User talk:Carlos/Archive 5

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives: 01020304050607080910

check me on user page redirects?

Hi, Carlos--
I'm going through trying to help catch up score adding, and I've gotten rusty. I think I understand correctly that:

  • the talk page for the full-name version redirects to the talk page for the real, abbreviated userID
  • the main page for the real, abbreviated userID redirects to the page with the full name in the user space

However, I'm less confident I did the right thing about redirecting the full name version in User: space and Composer space. Whenever you have a chance, could you mind checking User:Alexander_Ertl? Tx. -- Vaarky 18:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vaarky, sorry for the delayed reply; just checked the redirects and they seem to be all right! —Carlos Email.gif 03:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --Vaarky 08:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hand-written scores suitable for inclusion?

Hi Carlos. You added an overlooked edition of Mendelssohn's Thanks be to God a couple of days ago. As you're no doubt aware, the PDF is a scan of hand-written sol-fa notation and because of this, I don't think we should be hosting this "edition". In the context of CPDL, the word edition means several things, particularly that it should be typeset. The majority of CPDL users will expect such typeset editions and I believe this is a good place to draw the line for "admission criteria" to allow only typeset scores. What are your thoughts? --Bobnotts talk 11:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rob, thanks for alerting me. I tried to open the pdf file with my Acrobat reader but received an error. Even after updating the reader the pdf would still not open correctly, so I supposed it was a perfectly valid edition. I will delete the file then. regards —Carlos Email.gif 13:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
On a related subject, could you please opine and vote in this discussion: Libera animas —Thanks
OK no problem. I've deleted that page and archived the discussion. --Bobnotts talk 17:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

M. Praetorius - In dulci jubilo

Hi Carlos, I yesterday uploaded a new edition of this work, thank you for refining the page. Please note that, in my opinion, splitting the page for this work into two pages (one for edition #9437 and one for editions #14586 and #20896) may not be correct, as the work is the same. They look different as one edition is notated in 3/4 and the others are notated in 6/4, however they are almost identical in the soprano part (minor differences exist at bar 11, 19 and 30 if you refer to bar numbers edition #9437). Harmonization of the other parts is different instead, however I think this is not sufficient to consider them as different works. So, I would propose to merge the two pages into a single work page. Max a.k.a. Choralia 11:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Max, the soprano part is in fact almost identical, but only because it is the hymn tune proper, based on which each harmonization was created. Now, if we could prove that one of these harmonizations was made by the editor, then I'd see no problem in re-merging the works, stating that one of the editions is an arrangement. On the other side, there is a good chance that Praetorius, a very prolific composer, made the two harmonizations for different occasions, in which case I support that they be kept in separate pages, as we currently do for different harmonizations of Bach's Chorales. —Carlos Email.gif 16:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
OK Carlos, let's leave it as it is. Choralia 17:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

ScoreError changes

Hi Carlos. I see you changed Template:ScoreError. While I like the idea of making the yellow lighter (less obtrusive), I think it might be just a bit too light now. As for using span instead of table, I find the border that span produces on each line somewhat annoying and inconsistent from page to page (sometimes the border at the bottom of one line overlaps the border at the top of the following line, but sometimes it doesn't creating a double border effect). Moreover, the inline use of the template with span causes awkward appearance when a short error report starts at the end of one line and ends near the beginning of the following line. It was for these reasons that I changed the template to use a boxed (table) format: the only border is around the entire error message (not appearing between lines with inconsistent widths due to overlapping or nonoverlapping), and the "dangling" effect from one line to the next for short summaries. I'm going to darken slightly the yellow now, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on the boxed versus spanned versions. Thanks! -- Chucktalk Giffen 17:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chuck, thanks for asking, after changing the template I came up with yet other ideas that I'd like to discuss with you. First of all, the border overlapping was unexpected, since I had adjusted the line height so that it should not happen, but after you said that, I made a test and noticed that in I.E. it still overlaps (though not in Firefox). The idea in changing back from table to span was that many users add the ScoreError template in the Edition notes line, but when "table" is used, it automatically adds a line break, moving the error notice to the line below: conf. with span - with table. When the user notes are long, that looks fine, but not when they are just a few words. In fact it's a matter of taste, but we could try to standardize its use; here are my suggestions:
  1. change the ScoreError template again so that it behaves in a similar manner to the Editor template, by adding an automatic line break and indentation to it.
  2. remove completely the borders; in fact it has always bothered me why the error notice should call more attention than the edition itself. The icon Error.gif alone is enough to show that there's a problem in the edition. A compromise could be to keep the border just for the icon and standard message, but not for the user text.

