User talk:BarryJ/Archive1

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hi Barry,

Welcome to CPDL, and thank you for your editions, especially of Billings. One small point regarding adding the text name to a tune on the Billings composer page. You cannot add the material in parentheses inside the NoCo template (ie. (i.e. "(Lord's Prayer)" for Kittery), because the template is designed to provide a link to the relevant work page. I have already fixed this with Kittery: if you check, you'll see that it now reads (correctly)

{{NoCo|Kittery}} (Lord's Prayer)

and "Kittery" is a link (blue) to the Kittery (William Billings) page. On the other hand, the code you had was (incorrectly)

{{NoCo|Kittery (Lord's Prayer)}}

which produced a (red) link to the nonexistent Kittery (Lord's Prayer) (William Billings) page. I'll move "(My soul the great Creator praise)" out of the NoCo template for Camden to fix that for you. If you want to provide the text titles in parentheses for tunes in the future, just be aware of what you have to do to get them to come out right. Again, many thanks, and welcome! – Chucktalk Giffen 04:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Voicing templates

Thank you for your editions here, Barry. I've changed the 'Voicing' indication on the Read pieces you added today to SATB, because we have a set of categories to organise pieces by voicing (such as Category:SATB). When adding new editions, if you put the voicing into the 'Add work' form in this format, instead of giving the voices in full as 'Treble Alto Tenor Bass', this will put the work into the category. Thanks, EJG (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Joy to the World

Hi Barry! I noticed that you have contributed an edition of this song, attributing it to J. P. Storm; however, on reading the Wikipedia article about this song, I could find no reference whatsoever to his name (neither on that article's talk page). Could you please inform where you got this information from? Thank you. —Carlos Email.gif 02:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I think I got it: your edition is of Storm's arrangement of the tune "Sounding Joy", while the traditional version is based on "Antioch". Sorry for the confusion! —Carlos Email.gif 03:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Carlos! My information comes from the Commentary to The Norumbega Harmony, page 284. "SOUNDING JOY. TEXT: Joy to the world! The Lord is come! Isaac Watts... TUNE: J. P. Storm, Fuging Tune in D, in Thomas Atwill, The New-York Collection of Sacred Harmony (Lansingburg, N.Y.: Thomas Atwill, 1795), 42. ... Contributed by Nym Cooke." The music appears on pp. 180-181 of TNH. The same tune appears with different text in Karen Willard's An American Christmas Harp (3rd Ed. 2009), where she quotes Warren Steel (Professor of Music, University of Mississippi) as suggesting that the composer may be Asahel Benham. "J. P. Storm" does sound a bit like a pseudonym. I prefer to use the citation in the original publication, to say that J. P. Storm was the composer of the tune Sounding Joy. For more information about The Norumbega Harmony, see; for a scan of the original publication, see -- Barry Johnston Bcjohnston523 (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for all the info! It's all clear now. —Carlos Email.gif 05:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Shape notes

On a related subject: great idea to group all shape-note editions in a category! But to my ears the title Category:Shapenote-4 Editions sounds a bit awkward; what about Category:Four-shape note editions or Category:4-shape note editions? The 7-shape equivalents would follow the same pattern. What do you think? (don't worry about the work involved, this can be automated). Best, —Carlos Email.gif 05:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This sounds good to me, your first choice: Category:Four-shape note editions. Just for curiosity, how would you automate it? How can I help? Thanks for suggesting this!
Bcjohnston523 (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, Barry! I just realized that there was already a general category for editions in the shape note format: Category:Shape Notes. It's in fact quite old (almost ten years now) but doesn't have many works listed yet. Should we merge your category into the more generic "Shape notes", or do you think that it's worth maintaining the more specific categories for 4- and 7-shape note editions? —Carlos Email.gif 02:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I noticed the Category:Shape Notes, but I was confused by it. It is in the list of "Subgenre" on the Add Work Form, it probably shouldn't be there, since shape-note is more properly a notation style, rather than a kind of music. (Although, shapenote singing, also known as Sacred Harp singing, is a fantastic music style and wonderful social network! But I digress...) Anyhow, it was because of this confusion that I decided to create a new Category, and because I wasn't sure what the creator of Category:Shape Notes was planning to do with it. I hear that 7-shape notation is resurging, with new books, and Wikipedia gives them about equal coverage. So I think it's worth keeping different Categories for 4-shape and 7-shape editions.
On a related topic, if you have time, could you look at CPDL Bulletin Board for topic Titles of Early American Compositions? I have some ideas about some little changes that might help our impasse. If you're not interested, that's okay. Thanks. Bcjohnston523 (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I too was a bit confused to see Shape Notes as a subgenre; I invited Chuck, who created that category, to join the discussion. He may be able to clarify this for us and give more ideas.
Concerning your request, I'm afraid I'm not the best person to help you with this, as my knowledge on the subject is very limited. But I'll post there if I come up with some good suggestions. Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 23:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

