User talk:MandyShaw

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Your recently added edition - La pastorella (Anonymous)

Hi Mandy. I've just seen that you've started adding Christopher Shaw's editions again. Thanks for persevering despite the crash. I've just made a slight alteration to the page to include Christopher's name as the editor as this is a requirement on CPDL. If you wish, you can change this back to say just "User:Christopher Shaw" but if you wish to keep it as it is at the present, I think it makes a good compromise. Either way, please would you include the editor's full name is on any future editions? Many thanks and keep up the good work! --Bobnotts talk 07:53, 19 August 2007 (PDT)

Broken link

Mandy, thanks for pointing that out. You can mark a link as broken with the "Broken" template: simply type {{Broken}} before the link. Regards --Bobnotts talk 06:45, 10 September 2007 (PDT)

Editor's name on editions

Hi Mandy. Sorry to be a pain but I have been informed since telling you that including the website name "notAmos" was ok that it is in fact not acceptable - the editor name must read (in code): [[User:Christopher Shaw|Christopher Shaw]] My apologies again for messing you about - I've corrected all the instances where this happens and moved the appropriate user page. Please use the above code in future submissions. Thanks --Bobnotts talk 08:19, 15 September 2007 (PDT)

Composer page form

Hi Mandy. I noticed one of your edit summaries on the recent changes - that you'd already completed the "add composer" form and expected an output of code in the same way as the add works form but no code came. It is true that the add composer form doesn't produce any code but if you want to use a template to add a new composer rather than copying and pasting from another composer page, you could use the template that I have created here. You should just be able to copy and paste the code from the page onto the new empty composer page. All the best --Bobnotts talk 02:42, 19 September 2007 (PDT)

Your new username

Hi Mandy, I noticed that you began using a new username to login to CPDL. Was it because you forgot your old password or any other difficulty? Anyway, we now have a tool that can unite two accounts in one, so if you wish we can bring your old account's history to the new one. If you like the idea just let me know, ok? —Carlos Email.gif 17:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

- Many thanks Carlos. I had a problem with the confirmation email (see forum) - Max and I decided that the easiest thing was for me to re-register. If the confirmation email ever arrives, I will go back to using the old username. Don't worry about the account history. I have set up my user page to redirect to the old one. Shaw Mandy 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mandy, I just read the forum topic you created, thanks for pointing it. I'd then propose a solution the other way around: I've just fixed your old account so you can log in again with it, using your current password and email. Please try to log in with the old username, and if you succeed, please tell me which account you would like to keep. Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 21:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks indeed Carlos, that's working perfectly. I am now logged on using the old username MandyShaw, and will stick to it from now on. I am afraid I created 2 'empty' usernames mandyshaw (all lower case) and Mandy_Shaw, as part of my experiments earlier, and obviously also the Shaw_Mandy one I was using just now - you may perhaps want to get rid of these!. All the best Mandy Shaw 21:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Done! :) —Carlos Email.gif 21:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I saw! Thanks v much indeed.Mandy Shaw 21:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Charging a fee for downloading and printing a score

Hi Mandy, I visited the notAmos website, and I noted that a (small) fee is charged to the user for downloading a printable version of the scores. I'm not sure this is consistent with CPDL's policy about the free availability of scores. I see that there is work in progress about pdf files, are you going to remove the fee? Max a.k.a. Choralia 12:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Max, I have been obliged by imminent changes to SibeliusMusic to change the whole way I deliver scores. I've now got nearly all my CPDL scores set up to deliver both Scorch and PDF for free, but a few are still set to 10 cents (for the PDF option only - the Scorch option is, and always has been, free). I am not in control of when the remaining scores will have a free PDF option, but it will be in the next few days. I have also put a note on the Christopher Shaw user page offering to email PDFs (for nothing, obviously) to anyone who asks. I hope this helps. Mandy Shaw 17:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mandy, if scores are available for free, that's certainly OK. If they are not, the CPDL committee may need to evaluate whether the website is eligible for being linked to CPDL. We are in the process of reviewing the CPDL objectives and policies, so I'm not able to draw any conclusions. If you want to get sure to meet the CPDL spirit, please do not hesitate to post a topic at the forums. Max a.k.a. Choralia 18:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I think once the changes are complete the scores will be better than before, as they will be available in both Scorch and PDF formats for free, whereas up until this week the limitations of the SibeliusMusic website meant I had to charge a very small amount for the PDF option (Scorch prints were always free). So I am pretty comfortable that it'll be OK, but presumably someone will let me know if there are any concerns. If necessary I can post PDFs up on CPDL for these free scores, but I'd rather not, as it means maintaining stuff in multiple places.Mandy Shaw 19:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Update - all scores are now available free of charge in PDF format.Mandy Shaw 15:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

New composers

Hi Mandy, thanks for adding new works and creating composer pages for them. It seems you are using an old template to create these composer pages (or plain copy/paste); may I ask you to please use the Template:New composer next time? It contains a couple of templates that were not yet introduced in many old composer pages but are now becoming "standard". The explanation on how to use it is on the template's page. Thank you! —Carlos Email.gif 01:58, 7 June 2012 (CDT)

Will do - thanks for the pointer. I was just using copy/paste, as you guessed! Mandy Shaw 11:20, 7 June 2012 (CDT)
Thank you! :) —Carlos Email.gif 13:40, 7 June 2012 (CDT)

Tallis's Short Service

Hi, you're invited to this discussion: Talk:Short Evening Service (Thomas Tallis)Carlos (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

In dulci jubilo

Hi, Thanks for the useful changes to this page. I do think your tables look better in a single column, though. You probably have noticed, sorting of dpl-generated tables is strictly alphabetical. Is there a way to sort composers by last name in such tables? I have worked a long time on this issue without success (e.g., sorting of sequence number in MultiPubList tables). We should go back through all these works to make sure they have the proper language categories – I started this process, and will finish it as time allows. Let me know if I can help. — Barry Johnston (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I ran into a problem. One of the seven editions of In dulci jubilo (Bartholomeus Gesius) is in Latin only; what should we do? Another is in Latin and Old English, but that one can be ignored, I think. — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Great work so far! I continue to learn from you, thanks very much.
I see you have entered the wonderful world of arrangements. I have been working on this for the last year or so; what I have done is far from a final answer, more like a beginning – and it's not done, even though I have looked at every page (± 3,000 of them) where arrangement is claimed. Here's a few things I have discovered:
  1. Many arrangers of years past (CPDL editors and others) have not been getting enough credit. At the same time, the true composers of some famous arrangements have been down-played: the chorales of J. S. Bach and William Walker's Southern Harmony are two examples. Trying to achieve balance here has been my main impetus. I was very much involved in encouraging greater use of the Arranger template; creation of all the arrangements categories; and creation of the {{ArrangementsList}} template and adding it to (most) composer pages (see my summary page). Also see changes I have made to the header in all the compositions categories, for example William Walker compositions.
  2. After some dealing with other administrators, at the moment the {{Arranger}} template automatically includes the work in Category:<name> arrangements and in Category:<name> compositions; the work is then listed under that person in the score catalog. That is not difficult to deal with if the work only has one edition, especially if the original composer is Anonymous or Traditional. In those cases, the arranger is usually better known, and Anonymous is unlikely to protest their lack of credit! So use of the Arranger template is easily justified in these cases.
  3. The situation gets a lot more complicated if the arrangement is only one of several (or many) on the work page, especially if the composer of the original work is known. Then, use of the {{Arranger}} template is not right, because it would lead to the arranger being listed as the composer of the original work. For these cases, I made the {{Edc|arr|<name>}} template (for use within {{EdNotes}}), which puts the work in Category:<name> arrangements but not Category:<name> compositions. (The same effect can be made by using "Arranged by {{Cat|<name> arrangements|<name>}}", but that takes more keystrokes.) I believe I have made all the changes (>800) that are required, but I'm sure I missed some.
  4. In this process, it was pointed out (by Chuck Giffen) that many, if not most, later editions on CPDL are arrangements more-or-less. So I decided to deal only with situations where an edition was claimed to be an arrangement, that is, where the word arrange+ was used or implied (such as the term "re-harmonized", etc.); or where the original composer was admitted by editors or credible researchers.
  5. Also, it is a fairly common occurrence that a work is first introduced to CPDL as an arrangement, and later the original work is transcribed. We need to leave room for those kinds of developments.
  6. At the same time, some editors have claimed to be composers of a work that clearly was just their arrangement. Most often, I think, this is a misunderstanding of what the words "composer" and "arranger" mean; but occasionally it may be over-zealous pride. Most CPDL editors are pretty reasonable and understanding about this. In any case, I have tried to correct such editions to more clearly give credit where it is due – to both composer and arranger.
I hope this helps you. — Barry Johnston (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)