User talk:Arie

Mendelssohn's dates on your editions

Hi Arie. Good to see that your scores have come back on CPDL! I've just been tidying up the Mendelssohn page (adding opus numbers, etc.) and I noticed that the dates for Mendelssohn are wrong on your editions and I thought that you might like to correct them. The files that I noticed are these: [1] [2] [3] Regards --Bobnotts talk 03:11, 5 August 2007 (PDT)

Thanks for the alert. Must have forgotten to correct dates when using an existing score as template. I will check the other Medndelssohn scores too. --Arie 03:35, 5 August 2007 (PDT)

PS

I have seen what good work you have been doing on the Mendelssohn page. The Johannes Brahms page is a mess at the moment. I still have to re-up the Warum ist das Licht gegeben, and would very much like to clean up that page. At the moment the work sorted according to opus number, and the alphabetical list comes second. What would be best practice: alphabetical first or opus number first? I saw that there is a BrahmsScores template wich generates the alphabetical list as category BrahmsScores.--Arie 03:35, 5 August 2007 (PDT)

Thanks for wanting to get involved! (I feel like I'm holding the fort on my own at the moment!) There was a lengthy discussion about this issue on the Brahms discussion page, pre-crash. I believe the concensus was that the first thing that users should see is the composer's works ordered alphabetically as few people actually memorise opus numbers then search for scores on that basis. Also, the Brahms page is currently very untidy with the two columns: the two lists should be on separate pages. The setup on the Mendelssohn page is as it should be for all composers - an alphabetical list on the main composer page then a separate page for works ordered by opus number (here). Arthur did quite a lot of work on the Brahms page after we reached a consensus on how to organise it so I'll get in touch with him to see if he has a backup.

WRT the Brahms Scores template: it is actually a lot less useful than it should be. The template does 2 things - (1) it places the page in Category:Johannes Brahms compositions and (2) it provides links to the pages at which one can view all of Brahms' choral works by title or opus number. (1) is only useful if you believed that a score had been lost somewhere and as the category list is generated automatically and cannot be edited without taking the template off a score page it acts as a failsafe to losing score pages. (2) is useful for users but it may be argued that one may simply click on the link to the central Brahms page to view scores by title then click "view by opus number" to get to that page. Since it would actually take a while to put the template on every Brahms score page again, I don't think that it's worth the effort for a small amount of more functionality. However, if you have the time, feel free add the template to every score page (you can see how it should be used on the Requiem page). The category of Brahms compositions isn't particularly useful for the average user mainly because it doesn't provide direct links to score files but requires users to make another click to get to the score that they want. But, as I said earlier, it may be useful for admins/contributors who want to make sure that a score hasn't been lost. --Bobnotts talk 04:54, 5 August 2007 (PDT)

Thanks Rob for the reply. Unfortunately things have to wait till next weekend, since I'm back to work and I'm currently working on Rossini's Petite Messe Solennelle, including the harmonium part. In the mean time I'll wait to see if Arthur has indeed a back-up of his work.

As concerning the Brahms Scores template, I think if consensus is to put the alphabetical list on the composers page and the Opus number list on a second page this template is quite obsolete and does not provide any extra functionality for the users, or am I wrong here? Regards, --Arie 02:19, 6 August 2007 (PDT)