From ChoralWiki
Revision as of 00:21, 24 November 2020 by Carlos (talk | contribs) (→‎Works not yet on this page)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Anonymous composers and lyricists conflict


We have the unpleasant situation that "Anonymous" is being used both for composers/music sources and for lyricists/text sources. Both the invocations Composer and Lyricist (when used with "Anonymous" as the parameter) link to Anonymous. To me this seems unacceptable or (at best) confusing.

One remedy might be use Lyricist only with something like "Anonymous lyricist" instead of "Anonymous". The resulting categorization of such pages would then be in Anonymous lyricist settings. Another possibility is to change the Lyricist itself - probably trapping special case when the first parameter is "Anonymous" and "anonymous" and not providing a link to Anonymous in these cases. Of the two, I think the first remedy is a bit better.

Note: I've taken the liberty of going the route of the first remedy, so I have replaced "Anonymous" and "anonymous" (when used as the lyricist parameter to {{Lyricist}}) with "Anonymous lyricist". Also, I've put approriate header info on the Anonymous lyricist page (DPL listing) and on the category Anonymous lyricist settings.

Fine by me. --Bobnotts talk 20:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What about Category:Anonymous compositions, Category:Anonymous lyricist settings and Anonymous lyricist? At the least, a see also section is needed. Richard Mix 01:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


I've taken the liberty of suggesting adding sources. I've done a little bit of of this in the course of looking for missed Trent codices compositions (up to G so far). Richard Mix 19:37, 31 May 2011 (CDT)

Richard, I agree with your suggestion that editors should inform the source of their editions, but I think that this information belongs inside the works page instead of here. The Anonymous page is already very large; adding sources to it will make it even larger and visually "polluted", in my opinion. Sources could be added only when necessary to disambiguate two otherwise identical titles. —Carlos Email.gif 20:58, 31 May 2011 (CDT)
Hi Carlos, I wonder if you haven't reconsidered since Claude uncluttered the direct file links. Category:Anonymous compositions is even cleaner, and for my purposes useless. Ideal would be to have information in the work page Published: field displayed, automating this page completely. Richard Mix (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the page looks much better now, and the sources no longer add to the clutter, so let's keep them. Your suggestion to automate the page by bringing information from the Published: field is feasible, but there are some points to consider: a Published template would have to be added to each works page on this list, and template NoCo would also have to be changed in order to learn how to fetch this information from the pages; this fetching can be very server demanding, and as a result, the page would take longer to load. As for the scope of this feature, I suppose that such automation will probably only be useful here and at Traditional, right? Anyway, we can make some tests if you think it's worth the effort. —Carlos (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
In the meantime I've been admiring Template:AnonWorksList as used on Anonymous works by era. Would Anonymous works by source be any more efficient? Richard Mix (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Richard. In order to create such a page, we'd have to develop a whole new family of categories, one for each source, and categorize the works accordingly. Probably more work involved than automating the Anonymous page. Besides, for sources we already have many pages in Music publications that seem to work quite well, even though they are mostly maintained manually. —Carlos (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Subpages & NoCo

An unexpected (by me, at any rate) consequence of dividing the long page into subpages is that all NoCo links are red in preview mode. Is there a work around? Richard Mix (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I noticed this some time ago but forgot to look for a solution back then. It ended up being very simple. :) —Carlos (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Works not yet on this page

I have added a subpage, Anonymous/Missing, to show what might be missing, mostly for my own purposes. There are currently about 190 on the missing list. Some of them start with a integer – how can we add those to the Anonymous page? — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Barry, good idea to create that listing. To be honest, I thought that the Anonymous page was already totally automated. Regarding the works pages that start with numerals, we could disregard them and sort the page based on the following noum. So, "4 Psalms" would be sorted under "P". Or should we convert the title to "Four Psalms" and put it under "F"? I'd be more inclined to use the first solution. —Carlos (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Carlos, on thinking some more, I think works starting with an integer should be listed as in Music publications and Sheet music. I added the numerals after the letters, because there are few of them (so far). I could change this back if you wish. Should I put automation of this page on my to-do list? — Barry Johnston (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
No, it's fine this way. Let's just hope no one will look for that work under "C" (Čtyři moravské koledy [1]). —Carlos (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)