User talk:LazyStarryNights/List of compositions project

Suggestions
It doesn't look like anything has been done with this project or the Brahms proposed merging project in 6 years, but I have to say I like the idea, it's very efficient and neat. Easy to read a table rather than an ordinary list. I don't necessarily agree with some of your table columns, for instance I don't think IMSLP is necessary as they already have their own list of compositions (though it's certainly an obvious reference when creating a wiki list). My main impetus for converting lists into tables is to eliminate the increasing disparity between Genre list and Chronological list when someone updates one list and not the other.

So far, I have done such a merge into a single sortable table for Ravel, Debussy, and Scriabin. I have also converted a few single lists that were either by genre or date (or number), into a table and made it sortable so the alternative order is now available where it wasn't before: Turina and Lekeu. For these last two, the lists were on the main composer bio page, and a table there looks out of place and unweildy, so I moved the new table to a newly created page.

Some composers already have a table of compositions, Liszt and Barber, for instance. I find the Liszt one difficult to work with; it needs to be broken into editable sections.

Along the way I have added titles to lists to make them complete. I think any list that is NOT complete should not be made into a table yet. Complete them first. That way when it comes to sorting, all the numbers (Opus, Marnat, Searle, Lesure, Deutsch, Kochel, etc) will be there with no gaps.

BTW, it isn't necessary to make all the columns sortable; I suggest just the Number column. The column should be wiki sort by text, not number, and titles without a number or with WoO or Anh can be hardcoded individually with wiki markup to place them wherever they should go in the date order for instance. Numbers with letters after them (like Op. 34a) will not sort with wiki by number; that's why it has to be by text.

A table should be initially by Genre, which then sorts by date order of composition. To revert to genre groupings one simply reloads the webpage. For number catalogs in order of composition, the sort key can be by number, with optional hardcoding wiki for any titles that might be out of order (like mis-dated in the catalog) or optionally incorporating WoO and appendixes into the main list date order. Some catalogs, however, are numbered by genre: Liszt for instance. Sorting the Liszt list by date is a ridiculous proposition unfortunately, so that list would not be sortable. I made an exception to the initial order rule with the Lekeu list: it's initially by order of date of composition; it sorts into Genres. Easy enough since the Verdebout numbers are grouped by genre.

Speaking of your proposed Brahms list, which originals have now been updated (genre and opus number lists separately!) in the 6 years since you drafted your proposed table, this is a good candidate for merging and table conversion right now. I myself added all the Anh and missing WoO numbers so they are now complete. Maybe I'll get to it myself, but maybe you want to revive your project and do it yourself.

Another candidate for conversion right now would be Messiaen. Originally there was just a single list in order of composition, with posthumously published and unpublished works listed separately. A month ago a contributor split the list (incorporating the posth/unpubl works in with the main list) into two separate Genre and Date lists. Kinda going backwards with your and my idea here. The date list he did make into a nice table, however, though the Genre list is still a list. I think I can safely delete the Genre list and put a genre sort into the table, or maybe delete the date-order table and convert the Genre list into a sortable table. I do wish there was numbered catalog of Messiaen's works... saguaro-sun/chuckstreet (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)