User talk:BarryJ

From ChoralWiki
(Redirected from User talk:Bcjohnston523)
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Happy new year to you, best wishes for 2020! --Music4Ever (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)


Hi Barry, I'm having trouble with MultiPubList: I split Novum et insigne opus musicum into Novum et insigne opus musicum (Ott & Formschneider) and Novum et insigne opus musicum (Berg & Neuber), and now the list of works isn't displaying correctly for either of them. Any idea what's going wrong? Adrian M. Wall (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It was the use of ampersand in the parenthesis, and specification of a year as the second parameter of MultiPubList. I changed Novum et insigne opus musicum (Ott & Formschneider) to Novum et insigne opus musicum (Ott, Formschneider) – but it could be "Ott et Formschneider" or "Ott and Formschneider" if you like one of those better. (I wrote this up here). I only changed one work page (Pater noster (Josquin des Prez)), but wanted to wait to see what you think about what I did. Let me know what you want. If you want me to change the other page and all the linked works, I can do that too. — Barry Johnston (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. I had wondered whether the "&" was the problem but I thought it better to check with someone who knows what they're doing before making an even bigger mess! I think I'll go with "and". Adrian M. Wall (talk) 09:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


Hi Barry, I was wondering how Schumann (disambiguation) turned up in Category:Disambiguation of works and noticed you'd edited Template:Disambig. Unless I'm failing to appreciate a more complicated situation, could we put it back to including only the parent category? Richard Mix (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I should have changed Schumann (disambiguation) to {{disambig|name}}, but I missed this one; I just corrected it. User:Carlos enhanced this template in October 2019 to add a parameter, "work" "text" or "pub". I just added "name". As I recall, this was so the message in the box read correctly: "people who share the same name" in this case, or "pages that share the same title" in the case of works. I have discovered several pages to be added, there are probably more; and only the "name" ones have "(disambiguation)" in the title. Not sure about deflating these into one category, to me the current setup seems useful. — Barry Johnston (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for such a clear explanation! Rather than pushing for "style" I'll just add Category:Disambiguation to Classical (disambiguation) and Modern (disambiguation) Richard Mix (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! That's a good solution, and Classical (disambiguation) reads much better now. — Barry Johnston (talk) 11:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

MultiPubList again

Hi Barry, Can you spot where I go wrong at Pseaumes de David mis en musique, 3vv (Claude Le Jeune)? Richard Mix (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Richard, There needs to be a PubDatePlace for all three Livres; on the work page, Pub needs to include "|vol=Livre 2". I am confused by the numbering of works (they are not numbered in the original, as far as I can see): the first line with a number is line 10, which is number 9? Also the first line in Livre 2 is supposed to be "L", not "I", I think. This would look better if the lines were displayed like "1. Qui au conseil des malins, Psalm 1" or something like that. Also "Sources (digital copies)" needs to be ===External links===. — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Missing pages

Hi Berry, I'm having trouble seeing why Il sol, qual or più splende (Carlo Gesualdo) is missing from the composer page; I've also noted a deepening Template talk:CheckMissing#a Byrd mystery. Any ideas? All the best, Richard Mix (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I see Il sol, qual or più splende (Carlo Gesualdo) on Carlo Gesualdo, under "Secular works for six voices" - it's in the second column. The remainder of discussion on Template talk:CheckMissing Cheers, — Barry Johnston (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
You're right; thanks! Richard Mix (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

DPL templates

Hi Barry! I've found a couple of templates inside category DPL templates that do not use DPL at all. As it seems, they were included in this category by a query you ran in January. Could you please check? Thanks, —Carlos (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Carlos! Thanks for pointing this out. You're right, there were several that didn't belong; and there are several that need to be included. I am working my way through the category to make sure it's correct. PS. Perhaps you know how to answer my question at Talk:Anonymous#Works not yet on this pageBarry Johnston (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! —Carlos (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

