'll see how this is done by looking at the modified Smetana list. It's also sometimes necessary to do this with accented characters, like in the title "Šarka" (with "Sarka" added before the Czech title, but hidden).
In the date column, it's better to use "1845?" instead of "c.1845" so that it sorts properly, and try to avoid putting anything in front of the year.
I found it useful to include a second column exclusively for arrangements, transcriptions and editions of works by other composers, so that these can all be placed together. In the case of some prominent editors/arrangers, this table could be longer than the one for original works, and it would give us a way of linking to their transcriptions that we don't always have at the moment.
At some point I'll put together some general notes about compiling sortable lists, but please don't hesitate to get in touch if there's anything you'd like to ask — P.davydov 20:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I moved everything onto one page and created a re-direct. Leclair's category isn't the most organized, to be sure. Makes me wonder what the "Sarabande" and "Tambourin" are from, originally. Thanks for the note, Carolus 05:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
That's quite some work you put in there, for which I thank you. But may I ask why you remove, without any discussion, a lot of information - e.g. you abandon the separations between original viola compositions and transcriptions. Furthermore it's not clear for me why you moved part of the studies / collections section to the other sections while leaving other works in it. I have put a considerable amount of work in there - look at the history of the page. Looking at your splendid wikipedia page I assume you have great knowledge of viola literature, but when doing such considerable changes I would appreciate it if you respect the work that has been done and discussed it first. Apart form the fact that you added a lot of useful links, in my opinion you reduced the amount of information that was on the page. You moved from a structured page to practically one big list. Of course I take this a bit personal, so I might sound harsh. Unless you have compelling arguments (I see none), I would like you to put back the efforts and information that was on the page - i.e. restitute the genre / originality sections). Lastly I trust you did not remove any links to works - I'm not going to check it.