And can this mighty King

Thanks for your note.

In fact, I did not delete your original text page for this; someone else had spotted that it was part of a longer work and had converted it into a redirect. I merely deleted the redirect, perhaps out of a misplaced sense of tidiness and changed the LinkText appropriately.

I think there are fuzzy areas whether a composer has set part of a longer work. In some cases, it's appropriate to have more than one text page for substantially the same work; in others, it's better to combine into a single text page.

If we take the example of psalms, often composers set only a few verses, rather than the whole psalm. Nevertheless, it seems more sensible to group all settings into a single text page, but indicate on that which verses have been set in the list of settings by composers. An exception might be where a verse is used for a particular liturgical purpose, say an offertory, in which case it is probably more sensible to create a separate text page for all the specific settings, but show a clear link on the main text page.

Another example would be settings of Tantum ergo which, as you probably know, is the last two verses of Pange lingua. Again, as it has a separate liturgical use and there are many specific settings, the decision has been taken to have two separate text pages, but with clear links between them.

Until a couple of years back, the text pages were a total mess. Some editions were added to them, others were not. There was an attempt in the past the automate this. However, if one is looking for settings of a particular set of words, I guess the things most musicians would want to know are: the voicing, the language and what parts of the text have been set. Otherwise it is likely to be very frustrating checking individual links, only to find that the language was wrong or the choral requirements were not appropriate to the resources available. Although that information makes the text pages more useful (at least, to my mind) it does not seem possible to automate that aspect, hence the manual list on each page. The recent addition by Carlos of the textautolist template which identifies works which link to the page but which are not in the manual list is there so that, over time, the manual list can be brought up-to-date.

Coming back to your specific edition, it probably doesn't meet the test of a separate liturgical use, though I suppose of there are a lot of settings of "And can this might King", that point is debatable. Nevertheless, this is a wiki site and the ultimate test is what makes it most useful for users. If a lot of people would be looking for specific settings of "And can this mighty King", then, although they could find them via the search box, there would be a case for reinstating the text page, but making very clear on it the link to the longer text. Similarly, on the full text page, there should be a link back to the "And can this mighty King" text page.

Let me know what you think and, if you want your original text page reinstated, I'll see if I can do that. (Probably easier for me with Editor privileges than for you) So that I see any message from you, please add to my talk page, or send me an email on (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Customizing your signature

Hi Barry, you may customize your signature if you wish. It's simple:

  1. Go to 'Preferences' (top right of the screen)
  2. At 'New signature', post the following text:
    —[[User:Bcjohnston523|Barry Johnston]] [[User talk:Bcjohnston523|(talk)]]
  3. Scroll to the bottom of the page and hit 'Save'.