DPL issue

Hi Barry! Any idea why %USER% is not working for pages edited this year alone? Old pages at ChoralWiki:Recent discussions bring this information correctly, but not the recent ones. Quite weird! I've checked the DPL3 documentation but couldn't find any clues. I thought of asking you, since you're more familiar with this new version of DPL. —Carlos (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Carlos! Weird, yes. Not sure why {{TalkList}} behaves this way, I will keep checking. I was suspicious of the allrevisionsince parameter, but the template still shows Users wrong without it. Perhaps the answer lies with MediaWiki. What category is %USER%? It's not a parameter or a variable. — Barry Johnston (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Names are shown for User before the last week in January, 2020 – about the time DPL3 and MediaWiki 1.33 were installed. I did notice that for some lines where User isn't shown, the last edit was by an editor not appearing on the Talk page (so they wouldn't have a [[User:]] entry?) — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! I made several tests but couldn't find a solution. It's probably related to a database change in MadiaWiki 1.33, will have to check. Thanks again, —Carlos (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Probably related to this: w:mw:Actor migration. Apparently, our database hasn't been fully converted to the new schema (which would result in all editor names disappearing from the query, since DPL3 isn't compatible with the new table layout yet). —Carlos (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Combining your discovery (w:mw:Actor migration) with my issue with allrevisionssince (and others like it) and Phabricator T167246: "… the migration is being done gradually, over several MediaWiki releases. It is expected to finish in MediaWiki 1.34." and "migration states: (1) Read and write old columns only (2) Write both old and new columns. Read from new preferentially, falling back to old. (3) Write only new columns. Read from new preferentially, falling back to old. (4) Read and write the new columns only." (this schedule has been modified since 2010)
  • Migration of the data base is being done in parts: apparently MW 1.33 migrated Actors who made page revisions after MW 1.33 was installed (field rev_user →‎ rev_actor).
  • MW 1.31 (or 32) apparently included migration of other fields, such as those used in allrevisionssince (e.g., field rev_user_text →‎ rev_actor).
The way Max dealt with this is to replace those fields with the new ones in the MW code, as I recall. What I don't know: how to reference the rev_actor field in WikiText? — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Please also note this specific issue with DPL 3.3.3, and, even worse, the fact that DPL 3.3.3 is not compatible with the latest stable MediaWiki version (1.35)! You are advised against using this extension on a live site. It's a mess. I'm currently testing MediaWiki version 1.35 on the test server and the situation is not horrible, however I wonder how many subtle problems may exist like the one mentioned here. I've already repeatedly patched DPL 3.3.3 to make it work with MediaWiki 1.33, I'll try to find another workaround for this problem, too. Max a.k.a. Choralia (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I've made another patch to DPL 3.3.3, and it seems that ChoralWiki:Recent discussions works correctly now. It's the most horrible workaround I created ever: as the page ID is correctly determined, I patched the php code so that the corresponding page object is found, then the ID of the user who last edited the page is determined, and eventually the username associated to the given user ID is found. Quite garbled, however it seems OK. Max a.k.a. Choralia (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Very clever, Max! Thanks for the patch, good to see the lists working again. —Carlos (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


Hi Barry, Thanks again for the remodeled ChoralWiki:Seasonal music. The Sunday link is correct but the displayed calendar date needs a tweek. I'm not sure where to look under the hood myself; sorry! Richard Mix (talk) 23:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Richard, Please edit ChoralWiki:Seasonal music: the dates need to be changed in the section that begins <!--WEEKLY CODE-->. Sorry, I don't know how to do it, don't know which dates go with which feasts etc. — Barry Johnston (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Um, OK: I would have thought there's a function to get dates of Sundays though, or what was the automation about? Richard Mix (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
My recollection is that I designed several automation alternatives. But then I don't remember exactly: did you give up on all of them, and decide to continue manually updating? Or did we get busy with other things? In any case, nothing got implemented. — Barry Johnston (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, maybe the ball was in my court after all. Servus! Richard Mix (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

