Talk:Codex Speciálník: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Merge discussion) |
Peftypefty (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
*'''Merge''' It seems silly to me to have 2 pages for one publication. I believe we should have a static page for this collection, formatted in the same way as other collections, such as [[100 Carols For Choirs]]. --[[User:Bobnotts|Bobnotts]] <small>[[User talk:Bobnotts|'''talk''']]</small> 06:37, 16 February 2008 (PST) | *'''Merge''' It seems silly to me to have 2 pages for one publication. I believe we should have a static page for this collection, formatted in the same way as other collections, such as [[100 Carols For Choirs]]. --[[User:Bobnotts|Bobnotts]] <small>[[User talk:Bobnotts|'''talk''']]</small> 06:37, 16 February 2008 (PST) | ||
*'''Merge''' I agree it's a bit awkward to have two pages for the same publication. To me the chief advantage of the category page is that individual works are added automatically without having to manually maintain the category page's listing of individual works. However, the auto-formatting of category pages causes the listing of works to appear at the bottom of the page. A lengthy musicology section would push the listing so far down the page as to be easily ignored, and therefore I chose to relegate this section to a separate page. However, given rightful concerns about copyright, I am at this point going to remove this musicology section from CPDL altogether. Therefore I see no reason not to combine the two pages; the only question remaining is whether to merge them onto the category page or the non-category page. I would lean toward the category page for the reason described above, but I would be interested in hearing arguments in the other direction (aside from uniformity of format, which admittedly counts for something). --[[User:Peftypefty|Peftypefty]] <small>[[User talk:Peftypefty|'''talk''']]</small> 16:43, 18 February 2008 (EST) | |||
Revision as of 14:33, 18 February 2008
Merge discussion
- Merge It seems silly to me to have 2 pages for one publication. I believe we should have a static page for this collection, formatted in the same way as other collections, such as 100 Carols For Choirs. --Bobnotts talk 06:37, 16 February 2008 (PST)
- Merge I agree it's a bit awkward to have two pages for the same publication. To me the chief advantage of the category page is that individual works are added automatically without having to manually maintain the category page's listing of individual works. However, the auto-formatting of category pages causes the listing of works to appear at the bottom of the page. A lengthy musicology section would push the listing so far down the page as to be easily ignored, and therefore I chose to relegate this section to a separate page. However, given rightful concerns about copyright, I am at this point going to remove this musicology section from CPDL altogether. Therefore I see no reason not to combine the two pages; the only question remaining is whether to merge them onto the category page or the non-category page. I would lean toward the category page for the reason described above, but I would be interested in hearing arguments in the other direction (aside from uniformity of format, which admittedly counts for something). --Peftypefty talk 16:43, 18 February 2008 (EST)