User talk:Carlos: Difference between revisions
(→What's next?: new section) |
(→What's next?: reply to Claude) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
}} | }} | ||
== Archives == | == Archives == | ||
[[/Archive 1|Mar/Jul 2008]] • [[/Archive 2|Oct/Dec 2008]] • [[/Archive 3|Jan/May 2009]] • [[/Archive 4|Jun/Dec 2009]] • [[/Archive 5|Jan/Dec 2010]] | |||
== ScoreInfo template == | == ScoreInfo template == | ||
| Line 21: | Line 17: | ||
I've seen that very few pages use 'Edition' (edition notes) template. So as 'CPDLno' template. At the contrary, very few don't use 'Editor' templates, so as for 'Copy' template (many of these pages aren't work's pages but collection of works. What to do then (manually)? Do you think possible by one of your wonderful scripts to change the CPDL number info by the template? Is it useful? More generally, am I right when I think that the more we get pages unically composed by templates, the best to go to a database system, with search at the edition level, instead of a site made of pages for editors, composers, works, etc. with a search at the page level? Regards, [[User:Claude T|Claude]] 09:47, 26 January 2011 (CST) | I've seen that very few pages use 'Edition' (edition notes) template. So as 'CPDLno' template. At the contrary, very few don't use 'Editor' templates, so as for 'Copy' template (many of these pages aren't work's pages but collection of works. What to do then (manually)? Do you think possible by one of your wonderful scripts to change the CPDL number info by the template? Is it useful? More generally, am I right when I think that the more we get pages unically composed by templates, the best to go to a database system, with search at the edition level, instead of a site made of pages for editors, composers, works, etc. with a search at the page level? Regards, [[User:Claude T|Claude]] 09:47, 26 January 2011 (CST) | ||
:Hi Claude, the Edition template as it is now does not seem useful, and could well be replaced by the equivalent text (the simplest way to do it is by adding "subst" to the template and saving the page: <nowiki><tt>{{subst:Edition}}</tt></nowiki>). CPDLno is a test being performed by Chuck, but I don't think there's consensus yet as to apply it to other works pages. The Editor template should be used in all editions because currently many statistics and listings depend on it. With respect to your general question, I'd say that you're correct, a well planned template system would simplify listings and searches, but that would not necessarily mean that the other pages (editors, composers etc.) could be eliminated. The wiki environment is basically organized around text pages; we can only emulate a database system on top of it. I'm not sure if this is what you were asking; if not, please write back! Regards, | |||
Revision as of 15:56, 28 January 2011
Feel free to leave on this talk page questions and comments addressed to me.
- Start new discussions by clicking here or on the "+" tab at the top of this page;
- Continue discussions by clicking on the "edit" link directly right of the appropriate title below;
If you have left a message on this page, I will reply here unless you request that I reply on your talk page. If I have left a message for you on your talk page, please reply there. The reason for this is to keep the discussion together. Thank you for your co-operation!
Archives
Mar/Jul 2008 • Oct/Dec 2008 • Jan/May 2009 • Jun/Dec 2009 • Jan/Dec 2010
ScoreInfo template
Hi Carlos, I achieved a long cycle of replacement of score infos by the template and completing the info. When the three information were present (paper size, number of pages and size in kbytes), I left the old string with three non-breakable spaces at the end. So you can run your scripts. Another point: some work pages haven't any copyright template. I've them listed here. May I replace some 'GnuGPDL' (yes, with what I think is a superfluous D) copyright info by a 'GnuGPL' (without the D) copyright template? Wish you all well. Claude 13:34, 11 January 2011 (CST)
- Hi Claude, your persistent work was once again quite impressive, congratulations for completing the task. I'll run through your NoCopy list to see what can be done with these cases. With regard to the GnuGPDL, it seems to be indeed a typo. If you found many such cases, I suggest you use the tool Special:ReplaceText to change them all in a single pass. All the best and a happy new year! —Carlos
17:23, 12 January 2011 (CST)
What's next?
I've seen that very few pages use 'Edition' (edition notes) template. So as 'CPDLno' template. At the contrary, very few don't use 'Editor' templates, so as for 'Copy' template (many of these pages aren't work's pages but collection of works. What to do then (manually)? Do you think possible by one of your wonderful scripts to change the CPDL number info by the template? Is it useful? More generally, am I right when I think that the more we get pages unically composed by templates, the best to go to a database system, with search at the edition level, instead of a site made of pages for editors, composers, works, etc. with a search at the page level? Regards, Claude 09:47, 26 January 2011 (CST)
- Hi Claude, the Edition template as it is now does not seem useful, and could well be replaced by the equivalent text (the simplest way to do it is by adding "subst" to the template and saving the page: <tt>{{subst:Edition}}</tt>). CPDLno is a test being performed by Chuck, but I don't think there's consensus yet as to apply it to other works pages. The Editor template should be used in all editions because currently many statistics and listings depend on it. With respect to your general question, I'd say that you're correct, a well planned template system would simplify listings and searches, but that would not necessarily mean that the other pages (editors, composers etc.) could be eliminated. The wiki environment is basically organized around text pages; we can only emulate a database system on top of it. I'm not sure if this is what you were asking; if not, please write back! Regards,