The discussion below was moved here from Category talk:Compositions by composer
The whole idea behing the categories "Compositions by composer" and "Compositions by composer (incomplete)" was good (although a bit redundant), but it seems that it has become quite impractical to add template CompCatTxt for all 1457 composers currently on CPDL and keep the categories updated about them being complete or not. I suggest we abandon this whole idea and simply redirect the "Composer compositions" categories to the composer page, as we've been doing with the "Lyricist settings" categories. This could be automated with the help of a bot (adding CompCatTxt can't, unless the template syntax is simplified). Another possibility is simply to not categorize the works at all, since this categorization is not being used elsewhere (differently from the Lyricist categories that are used for DPL queries). What do everyone think? —Carlos 20:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The subcategories of Composer works categories are now updated automatically by virtue of the Composer template. Indeed, for every composer "John Q. Composer" with works appearing at CPDL, there is a category "Compositions by John Q. Composer", whether that category has been itself categorized in one of the Composer works categories or not. Indeed, this actually makes "Compositions by composer (incomplete)" obsolete, except that the composers appearing there should have their CompCatTxt changed so that complete=yes replaces complete=no.
The rationale behind the by composer categories is that one has an alphabetical by title list of the works pages for each composer, independent of the particular way the works pages might appear on the composer page (such as by genre, opus number, or by grouping within larger works) - see William Byrd compositions versus William Byrd for an instance of this. Furthermore, the by composer categories allow easy access to a composer's compositions for the purpose of DPL manipulation - so that, for example, searching for Sacred works by Johannes Brahms is an easy matter in a DPL query. Indeed, it should be easy enough for Carlos to add a composer name field to the Multi-Category Search, since the relevant categories already exist.
Chuck, I agree with you that an "alphabetical by title" list of the works is an interesting feature, but if you consider the vast majority of composer pages (I'd say 90% of the 1457 pages), they already list the works in this way. So, for these composers, the category listing is simply redundant. For those composers that fall in the 10%, which comprise the most prominent and best represented composers on CPDL, then I agree that multiple listings (by genre, by opus, alphabetical etc.) are necessary, but then again the category page itself doesn't need to be used because a similar list can be created using DPL. In both cases, the category page could simply redirect to the composer page, where the user will have the option to choose in what way they want to see the works listed.
As for the Multi-Category Search, the inclusion of a composer field was in my initial plans, I can't remember now why I decided to keep it out of the search. If I include the composer option there, then the "by title" categories will once again lose their utility.
The point in all this is that we currently have ~1400 category pages that need to be created, a work that clearly won't be done manually. The inclusion of the template CompCatTxt can't be automated, because it requires parameters (composer's surname, name) that can only be added by hand. On the other side, a simple redirect can be added easily to the category pages using a bot. What I suggest is that these categories be used only for the purpose of DPL manipulation, and that listings by title be created only for the composers who need it. —Carlos 16:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The ~1457 categories already exist (in the same way that the myriad yyyy-mm-dd categories exist), as remarked previous, by virtue of the Composer template. Of course, the vast majority of these have no CompCatTxt applied to them at all! For composer pages which simply duplicate the alphabetic listing provided by the Composer compositions category, there is no need to stick CompCatTxt on the Composer compositions category page (to make it appear "real"). On the other hand, having these categories exists (independent of whether they have been "created" with CompCatTxt), is very useful for DPL listings (better than using "titlematch" which might be required for other purposes and might give false results if a composer's name appears in a title of a work by a different composer). So I'm in agreement that we only need to put CompCatTxt on those Composer compositions categories that "need" it. -- ChucktalkGiffen♫ 20:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)