Talk:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Listing of works

Hi,

I like the re-organizing of works. I think that in the future, we should have a alphabetical listing, and an KV listing, in addition to genre. The alphabetical listing is best done by adding a Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart compositions link to all of the score pages. See the Claudio Monteverdi page for an example. One aspect of this is that the extension DynamicPageList can then generate some listings. This means that pages can be updated automatically, as new works become available. This may lead to a reconsideration about how best to list works on composer pages, with opus/catalog/publication date being prefered, and alphabetical/genre listings being handled automatically. Here is an example using Monteverdi, split into secular and sacred works. This is the code used:

==Secular Works==
<DPL>
category=Claudio Monteverdi compositions
category=Secular music
mode=category
order=ascending
</DPL>
 
==Sacred Works==
<DPL>
category=Claudio Monteverdi compositions
category=Sacred music
mode=category
order=ascending
</DPL>

and this is the result: (uncomment the code below and hit "Preview" to see the results)

Weihnachtsarie für 2 Sopräne

Is it normal that the "Weihnachtsarie für 2 Sopräne und Orgel" is listed under the "Vespers" section? --Choralia 02:25, 15 December 2007 (PST)

Vespers pages

We have two approaches here: Vesperae solennes de Dominica, KV 321 (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart) has files for all movements, while Vesperae solennes de confessore, KV 339 (Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart) links to individual work pages, not all of which identify the larger work. I incline towards merging them, unless there are arguments for indexing individual movements. Richard Mix (talk) 23:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a slight difference between the works: KV 321 does have a complete edition, which requires it to be on the "larger work" page, while KV 339 only has separate movements so far. I wouldn't oppose to the merger, but in that case let's please keep the individual pages as redirects, so that their histories are not lost (and also because there may be external sites that link to one of these very old pages.) —Carlos Email.gif 02:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Gathered movements on the work's page, as always. Claude (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)