Regards, —Carlos (talk) Email.gif 18:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for these great editions! As work pages are created, it would be nice to link back to the main work; there are several ways to do this: Blagoslovi Duche (Op. 37, No. 2) (Sergei Rachmaninoff) for example adds a Larger work line below the title (as well as including the Opus No. in the page title). Or one could simply add "from Vsenoshchnoe bdenie (All-Night Vigil), Op. 37 (Sergei Rachmaninoff) to the title. Cheers, Richard Mix (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I must say, working on these has been a delight and a pleasure; especially No. 12, which has become a personal favorite. There are now links on all the works pages to which I have contributed, and on the larger work page. Barry Johnston, Bcjohnston523 (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I performed No.s 1-8 for the first time Sunday and am if possible even more smitten. Any chance you're about to start on the Opus 31 Liturgy? :-) Richard Mix (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I would like to; I will get started in the next few days. — Barry Johnston (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a welcome addition to the site, Barry. One small point; when you add an English transation, could you use Translation|English, rather than Text!English? Otherwise, the Russian appears in the list of English texts. (Of course, if the edition itself has English words in it, Text|English is appropriate.Jamesgibb (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for catching this. How am I doing with these transcriptions? I would appreciate any comments. — Barry Johnston (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think these are excellent additions to the site, Barry. It is especially useful that you are adding transliterations under the text, since it makes the editions usable by a much wider group. (Most of us can struggle along in Western European languages, but Cyrillic script is a barrier to many of us.)

One other thing that you might like to do. I'm guessing that most of the translations are yours, so you should really get the credit for them! If you add the template Translator|Barry Johnston (can't remember how to include the double curly brackets on talk pages!) then an automatic list of your translations will be added to your User page. (I've taken the liberty of adding a heading to that page, with the template that does the listing) At the moment, it's only they one that you specifically attributed to youself that is listed.

One other thought. The translation that is attributed to Winifred Douglas, 1920. I wondered whether it was in fact (Charles) Winfred Douglas, an American priest and hymn writer of the right period. Jamesgibb (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I will add myself as translator, as appropriate. By the way, it's <NoWiki>{{Translator|<Translator Name>}}</NoWiki>. I believe you are correct in ascribing the 1920 translations to Charles Winfred Douglas, 1867-1944 ( article on Winfred Douglas) -- a contemporary of Rachmaninoff. — Barry Johnston (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I've added a translator heading to his composer page. Surprised to find that it existed; he arranged Good Christian men rejoice". Thanks for the advice on wiki. I really must get round to learning it properly, rather than just coping what other people have done!Jamesgibb (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


Barry, no need to point out to you that we've been making significant changes to the composer pages. Although this is still very much work in progress, particularly on the more complex pages, I'd be interested to hear any feedback you may have, whether positive or negative, on the changes so far.Jamesgibb (talk) 09:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

James, thanks for asking. What I did for the Thomas Tallis page: Make the changes on a user test page, advertise this on the composer's talk page, and wait a few weeks. I received a few comments, all positive. Then I made the changes to the Thomas Tallis page, but first I commented out (<!-- ... -->) the old works list, as it existed. That meant someone else could go back and add back some things that the SortWorks format might have missed. (Or even revert to the old format; thankfully no one has done that yet). At some point, the old code would need to be removed.

There are some pages for which you need to ask someone (or leave tracks, as above) before changing. Check the adopt-a-composer list. Some of these composer pages have a long history; the page history can give you some hints as to whom to ask.

I don't fully understand Richard Mix's concerns expressed on Help talk:Automating the work list on composer pages, but he raises some good points. There is a lot of inconsistency in page titling; perhaps that should be taken as inevitable, a part of the unique, eclectic flavor of this wiki (which I personally like). Still, there are page titles that are clearly much too long. Personally I like to avoid extraneous stuff in the page title -- but I deal with long lists! I applaud your efforts to make page titles more consistent.
The way I see it, if a specialized list has been constructed on the composer page, or if the entry has more than a title, I would advise caution. SortWorks functions best if the items being listed have been consistently titled -- but if the list is now inconsistent, you need to seek advice about what the accepted way to retitle might be. Hope this was helpful. — Barry Johnston (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Another thought: SortWorks is a limited function. If the composer page has several levels (multi-work pages in the same list as single-work pages), we really should wait until we have the proper functionality to automate these. — Barry Johnston (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Barry. That was very helpful. I'll assume you have no problem about name being attached to your comments, unless I hear from you to the contrary. Most of the comments I've received back from other people have been generally positive, but it struck me as sensible to ask a variety of users for their opinion. The one thing I've been adding to the more complicated pages is a catch-all listing, to make sure that any new works that are added don't fall through a hole. As there's apparently no limit to the number of exclusions (&&!), it's easy to do, even though the code looks cumbersome.Jamesgibb (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. (The signature missing is probably due to my internet connection intermittent most of today). One thing SortWorks can't do is include only pages linked to a larger-work page -- that would make it possible to automate several-tiered composer pages. But I think that's best left for a future function, it's beyond a simple revision to SortWorks, I think. Automating several-tiered pages would require some structural changes, like addition of a Subtitle template, to be included with the title on the Composer page, to include comments and alternative titles. Good luck! — Barry Johnston (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Ode to the dissolution of time