MultiPubList (yet) again

Hi Barry, I'm missing a pair of sharp eyes at Lyons Contrapunctus, which ought to have at least 3 linked works. BTW, is a paste-and-fill-blanks new publication page 'template' lying around somewhere (I can't find the new composer form either at Help) already? Richard Mix (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

You could try New publication, or {{subst:new publication}} (or "new lyricist" or "new composer"). In re: "Lyons Contrapunctus", neither PubDatePlace nor MultiPubList were complete (missing  , and missing parameters 2 and 3, respectively). Also, "Lyon" is the name of the city of publication, not "Lyons". "Lyons" is possessive German (I think), not very proper in an otherwise Latin title, since the Latin name is Lugdunum, listed on the title page: I claim the publication title should be "Contrapunctus seu musica figurata", since that's what IMSLP calls it. And you made an interesting prose "list of works"; I will try to transcribe the index tomorrow if I have time. — Barry Johnston (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! "No works at CPDL" is a surprising default for missing parameters but I should have figured it out. (1) I wonder then if Preload templates might be better listed in the parent category as well as in their hiding place; I'll consider adding a pointer to Category:Help (2) Lyons with s merits at least a redirect, being both a traditional English spelling and (along with "Contrapunctus de Lyon") the version used in most secondary literature: that's why we still misspell "Uppsala". Do you mind if I move it back? Richard Mix (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
You're right, "No works at CPDL" isn't quite right, I will see if I can change it. (1) I agree, and this is the reason I increasingly use Special:Categories (which lists all). I have added a subpage: Help:Score submission guide/Commands and shortcuts with these on it, please add to it ad lib. (2) You're right about "Lyons as an alternate for "Lyon". Feel free to change back as you wish. — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


Hi Barry! Is this extra #if really necessary? This template is used on thousands of pages, and apparently it was working fine until now. Are you planning new uses for it that require that #if? —Carlos (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Carlos! I was working on a new template, and needed the #if for that – but the issue was better resolved by using TitleOnly, and I forgot to go back and clean up. I did undo my revision, sorry for the inconvenience. — Barry Johnston (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
That's fine! TitleOnly is a nice addition, by the way. —Carlos (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Text & Text2

Hi again, Barry! I just noticed that template Text was recently changed by you. I didn't have the time to analyze the new logic, but I did notice some problems that surfaced in the examples:

  1. The template is being categorized in Text requests even after I added |cat=no to the examples
  2. {{Text|Unknown}} and {{Text|Quenya}} are both displaying a {{{2}}} after them; this is not the expected behaviour, I suppose
  3. Maybe because of #2, the Documentation itself is broken. {{Doc}} found something it wasn't expecting :)

Could you please check? Thanks! —Carlos (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again, Carlos! I don't fully understand, because I had checked Text2 against many pages yesterday – probably my fault. In any case, both should be working better now. — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

ExtWeb problems?

Hi Barry, Check out Template talk:ExtWeb, where I point out two pages where ExtWeb doesn't seem to work (these pages have external website links, but the template wouldn't show anything). Hope you can figure out what's going on. -- Chucktalk Giffen 19:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Chuck, I too have noticed this. I will correct these pages; I have a request to Carlos for help. I'm thinking I might have to add code to ExtWeb to take care of various issues. — Barry Johnston (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

ligatures with #SortWorks

Hi Barry,

Claude's move of Regina Cœli (Peter Philips) seems to have resolved the title's absence on Peter Philips, which I guess might have had to do with "œ"? Is there a warning I missed? Richard Mix (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember any notice about ligatures; I did make sure to include them in MultiPubList, which of course deals with publication titles, not work titles. I don't know much about SortWorks, which is Max's parser function. — Barry Johnston (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Linebreak in Voicing template

