Add works, old - automatic

Forum for all users to discuss the implementation and operation of the ChoralWiki at CPDL
Nikolaus Hold
Posts: 5
Joined: 13 Jul 2016 10:47

Add works, old - automatic

Postby Nikolaus Hold » 21 May 2017 12:41

Max (choralia) asked why I'm still working with the "old" add score process.

First:
Matter of habit; I originally followed the help information for 'How can I contribute?', German: 'Anleitung zur Einsendung von Partituren', which still lead directly to the form "Add works".
Perhaps one should update the help pages?

Secondly:
Since the CPDL is so large and extensive, I deal very often with already existing pages. Using manual copy-and-pastes and basic wiki code, I can make all the changes in one step and don't have to worry about 'checking and refining'.

Third:
The 'checking and refining' would be particularly relevant for 'large works'.
Currently I find 3 different treatments for those:

A) There are only pages for 'individual movements'. The togetherness may or may not be apparent from the title or manually maintained composer pages.

B) In addition to the 'individual movements', there is a page for the complete work, where there should be reciprocal links. I know but no built-in Wiki mechanism for such links.

C) Both complete editions as well as editions of 'individual movements' are on one page (see, for example, Schubert, Deutsche Messe). If the automatic process puts a new edition simply at the beginning, it is afterwards no longer possible to see where the entry actually belongs (without looking into the pdf file).

Since I am not a librarian, I can not evaluate the different approaches. But there may be no single optimum. On the one hand there are works that really form a unity (mass, oratorio, ...). On the other hand, there are many rather loose collections of the kind: 'n Songs / Motets op. nnn'.
But the handling with an automatic processes would be easier if this had a built-in insight of 'larger works'.

choralia
Site Admin
Posts: 2528
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 19:57
Location: Rome, Italy
Contact:

Re: Add works, old - automatic

Postby choralia » 22 May 2017 12:08

Nikolaus Hold wrote:Perhaps one should update the help pages?

Yes, we should, and unfortunately we lack native German speaking volunteers who may help to create and maintain the pages in German language. Is there anyone available for doing that? :roll:

Regarding all other points, it seems to me that all items are relevant to the phase were wiki code has to be added to work or composer pages. Other functions of the automatic process, such as automatically capturing the URL of uploaded files, automatically detecting the number of pages, page size, file size, source file type, etc., are OK. If so, what about adding a check box to the automatic add work from, stating something like "do not automatically add wiki code to the pages - I will do it manually", unchecked by default? Would this fulfill all needs that you currently prefer to manage using the manual process?

Max

Nikolaus Hold
Posts: 5
Joined: 13 Jul 2016 10:47

Re: Add works, old - automatic

Postby Nikolaus Hold » 23 May 2017 09:56

ok with the check box, the result would be very similar to the old process.

What do you think about 2 additional fields?:

- check box 'this is part of a larger work'
- field 'title of the larger work'

If checked, the result should look as the sequence
Title:
Work:
Composer:
as in - for example - http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Abendst%C3%A4ndchen,_Op._42,_No._1_(Johannes_Brahms),
making this the default for 'individual movements' of complete works with separate pages.
I'm open to other suggestions, but would not this be better than no support for the 'large works' at all?
N.H.

choralia
Site Admin
Posts: 2528
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 19:57
Location: Rome, Italy
Contact:

Re: Add works, old - automatic

Postby choralia » 24 May 2017 21:35

Nikolaus Hold wrote:What do you think about 2 additional fields?:

- check box 'this is part of a larger work'
- field 'title of the larger work'

What about using only the field 'title of the larger work' ? If not null it will result in an additional 'work' line as you proposed.

This field actually existed in the form until 2009, however it was totally ignored to create the wiki code, so it was useless and for this reason I removed it from the form. I may now re-instantiate and use it to create the additional 'work' line.

Max

Nikolaus Hold
Posts: 5
Joined: 13 Jul 2016 10:47

Re: Add works, old - automatic

Postby Nikolaus Hold » 25 May 2017 12:20

Since I did not even participate now for a whole year, I can not say why such a field was ignored.
- Was it not explained in the documentation why you should use it and what effect does it have?
- Should you include a hint in the form itself of the kind: 'If this is part of a larger work, please fill out the field with the title of that work.' ?

I found link from 'individual movements' to complete works both in Edition Notes and in each of the following parts of the General Information: Title, Work, Published and Description.
For me, this is a mess. Others may be pleased with the possibility to use their very own kind of linking.

Maybe you should ask people with more experience than me, before you do work that is not appreciated afterwards. There are
- administrators,
- people who adopted composers, and
- people who uploaded not 100+, but 800+ or even 2000+ scores.

Apparently nobody wanted to participate in the discussion so far. But an administrator should have the opportunity to ask these people by e-mail to share their opinions.

N.H.

choralia
Site Admin
Posts: 2528
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 19:57
Location: Rome, Italy
Contact:

Re: Add works, old - automatic

Postby choralia » 10 Aug 2017 10:37

Nikolaus Hold wrote:ok with the check box, the result would be very similar to the old process.

This checkbox is now available. As I had to make some changes in order to prepare the upgrade to a new MediaWiki version, this was a convenient time for me to introduce this new function.

The old process will remain available for the moment. I plan to remove it in the future, as it is now redundant. It will be necessary to update the documentation first, though.

Max


Return to “Operation and Implementation issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest