User talk:CHGiffen/Archive 8

From ChoralWiki
< User talk:CHGiffen
Revision as of 02:28, 29 April 2015 by Carlos (talk | contribs) (template renamed)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives: 010203040506070809

Sortkey in Template:KbdRed

Hi Chuck. Since you made some alterations to this template intending to remove the 9th parameter for a sort key, I thought I might ask if you could look again at the template. The category doesn't seem to be sorting pages correctly, even when defaultsort is used properly on the score page. See The beauty of Israel is slain (Robert Barber) and A New Year Carol (Paul Stetsenko) for examples. --Bobnotts talk 13:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Rob, I'd say it's just a caching effect. "The beauty of Israel" is already sorted under letter B. —Carlos Email.gif 19:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
(Sorry for the interuption to your talk page, Chuck!) Yes, you're right about "The beauty of Israel" Carlos. But even when I "purge" the cache the other score page still comes up under "A". Is this normal? --Bobnotts talk 19:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Usually it may take some hours to update, but in this case what happened is that you added the sort key first and then you moved the page, and it seems to have confounded the system. When I opened the page and saved it with no changes, it immediatelly corrected the category entry. —Carlos Email.gif 20:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
How strange. Is this a bug in the software or just a nuance we have to live with? In any case, thanks for enlightening me. --Bobnotts talk 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Composers who belong to more than one era

Hi Chuck, I saw that you removed category "Modern" from Boris Ledkovsky, but someone who lived until 1975 can not be considered exclusively an "Early 20th century" composer. Similarly, Monteverdi and others lived in the transition between the Renaissance (prima pratica) and the early Baroque (seconda pratica), and so on. I don't see a problem in adding categories for both eras in these cases. —Carlos Email.gif 18:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Seconding listing composers in multiple categories. --Vaarky 05:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've no problem with multiple era categories, but do we interpret these strictly in terms of the time a composer lived or the style in which the music is composed. For Boris Ledkovsky, there is no secunda practica analogue, as his entire output was dedicated to traditional Russian Orthodox music, not really more modern than Rachmaninoff, who is not classified as modern at all. Where does Early 20th century end and Modern begin? 1935? 1950? 1965? When I lived in Virginia, I had access to a large amount of (Boris) Ledkovsky music (as well as that of his son Alexander Ledkovsky) which I studied extensively, and my impression was always that the elder Ledkovsky should be regarded as early 20th century, or perhaps even as a holdover from the Romantic era. Of course, if the distinction is to be based on the time period alone, then of course it may well be that Boris should be classified as modern (since mid or late 20th century are not presently available as musical eras). But if stylilstic grounds should be taken into account, then although not as convinced about the appropriateness of the classification, I'll not object further to Boris Ledkovsky being classified also in the modern era. -- Chucktalk Giffen 13:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
That's an interesting topic; I always thought that the classification at CPDL was done exclusively on a chronological basis. I guess I thought so because there are no categories for "neoclassical" or "modernist" composers, as there are for "classical" and "modern". In fact I feel that new categories based on style would be a welcome adition.
"Where does Early 20th century end and Modern begin?" Good question! In fact there isn't such an expression as "Early 20th century" in Portuguese; what is used that I think comes closer to it is "Post-romantic". My guess is that "Modern" begins around or right after WWII. —Carlos Email.gif 00:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Intg topic indeed. I too thought the category of Renaissance Composers was based on when a composer lived (and whether they spanned two periods), rather than the style of work they composed. I know people living now who have written pieces in the Renaissance style, but I think the vast majority of CPDL users would be surprised to find a living composer classified as a Renaissance composer. Also, basing it on their lifespan would avoid having to put 5 or more categories for a composer who composed in the Renaissance, Romantic, Modern, Baroque and various other styles. And it would avoid the whole debate of NeoClassical versus Classical. Also, in a musical book, a living composer would be in an index of Modern composers, never Renaissance composers. To me, it just doesn't make sense to classify a composer by the type of work they published instead of the period(s) they spanned. They are still a product of their times even if writing exclusively in an earlier style. --Vaarky 03:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Philip's talk page

Hi Chuck, when you replied to me in Philip's talk page, you inadvertently removed his own reply. I'd fix it but I thought you'd like to do it yourself. By the way, that mea culpa section was placed correctly? It doesn't seem to be related to the conversation above it, please check. —Carlos Email.gif 16:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Carlos. Interestingly, Philip's reply didn't appear at all when I loaded the page and opened it for editing, so I never saw his reply until I read your message here - maybe a caching problem - or maybe I'm going blind? :) The mea culpa is indented one from where you made your comment about it being my mistake, so I think it's placed right. -- Chucktalk Giffen 12:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it may be a caching problem. Perhaps you had his talk page open before he left his own reply, in which case you wouldn't see it when you decided to reply too. As for the other message, only now I noticed that Philip had cited you in his reply, sorry for my inattention. —Carlos Email.gif 19:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem! :) -- Chucktalk Giffen 21:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Score page with no editions

"Should this page even exist (except for having the text to the work)?"
Nope - I deleted it and put the text here. --Bobnotts talk 17:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob! I'm finding a lot of little things as I try to synchronize Composers entries with those in Composer works categories. -- Chucktalk Giffen 17:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Names with diacritics

Hi Chuck, don't worry about adding sort keys to names with diacritics; there's a new template, StripAccents, that when finished will do it for us, ok? Less manual work for us. :) —Carlos Email.gif 20:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Chuck, just as a reminder, the template StripAccents is now fully functional, so there's no need to add a sortkey for Déodat de Séverac, for example, because {{NameSorter|Déodat de Séverac}} produces "Severac, Deodat de ". Just trying to make things easier for you. —Carlos Email.gif 03:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Oops, you're right. I overlooked that one (originally was sorted as De Severac...). -- Chucktalk Giffen 11:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sacred music by season

Hi Chuck, a couple of new and strayed categories were included recently in category:Sacred music by season, but they are all appearing in the beginning of the list. When you have a time, could you please add a sort key to them so they are ordered in a sequence that you consider to be the most appropriate? Thanks —Carlos Email.gif 16:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Modifying Wikipedia links

Hi. I've recently signed up here on CPDL, to work on interconnection between CPDL and Wikipedia. My main aim is to add CPDL links to Wikipedia articles, however, I'm going to also correct links here to Wikipedia, when incorrect. But I'm not sure, when I find a link here, that points to a redirect on Wikipedia, whether I should correct it to the 'canonical' Wikipedia article name or leave it as it is. Which would you recommend? Thank you. --Tomaxer 20:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

New catalogues

Hi Chuck, the new catalogues are looking great! Much better than an static catalogue, isn't it? :)
If you don't mind, I'd like to suggest a few cosmetic changes, see if you like them:

  • What do you think of using "Online" instead of CPDL in the titles (so, "Online Score catalog" and "Online Composer catalog")? It would make more patent to users the dynamic nature of their content. Also, the red CPDL in this context could well be confounded with a broken link (it confounded me).
  • Is there a personal/technical reason for not adding an space between the titles and the numbers? They'd look a little better as "ChoralWiki:Score catalog - 800" or "ChoralWiki:Score catalog (800)", for instance.

Your work with the composers categories was well worth the effort after all! :) —Carlos Email.gif 00:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Carlos. I'll change it to Online. No reason for fancy titles, as you suggest - I just followed the protocol that I used with the Popular scores and Popular composers. Actually, all this might be a moot point once we upgrade the DPL, since I think it will support paging (I had a brief look at an example, but I didn't have time to study the code yet). By the way, I used Category:Composers for the purpose of the indexing, but in the Composer list, the link is actually to the <composername> compositions category (for a shorter list) - thus if a red-link appears, then we will know to create the corresponding category with CompCatTxt ... I don't want to have to search through the 1400+ composers to align the results yet again! I'm glad you like the catalogs, and I'll make the Online changes as soon as I can. -- Chucktalk Giffen 00:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Super-excellent work, Chuck. This is an additional asset for ChoralWiki. Congratulations! Max a.k.a. Choralia 05:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, thank you Max! -- Chucktalk Giffen 10:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
These catalogues will be really useful, Chuck, well done! I see you've already put links on the Main Page. --Bobnotts talk 16:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Rob. And Carlos, thanks for removing the (composer_name) from the listings of works in the Score catalog. Also, I see you must have used a mass-edit to put a slash before the index numbers in the titles of page - looks nice! -- Chucktalk Giffen 13:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes Chuck, if fact it was an SQL query that added the slashes. A space or a hyphen can also be used; I just opted for the slash because the numbered pages would then become subpages of the main title. —Carlos Email.gif 06:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Works page template

Hi Chuck, I noticed you had been working on a Works page template some time ago. Since you use a Edition template inside it and may be thinking to work on it, I thought you should be aware that one such template was also being developed by me at the test instalation, as part of the whole solution involving the new Add Work form. You can see it in use in this works page.

The new Add Work system would involve the use of two integrated templates: the aforementioned Edition (to be used in works pages) and a Work template (to be added to composer pages). They both make use of a very versatile template called Linker. They are all in experimental level, so feel free to suggest changes you find necessary.

The use of such a template as Edition would greatly improve our ability to automate the control of editions contributed by each editor, in order to replace the manual control currently done. We would also know exaclty how many editions we have at CPDL, instead of just the number of total works pages. The Linker template was already changed to also create a link to/from the file page (for local files), as discussed a few days ago in my talk page.

If we join efforts in this development we can perhaps come up with a satisfactory solution and finally implement the new Add Works system. —Carlos Email.gif 16:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Carlos. I'm sorry it has taken a few days to get back to you on this important subject, but my online time has been limited. The Works page template of mine that you mention was a very old attempt from a year and a half back, and it should be regarded as obsolete. My real thoughts on how we should do things is based on my Sandbox writings (still incomplete) and something like the Data structures ideas they point to. I would be glad if we could jointly come up with the best solution to all our present problems.
You've pointed out one problem, namely just how many "editions" do we have ... but there's more than that: how are these "editions" indexed, where is the core data located, and where does information (even partial information) appear? There are additional questions relating to "sub-editions" (or "super-editions"?) ... eg. Vier Quartette, Op. 92 (Johannes Brahms), Requiem (Huub de Lange), etc. - in some cases there are separate CPDL numbers for individual movements, other times not, and other times both - not to mention that some also have separate pages for individual movements (as well as a complete edition page). Some of this has to do with presentation, but most of it has to do with the way we structure the data for various editions.
What we have is data and various actions that may be performed on the data to produce output in a consumable form. Since the Wiki model allows it, it is far better to pass the actions to a data record (as I show how to do in my Data structures stuff) than to pass the pieces of data to the actions - if only for the simple reason that we do not have to duplicate fields of data for each action. But an even bigger payoff is that we only have to (sensibly) collect (and "write down") the data once ... for a submitted edition, this can be done at the time of submission, through an appropriate "Submission form" (it's probably best to abandon the "Add works form" terminology in this construct). Then we only have to pass a template (action) to the edition data record to create a works page listing, and a different template (action) passed to the edition data record would generate the link info on a composer (or other) page. Actually, each "work" would have its own data structure, and passing an appropriate template (action) to the work data record would generate most of what appears on a works page ... it is even possible for an action passed to an edition data record to access and process its parent (or some other) work data record via an invocation of that work data record with some other template (action).
I'll fiddle with your ideas and mix them with mine. Let me remark that I do have a few qualms about your Edition template, in that it does not account for (nor does it display) all the information about an edition - among other things, a record of edition data should include the title of the work. Also, the whole concept of CPDL edition numbers needs to be reworked: it's got gaping holes, should probably consiste of 5 or six digits (zero-padded if necessary), probably with optional decimal point and numbers (to account for subeditions).
Okay, all this is getting too verbose here. More to come! :-) -- Chucktalk Giffen 11:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Chuck, I totally agree with you that the use of data structures is the way to go if we aim to have complete flexibility and control over what is available at CPDL and how information is displayed. The new Add Work system was an effort in this direction, but if possible I'd also prefer a totally structured system, as I've stated once in the forums. If we decide to use this system, then I think that the extension Semantic Forms is a tool we should seriously consider to adopt in order to put all this up and running. It basically uses structured templates as the ones you're experimenting with, but the wiki syntax and the templates are totally hidden during the inclusion/edit of items (works/composers/lyricists/etc.) making the edit process very simple for ordinary users. It would probably boost the number of active editors doing minor corrections and adding texts and translations, for instance. —Carlos Email.gif 06:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for leaving a mess...

with the Paul van Gulick page - I went out and thought I'd updated the page after moving the PDF file. Thanks for sorting it out. --Bobnotts talk 14:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rob. No problem!! -- Chucktalk Giffen 15:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chuck, impressively quick work on editing the Afton Water page - yep, it's English, although the text is Scots in origin. I'd just uploaded my arrangements of Jock O'Hazeldean and Duncan Gray, which are both Scots, and got mixed up for a moment.Hutchingsmusic 20:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Archives: 010203040506070809