Hi Barry. I see that you added a <br> at the end of the Voicing template today. Unfortunately, this clobbers (ie. puts on a new line) any voicing information that is added after the template - which is something that happens quite a bit. As an example, see my own At the dawning of creation (Charles H. Giffen). I think the linebreak should be removed. Happy 4th of July weekend! -- Chucktalk Giffen 04:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Chuck. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! My intention was to remove the manual line-feed after the template, and make the template consistent with other work page templates. I have already begun removing the manual <br> from pages without the extra material, done 500 pages so far (out of 36,000 or so). On first reading of your message, I thought to remove the line-feed from the template until I could resolve the issue – you're right, it happens "quite a bit", on fewer than 1,500 pages I estimate. However, I noticed that the Voicing template already has a "third optional parameter", apparently designed to handle extra text. On most of the pages where this third parameter is used, display is incorrect, omitting the the second parameter! So design and documentation both need work.
I was able to edit At the dawning of creation (Charles H. Giffen) to bring the extra text into the template itself. Unfortunately, this text apparently cannot contain category assignments (or the letters "sol"), so I moved the category assignment to the Description field. I'm guessing that when this third parameter was added, template {{Vcat}} was not adjusted to handle this – {{Vcat}} needs redesigning, in my opinion. The effect of the dependent template, {{Solo}}, was apparently not considered when designing the "third optional parameter" – and all three templates are incompletely documented. This is definitely not a "user-friendly" situation, if I spent an hour trying to figure out how this works.
I noticed that among the 1,500 pages containing material after the {{Voicing}} template, there are many that can be easily handled by bringing the material into the main part of the template. For example,
"{{Voicing|5|SSTTB}} or {{Cat|SSATB}}<br>" can be changed to "{{Voicing|5|SSTTB,SSATB}}" → "Number of voices: 5vv Voicings: SSTTB or SSATB"
So with some modifications to Vcat and Solo, I am confident that the 1,500 can be edited to make this happen. I would do the modifications on experimental templates and test them extensively before implementing. If you wish, I can remove the line-feed from Voicing template until I can make the modifications. And happy Fourth to you too! — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Chuck. Thanks for the new add= parameter, great idea! I am bringing the extra text into the template, about half of pages done, also added documentation to {{Voicing}}. I will continue to remove the <br> after the template. — Barry Johnston (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
May I request another tweek, to suppress the unwanted comma before add= Te Deum (Nathaniel Patrick)? Richard Mix (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Richard. The comma was Chuck's idea, with which I agree – it separates the primary vocalization from modifications, exceptions, and comments. The primary vocalization is the category that shows in MultiPubList, for example.
The only way I know to remove the comma in N. Patrick's Te Deum is to remove it from the Voicing Template; that would require going over about 1,500 pages where |add= occurs to ensure that the display is correct. Unless you are willing to do that, may I suggest changing the line in Patrick's Te Deum to {{Voicing|4|SATB|add=with {{Cat|SATB.SATB}} options for antiphonal singing}}? Or maybe {{Voicing|4|SATB|add= antiphonal ({{Cat|SATB.SATB}})}}, or something else? — Barry Johnston (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Penitential Psalms

Hi Barry, I'm not sure if you already spotted User_talk:Cjshawcj#Croce_penitential_psalms, but thanks for the work on Lasso! Richard Mix (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Patrick service in G

