Template talk:CompCatTxt

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hi Rob, you beat me to the documentation (when I submitted documentation, I found you already had done it). I was actually thinking of a slightly more general template with yet another optional parameter full=<yes or no>, which if yes would say the list is complete and categorize as disired, and if no would say the list is partial and would categorize in the incomplete category. It would probably require changing the 3rd parameter to a named parameter, say sort=. -- Chucktalk Giffen 00:48, 12 September 2008 (PDT)

Hi Chuck. I didn't consider that extra option but it makes sense so we can format all "<name> compositions" cats with the template, not just the complete ones. Would you object to "complete?" and "sort"?--Bobnotts talk 01:22, 12 September 2008 (PDT)

No parameter implementation


I'm not sure I see the point of the checks and behavior (nothing) if there are no parameters passed at all. Shouldn't the template at least categorize the page somewhere (if not in Composer works categories)? And shouldn't this behavior be documented?

Chuck, the point is to make the "Composer compositions" link in every work page appear blue (or not appear at all). I used CompCatTxt for that, since you said that a simple redirect to the composer page wouldn't be a good idea. These pages weren't categorized in "Compositions by composer" simply because they don't have the surname parameter to provide a correct sorting. Nothing was documented yet because this solution still isn't in its definitive form. The options available now are these:
  1. Use CompCatTxt to categorize the categories that use the template without parameters in a new "Category:Compositions by composer (sorted by first name)".
  2. Use CompCatTxt to hide the categories "Composer compositions" from the works pages when the template has no parameters.
  3. Don't use CompCatTxt at all without parameters and replace it with another template in the "Composer compositions" categories that are not necessary (because the composer page already brings the works in alphabetical order).
Now it's just a question of choosing! Which option do you people prefer? —Carlos Email.gif 15:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 16:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


I'm not really in favor of Option 1. I think probably Option 2 is my preference at the moment, although probably the hiddedn categories should themselves be subcategorized in something like "Category:Hidden compositions by composer categories" (I adhere to the Wiki principle that practically every page, whether an article or a category should itself be categorized). I see no need for Option 3, at least if the CompCatTxt template is appropriately written; after all, when and if a Composer page becomes something other than an alpa-ordered list, then it is a simple matter to add the missing parameters. Does this make sense?

It makes perfect sense to me! In a first moment it hadn't ocurred to me the idea to hide these categories, but now I'm inclined to agree with you that if they are not necessary, then the best is not show them at all on the works pages. :) The suggestion to always categorize pages is indeed a good practice, we should stick to this principle. Would you mind if the information "hidden" appear at the end of the title, as for example "Category:Compositions by composer (hidden categories)" or "Category:Composer works categories (hidden)"? —Carlos Email.gif 17:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


Hi everyone, I propose merging the following templates into a single one (CatTxt?) in order to simplify the creation of new categories:

All the related categories have a fixed word at the end ("compositions", "editions", "settings", "texts" or "translations"), simplifying the detection of which text has to be displayed in each category. The language parameter used in the last two can also be obtained from the category title itself, making them superfluous. What do you people think, is it worth the (small) effort? —Carlos Email.gif 01:35, 27 August 2012 (CDT)

Reply by: Vaarky (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2012 (CDT)