Below are some examples of what I'm proposing:

Alternative 1 (compromise)

Editor: Claudio Macchi (submitted 2000-08-26).   Score information: 188 kbytes   Copyright: CPDL
Edition notes: Finale file is zipped.
Error.gif Possible error(s) identified. Error summary: In bar/measure 21 the last note of the Soprano part should be a G not an E, also in bar/measure 147, the sopranos should sing an E rather than a C

Alternative 2 (Editor template style)

Editor: Claudio Macchi (submitted 2000-08-26).   Score information: 188 kbytes   Copyright: CPDL
Edition notes: Finale file is zipped.
Error.gif Edition errors: In bar/measure 21 the last note of the Soprano part should be a G not an E, also in bar/measure 147, the sopranos should sing an E rather than a C

Alternative 3 (icon near score, similar to broken links)

Editor: Claudio Macchi (submitted 2000-08-26).   Score information: 188 kbytes   Copyright: CPDL
Edition notes: Finale file is zipped.
Edition errors: In bar/measure 21 the last note of the Soprano part should be a G not an E, also in bar/measure 147, the sopranos should sing an E rather than a C

For me the ideal would be #3, for consistency, but #2 is also acceptable. What do you think? —Carlos Email.gif 15:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO alternative 2 is best. I don't think that alternative 3 is more consistent: if the broken link icon is close to the place where broken links are located ("warning: if you click here, you get an error message"), the best consistency is achieved if the warning sign for score errors is located close to the place where errors are described. This is especially valid if the error details are actually provided in the discussion page, so the icon is close to the link it refers to. Choralia 22:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I found overlapping variances with Firefox (I examined several pages, but I didn't keep track of which ones overlapped and which ones did not). Added later: Adoramus te, Christe (Claudio Monteverdi) and O vos omnes (Feria Sexta in Parasceve) (Tomás Luis de Victoria) exhibit the two variances in overlapping behavior in Firefox for me.
As someone pointed out previously, the ScoreError template really handles two kinds of situations, as pointed out on the ScoreError talk page: (1) blatant errors (eg. wrong notes, missing notes, misalignment of notes in separate parts, etc.) and (2) editorial variances (ie. differences amongst editions or versions). I would hope that the template, when refined, would allow for two different (boldface) declarations (I've abandoned my Error alert suggestion on the template talk page) - something like Edition error(s) and Edition variance(s), respectively.
As for format, I think that Alternative 1 is best for the time being, but with the two options instead of Possible error(s) identified. Error summary, if only because people have become accustomed to seeing some yellow which, to me at least, stands out more than just the triangular error icon. I do not like Alternative 3, which requires placing the icon in one spot and the Error/Variance declaration in another spot - in other words, I agree with Choralia on this point.
Hence, my proposal is the following, which has an optional "type" parameter to handle the different situations:

Alternative 4a (compromise)

Invoked by {{ScoreError|...}} or (ie. the default behavior is to announce '''Edition errors''') {{ScoreError|type=errors|...}}

Editor: Claudio Macchi (submitted 2000-08-26).   Score information: 188 kbytes   Copyright: CPDL
Edition notes: Finale file is zipped.
Error.gif Edition errors:   In bar/measure 21 the last note of the Soprano part should be a G not an E, also in bar/measure 147, the sopranos should sing an E rather than a C

Alternative 4b (compromise)

Invoked by {{ScoreError|type=variance|...}}

Editor: Claudio Macchi (submitted 2000-08-26).   Score information: 188 kbytes   Copyright: CPDL
Edition notes: Finale file is zipped.
Error.gif Edition variance:   In bar/measure 21 the last note of the Soprano part should be a G not an E, also in bar/measure 147, the sopranos should sing an E rather than a C
At some point, we might consider removing the yellow background to Alternativer 4 and moving towards something akin to Alternative 2. I would also be happy with Alternative 4 without the triangular error icon. – Chucktalk Giffen 04:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Max, your argument about the discussion page makes sense; I will follow you on alternative #2 then.

