IMSLP talk:Contributor Portal/archive 2

This is an archived talk page. Please don't add new discussions to this page. For older discussions, see archive 1.


Statistics: Graph

IMSLP statistics until february 22, 2007.
IMSLP statistics until february 22, 2007.

djvu files

I recently submitted some djvu files. However, in contrast to the websites I got them, on IMSLP I have to download the djvu files first before i can view them, in an external viewer. How can I make the djvu files on IMSLP to be viewable in a browser plugin?--Peter 05:25, 17 December 2006 (EST)

The reason is that this host is using a horribly old version of the MIME type file. But it should be fixed now since I added DJVU to htaccess :) --Feldmahler 06:41, 17 December 2006 (EST)


Here's another issue that I can see coming very soon with prolific composers like Mozart, Haydn, Bach, Handel, Schubert, etc.: The eyes tend to glaze over when viewing a column of 108 Symphonies, 200+ Cantatas, multiple Piano Sontatas, String Quartets, and the like. How about setting up sub-categories (sometimes referred to as "genre" or "form" by librarians)? That way, under the main composer page for Haydn, one would see a single entry for "Symphonies", which would take you to a separate page where all of them are listed. I think having such subcategories would make IMSLP even easier to use. -- Carolus 6 Jan. 2007

This is already done in a way for some composers. See Category:Schubert, Franz. On AWP-pages these works are grouped, but a subcategory would be better indeed.--Peter 11:24, 6 January 2007 (EST)
Funny you should mention the Schubert AWP pages. I just noticed that a different edition of the Allegretto in C minor, D. 915 was added yesterday as a separate work by one of our newer contributors. I can think of two drawbacks of AWP pages: 1) It isn't as easy to add the details of a particular work like the year it was composed, year of first publication and dedication when they are just file listings on an AWP; 2) the 10 files per page limitation. That's why a subcategory page - like "Shorter Piano Works" would be beneficial in the case of a composer like Schubert, who wrote lots of short, single-movement piano works. Being not very experienced or knowledgeable about Wiki software capabilities, I cannot presently see a way in which one could add an actual subcategory like "String Quartets" to a Composer page like Haydn's. Do you know of a way this can be done? -- Carolus 6 Jan. 2007
You are completely right about the subcategories. It's very easy: You make a new category (i.e. String Quartets (Haydn, Joseph)). Then you include the category in the composer category (by simply adding [[Category:Haydn, Joseph]] ), and voila, it's a subcategory. --Peter 17:30, 7 January 2007 (EST)
Having seperate categories for works of a different type for each composer is indeed a nice idea... and with the wiki setup IMSLP has it can even be accomplished automatically: I can simply take all the works in a composer category, plus all the works in a certain work genre category, and cross them so that only articles that are in both categories will show up. However, this will no longer be an actual "category"; it'll be a function implemented in a special page. I'll try to write this special page after I add some new functionality to the current File Add/Work Add/Composer Add pages. --Feldmahler 19:56, 7 January 2007 (EST)

I have managed to modify the Category page to also accept the "intersect" command; the result will be pages which are in both the main category (of the page) and the category specified with the intersect. However, this is a minimal modification designed to change as little code as possible, since I heard that the Mediawiki developers are working on exactly such a feature, though apparently they are having troubles and will take a while before the feature is finished (which is why I modified in the first place, rather than waiting; getting the offical feature will probably take at least 1 year). Because it's minimal, certain things just do not work; for example, the category bar at the top of the category pages will generate unintersected category links on an intersected category page (though I don't think this is fixable without completely taking the Mediawiki code apart). Otherwise it should work nicely if you don't demand too much from it :)
Also, it is a very good idea to wrap this function (i.e. link) in a template page, rather than put it directly on a composer page; this is because we might need to change the underlying code (i.e. the template) when the official feature does get released (when and if it happens). --Feldmahler 14:05, 8 January 2007 (EST)
P.S. An example can be found on Schubert's composer page... I'm sure it can be made better though :)

works or albums that start with numbers

A problem with adding works that start with a number (e.g. 15 German Dances) is that they are being listed by the number and not alphabetically by the name on the composer page. I was removing all the numbers from the titles, but this is not very right - because some works are known and remembered by their numbering - while I discovered an elegant way: after submitting the work, you edit the category with a "|" whereafter you type the term by which the work should be ordered in the category. For example the page with 12 Viennese German Dances by Schubert should get the category [[Category:Schubert,_Franz|Viennese German Dances, D.128]]. The page title keeps the same, but now the work is being listed under "V".--Peter 17:30, 7 January 2007 (EST)

