Template talk:Request

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Rather than try to extend this template to handle info on completed status, it would be better to have a separate template for pending/completed status which is affixed below the (actually obsolete) Request template or the Template:ScoreRequest. Imposing extra documentation to wade through for pending/completed status input for the user who is simply making a request is not making matters any easier for the requestor. And the input for pending or completed status comes from a different party (or parties), who should not have to fuss with the requestor's input. By the way, I had been planning to make a template version of the latter to replace the current Request template. -- Chucktalk Giffen 14:30, 21 September 2008 (PDT)

Chuck, these changes are not intended for the new requesters, since they will use your new request system anyway. It is aimed at the admins/advanced users (as Vaarky and Claude) who have recently been updating a lot of Request pages, to make thinks easier for them, by remembering them what has to be filled and freeing them from adjusting the boring text layouts. They would just have to copy/paste the basic fields, as I did. If you plan to create a new template to affix below Completed requests, please do it quickly because Vaarky and Claude won't wait for us... lol. Anyway I'll stop the edits until we decide what's better.—Carlos  Email.gif 15:05, 21 September 2008 (PDT)
It's not a problem, take the time you need. Just to go further, at this time, I think the sentence "Click here to view the score" isn't always the right one : many times it should be "Click here to view the score page" when more than one edition is available. Also the PAGENAME template isn't always appropriate for many reasons : slight difference between the request and the work (typo), request of a part of a work, voicing in the title of the request, Opus number included, etc. So I will continue to check that manually, if you agree. What is boring me at this time is something like "Did really Monteverdi wrote requested 'O vos omnes'? Regards. - Oh, also, I wouldn't capitalize the 'H' in "Click here". Am I right ? Claude 16:10, 21 September 2008 (PDT)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 23:28, 21 September 2008 (PDT)


Hi Carlos and Claude. I see what you mean, Carlos. What you have done is fine with me.

And I agree with Claude about PAGENAME, so I changed the categorizing so that if "scoretitle" is not empty then the page is sorted under "scoretitle" (which really means "scorelocation" or "scorepage", but "scoretitle" is already set in place and being used).

It might be a good idea to include one other optional field of the form "correctedtitle" to fix problems of typos, voicing, etc. that appear in some requests as Claude mentions, since "correctedtitle" may be different from the page where the completed score page is located. In that case, do we sort by "correctedtitle" (if present), else by "scoretitle" (if present), else by PAGENAME? Thinking that you might agree with this, I'll go ahead and add the necessary code to implement "correctedtitle" (and even list it further up) - and it won't disturb anything already in place.

I'm not sure how to handle the side ("boring") comments that Claude refers to - yet another "othercomments" field? Or would this be going overboard?

It makes sense for me : we keep the PAGENAME identical with the title of the request and, when it's completed, put the corrected title "behind" the "Click here". The Request pages stay sorted by "scoretitle". (When there's an undoubtely typo error, we move the page as for the works pages). But we can't stay as now with "All requests - Completed - Pending - Copyright restricted" side-by-side because "All requests" is a package containing the three others. So we should get (on the first "Requested scores" page) an "All requests" (for who is it useful?) and, below, the 4 subcategories side-by-side: 1.Requested (not-completed, not-pending and not-copyright-restricted), 2. Completed, 3. Pending, 4. Copyright-restricted. Coming to the "not-so-clear" requests, the rules can't be set by any template. Should it be possible to use the talk page of each request ? Not sure of what I want to write to the Requester that asked for Monteverdi's "Selva morale e spirituale" or "Verdi's Requiem" ! So, better I don't write anything ;-) Speaking of comments, we just need Requester-comments and Volunteer-comments. - Claude 01:28, 22 September 2008 (PDT)
I agree with Chuck that 'scoretitle' wasn't very clear (I made confusion between work title and score page), so I've just changed it to 'scorepage'. Therefore these are the fields available to fill up on completed requests:
   |requester      =
|requesternotes =
|volunteer =
|volunteernotes =
|datecompleted =
|scorepage =
|correctedtitle =
Any line not used may be safely deleted. —Carlos  Email.gif 19:10, 22 September 2008 (PDT)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 23:26, 22 September 2008 (PDT)


Thanks for making the change, Carlos. Permit me to make one comment though:

Any line above that is not used should be deleted.

This is because of the way that the Template:switch works with the code in Template:Request. For example, if the line

|requesternotes = 

is left exactly as above (with nothing to the right of the equal symbol, then the following line will appear on the page:

Additional notes:

As an alternative, because of the way Carlos original code is written, you could put "empty" to the right of the equal symbol, and then the corresponding line will not appear. When we get the ParserFunctions installed with the MediaWiki upgrade, this problem will be more easily fixed by using the {{#if: ... }} construct.

Cleaning old-manner requests, as there are none of these lines, it's easy to omit them. But today I encountered twice "editor's notes" whithout editor's name. So I had to type "volunteer =Unknown" to be allowed to write "volunteernotes =blah blah". It's ugly because the word "Unknown" appears in red as here. - Claude 00:01, 23 September 2008 (PDT)

Reply by: Vaarky 03:19, 22 September 2008 (PDT)


Agree with Claude's recommendations in his most recent post. The 4 categories Claude points out corresponds to the categories KKroon and I used on the old-style requests page, btw. Also agree with the point about not making Requestors see options or instructions about whether to mark scores Pending or Completed.

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 05:10, 22 September 2008 (PDT)


I just changed the description for the (All score) requests category and its status subcategories on each of the pages Requests, Requested, Pending, Completed, and Copyright-restricted. These categories were originally set up by Raf in 2006, and it was only really within the last year or so that we started trying to get requesters to switch over to them, and I think that Requests was created as an "umbrella" category to contain all the others - and perhaps to have some sort of count of all the requests that have been made.

I've made the 5th parameter (status) default to "Requested", and it only displays on preview and edits (not on the template page itself, in case someone new tries to make a request using this template). Also, I've moved the location of the Requester's name and Requester ccmments up (when these fields are present). This should help improve the appearance of the request pages.

Many thanks to Claude and Vaarky for all their hard work on the requests.

Reply by: Vaarky 17:11, 22 September 2008 (PDT)


KKroon also did some great work on the old-style requests page. Especially useful: prepending Request: to the requested work title to let automation test whether new-style request pages exist, and thus easily identify which ones might not yet have been transferred. He might have some good ideas too. Will post on his talk page to point him to this discussion.

Help page?

I'm looking at this page history:


it seems to me that Category:Requested is incorrect, but what is the currently desired layout? Should I just undo Claude's edit and add the moved pagename? Richard Mix (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I've replaced "Requested" by "Completed" and added "|volunteernotes =" and "|datecompleted =". Claude (talk) 06:59, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


I just noticed Request:Zigeunerlieder, Op. 103 (Johannes Brahms) was still in Category:Requested, although the field "datecompleted=" had duly been filled in. Can this be easily automated? Richard Mix (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)