Chuck, with respect to the overlapping, the two examples you gave appear normally for me (I use Firefox 2.0.20); anyway, this problem is temporary, as we are reaching a consensus on a different layout.

As you said, currently the template is used for two different situations; I particularly see no problem in adding a parameter but I'm afraid that it will increase the complexity for users, ending up not being used by them at all. Couldn't we find a neutral wording that would be valid for both situations? For example, Edition variances/errors: or something in this line.

About removing the triangular icon: for me personally it is more informative than the yellow backgroung (which still doesn't please me for the reasons mentioned previously); we must also consider that the icon is listed in the template:Legend and users are probably used to it. When the background color is totally removed (now or in a second phase, as you suggest), the icon would become more useful than it's now. An alternative would be to change the image, if you don't like it: what about this one?

If we decide to move to alternative #2 in two steps (with alternative #4 as intermediary), what time span would you be comfortable with? —Carlos Email.gif 13:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think people will know what we mean by variance, so the word Error needs to appear in there. I like the new look of it. --Vaarky 04:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Vaarky, can you please be more specific about which of the new looks you do prefer? Thanks! —Carlos Email.gif 07:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Rachmaninoff Vespers - Music publication?

Hi Carlos. I'm a little confused by your categorization of Vsenoshchnoe bdenie (All-Night Vigil), Op. 37 (Sergei Rachmaninoff) (a.k.a. Vespers) in Music publications. I have my own copy of the published score to this work, and it appears to me that it is not really a different sort of work than, say, Handel's Messiah, or Vaughn Williams's Five Mystical Songs, or Randall Thompson's The Peaceable Kingdom, or William Byrd's Great Service, or indeed any other of a host of multi-movement choral works (oratorios, passions, services, cantatas, etc.). Are all these works supposed to be categorized as Music publications, too? I know I created the page to list all the movements of the Vespers, because presently we only have four of the movements available at ChoralWiki. Perhaps it would be better to convert this into a works page with the four movements (currently each with their own pages) merged here? Thanks!! – Chucktalk Giffen 00:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I know that "Music publication" is probably not the best category for these pages, I just can't find a better place to include them. They certainly don't belong in "Sheet music" because they only have a list of movements, but no scores at all (differently from Handel's Messiah). I invite you to find/create a proper category for these special index pages. —Carlos Email.gif 00:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: Chuck, please read Rob's comments on a similar "index page": Songs of Farewell (Charles Hubert Hastings Parry). Should these pages be deleted, or kept but under a new categorization? —Carlos Email.gif 00:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Same here: Vier ernste Gesänge (Johannes Brahms)
Well, for lack of a better term, I created a category:Larger works; let me know if you come up with a better name for it. —Carlos Email.gif 02:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Main page in many languages

Only one line stays in English : the second line ChoralWiki:Recently_posted_Advent,_Christmas_and_Epiphany_music

under Music_for_the_Advent_and_Christmas_season under 'Seasonal music'. These last two lines can be translated in French, not the first one. Friendly, Claude 15:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this. As the Main page will be changed soon, I think it's best to wait until that happens. Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 07:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Taverner Dum transisset

Hi Carlos. I don't understand your edit summary and changes on the Taverner page concerning the Dum transisset. The edition we have at CPDL (from the King Charles Singers) is indeed the one from the Dow partbooks, albeit transposed up a whole tone and note values halved (I just checked the Dow partbooks today). – Chucktalk Giffen 22:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for checking it. My edit summary was in fact in reply to Vaarky's changes to that page. She created the page for the Dow Partbooks but didn't link Dum transisset from there. As she had edited the composer page and added a second line titled Dum transisset II, I supposed she meant that the version from the "Dow" was the one missing from CPDL. Will fix it then. —Carlos Email.gif 23:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I caused confusion, Carlos. I knew there were two Dum Transissets by Taverner but wasn't sure which of the two was from the Dow so didn't link to either yet. Chuck beat me to checking on it. Similarly, Robert Johnson wrote two DTs, one a 4v and one a 5v, but I don't know which is from the Dow partbooks--I left a comment on the Dow's talk page pointing that out to avoid confusion. -- Vaarky 06:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem! Still on this subject, we have a Robert Johnson on CPDL, but the one cited in the Dow Partbooks is Robert Johnson I. Are they the same person then? —Carlos Email.gif 13:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Dan Emmett

