Talk:Johannes Ockeghem

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Page layout

Even though this experimental tabular layout has been in use for almost 3 years now, I stumbled upon it only today. I like the idea, but for now I'd suggest moving the table to a page of its own ("Johannes Ockeghem - list of works by opus", maybe?) and returning this page to the standard layout, either by automating it with {{#SortWorks:}} or by recreating the manual entries. Opinions? —Carlos Email.gif 22:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There aren't as many works to keep adding as there are for, say, Lassus, so I don't quite see the problem. What exactly would the 'standard' layout offer that's missing now? I had rather Special:WhatLinksHere/Johannes_Ockeghem be the extra click than the sortable page. Richard Mix (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Richard, I'm not against the tabular format, IMSLP does use tables on their works pages and I like it. But it's their default layout, not ours, at least for now. Did you plan this new layout for this composer only, or were you intending to present it as an alternative layout for other composer pages as well? If others agree with the idea, maybe it could be developed for that purpose. We currently do have alternative pages with different sort order; there are also many music publications, several of them in tabular format. That's why I suggested to create something similar for Ockeghem. —Carlos Email.gif 06:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you can still convince me that a required 'default' is a good idea (Btw thanks, I wasn't aware of category:Music catalogues) and by all means let's try to get more input. We discussed this a bit on Talk:Johannes Eccard already, but I think that page looks much less attractive than Claudio Monteverdi and Heinrich Schütz which take a flexible approach. If we really need to come up with a uniform style, Johann Sebastian Bach is a page that really needs help and could benefit rethinking of the 'standard' as well.
Btw, your last edit moved the "aliases" paragraph to "biography": this is not strictly according to Template:New composer layout! :-P Richard Mix (talk) 09:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Richard. Regarding the aliases, that paragraph was missing the Aliases: header ;-) Seriously now, in my opinion this field is supposed to be short, one line long at most. The one here was so long, it's almost a biography, lol (sorry, I couldn't keep myself serious!). But you're right, I'll reintroduce the aliases field with the ones most common. Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 16:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Carlos' first comment above. But, to try to create a middle ground, I put the table back, with the template {{CheckMissing}} so that works won't be missing from the page. Does this help? – Barry Johnston (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm a little bit invested in the status quo ;-) but thanks. {{CheckMissing}} is something I've been waiting for! Richard Mix (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)