Talk:Thomas Tallis

Automating Thomas Tallis page

A proposed automation can be found at User:Bcjohnston523/Automating Thomas Tallis. Interested to know what you think, positive or negative. Barry Johnston, Bcjohnston523 (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Barry, you did a very good job there! It's just a pity that DPL isn't able to align all columns equally spaced. —Carlos (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Carlos! I have since added sortmethod=sortkey, so that an entry like A new commandment is alphabetized under N. I have included all entries in my test page, which brings up some questions:

• Should works entries generated by dpl appear in italics?
• In order to automate "Contrafacta" I had to create a new category, Which I called "Category:Contrafactum", the singular (mostly following the Wikipedia page). Should this page have been in the plural?
• How should we deal with references, such as "*Procul recedant somnia - see Te lucis ante terminum"? Such do not appear in the alphabetized dpl list.
• There are three "works" currently in the Sacred Music in Latin list, that do not have pages, they are not links. I am not sure what these are?
• Larger works are not included yet in the automation, so they would have to be managed manually.

According to the dpl manual, columns can be equally spaced by defining a table class in Common.css (I don't know if that exists in this wiki).

Should I continue to improve this (for example, to include larger works in automation), or rather pursue improvements to the SortWorks template? (see the forum discussion.) In any case, I need to wait a while to see what other users think. Barry Johnston, Bcjohnston523 (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Some de-automation

The great disadvantage I see with automation is that it can give a misleading picture of a composer's total oeuvre, and doesn't identify the red-links that might inspire contributors to fill gaps. After consulting Early English Church Music 12 & 13 (ed. Ellenwood 1971) I've reformatted much of #Sacred music in English; adding Christ rising to EECM's 10 "Anthems" seems unproblematic, but the reattributed This is my commandment (Thomas Tallis) would still look better with an annotation imo. Richard Mix (talk) 03:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I find great disadvantages to de-automation:

1. All composer pages have a 'List of choral works' section. Everytime a composer page is created, it admits the first hosted work(s). So the list is and remains generally uncomplete, but allows users to easily know if the work they are looking for is HOSTED or NOT. Such lists don't pretend to be neither a list of vocal and instrumental works, nor a complete list including unhosted works.

2. It's easy to quickly find a work in a unique alphabetical title sorting, not among a works list 'sorted' by genre and/or language and/or voicing, like the Orlando di Lasso one.

Sure, one may also browse a works list to look for a liturgical usage, a specific voicing, or a specific language, so ALL lists are useful, don't let's remove anyone.

3. The SortWorks function implemented by Max and Barry ensures that, if an editor creates a new work page, it appears instantly on its composer page AND, if a work page title is modified, the change also appears also instantly on the corresponding composer page. So, removing 'SortWorks' should imply you'd now check every morning of your life if a work has been introduced or a work title modified during the night on your manual lists. Not for me, thanks.

4. 3,000 of our front composer pages have just SortWorks in the list of choral works section, other 300 have another sorting. Many 'other sortings' are already just one click away, outlined within a yellow rectangle like on the present Tallis' page. The more user-friendly would be to find the same things in the same place, throughout all the 3,300 composer pages, isn't it? Claude (talk) 07:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)