Hi, Carlos. I noticed that the newly added Daniel Decatur Emmett already exists: Dan Emmett. Since I do only minor edits here, I thought I'd be better to notify someone else about this. Best Wishes, --Tomaxer 21:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for pointing this! Will merge the pages. —Carlos Email.gif 21:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
But shouldn't the full name version be authoritative and the shortened name be the redirect to the full name version? -- Vaarky 06:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, the golden rule I've been following is: when in doubt, go with Wikipedia :) He seems to be widely known by his shortened name. But we may ask Chuck and Rob what they think of this, and if necessary do it the other way around as you suggest. —Carlos Email.gif 06:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Arne - 'The love rapture'

Hi Carlos, many thanks for tidying this up for me - I didn't know what to do about the sorting of titles starting with 'The' - clearly CPDL can cope with this.

I do have a problem however - my new page is not appearing either on the main page or on the 'New pages' list, even on the contributor CPDL. Why is this? I cannot see anything wrong with the page.

Many thanks

Mandy Shaw 06:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Update - sorry, Carlos, I see that it's actually listed against 21 April, when I completed the 'Add Work' form - I was expecting it to appear on 22 April when I actually added the page. Apologies for bothering you. Mandy Shaw 07:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem, the date was fixed! Best regards, —Carlos Email.gif 07:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your further help with this - just a question - do you prefer that the 'Add work' form and the actual submission of the page happen on the same day? When submitting multiple scores when I last had some to do, last year, I used to allocate myself a set of CPDL numbers in advance, just saying something like 'Placeholder' on the 'Add work' form, and then work through the score submissions as time permitted over the next few days/weeks. The form no longer seems to permit the 'Placeholder' approach, should I be getting the submission done ASAP after I fill in 'Add work' to keep the system tidy? Thanks Mandy Shaw 16:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, no problem with what you did! We use the different dates on the NewWork and Editor templates just to have an idea of how much time has ellapsed from submission to posting. In your case, since you are posting the works yourself, on a second thought I agree with you that both dates may be identical. As for your last question, technically there's no need to have everything done in a hurry, but it would be good if you could add a little note to the "description" field of the 'Add work' form informing that you are going to post it yourself on a later date. This is not necessary if you plan to post the work on the same day. Best regards, —Carlos Email.gif 16:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Score links on composer pages

Hi Carlos. I've noticed that when creating new composer pages, you seem to have forgotten to add score links with the links to works pages (or perhaps the omission was intentional?) This is the case with James Lynam Molloy, Isaac Woodbury, Julia Ward Howe, Thomas à Becket, Eliphalet Oram Lyte, Samuel A. Ward and Philip Phile. I added score links for the final two and I'll deal with the others shortly. --Bobnotts talk 16:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rob, you'll remember that we've already discussed this before a couple of times, and you may call me a rebel for this, but when I see that a lot of work is accumulated and time is short, I simply leave these links out. If you prefer, I can add a standard cleanup notice inviting someone to add the links, what about it? The other option would be to just create the composer page and leave the rest for someone else (in which case the cleanup notice would stay in the works page, as you've been doing). In a few cases, when the composer page needs to be created yet, the works will be listed under category:Works with nonexistent composer page, and a specific cleanup notice is perhaps not necessary. —Carlos Email.gif 17:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Personally, I would prefer that you don't leave a page half-finished unless you're called away whilst editing it, in which case a cleanup notice would be preferable. As you've noticed, when I don't have much time, I put a cleanup notice on the score page itself when there is no composer page, rather than part-creating the composer page. This doesn't then suggest that the page is complete. For the sake of conformity, I continue to think that the standard is that score links are included on composer pages, except in agreed circumstances, and in the absence of mutual agreement to the contrary. --Bobnotts talk 17:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Carlos, I must request again that you at least add a cleanup template to a composer page when you have deliberately not included score links, such as here. --Bobnotts talk 15:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I may do that if you please also add a cleanup template to new works pages created by you when you deliberately decide not to create an editor page for them. The editor page is even more important, because it is the only place where the editor email address passed through the Add work form can be stored (an information which is lost otherwise). —Carlos Email.gif 15:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you've got yourself a deal! --Bobnotts talk 15:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Lajos Papp

Hi, Carlos--

I saw that you reversed without comment my deletion of the redirect page for Oton~o (Popp Lajos).

