Talk:Hor che'l ciel e la terra (Claudio Monteverdi)

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Merger discussion

Richard Mix suggested on Cosi sol d'una chiara fonte that it should be merged here, as it's the second part of this work. I particularly have no strong feelings either way, as both solutions present advantages and disadvantages: for one side, having them together seems more logical, textually and musically speaking; for the other side, keeping them on separate pages greatly increases the chance of the second part being found after a Google search, for instance (unless we go for a dual title in the form Hor che'l ciel e la terra / Cosi sol d'una chiara fonte). If I'm not mistaken, there are many more cases here on CPDL of madrigals in two and three parts that have each a separate page. Whatever is decided here could become a standard when dealing with this situation. —Carlos Email.gif 14:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's just my hunch that combined pages are perhaps the majority if we look beyond Monteverdi. One disadvantage I see with separate pages is what to do with editions where the parte are combined in one file: 3 pages for Cosi sol d'una chiara fonte, Hor che'l ciel e la terra & Hor che'l ciel e la terra / Cosi sol d'una chiara fonte (slash versus hyphen is another issue) seems overkill. But I don't know how our profile is affected: does Google overlook redirect pages? Richard Mix (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I've seen cases where a single edition combines two parts that already have each a separate works page; some editors simply posted the same edition to both pages (same CPDL# and all), while others have submitted the same file twice, thus causing it to have a different CPDL# in each page. The latter situation is acceptable if we consider that the edition is not the PDF itself, but each of the parts inside of it (as if two PDFs had been merged). But the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to agree with you on the advantages of merging. Monteverdi's contrafacta are a case apart: various have their own pages, with links to the secular madrigals they derived from. But some editors have produced editions that include both the secular and the sacred texts, thus requiring a single page with the "mixed" title. Should we consider making this the default, too?
As for Google, as far as I'm concerned it does not index redirects, but this would not be a problem if we use the long, dual titles. Which brings us to the issue of slash versus hyphen: using the slash does pose a certain risk, because the MediaWiki also uses it to indicate the "path" when creating sub-pages (e.g. in "Template:Composer/doc", doc is a sub-page) and we would do well to avoid it. —Carlos Email.gif 01:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Ha! I'm so biased toward lumping that I find myself thinking I should reconsider things from the other side too. I like a certain concision in page names, and the question with hyphens is where to stop: I can think of pieces that have 7 parte. Does Google only consider page names or does other stuff on the page ( Title: field, &c) get hits? If the former we're missing out on searches for "Nunc dimitis" every time we add an "Evening service". Richard Mix (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Google in fact indexes all the page content, but titles are ranked higher and usually appear among the very first search results. —Carlos Email.gif 01:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

At the moment, I'm going through Petrarch, trying to get some logic into the way it's presented. The line I'm taking at the moment is that, if bits of a canzoniere currently appear as separate works pages, I'm leaving them alone, but creating a single text page to which they all point. That avoids the issue of whether we combine the works pages for the moment. (This is in fact the first case where anyone has noted that the settings come from the same canzoniere, so well spotted, Richard!)

The other thing I should add is that, as many of them don't have English translations, I'm using Tony Kline's (which quite a few people have used before) His work is copyright, but he's happy for it to be used for non-commercial purposes (I've actually checked directly with him too), so I'm ensuring that it is marked as copyright whenever it appears on the CPDL site.
Jamesgibb (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi James, thanks for creating all these text pages, and for contacting Tony Kline to obtain authorization for using his translations. But I have to say that I don't agree with the way you've found to link works to his page. As I see it, the {{Lyricist}} template should only list the name of the lyricist found inside the scores; translators have always been linked from their translation, in the Text and Translations section below. If the text is on a Text page, then he/she would be cited only there. In this example, for instance, none of the editions is in English, and there are no translations in the page; hence it makes no sense to include his name as "lyricist". I understand that you did this to make use of the Lyricist template functionality to dynamically populate the list of works on his page. I suggest two alternatives: 1. a manual list of works; or 2. the creation of a new template for this, in combination with a category Anthony S. Kline translations. Should I go ahead with this? —Carlos Email.gif 17:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I finally merged the two parts for three reasons: 1. The sonnet by Petrarch (only one) 2. Rottlander edition (common either) 3. Google indexes also our text pages and, when the score underlay text stays on the work page, leads to it! Claude (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)