Talk:Il secondo libro de motetti a cinque voci (Giaches de Wert): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I do not know what purpose this new table serve other than making the page ugly. | I do not know what purpose this new table serve other than making the page ugly. | ||
[[User:Imruska|Imruska]] ([[User talk:Imruska|talk]]) 20:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC) | [[User:Imruska|Imruska]] ([[User talk:Imruska|talk]]) 20:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC) | ||
:Hi, Imre. I agree that the results, in this case, aren't so useful (many redundant information). | :Hi, Imre. I agree that the results, in this case, aren't so useful (many redundant information). [Edit:] Upper table is manually built using some source, it should show a complete works list in the publication. The lower table only shows the works edited on our site. It has not to be reproduce manually. It is just gathered from existing work pages and will be completed each time a 'Published' line is correctly filled on any future work page. It's then easy to see inconsistent data among redundant information, for example, an incorrect publication year between the other ones concerning the same publication. [[User:Claude T|Claude]] ([[User talk:Claude T|talk]]) 22:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 08:23, 19 January 2019
Hi Claude, I cannot understand why was it necessary to add another table listing the same works once more. And this (redundant) list contains a lot of redundant information. In the description it is stated that these are all motets (therefore Sacred), they are all for 5 voices, they are all published in 1581. Why listing this again? Anyway, from the list it is also absolutely clear which works are available in CPDL, from the colour of the link. If the link is red, the piece is not available, if the link is blue (or purple) then the piece is available in CPDL. I do not know what purpose this new table serve other than making the page ugly. Imruska (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, Imre. I agree that the results, in this case, aren't so useful (many redundant information). [Edit:] Upper table is manually built using some source, it should show a complete works list in the publication. The lower table only shows the works edited on our site. It has not to be reproduce manually. It is just gathered from existing work pages and will be completed each time a 'Published' line is correctly filled on any future work page. It's then easy to see inconsistent data among redundant information, for example, an incorrect publication year between the other ones concerning the same publication. Claude (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)