Barry the easiest thing, rather than deleting the page, would be to move it, and replace to composer in the moved works page name.Jamesgibb (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi James. The problem is I don't know the identity of the composer; he is only just mentioned in one of the references I have. Nor do I have vital statistics or where he lived (i.e., I don't have enough information to create a composer page). So I decided just to delete the page, and re-create it if I ever discover the composer's identity.— Barry Johnston (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

A possible temporary solution, rather than lose the edition immediately, might be to change the composer to Anonymous and make a note on the composer page as to who the composer might possibly be. That way, you may get some information from other users of the site, Barry. Jamesgibb (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I will do that. — Barry Johnston (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I don't like the idea of categorizing under Anonymous compositions a piece where the composer is not in fact anonymous. If there's a chance "M." might stand for Mr., another solution might be to put Daniel Belknap in the composer field and list the work as questionable on his composer page. I tried but failed to download the IMSLP facsimile: is it clear whether M. B. is credited as the composer instead of the lyricist? A relative? I certainly appreciate your determination to do a proper job: if you want to see a real horror, peak at the composer page Miller! Richard Mix (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
To put it in Anonymous seemed odd to me, I will surely forget it and it will be lost forever under that composer. Here is the attribution from The Massachusetts Harmony. (I believe it may be Morris Belknap, listed as one of the subscribers to this book). I cannot attribute this piece to Daniel Belknap. For one thing, it's not his style of writing. Also, there were many Belknaps in the area around the turn of the 19th century (and still are). In addition, there are a number of music researchers still active in the field. There are about five other composers that I am waiting on, there will be one more now. I will mark the page for deletion, and ask the question of better people than I. Thanks! — Barry Johnston (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Attempt to add composer - Rodio

Hi Barry, thanks for your reply. Sorry, I really have no coding skills so have tried my best to add the page. It will definitely need some tweaking. I'd really appreciate it if you could have a look. Cheers, Will Wevans (talk) 04:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

You misspelled the composer's name on the composer page, and you titled the work "Rocco" instead of "Missa Dominicalis". I corrected this; you should look at the two pages (Rocco Rodio and Missa Dominicalis (Rocco Rodio)) to see what I did. I notice there is a comma in the filename of the pdf score, and it's kinda long, but it's working. A better way to title future works would be "RoccoMissaDominicalisScore". I think I've got it working right. PS. Beautiful score! — Barry Johnston (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


Hi Barry, congratulations on your promotion and welcome to the team. Regards, Jkelecom (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Add new category listing

Hello Barry

I've been advised by James Gibb that you are a good person to ask about this issue

I would like to add some pages covering the Chester Books of Motets vols 1-16 using the same style as Carols for Choirs 3. The plan was to add these to the Anthem Collections and Music Publications categories.

I've created the pages in txt documents on my computer but I cannot find a way to transfer these pages onto CPDL. Any help/advice would be very welcome.

Dtmr (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I need to ask first, how familiar are you with editing on CPDL (using Wikimedia)? If you aren't I could start these for you, or I can explain how to do it if you prefer.
Secondly, did you envision these volumes as appearing on separate pages? It looks like maybe four pages? It depends partly on how many musical works are to be added from each one.
Third, you need to use caution when copying from these books, since they are still under copyright (this may apply to the words as well as the music). I try to transcribe music and copy words from sources that are not under copyright, then if there are editing changes made by a copyrighted editor (as seems to be the case here), they can be explained on the work page or in a note on the sheet music, with a proper citation to the editor. (Part of this is a personal preference to present music and words as close to the originals as possible, while using modern notation so they can be sung.) To find works in their original publications, or at least something out of copyright, I use and a lot for music and words, sometimes for the words. The Wikipedia articles on the composer and lyricist may be important too.
That being said, there is nothing wrong with indexing the works to a modern compilation such as the series you asked about.
Let me know how I can help, — Barry Johnston (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back in touch Barry

I'm happy that my coding /editing is up to speed. The coding is ready to be input, I just need to understand the process of creating the initial page (in the style of Carols for Choirs 3) so that I can drop the code into the page.

There will be sixteen pages (one for each volume) with 7-15 links on each page to works already available on CPDL. I don't intend to create any new score pages (I don't have the software to do this). So basically, each page will index the works in the series.

Dtmr (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for answering. I would model your overall page after Carols for Choirs, which is the overall page for that series. Be sure you are logged in, then in the search box on any page, put the name of your new page, Chester Book of Motets (or something similar). The search results will give you the option of creating the page; just key in or paste the content of the page. Add the code [[Music publications]] at the bottom. I assume the individual volumes will appear as links on this page. Once you save the overall page, the links for the individual volumes will appear as links, but in red, indicating they don't exist. Just click on the first one, and you will be able to create that one, modeled after Carols for Choirs 1; and so on for all of them. I assume each of these pages will have a table showing the works in the volume (and [[Music publications]] at the bottom). These works may already exist on this wiki, so you would need to check for each and link to on your pages (sometimes the titles are a bit different). I would be glad to help with any part of this process. Let me know. — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
"Add the code [[Music publications]] at the bottom." Don't you mean "[[Category:Music publications]]" instead? Claude (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Barry, everything is working fine now. Thanks for all your help.

Dtmr (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello. You did a great job! Just one little thing, it might be helpful to include the subtitles on the overall page, so the user can find the volume of interest. I did the first one. — Barry Johnston (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Legend's template... becoming a legendary one! Thanks Barry! It's nice, smart and accurate. Congrats. Welcome among admins. Claude (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Claude. Max also did a lot to make this happen, deserves most of the credit. — Barry Johnston (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Now you'd perhaps include the Headphones-lollipop icon that is on quite all pages (some pages have only edition(s) with external links, anyway). Claude (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I will do it later today. I'm thinking the label should be "File Details," — Barry Johnston (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Included the File details icon. — Barry Johnston (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Well done, and rapidly! ;-) Claude (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Let me point you to that list, where the template produces obsolete informations about XML icon (for nine pages) and erroneous ones (for the last page). A mystery for me. Claude (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Mysterious to me as well! Apparently the call to the XML template is embedded somewhere where we can't see it. I tried copying the contents of one of the pages to a new page here, and the XML call disappears. The next step would be deleting the original page and renaming the new one -- the problem is that the page's history is then lost. I don't know how to copy and paste a page's history, do you? (Moving the page doesn't work) — Barry Johnston (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know, either. And I'm sure we want to keep the page's history. Claude (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I've got it! Delete the {{#Legend:}}, save the page, re-insert {{#Legend:}}. And the XML icon is gone. — Barry Johnston (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
You're the best, Barry! Claude (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


Hi Barry

Belated, but sincerely all the same: congrats and welcome to the club. Regards, Jkelecom (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


Hi Barry,

Just a friendly reminder that when deleting superfluous redirects like Salve Regina misericordiae II (Orlando di Lasso) you can use the "What links here" button to check whether any red links are being left behind. Cheers, Richard Mix (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! I usually do this, but I guess I must have missed one. I would be interested to see what you think of my proposal here, if you have time. — Barry Johnston (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Very interesting; thanks for the pointer! I miss a lot that goes on in the parallel forum, but will put your pages on my watchlist and comment here. Richard Mix (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Problem with the Published template

Hi Barry, James Gibb noticed that your latest modification to the Published template is introducing a small glitch. See details here. Could you please check? Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need help (although I'm not best to program templates, you're much better than me). Max a.k.a. Choralia (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Max, I have reverted Template:Published back to the version before I started modifying it. Sorry for the inconvenience. — Barry Johnston (talk) 17:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Everything alright now, Barry. Thank you very much! Max a.k.a. Choralia (talk) 18:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Johannes Ockeghem

Hi Barry,

Could we discuss layout at Talk:Johannes Ockeghem? I'm mainly taking exception to the delinking of the sortable list, but the Automated part seems to add clutter, too. Richard Mix (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I will add some words to Talk:Johannes Ockeghem. Please forgive me, I should have noticed that talk page before, I didn't until now. – Barry Johnston (talk) 20:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Mellange d'Orlande de Lassus (…) a 4, 5, 6, 8, et 10 parties (Orlando di Lasso)

Johnston! What have you done? Where has the former page with the full list of the works and links gone? Why do you tamper with things of which you don't understand anything? You should rather leave these pages alone and let those modify them who know what they are doing. I never liked what you did, but now you have gone too far. If you cannot do any decent work, you should not destroy what others have done. I want to have the former page back!!!!! Imruska (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I am so sorry. Please forgive me. The page you are seeking is at Mellange d'Orlande de Lassus (...) a 4, 5, 6, 8, et 10 parties (Orlando di Lasso), not Mellange d'Orlande de Lassus (…) a 4, 5, 6, 8, et 10 parties (Orlando di Lasso). Someone replaced the three periods in parenthesis (...) to an ellipsis (…), and that confused me. I have corrected the publications list back to the correct link. What I was trying to do is clean up the links on works pages, so that they point to to the correct publication (and the page Au temps jadis (Orlando di Lasso) had the wrong link) – Barry Johnston (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hymni per totum annum (Orlando di Lasso)

Hi Barry, Thanks for the tidying up of Hymni per totum annum anno 1581. I long ago took it back to the library and realize I remember nothing at all about the dating of its compilation: is 1577 (or for that matter 1581) ascertainable from watermarks, notes by the scribe or some other documentation? Richard Mix (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I don't remember where 1577 came from, sorry - over a year ago. I will change that. But I did manage to find where 1581 comes from - footnote 26 on p. 53 in an article by Daniel Zager, Lasso's Cycle of Polyphonic Latin Hymns, from the compilation volume Orlando di Lasso Studies (see this link). But maybe I'm reading this wrong? – Barry Johnston (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, just thought maybe you were on to something interesting ;-) Richard Mix (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Liber generationis Jesu Christi (Josquin des Prez)

Hi Barry,

Odhecaton reads very clearly now, thanks! I spent a long time thinking about Liber generationis Jesu Christi (Josquin des Prez) before I was finally able to dredge up that other Greek title, Dodecachordon (Henricus Glareanus) (RISM 1547/01)! Richard Mix (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Richard, Thanks very much for your gracious reply. Harmonice Musices Odhecaton is a little confusing. I am more concerned about how to handle second editions in general (or second printings or volumes or other). I would appreciate your thoughts on this forum post.
I'm a little dense (and as usual way out of my league), but why is Dodecachordon important? – Barry Johnston (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll check out the forum thread; I already moved Josquin to the other -ton/-don ;-) Richard Mix (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Your signature

Hi Barry,

For some strange reason your signature has changed from wikilinks

— [[User:Bcjohnston523|Barry Johnston]] [[User talk:Bcjohnston523|(talk)]]

to URLs

— [ Barry Johnston] ([ talk])

was it deliberate? Don't you prefer the simpler wikilinks? —Carlos (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Carlos, No, it was not deliberate on my part. I will change it back. Thanks for noticing! — Barry Johnston (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
No problem! I took the liberty to run a script to replace the URLs by wikilinks on talk pages. Regards, —Carlos (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Tate and Brady

Hi Barry! I noticed that you made a text replace for this duo to make them appear as "Tate and Brady". Do you intend to create a single page with that title, or were you just not pleased by their full names appearing on the Lyricist line? If you use the template {{Alias}} you can have the best of both worlds: {{Lyricist|2|Tate|Brady}} will display as Lyricists: Tate and Brady . Regards, —Carlos (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Carlos,
Thanks for noticing this! Actually, I have been working on the Template:PubList, as requested by User:Claude T; this template uses dpl to create a table of works that link to the publication. If in the include= line there is just {Lyricist}:1, that works for single lyricists, but for two or more, the output table shows "2" in the Lyricist column. See, for example, The Chorister's Companion which uses PubList with Lyricist in the fourth column. So I began converting some of these pages to Lyricist: Tate and Brady so they would display correctly in the PubList table.
Lately, I have tried to modify my code to make this happen without creating a new page (I'm not really sure how that would work anyway). But I'm stuck on one little issue: how do you refer to a template parameter in a parser function? Such as {{#ifeq:{{Lyricist|1}}|2|... (which doesn't work)? My experimental code is at Template:Publist3. Do you have any advice? Thanks! — Barry Johnston (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

an other Voicing template

Hi, and thanks for the Chigi/Ockeghem notes: I'll have to look into Missa Ma maitresse' (Ma mattresses as the spell checker would have it).

At Motectorum cum 5, 6 et 8 vocibus. Liber primus (Ippolito Baccusi) I noticed MultiPubList misses MultiVoicing arguments. In many cases of course Voicing + comma is more appropriate. Richard Mix (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Barry, let me take the opportunity to congratulate you for this new template {{MultiPubList}}! You've done an amazing job there! —Carlos (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Carlos, thank you! It has definitely been a learning experience. Claude's patience and encouragement have been great help. I have discovered a few things. Perhaps you already know about dplvar – it can be set early in a page, and then used in other templates later. In designing the new version of {{MultiPubList}}, I set some dplvars (years of publication) in the template {{Volumes}}, then used them later in {{MultiPubList}}.
Also, at Max's suggestion, I have been testing dpl 3.3 on the test server. A few changes, new to me at least: 1. category= cannot be blank, so parameter calls like category={{if#{{{2|}}}|{{{2|}}} works}} gives an error if {{{2|}}} is undefined or blank; so multiple categories need to be concatenated and nested if any of them could be undefined or blank. 2. suppresserrors has been deprecated, it's easy enough to replace it with noresultsheader=&nbsp; or =0; I just have to remember not to use suppresserrors any more! 3. A major bug in dpl3 is that it won't produce output in columns, but Max made a patch for us that allows columns!
I would be interested in your thoughts or suggestions about how things are going with publications, or other things I am involved in. I suspect many of the issues we face have been discussed before. — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Arrangers' categories

Hi Barry, I noticed that some time ago you started creating new categories for arrangers, like in here. This could be automated inside template {{Composer}} when used with the parameter composertype, as you probably already know. Do you have a reason for preferring to add these categories by hand instead? Regards, —Carlos (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Carlos, Automating creation of Category:<name> arrangements sounds like a good idea to me; I would rather not have to do it by hand. I usually use the template {{Arranger}} in these situations (it's easier), so perhaps the automation should be in that template? My motivation in creating these categories is to be able to distinguish works original to a composer from works they arranged, as here or here. Both Composer and Arranger are in most of these work pages. Both are display options in PubList and MultiPubList, so I want there to be separate templates on the work page for Arranger and Composer, not Composer|…|composertype=Arranger – that last would be interpreted as another composer and shown in the composer column of the table. Also notice the template {{ArrangerCatTxt}}, which works like {{CompCatTxt}}. Are there other composertypes allowed in Composer? The explanatory text with the template doesn't discuss this, which is why I was hesitant to change the Composer template. Thanks for your help! — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't remember where the discussion took place for creation of the Arranger template, but for some reason it was decided back then that arrangers would also have a "_compositions" category (just like composers), instead of an "_arrangements" category. That's why the Composer template was used, instead of creating new code for Template:Arranger. But that behaviour can be changed if we agree on it. —Carlos (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree, arrangements must also be shown as compositions (with the arranger as composer); otherwise they would not appear on the arranger/composer page. To me, the _arrangements category is an addition to the existing design (and I hope an improvement), rather than a replacement for it. However, without an _arrangements category, SortWorks wouldnt be able to distinguish original compositions from arrangements. My suggestion, to change the code for Arranger rather than Composer, comes from observing that to change Arranger looks easier; it doesnt matter to me. (Sorry, send from a Linux system, and I dont remember how to do apostrophes or quotes) — Barry Johnston (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I've changed the Composer template so that it now also categorizes arrangements under a <arranger>_arrangements category. Please check if that's what you expected. Regards, —Carlos (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Novello Part-Song Books