Sorry to do it to you here, Barry, but it seems the most opportune place to fire a shot across the bows of Mike Wallen and you seem to have been enabling his misinformation. He seems to have started creating workpages with no regard whatsoever to the veracity of his information. The Patrick in G is a typical example. All authorities from Boyce to RISM to Grove to Le Huray ascribe this to Nathaniel Patrick. Wallen is alone in claiming it for Richard Patrick (author in Grove of 3 vvv. obscure anthems). The key is G Minor as a cursory glance at the PDF will shew. Under that key and Nathaniel's name, all pieces are already on CPDL and cross-referenced to Boyce [There is a discrete Samuel Arnold Cathedral Music, but cross-references provided on CPDL to IMSLP lead one to the second edition of Boyce, in which Arnold had a very minor role). Similarly the Cathedral Anthems page that you set up up under the name of Arnold is Boyce II (I'm afraid I don't have current access to the Arnold volumes, only a distant recollection) Wallen has given all constituent elements of this service his own titles. They already correctly appear on CPDL under their correct titles according to BCP and general usage. Wallen is also the only person to describe SATB music with antiphonal passages as double choir. In short to save a lot of future merge requests I think the administrators should ask Mr Wallen to conform to current practice, and to check what a body of cotributors of Anglican liturgy have already provided. Bonne chance & tschussCjshawcj (talk) 00:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Your objections are quite understandable. Mike Wallen is a relative new-comer to CPDL, and I am trying to guide him as best I can. You are correct that Nathaniel Patrick wrote the Service in E minor, I just discovered this and will make the necessary corrections.
However, Mike Wallen does own some rare books! Greene's first edition (both volumes), and now it turns out he has the Arnold original 1790 Cathedral Music as well (at least the first three volumes) (see the photo he took of Vol. 1 title page on this page) – and Johnstone (1975, Music and Letters 56(1):26-40) says Arnold's volumes are very different from Boyce's. The titles that Wallen has given these works come from his original editions of Arnold's volumes, not made up by him (though they could have been made up by Arnold). Both Mike and I would appreciate your help, since neither of us know much about what we're doing. Tomorrow you will see some changes along the lines you suggest. Feel free to edit and change as you see fit. Thank you for the comments! — Barry Johnston (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Just off to bed, so will reassess developments tomorrow. I would now clarify that general usage is as per titles on the Arnold publication page, first lines are redundant. There seems to be no distinction between major an minor keys (the Child is, I am fairly sure, the latter). Why the permissive use of Tr and C in the voicing? these fell out of general usage years ago. So SATB now becomes TrTrCCTTBB. Bah-this misrepresents all Anglican choral convention. Ownership of originals is no distinction I own all three volumes of Boyce (Knyvett's copies - look him up in the subscription list): it didn't induce me put a premium on distancing my posting from precedent. This pobably sounds crustier than its supposed to; but I am loth to start reinventing the wheel. G'nightCjshawcj (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I have spent a considerable amount of time today correcting unforced errors, and the end is still not in sight. I consider any further effort on my part will merely be reinforcing failure.. Please prevail upon Mike Wallen to post up volumes 2-4 with a little more accuracy.Cjshawcj (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) And as a final gesture, I have tidied up the Te Deum page to get rid of all the irrelevant redundancies. I have inverted the voicing so that SATB is the norm (with SATBSATB possibilities downgraded). Anyone performing this style of canticle would expect that. At no point are more than 4 parts singing together. Therefore to link these items into SATBSATB categories is superfluous tautology (?see what I did there) and redundant complexification.Cjshawcj (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


Hi Barry, Something (Template talk:Pub#0 for parameter 1?) is still amiss and (non-)publication is invisible at Hubble (John Reager). Can you see what's wrong? Richard Mix (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I's not sure. It seems that John Reager published his work 'Hubble' in 2013, when he posted his work to CPDL. Is that not right? That happens on quite a few pages, and most times it's just cited as {{Pub|1|<Year>}}. But maybe there's something different about this one? Do I need to add a note about self-published works? (I have published several books electronically, on the web) — Barry Johnston (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose that counts as 'first published' (see however the page as edited by John) but my main question is whether 0 is still a valid parameter (here's the page before I edited it). Richard Mix (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Now I get it. 0 still works, see what I did with Hubble (John Reager). Note that the result is that Hubble is not listed in Category:2013 works – is that what you want? — Barry Johnston (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, looks slightly odd to me, but I was merely trying to clarify John Reager's intention. For Template:Pub 'parameter 1'=0 seems to be a special case, in that "cmp=" is non-optional. From the Syntax C documentation one might think that the 'parameter 3' argument has to be used as parameter 4.
With Protector noster, MH 501 (Johann Michael Haydn), I don't know whether 1789 is the composition date or copying (ms=) date, but it's odd to have the Published: field just disappear. Richard Mix (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm relieved the 'stormy waters' below are smoothed! Let me propose something new at Template talk:Pub#0 for parameter 1?. Richard Mix (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Samuel Arnold