Very nice idea! I will automate this in the "Add Work" page, as well as the Transform page. However, in addition to numbers, I would also like to strip some other words... currently I can only think of "the" and "a". If you have more, tell me :) --Feldmahler 19:39, 7 January 2007 (EST)
I've finished implementing it in the "Add Work" page. Now the workpage will be sorted differently in all the categories it's in if the name starts with a number, "the", "a", or an english numbering up to "twenty". Basically, "10 Waltzes (Some, Composer)" will be sorted like "Waltzes, 10 (Some, Composer)". The same thing for the words :)
I wanted to also put it in the Transform page, but it's harder (due to parenthesis issues, which doesn't exist in the other page). So I look around and there doesn't seem to be a huge demand for this function in the Transform page (most pages are already transformed anyway), so I didn't add the function to the Transform page in the end. --Feldmahler 00:11, 8 January 2007 (EST)
A comment or two from a long-standing CPDL contributor: we have long had the practice of specifying composers names on pages naturally, e.g. Johann Sebastian Bach, though this means that almost all of our cataloguing needs to specify [[Category:whatever category is to be assigned|Bach, Johann Sebastian]]. As IMSLP uses the format Surname, Firstname, you haven't largely needed to learn this trick; on CPDL our approach led us to realise that this type of cataloguing is much more useful when it is applied across the board, particularly for sorting unwieldy long lists - for example, take the numerous genre works by Mozart: e.g. piano sonatas, string quartets, symphonies, violin sonatas. Since these are simply being catalogued "as is" according to the work page title, they end up in [[Category:Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus]] as an alphabetical list, so because of the limitations of ASCII Symphony No. 19 precedes Symphony No. 2; the Köchel catalogue would result in a reasonably accurate ordering for the Piano concertos, but not for the horn concertos, and so on. To resolve the problem of the symphonies' numbering - assuming you want all of the numbers to be truly sequential, then the individual works pages would need to be categorised with qualifications, [[Category:Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus|Symphony 01]]... up to [[...|Symphony 50]]. This is not as painful as it sounds by the way!
There may also be advantages in using this method of cataloguing to be able to specify composer lists by work number, or date - again taking Mozart, let us imagine we've created a particularly useful template called {{Köchel}} which takes several variables:
  1. Entry in 1st Köchel catalogue, e.g. K 182, Symphony "no. 24" in B flat.
  2. Entry in 3rd Köchel catalogue, e.g. K3 166c - the same symphony.
  3. Entry in 6th Köchel catalogue, e.g. K6 173dA - again, the same work!
  4. Date on manuscript, e.g. 5 October 1773.
The {{Köchel}} template could then take the variables and generate category entries which allow Mozart's works to be more or less automatically categorised into the three main versions of Köchel numbers that are commonly used and assigned, as well as allowing a chronologically sorted list.
Another observation I felt compelled to provide - occasionally work titles could be more helpful - taking Mozart again, the K. and numerical order given to various works can be helpful, but for some genres - the piano concertos and symphonies - the key would be much more useful in identifying the work, e.g. Symphony No. 40 in G minor, K 550; Piano concerto No. 21 in C major, K 467. -- Philip Legge @ © Φ 01:09, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Hi there Philip! Thank you very much for your insights :) Regarding the sort/number issue, there were requests for such a function on the forums some time ago, so I've already implemented it, but unfortunately it is not on all work pages yet, though it will automatically be applied the next time a file is added to that work page.
What I ended up doing was write a Mediawiki extension which will render "{MakeCategorySortkey}" (with {{ and }} but I can't type them here of course) into the sort key of the page, padding all numbers with 0s up to 4 digits (ex. Symphony No.1 => Symphony No.0001 and Symphony No.32 => Symphony No.0032), and hence I can do something like [[Category:Some, Composer{MakeCategorySortkey}]]. The reason for this is that it makes renaming the page much less painful (or else I'd have to edit the page each time I move it), plus I can change the sort key generation method should need arise :)
About identifying works with keys... it was a rather difficult call for me. But in the interest of preserving some kind of coherence across the library I've discouraged the use of keys to identify pieces unless there was no catalog number. I decided this partly because I thought it might be a good idea for people to not rely on IMSLP to do research for a piece; IMSLP provides scores, but the research about a particular piece (catalog numbers etc.) should be done before using IMSLP... this is also partly to negate any possible inter-lingual problems that might arise (since catalog numbers are the most easily usable across different languages).
About the Kochel listings... that is very interesting, but how do you make Mediawiki sort pages in a category in different ways? Maybe I'm misunderstanding...
Thanks for the suggestions :) It's really nice to see CPDL contributors also paying attention to IMSLP, since both sites have a very similar setup, but yet are very complementary in terms of scope. --Feldmahler 01:56, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah, auto-sorting the Köchel listings - that's my little secret for now ;-) Seriously though, perhaps I will have a go at making a sandbox version of this template as a proof of concept, if and when I have a minute over the weekend. Cheers! -- Philip Legge @ © Φ 04:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Please do hehe :) --Feldmahler 11:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay, it's time for me to spill the beans. I was planning to do this over at CPDL by means of several clever sets of templates, one of which uses the {{switch}} template to do essentially a case by case breakdown of formatting the four possibilities with Köchel numbering - either the work has only 1 number (K), 2 numbers (K/K3, or K/K6) or has 3 different numbers in the three main editions of the catalogue (K/K3/K6). I was then going to use the Dynamic Page Listing extension to do the work of taking a category list - pretty much what you'd be trying with {MakeCategorySortkey} – and arbitrarily sorting each of the categories. A "beta" version of the Köchel templates is running over at CPDL, but I can't get it to do everything I want at present – only the Category pages are showing the works ordered correctly, elsewhere DPL just lists the works by title (not desired). The templates are a bit of a gross hack at this stage, but I suspect I (or other Wiki editors) will be able to refine them. The version of DPL installed over there is 0.5.1, and the category,sortkey option only was included as of version 0.77, so if the setup is more up-to-date over here, I may set up shop in the sandbox sooner than I expected to test some of this out and get it running. -- Philip Legge @ © Φ 01:57, 2 April 2007 (EDT)


