Talk:List of works by Antonín Dvořák

This is a test to see whether the table displays correctly on all browsers. If you find any problems then perhaps you could report them here. Thanks P.davydov 08:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

WOW! Looks great! We should seriously have this for all composers.-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 08:44, 8 February 2009 (EST)
PROBLEM: sorting does not adequately work - it sorts 1,10, 11, etc. 0s needed, I suspect....-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 08:45, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Thanks for pointing that out, I'll get on to it... P.davydov 09:13, 8 February 2009 (EST)
And there are two entries for Symphony No. 9-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 08:46, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Burghauser gave different numbers to the full score and Dvořák's piano arrangement, which is why it appears twice on the list P.davydov 09:13, 8 February 2009 (EST)
And why do the Bs skip from 300 to 500 to 600?-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 08:53, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Again that's to do with Burghauser's numbering. He grouped together differnt types of works, so 300+ are study works, 400+ are fragments, 500+ arrangements, etc. I think I've included everything except unfinished and doubtful works P.davydov 09:13, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Thank you. This is wonderful. I repeat my comment above about other composers.-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 09:17, 8 February 2009 (EST)
It WOULD be nice to do this for other composers, but I imagine it'd be more difficult. Dvorak works well because the B catalog is so thorough (but a quick glance through the list I see the Op. numbers aren't all there, which is understandable in Dvorak's case), but there's still often confusion about composer-created arragements -- that's the thing I find works lists often lack in. There's also questions of if various versions should be listed separate (Burghauser did that too, but not for every piece that had a revision). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 12:35, 8 February 2009 (EST)

The sorting on B and opus numbers now seems to be working properly. And thank you Snailey for the star!

There's no reason that the same system shouldn't work for any composer, provided we can gather together enough information. Tchaikovsky next, I think...  :-) P.davydov 10:09, 8 February 2009 (EST)

A few things that should be considered for other composers as well:
1) All title areas should be filled in, even if it's the same for both languages (ex. Preludes)
2) Maybe Key labels should have the word 'major' or 'minor', since otherwise sorting by key mixes up major and minor works.
3) When sorting by key, it would be nicer to have blank things at the end, so you don't have to scroll halfway down the page to find the first one. Rob 10:29, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Thanks for those comments, Rob. I couldn't find the original title for the Preludes, but maybe a Czech speaker here can help? As for the keys, space was too tight to include "major" or "minor", and this is one column which won't sort so well anyway (because of the way the keys are shown for pieces within piano cycles, etc.). But if you want to sort on Key, then clicking the heading twice will display them in reverse order, with "G" at the top, and the spaces at the end P.davydov 11:13, 8 February 2009 (EST)

At , there is a table that sorts numerical values correctly without the need for leading zeroes. I didn't check the details, can we do the same here? --Leonard Vertighel 12:26, 8 February 2009 (EST)



Wouldn't it be better to put the layout of this table in css? Then we can still use the wiki markup?--Peter talk 13:21, 8 February 2009 (EST)

After much wailing and gnashing of teeth I couldn't get the cell alignments to behave in a stylesheet, so in the end I filled in an Excel spreadsheet, then pasted it into an HTML editor, and did some tweaking after pasting the table straight into the Wiki. But if you can see how it might work with a stylesheet, then you're welcome to try... P.davydov 14:09, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Sorting template: hs (Hide Span: hidden sorting data)

Hi guys,

there is a little template called {{hs}} which allows you to implement correctly ordered numerical/alphabetical/topical searches. For example, in doing a sort on the worklists here that run into the hundreds, you would specify numbers in a field as:

  • {{hs|00}}1: displays 1, however sorts as 001
  • {{hs|0}}10: displays 10, however sorts as 010
  • works in triple digits are then sorted normally with the rest.

A worklist that ran into the thousands would need increasing numbers of leading zeroes for works numbered in the hundreds, tens, and then single figures; whereas a worklist of under 100 items only requires leading zeroes for the items less than 10.

I have two or three examples within my user space: the table of contributions on my user page includes a sortable table implementing hidden numerical and alphabetical sorting. For a larger example you might wish to glance at my (as yet experimental) page on the Mozart worklist.

Update: I've implemented this on the first two columns here, for B. work numbers and opus numbers. Tested, they work fine.

Regards, Philip Legge PML talk 12:15, 9 February 2009 (AEDT)

I'm extremely impressed! Many thanks for sorting that out (no pun intended) P.davydov 07:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)


I've heard that saves get more expensive the longer the page, thus one should probably preview this page before saving, and do large batches, etc.-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 21:31, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Hi Snailey. I'm not quite sure what you mean by more expensive, but with a page this size I find it easier to work with Wordpad anyway, and then paste/preview in the Wiki before saving. P.davydov 07:06, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Feature this

This is such a good idea that I think that we ought really feature it somewhere. Does anyone have any ideas? I would normally put it in featured scores, but it's not a score.-- Snailey Yell at me Email me 12:57, 14 February 2009 (EST)