Template talk:Instruments: Difference between revisions
Richard Mix (talk | contribs) (→adding explanatory remarks?: half a workaround found) |
Richard Mix (talk | contribs) m (→adding explanatory remarks?: why is that category singular?) |
||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
:Regards, —[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] [[File:Email.gif|link=User talk:Carlos]] 03:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC) | :Regards, —[[User:Carlos|Carlos]] [[File:Email.gif|link=User talk:Carlos]] 03:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
Chuck found a way to avoid the dotted lines at [[Ave verum corpus, KV 618 (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart)]]. The 'concept' of nothing outside the brackets would make it impossible to pipe things if one wished, for example, to link using the words {{CiteCat|Keyboard | Chuck found a way to avoid the dotted lines at [[Ave verum corpus, KV 618 (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart)]]. The 'concept' of nothing outside the brackets would make it impossible to pipe things if one wished, for example, to link using the words {{CiteCat|Keyboard version|keyboard reduction ;-)}}. My issue with that page is only the confusion of "general information" with edition-specific re-arrangements. [[User:Richard Mix|Richard Mix]] ([[User talk:Richard Mix|talk]]) 23:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:10, 19 June 2014
New template discussion
I like it already :-) Should we have this run alongside the regular accompaniment templates? --Bobnotts talk 22:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
|
- The template in its current state will certainly need some adjustments to encompass all instrumentations currently found at CPDL. But you're mistaken about the flute solo, it's already being categorized correctly as can be seen in the template documentation's example. Other categories for solo instruments can be created if necessary (as the viola example you gave), but currently they only exist for flute/guitar/harp/lute, and these are already included in the template. Some were not included yet because of their rarity, as "Brass" and "Jazz band". One complication that I foresee is how to decide when a combination of instruments is a Mixed ensemble and when not. —Carlos 08:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
|
- - Chuck, I realize there's a lot of work to do ahead, and the list above is a pretty good start! The definition of Mixed ensemble was especially useful, since I wasn't totally sure of what to include in it. Good also that you cited the Chamber orchestra, I was missing it at CPDL, and I agree that there's a good level of overlapping between the two of them, but I have the impression that the latter expression is more commonly used than Mixed ensemble.
- - About the solo instruments, it would perhaps be useful to have a clear idea of how much they are present at CPDL. It can be done via the ReplaceText extension (say we try to replace "oboe" with "oboe", it will inform how many pages already have this text), and then create new categories for the most relevant ones. This approach is also valid for the other rarer instruments you cited.
- - I would leave off from the template those very generic cases like "optional C instrument"; if the editors won't themselves define what is the best accompaniment, it shouldn't be us to do it; besides, adding all those categories for each fitting instrument would create visual pollution. I particularly have never seen such an instrumentation at CPDL.
- - As to adding other instruments to "complement" what the user has written, I don't think it's a good idea. In the case of the Viol consort, for instance, if the user wants to include lute/theorbo/etc., he should have to indicate it clearly. The template shouldn't add instruments that weren't explicitly indicated, in my view.
- - Oh, yes I forgot the Harpsichord, will add it soon. :)
- - If you and Rob aren't used to Regular Expressions, I suggest you google for this term together with "php" (this is the particular "brand" of RegExp used by the wiki). You'll find plenty of documentation related to this topic and many syntax examples (this is helping me a lot with the RegExp). —Carlos 07:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
|
- You're welcome, Chuck! I just realized that I had completely forgotten about this 5 years old discussion. I need to check which of your suggestions have already been implemented. Regards, —Carlos 21:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
adding explanatory remarks?
Cavalli's (or maybe Vincenti's) spelling of violincino incorrectly adds Category:Violin accompaniment, while
{{Instruments|basso continuo}}
with violincino
is decidedly inelegant in appearance. Is it easy (and indeed desirable) to remove the line break after the template? Richard Mix (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Thanks for that fix: I knew something was afoot when I took a second third look at Lauda Jerusalem (Johann Rosenmüller)! Richard Mix (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Viol consort is now linking correctly, as you already noticed :) violincino was also fixed, thanks for pointing it out!
- This template is conceptually different from the other accompaniment templates: the idea behind it is to encompass all the descriptive text that comes after it; that's why the line break is already included. The syntax in the example you gave would then be {{Instruments|basso continuo with violincino}}
- Regards, —Carlos 03:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Chuck found a way to avoid the dotted lines at Ave verum corpus, KV 618 (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart). The 'concept' of nothing outside the brackets would make it impossible to pipe things if one wished, for example, to link using the words keyboard reduction ;-). My issue with that page is only the confusion of "general information" with edition-specific re-arrangements. Richard Mix (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)