I'd like to suggest some changes and clarifications to the following, which is copied from the Score submission guide / Creating a new work page, which I hope clarifies some things about titles.

  1. Work Title: A mandatory field. Please make sure the title used is unique in the composer's output (ex. putting Piano Sonata in G major for a Beethoven piano sonata is not a good idea because three of Beethoven's piano sonatas are in G major). Also, avoid being too wordy (Piano Sonata No.10 in G major is too wordy; put instead just Piano Sonata No.10), the "wordy" titles should go to the field below (Alternative Work Title).

Suggested rewording:

A mandatory field. Construct a title for the work that uniquely identifies it in the composer's output. For example, use Piano Sonata no. 10 (Beethoven), or Piano Sonata, op. 109 (Beethoven), rather than Piano Sonata in G major, since three of Beethoven's piano sonatas are in G major. Further identification can be provided in the Alternative Work Title.

  1. Alternative Work Title: This is the normal title of the work that appears on the actual page. If this field is left blank, the title given in "Work Title" will be used on the page.

Comment: The problem is, what "pages" are being refered to? Suggested rewording (if I understand correctly what this instruction says):

This is the title of the work under which it will appear on the category pages. If this field is left blank, the title given in "Work Title" will be used. Example. Work title: Symphony no. 103 (Haydn). Alternative work title: Symphony no. 103, E flat major.

  1. Alternative Title: This is the alternative title that will be shown on the work page (ex. Pathétique for Beethoven's 8th piano sonata). (I'm perfectly aware that the name of this field and the last is really confusing... if you can think of a better name, please leave a note in the forums or contact me via the IMSLP staff contact list)

Suggested rewording (this could be called a Descriptive Title):

Descriptive Title: This is an alternative descriptive title that some works are known by (Symphonie Pathetique, Tragic Symphony). Example. Work Title: Piano Sonata no. 29 (Beethoven). Alternative Work Title: Piano Sonata no. 29, op. 106, B flat major (Beethoven). Descriptive title: Das Hammerklavier. ------Gilbertdh. February 16, 2007

Response to Titles

Thank you very much for your suggestions! I think that one of the problems is indeed the fact that the IMSLP submission system is not as user friendly as possible.

I've reworded the submission guide (I've used your rewording of "Work Title"), and hopefully it is more clear now. The problem with "Alternative Title" is that it is not only used descriptively... I have used it many times to specify the title in a different language, so it is more like a jack-of-all-trades field, which means it is hard to define specifically, unfortunately :/

Also, "Alternative Work Title" actually only controls the "Work Title" field on the page itself, and not the page name, which is controlled by "Work Title" (and which shows up in categories). Having three name fields is indeed unfortunate :/

Anyway, thank you very much for alerting me to these problems! A rewording of sections of the submission guide is way overdue. I've also read on a forum somewhere that other people also found the IMSLP submission system to be hard to understand :/ But I hope it is better now! And if you found other confusing places, please do tell! --Feldmahler 16:06, 15 February 2007 (EST)

I see that lot of scores is from "". Why? It's better to use this site: It is better, without this "" on score.

Five Thousand Files!

Yes, we did it!
Now let's upload next thousand ;)

Nice, but I prefer quality over quantity... so let the next thousand be well-identified and decently scanned scores.--Peter 12:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)