Sorry to take so long to reply to your note about Vol.1 changes, Barry. Actually, I thought I had replied but I’ve been having some problems with my email ISP. On checking through, I found my reply was still in the draft folder! Firstly, belated apologies for messing up your work. As you are aware, I am not a native Wiki speaker, but I’m fairly certain I did not get any error messages when making my original changes to the volume name and the links in the works pages. The error messages only appeared the next morning when I checked after receiving your email. Once I have transcribed all the works in a volume, your tables contain much more information than mine, so I see no problem with deleting my tables at that point. Before that, it is useful to have a full list of the works in a volume so that I can see what still needs to be done. In terms of which particular version I prefer, I think the table you have created in Volume 3 is best. It contain more information and also updates instantly when I add a new work. The table in Volume 2 has not picked up 1 work, no.83 All ye woods (Henry Lahee). Once again, many apologies. Jamesgibb (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi James. Thanks for your gracious reply. A great deal has happened since my e-mail to you; in short words, MultiPubList has been modified to take care of the problem (punctuation in publication titles), so there should be no more error messages, I hope!
I have changed Volumes 1 and 2 so that they display the same table format as Volume 3. Please consider keeping both tables, as it is useful to have both an alphabetical list and a sequential list. Some editors include other parameters (e.g., key) in their manual tables that MultiPubList cannot, because it depends on templates on the work page. For most pages that have a manual list, only a fraction of the works are represented at CPDL.
I got All ye woods (Henry Lahee) included – it turns out the problem was it was missing the category Sheet music!
Your apologies are accepted, but it is I who should be apologising for changing a title without asking. Best wishes, — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Florilegium Portense

Thanks for re-merging the two volumes! I like the column format too. Richard Mix (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


Hi Barry, did you make any recent change to {{MultiPubList}}? There seems to be a problem with it, please look here. Regards, —Carlos (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Carlos, I fixed this temporarily – currently "yr" can't be used in {{MultiPubList}} for publications with manuscripts. The problem arose from changes to {{Pub}} to better represent manuscripts. I will have to adjust {{MultiPubList}} also. Thanks for catching this! — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
All fixed now. Sorry it took longer than I thought. — Barry Johnston (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
That was quite fast! Thanks for your great work on publications. —Carlos (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Barry, not sure if this is part of the same problem, but the “Works at CPDL” auto-list is suddenly not working on any of the four pages of Pierre Attaingnant Motettorum volumes (eg. Book 14). I can’t see immediately why this is so, as the identical MultiPubList construct is working perfectly on other pages (eg. Cantionum sacrarum liber 5 (Pierre de Manchicourt))...? —Andrew Fysh (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
That was quick, Barry! Whatever you did, it has worked...thanks! —Andrew Fysh (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Andrew, thanks for bringing this to my attention. About a month ago, we changed the code in order to properly account for manuscripts. I know, these publications aren't manuscripts, but now the third parameter of {{PubDatePlace}} must be stated: Manuscript if it is a manuscript, or &nbsp; if not. I have changed the three publications you mentioned so that {{MultiPubList}} displays correctly. I thought we had caught all of these, but apparently not. Let me know if you see others. — Barry Johnston (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Understood, thanks. I’ve checked the 26 publications that I have hyperlinked on the Pierre de Manchicourt page, and all are (now) working. I’ll let you know if I see others. Cheers! —Andrew Fysh (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)