I deleted this because it is a redirect that requires someone to *both* make a typo in the composer's name *and* reverse the order of given & family name, but not access the page via search or from the composer page. While the edition makes that typo on his score, the combination of all these factors is so improbable that the redirect is worthless.

It is highly unlikely that someone would access the score by inputting the exact title with both typos in their browser bar by hand. If they look for Popp and Lajos and Oton~o, in ANY order, the search will find it. So the redirect at the score level is definitely not needed for this combination.

That leaves only whether a redirect is needed for the Popp misspelling. If you think this error is common enough to warrant a redirect, an alias on the composer's page indicating that it may be a common typo for that composer would be the way to go, and perhaps a Redirect for the composer name only if you think people will input his name into the browser bar by hand.

I think it is bad, bad policy to create redirects at the score level for obscure combinations of errors that users would access through the composer page anyway rather than by typing the exact score title and reversed composer name into their browser bar.

Given these arguments in favor of deletion, do you still feel the redirect should stand? -- Vaarky 16:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vaarky, sorry if I confused you with this; in fact I did add a summary when I recreated the redirect, but you probably didn't notice it or you'd have understood it all. What happened was that the redirect was still being linked to from Adrian Cuello's page, and therefore it was not superfluous. Although it's bad to keep a misspelled (but working) redirect, it's even worse to delete it and end up with a red link on a page. I've done this myself in the past, but now I try to always remember to check if no static pages link to the redirect before deleting it (dynamic pages are no problem; these usually start with "ChoraWiki:..."). As soon as Adrian Cuello's page is corrected, I'll delete this redirect again, ok? —Carlos Email.gif 07:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense--sorry I overlooked your summary for the redirect. -- Vaarky 06:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

O holy night

Fortaleza, Brazil, May 13th, 2010.
Dear Carlos:
1. Please, help me! On December 27, 2009, I submitted a digital version of the Christmas carol from Adolphe-Charles Adam,"O holy night", which was published in 1916 by the Reverend Charles Lewis Hutchins.
2. In order to correct some remaining small mistakes, on March 3rd, 2010, I sent to CPDL the below pasted e-mail with annexed versions in pdf, Finale, and MP3. However, the replaced has not been made, so far.
3. In my messages of December and March, I declared that to me the CPDL system for submitting or adding scores is too confusing. Unfortunately, I really can't operate it! So, please,kindly do this for me.
4. Afterwards, I will also send the French original of the carol on Mr.Hutchin's partition (his arrangement for Adam's music) and the adaptation to my own Brazilian poem with metric and rimed verses. Final question: how can I send the files to you? (to what e-mail address?)
Thank you very much for your kind attention. Yours sincerely, Prof, Osorio Viana.


Osorioviana 19:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Fortaleza, Brasil, 15 de maio de 2010. Prezado Carlos:
1. Primeiramente, meu imenso Muito Obrigado por você haver agregado ao CPDL as três versões (Finale, pdf, mp3)que enviei do O HOLY NIGHT (na antiga partitura publicada pelo Rev. Charles Lewis Hutchins).
2. Todavia, não consegui abrir a versão Finale e, então, a estou novamente remetendo em Finale 2010.
3. Enviei, ademais, três versões (Finale 2010, pdf, mid) da adaptação a meu poema em Português OH NOITE SANTA! (elimine, pois, a versão mp3 deste, que não abre).
4. Envio, também e na mesma partitura, o original francês CANTIQUE DE NOËL (Finale 2010 e pdf; sua versão mp3 é a mesma do O Holy Night, já que não há nenhuma modificação musical na passagem do americano para o original.
5. Quer no O HOLY NIGHT, quer no CANTIQUE DE NOËL, quer no OH NOITE SANTA!, as informações adicionais são as mesmas: Editors - Osorio Viana and Jardilino Maciel; Public domain.
Enfim e mais uma vez, muitíssimo obrigado por sua atenção. Saúde e paz; Osório Viana.

