Links have disappeared on the George Onslow page

[azumbrunn]

Two links to works that used to be there are no longer on the page. This concerns:
- Violin sonatas op. 11
- Piano trios op. 3.
Both of these are sets of three works. They are now linked neither together or individually. I did not check if any other links have gone missing on the page but there are many such groups in Onslow's work.

I posted typesets of some of these pieces so I can get to the work pages from my contributor page, but this is not accessible to other users.

Can anybody fix this?

[coulonnus]

They have been made collections! Please click on Collections.

[azumbrunn]

Ok, found it.

I don't understand the need for this housekeeping exercise but at any rate: If it is done shouldn't it be done with some consistency? In the Onslow case: Opus 3 and opus 11 are absent on the work page and only there under collections. Op. 14 are listed on the work page as individual trios while opus 16 is listed as one item. Both of these also occur on the collection page as does a collection of all quintets even though quite a few (if not all) quintets are also listed individually on the work page.

[coulonnus]

Also read viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8725 We might request a composer-page (category) viewing mode where Compositions and Collections are merged together, to make finding an Op. number faster.

[azumbrunn]

Reading all this and also Carolus's definition of a collection I am still left ignorant of the reason to include sets under the same opus number as "collections". Why not just list opus numbers on the work page and add the number of works in parentheses where there are more than one in the same opus? Nobody would have to go opus-hunting in two places just to find a specific piece. And nobody would have to create a specific view for this hunt.
The term "collection" (as in: somebody collected them--instead of: composed them as a set) would then remain for true collections such as Louise Farrenc's editions of historical piano music.
The publication of an opus in the old days included the--artistic--decision on how to order the pieces for publication (e.g. Beethoven's opus 18 is not chronologically ordered; instead the F-major work was put in the first place to make the statement stronger that the whole opus was intended as). This is different from the editorial judgement on how to select and order a collection anyhow.

Plus my final point still stands: If opuses are collections they need to be treated with consistency.

[coulonnus]

I am with you. I imagine sonatas were put in a set of 3 into an Opus because the publisher didn't like to publish too thin scores.

[Notenschreiber]

Yes, that´s it: The publisher made a collection of three single sonatas, if they got an opus number or not is irrelevant. RISM also treats works which appeared in the same edition as a collection, mostly they do have opus numbers. The collection idea is at IMSLP not from the very beginning, and therefore we have a great inconsistency. But that will be improved on the long run.
Added: Important is also: Each single work should have its own workpage, for example if we have modern editions or arrangements. See as example Onslow Op.11, which i changed now.

[Sallen112]

The reason we have been splitting large opus numbered based collections is because for example a opus number work which was published as a collection of sonatas (like 6 Violin Sonatas, Op.4, just making this up), no person in todays modern world performance wise, would play ALL six sonatas/symphonies/concertos in one sitting. Most people (musicians) that come to our site are looking for this exact sonata (symphony, concerto) of this collection based work. This is why we are splitting these collection based works into seperate workpages so they can find the work with ease and also it frees up the collection based opus numbered works. Back then In the 1600-1700s, all composers had to deal with parchment (paper), was very expensive to produce so to save money for the composer and for the publisher, they would publish the collection of sonatas together as one work. But by today's definition of cateloguing now, this has changed due to paper now extremely cheap to produce a single sonata/concerto/symphony so our definition for how we treat these workpages now are collection based works, not one work necessarily.

Keep in mind that were are now striving for uniformity across the site and that we want one work (sonata/concerto/symphony) per workpage under the composition tab (hopefully with a catalogue designation) for organizational purposes. Were NOT removing the Opus numbered works, we will absolutely keep them, were are just moving them to the collection tab.

[azumbrunn]

I am still not quite certain about the rules for this. Are they like this?

1. Several works under the same opus number get an entry under "collections".
2. If there are any scores of only one of those works they get a separate entry as individual works under "compositions".
3. The collection gets a page and each work--if applicable--gets its own page.
This is what you seem to have accomplished with Onslow's op. 11. And op. 14 would also comply with this since there are individual scores for each of the 3 trios.

This still leaves the searcher with two places to look for an individual work. It also leaves some questions open: Would an incomplete opus still get an entry on the collections page? (Onslow op. 11 was represented only by no. 3 until very recently for example: Would you then have two pages? And if only one: where?). How abut collections without opus numbers (e.g. Bach's many sets of six works that were never published and therefor lack opus numbers?).

I still don't see a good reason for introducing this. It obviously complicates things and I don't see what we get in return for it. (RISM may have a sound reason for doing this but they are doing something quite different from IMSLP.) But if it is the rules I will do my best to comply.

Anyhow I suggest to summarize the rules and put them on the contributor instruction page (or whatever it is called) so contributors have a chance to get it right the first time and admins hopefully have fewer things to fix.

BTW about Onslow op. 11: The score on the collection page is described as published by Schlesinger, but the title pages all say Breitkopf & Härtel. Indeed it seems to me to be the same edition as the score op. 11 no. 3 on its work page. Am I correct?

[Notenschreiber]

Your summary of the rules is quite correct, i think. If we only have single works of an existing collection, but not all of them, i would not establish a collection page.
Onslow Op.11 has been downloaded from BNF and Op.11No.3 is a part of it. On the description of BNF we find Maurice Schlesinger (Paris), but it´s clearly Breitkopf. A mistake at BNF?

[Sallen112]

If the files for the collection based catalogue/opus numbers have all of then scores/parts for all the sonatas/suites/concertos etc., these would be only on the collection based pages, if they are split, they should really be now on the split workpages per each piece of the catalogue number (Op.4 No.1-6).

[azumbrunn]

I just think that one should find links under "compositions" to all works of which scores are available even if some of them are parts of collections. I'd like to have a work page whenever a score of an individual work is posted. Or alternatively one might include links to work pages and/or collection pages on the composer page under "compositions".
We have had two threads on these forums (the other is on the US forum--maybe there are more) where people have not found their own typesets due to this new collection thing. This illustrates sufficiently that something is not right with the new procedure. And I have still to hear the argument for this change (better than "RISM does it too" please!).
It seems to me that to issue a half baked idea and then immediately send admins to scramble to update the system with no proper vetting of the idea in the first place is just not the way to manage a big project like IMSLP.