Better use of the Category function.

[homerdundas]

Hi everyone...
On and off I've been experimenting with using the Category function to classify works. I was trying to make a category for works with orchestral parts. My goal was to create a category [[Category: Oboe Orchestral Parts]] - for those that had parts for this instrument - and of course for those works with complete sets available I would then have something like [[Category: Complete Orchestral Parts]].

This already works in principle, however on the Category page, the works come sorted by page title. This is Ok sometimes, but it would be better to have them sorted by composer. Again this is possible in theory - the mediawiki category function allows a sort key such as [[Category: xxxxx | sortkey ]] . This seems difficult to use without retyping the composer name every time it is used. I was experimenting with a template to do it in automated style.

I tried to be clever using the int:composer variable in the #fte:imslppage template, giving this...

[[Category:Oboe Orchestral Parts|{{int:composer}}]]

However this doesn't seem to work, as invoking {{int:composer}} returns the simple string "<composer>". Now I believe I understand why. I am right in assuming that the variable int:composer is only active during the display of a page and not during the 'save' of a page when the categories are compiled?

Is there a wikimedia guru among our numerous staff who can confirm that?

Perhaps what we need are a couple of magic words like {{PAGENAME}}. Thus we might construct {{COMPOSERNAME}} and {{WORKNAME}} to help our categorization efforts. {{COMPOSERNAME}} would return just the composer's name as it appears in the category, {{WORKNAME}} would return the name of the work *without* the composer. My clever template would then look like [[Category: Oboe Orchestral Parts|{{COMPOSERNAME}}]] and then everything would work wonderfully! We can then begin to enlarge the browsing options for users.

I do see a few other posts submitted from time to time, complaining about the lack of search / genre category abilities. Further to this... we don't need to invent new genre names... we can follow the Library of Congress subject headings.... but I am rambling on here... I'll save this for another day and another post, at such a time that we can actually begin using such a feature....

Comments? Suggestions?

Homer.

[tilmaen]

The category function has to be maintained manually doesnt it? wouldt it be great to have a Categories listing that is automatically updated? what do you think about this:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1949
greetings
tilmaen

[steltz]

Just some thoughts on this, since one of the "complaints" was mine . . . .

A couple of new categories probably would have to be invented -- perhaps the "orchestral parts" one, since I haven't been able to find such a category in the Library of Congress lists. Then again, those lists are huge, and I haven't found a simple list that seems to be what I am looking for, so maybe I am looking in the wrong place.

One argument against having the instrumentation field being required was that the wiki needs to be easier to use, so the fewer required fields, the better. In this case, it might be a good idea to import the Library of Congress headings and put it on a page somewhere so that anyone interested in being more meticulous can use them.

Right now, for instance, a search for quartet would come up with a myriad of different ways of listing the type of quartet, e.g. "Quartet (2violins_viola_cello)" as opposed to "Quartet (2 violins, viola, cello)" would be treated differently in a strict search. Then there is "Quartet (other configurations)" -- I have yet to figure out "other" as opposed to what? (Although it probably is the standard string quartet.)

Then, next idea -- a keyword search through the two fields "genre" and "instrumentation" should come up with most entries, assuming those fields are adequately filled in. Just as most libraries have multiple subject headings, these fields would serve as the subject headings -- an example is that the Fesca Quartet for flute, violin, viola, and cello would be under the subjects "Quartets" and "flute". So a keyword search for "flute quartet" would find it.

Then, any search function would have to allow for alternate spellings, e.g. "Quartet" and "Quartets".

Finally, since this is a wiki, I think we have to accept that the lists won't ever be entirely complete because it is unreasonable to expect copyright reviewers to correct the categories as they go through the uploads.

[rmyoder]

Hi, I'm new to IMSLP but working on an article about it for The Clarinet - quarterly publication of the International Clarinet Association.

The searching capability for orchestral parts is a weakness I noticed also in my research about clarinet music on IMSLP. I really like the cello list here: http://imslp.org/wiki/List_of_Compositi ... ello_Parts and wonder if one could be made for each instrument. The list at http://imslp.org/wiki/List_of_Orchestra ... _Available probably gets the job done, but I didn't come across it until well into my search, because I was looking under "C" for clarinet under "Instrument Composition Lists." It would be nice to have a separate "clarinet" list, although as the collection becomes more complete perhaps this won't be necessary.

Also, don't know if this is the proper thread to mention this, but it took me way too long to notice the "Comp." button under the search box that lets you find the composer page easily - maybe I'm just slow but it would be nice if that was more obvious. I thought something was wrong with the search at first when the Composer page came up #20 or so on the list of results when I typed in a composer's name in a keyword search.

Thanks and I love IMSLP and hope to begin contributing now that I know what it's all about.

Rachel