Thanks for rescuing Mery yt ys...

... I overlooked the PDF. --Bobnotts talk 09:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Never mind Rob. Pity that it's a unison score. —Carlos Email.gif 14:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

William Horsley

Hi Carlos,

Thanks for your nice message - sorry to be a dunce!


I wish all contributors were as "dunce" as you consider yourself to be, lol! :) —Carlos Email.gif 00:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Voicing info in titles

Hi Carlos,

I see your point that voicing info is not always necessary for disambiguation in titles, but Giovanni Gabrieli displays a lot of useful info! Couldn't these titles be left as is? Richard Mix 22:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I particularly think that the number of voices should be added only for disambiguation of works, unless of course it was also present in the original title as given by the composer. For works that require larger choruses (+10 voices) it may also be useful sometimes. Even in these cases, this information could well be presented only on the composer page, but removed from the title itself. I don't know the opinions of the other admins about it, let's see what they say. Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 14:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


Dear Carlos:

1. Only now I got the CPDL permission to contact you... I was attempting to deeply thank you for your kind attention in introducing my contributions to CPDL.

2. However, in CANTIQUE DE NOËL the Midi version introduced was that of OH NOITE SANTA! which is a little different, as some adaptations were made for the Brazilian poem. It could be replaced by the mp3 version of O HOLY NIGHT which is the same.

3. For the same reason, the Midi version of O HOLY NIGHT shoul be eliminated.

4. Finally, I am trying to send you my Brazilian Lyrics of OH NOITE SANTA!

Thank you very much. Saúde e paz; Osório Viana.

Caro Osório, desculpe, não tinha percebido a diferença entre as edições. As correções já foram feitas como pedido. Saudações, —Carlos Email.gif 17:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

O Nata Lux

Hi Carlos, I previously requested that you delete my "O Nata Lux" page temporarily, and was wondering if I might be able to restore it (and if so what the correct way to do that would be). Deathraider 07:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Andris Solims's e-mail

I received yesterday the following e-mail from Mr. Solims, but I can't decide this alone, so please everyone let me know your thoughts on the subject.

Salve, Carlos!
I see that You started to redirect the Titles on my editions what have extension (harm.). Hm, in this case it would be wrong understanding about the real Composer of score if he often is unknown or the music is Traditional, but he arrangered that score. There are a lot of similar cases where the score is arrangered by known other person who isn`t the real Composer of that song. E.g., Mamerts Celminskis arrangered many songs, also Polish melodies in Latvian, but he isn`t the Composer, and the real Composer isn`t known. What we have to write in these cases??? Because the Harmoniser isn`t the same as Composer, and if You put them as Composers it seems be wrong idea. I would prefer to put better visible extension of (harm.) in the Title behind the Composer`s/(Harmoniser`s) name. I also have many arrangered score where the Composer isn`t known, and what I have to put in the place of Composer - myself?? Please, think about this problem, because it is a communal to many other editors. Thanks!
Fr. Andris Solims

What should we answer him? I particularly think it's not good to add a "(harm.)" to the title, and would rather use "(Traditional)" composer, informing the arranger name inside the page. —Carlos Email.gif 16:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hymn metres

Thanks for the useful list, Carlos. I think the problems I was having with the system recognising the metres I was using are down to extra blanks and periods. I should have much less trouble now.Jamesgibb 15:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixing Schoelkopf links

Hey Carlos, thanks for finishing the job of fixing the broken links for the Schoelkopf editions. I had marked them as broken when it was pointed out to me in an e-mail and didn't immediately find the correct site. Then when I did find the correct site, I only got maybe halfway through the updates before I had to stop. – Chucktalk Giffen 14:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes Chuck, I noticed you had begun correcting them, and was just giving you a hand :) Thanks too. —Carlos Email.gif 14:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Updating cantoral

