Improvements to the Category Walker

[KGill]

The new(er) style guide just covers the G.I. section - http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Score_submi ... nformation
The new 'Extra Information' field in that section replaces much of what customarily went in Misc. Comments; section listings have now been integrated into what used to be 'Number of Movements/Sections'; and there are new fields entitled 'Related Works' and 'External Links'. The old Misc. Comments section is thus being slowly phased out, although the option still exists to use it.

[pml]

I don’t think it’s feasible to phase it out entirely – there are some pages with quite lengthy and detailed information which I am doubtful would sit neatly within the confines of what we normally put in the General info box – for example, collections of works where the number of items included in the work exceed some arbitrarily large number, 100, say.

Cheers, Philip

[KGill]

While you are quite correct (although I'd still say that in most situations Misc. Comments is now unnecessary), I think we're all starting to get a bit off track here. I was sort of hoping for discussion about the integration of CW links into the General Information box, rather than the relative merits of General Information and Misc. Comments

[steltz]

It is sort of relevant in that where the links sit depends whether that miscellaneous comments box is there. I'm also not really sure it can be or should be phased out entirely. I still think the links should stay where they are with a more prominent heading like "Looking for related material? Click on one of these?" or something similar.

[KGill]

... where the links sit depends whether that miscellaneous comments box is there.

Depending on how it would be done, I don't think this is necessarily the case. For instance, the instrumentation text could be made into a clickable link to the tag category (same with the language), and there could be a new field auto-added (it would just be displayed, not actually in the text of the page) to the G.I. box which would link to the work type(s) in the tag. I'm not sure how this would be accomplished code-wise, but it would certainly make that information more prominent (which is the general idea). I must confess that I'm not sure why you seem to feel that a section of the page designated principally for miscellaneous information is so important as to justify putting it higher than basic information about a work...

[steltz]

I'm not sure why you seem to feel that a section of the page designated principally for miscellaneous information is so important as to justify putting it higher than basic information about a work...

Maybe I'm missing something here. The links at the bottom are to other works than the work on the page, if I read this correctly.

In other words, on the page for Brahms Trio op.8, the miscellaneous information would be for miscellaneous info related to the Trio op.8, whereas the links would lead to other works, such as other works by Brahms, or other piano trios.

I think the miscellaneous information for the Trio op.8 would be more important to the work page than the other trios list generated by the tagging, and therefore should go higher on the page.

Unless I've misread this . . . .

[KGill]

I think the miscellaneous information for the Trio op.8 would be more important to the work page than the other trios list generated by the tagging, and therefore should go higher on the page.

Well, by that logic, we should also remove links to the composer category (not to mention style category), because they lead the user to other works and don't pertain to that page's work...except that not only are they links, but they represent basic attributes of the piece. What I am suggesting is, as far as I can see, no different.

[imslp]

Several new additions to CW:

1. #fte:imslppage now has a new internal variable {{{int:genrelist}}}, which contains a list of tag categories properly formatted. The separator is by default a comma, but can be changed via the message "genrelistseparator" on the FTE:imslppage:Messages page (should be classified as a skin message). This new feature should hopefully address the problem of making the genre links more prominent.

2. Categories now have a text transclude function, which will adopt the text of a different page when the category in question contains no text. Notably, I have changed all links to genre categories in the CW and GW to automatically transclude Template:Catintro (with the variable TRANSCLUDE set to 1). Categories that already have text will not be affected.

Please use these functions as you guys see fit.

[steltz]

by that logic, we should also remove links to the composer category (not to mention style category), because they lead the user to other works and don't pertain to that page's work

Where did I say anything should be removed? All I'm saying is that links to related works should go below information that pertains to the specific work.

[KGill]

Where did I say anything should be removed? All I'm saying is that links to related works should go below information that pertains to the specific work.

Which is already not the case across the board. We already have links to related works integrated into information that pertains to the specific work. All I'm proposing is to add a couple more. I really don't see why it's an issue, unless you want to change the design of the page as it already stands...

@Feldmahler - Thanks for the new features. I'll need to figure out how to use the first one, but it looks very promising Just wondering, is there any practical/relatively painless way to distinguish between tags for work type, instrumentation, or language code-wise? (I'm thinking it could be done by checking where the tag is in MW:G, but it might be too much of a strain on the server. Depending on how this is implemented - or even whether it is at all - that may not factor in anyway. Still, I'd like to know if it's possible at least.)

[steltz]

unless you want to change the design of the page as it already stands...

The point is that I don't want to change the design of the page as it already stands, so you must be misreading me. I feel the order things are in are logical and therefore shouldn't be changed. You mentioned removing miscellaneous comments, which one other person also didn't agree with. The problem you started with, which is that you felt the links generated by the tags weren't prominent enough, can be dealt with another way, in my opinion, but I feel they should stay at the bottom of the page.

[KGill]

You mentioned removing miscellaneous comments, which one other person also didn't agree with.

I didn't mention 'removing' it, I stated that it has in large part been superseded by Davydov's new design for General Information, at least for most functions it traditionally fills. Virtually the only situation where it is now indispensable is the one it was (presumably) originally intended for...miscellaneous information. It makes sense for miscellaneous information to go below 'basic' information, which is why I'm proposing that more of the 'basic' information (encompassed in the tags) be moved above it. In fact, only one thing in the tags would actually be a fundamentally 'new' addition to General Information - the generic work type. The other tag categories would, in my suggestion, simply be linked to using text that is already there.

The problem you started with, which is that you felt the links generated by the tags weren't prominent enough, can be dealt with another way, in my opinion, but I feel they should stay at the bottom of the page.

What would you suggest, then? And are there other specific reasons you have for keeping them at the bottom?

[steltz]

A larger header that says something like "Interested in related works? Click on one of these:". It should make it more obvious that the tags can be clicked on.

My main reason is that these take you to other works, i.e. not the exact work the page is dealing with. That makes it, in my mind, not the main stuff. Everything pertaining to the specific work, e.g. Brahms Sonata in f, op.120 no.1 needs to come first.

[KGill]

A larger header that says something like "Interested in related works? Click on one of these:". It should make it more obvious that the tags can be clicked on.

OK, that would be an improvement over what we have now. But why not cut out the middleman and just put the link there rather than introducing a new item on the page?

My main reason is that these take you to other works, i.e. not the exact work the page is dealing with. That makes it, in my mind, not the main stuff. Everything pertaining to the specific work, e.g. Brahms Sonata in f, op.120 no.1 needs to come first.

Yes, they take you to other works, and so do the links we already have to the composer and style categories. Those are in the General Information box, even though they just take you to other works with the same attributes. Why would this be any different?

[imslp]

This may have been brought up before, but would it be possible to consider the tags to actually provide certain information about the piece, like the Composer and Piece Style? That way we can put the links at the end of the GI box with the heading "Genres" or "Tags".

One advantage of this is that these links are actually constructed differently compared to the page-end category links (they contain the category text transcluding I mentioned above), and they are only limited to MW:G categories. Seems like that may make things less confusing.

I know the genres are still placed above the misc. comments, but if they are considered information first and then incidentally with links, they could fit into the GI paradigm.