Hi Carlos. I see you have done a text replace on all of the cantoral (Abel Di Marco) pages, but unfortunately, they all have to be further updated to remove the finaleviewer template (and other cleanup). I was doing only 25-30 at a time, so that I could keep up with the further updating, but now there must be a few hundred that need to be done, and I don't think I can do them all in just a day or two before the record of those that haven't been text-replaced but not edited becomes stale in the Recent changes. I guess we need some volunteers right away!! – Chucktalk Giffen 02:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops sorry, I didn't notice you were doing it in small batches. I believe that the FinaleViewer template can also be removed via a script; the remaining templates can then be added with no hurry. Thanks for your hard work! —Carlos Email.gif 02:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
That's okay. Unfortunately, the finaleviewer template requires replacing "Edition notes:" and placing any other material that actually belongs in the edition notes in the right place. And I'm not sure if the finaleviewer template has been used with editions of other editors than Abel Di Marco. So far, things are going pretty well, though. – Chucktalk Giffen 03:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The bot is running right now, replacing the FinaleViewer template only in the editions by Abel di Marco. I checked some pages and everything seems to be going all right. —Carlos Email.gif 03:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The bot has finished removing the FinaleViewer template; I would suggest that we don't use the ReplaceText function to add the Voicing template, because by doing so, a superfluous [Category:xxx] is left behind on the page. The bot is better fitted to do this kind of change because it can do both things at the same time. For now I'll run a SQL query to remove the superfluous category line from the works that have been changed by the ReplaceText command. —Carlos Email.gif 04:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Done for Unison and SSA. See example here. —Carlos Email.gif 04:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Settings on lyricist pages

I noticed at least one double s left by your find and replace. Would "Settings by composers" as used on text pages be preferable, or is that just my own taste? Richard Mix 06:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I was in fact just applying a text change suggested by Chuch here. The shorter "Settings by composers" may be also a good alternative; I suggest you ask Chuck about it. Thanks! —Carlos Email.gif 20:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Oops, now I see what you meant by "double s". Fortunately Rob has already fixed my typo. :) —Carlos Email.gif 21:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Lauda Sion by Escalada

Carlos: Escalada's Lauda Sion needs to be added to the list of composers on the Lauda Sion page. I cannot work out how to do this. Thanks! Jonathang 20:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan, it seems that Chuck already located the problem and fixed it: [1]. Best regards, —Carlos Email.gif 02:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

DPL suppresserrors workaround has a bug.

Hi Carlos. I spent hours wondering why DPL outputs a space when there should be no output at all, eventually finding a way to suppress the unwanted space in some DPL code I'm working on. And I was about to file a bug report when I found that you had already filed one about "suppresserrors" and outlined a fix. Unfortunately, your fix (assuming it is implemented here at ChoralWiki) seems to be what caused the problem for me. Here's the situation as it works here:

(1) Using an empty "noresultsheader" (without setting "suppresserrors=true" produces an error message - should that be the case?



(2) Using "suppresserrors=true" without any "noresultsheader" or with "noresultsheade=true" causes a space in the output:



(3) Simply setting "noresultsheader=" with or without setting "suppresserrors=true" gives the desired no-space output:



So... instead of having noresultsheader output a space, maybe you should have it output <span></span>. I'll leave it to you to decide if you want to tweak the workaround code and/or to send an update on the bug report. Thanks for looking at this, and Merry Christmas! – Chucktalk Giffen 03:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chuck, when the author of this extension implemented the fix, I remember to have noticed that he did it in a somewhat different way from the one suggested by me, but I don't know if he kept using the space. The option suppresserrors was introduced by him in version 1.7.5, and we currently have version 1.7.8 here at CPDL, so we're now using his implementation, not my fix anymore. I encourage you to contact the author reporting your findings, so that he may correct the code for the newer releases. Thanks and a Merry Christmas for you too! —Carlos Email.gif 20:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carlos. I just assumed he incorporated the fix that you suggested in the bug report you submitted (as he said he would), since it does output a space when it should output nothing. Anyway, I've used the <span></span> trick for noresultsheader to work around the problem. I guess I'll contact him when I get the chance. Thanks for explaining the history, though. I'm so glad that you are always on top of things here! Christmas Eve is nearly here, so enjoy the holy day. – Chucktalk Giffen 02:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)