Was a drunken sot. Anecdotes of his dealings with Haydn and of his premature death should persuade you of that. If you look at the "Miserere" (thank you for countermanding my advice twice) you will find that you have linked it to a page of Kyries. It seems ridiculous to me the lengths you and Wallen are going to perpetuate and spread errors which should be silently corrected before posting. In addition I dislike the continuing references to two choirs. That category is reserved for the likes of Venetian cori spezzati, or at least for pieces which divide into more than 4 parts at any juncture whatsoever. If you can't understand the subtlety of difference between pieces for two choirs and pieces for one choir splitting antiphonally, then perhaps you should restrict your posting to psimplistic psalmody. Kindly reverse your uncoupling of the Patrick Mag & Nunc that I had posted up. On the Magnificat and Nunc Dimittis pages you will find c.180 examples of the coupling, which has been honoured by all usage since c.1580, including by Boyce. I see no reason why the general usage should be reversed one the whim of one new contributor, who is too lazy to find out how such things are evidenced. Or alternatively, apply a moronic system which catalogues all evening services by constituent items only. But if the latter, PLEASE obtain the consent of your administration peers before commencing a general dumbing-down.Cjshawcj (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted to the page Magnificat and Nunc dimittis in G minor (Nathaniel Patrick); you created it, within your prerogatives as an editor. It was my mistake to separate this into two pages. Please forgive me.
On this and the other matter you discuss, there is uncontested variation among editors at CPDL; please allow Mike Wallen the same editorial privileges you enjoy.
In my understanding, Decani and Cantoris refers to two choirs on opposite sides of the chancel. Is this not correct?
Details of Samuel Arnold's life belong on his page, not on a work page.
It would help if you would please identify the "c.1590" manuscript.
And finally, I see my role here as helping a new user get started. I try to be as considerate and careful as I can, (sometimes I make mistakes, not the best at dealing with people). Nonetheless, I will not enforce one editor's preferences over another. — Barry Johnston (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I apologise for my asperity. The reason is that I was a boy chorister in a cathedral choir in 1965 (boarding school bilked me of the Summer of love as my voice broke), and have been editing/performing similar material for 25 years. Arnold is nothing out of the ordinary (I have been consulting the 1843 revision by Rimbault for 20 years). In short, I know a lot about this subject. It is not a question of respecting Wallen's editorial decisions, but of trying to steer his contributions into bog-standard conventions which all the other contributors of Anglican music observe on here. Arnold is far from infallible, and the treatment of his errors as holy writ, to be carried down unto the tenth generation, is risible. Actually, I don't consider Mr Wallen to be an editor, since he retails Arnold's work as close to the original as he possibly can, with no exercise of critical faculties whatever. The resultant transcriptions are unperformable for most choirs and unintelligible to virtually everyone, including apparently, Mr Wallen himself. The multi-choir gloss he gives to the source doesn't stand scrutiny, and it certainly doesn't warrant the fumbling essay it is accorded on each and every work page.
I think that, rather than see further damage done to the extensive and apparently fragile ecology of the Anglican repertoire on here, I would offer to post Mr Wallen's contributions (after creation of the initial score) myself. But he must be prepared to observe generally observed conventions. The one currently leaping off the page at me is that the title of pieces should include the key. I don't know the American usage, but the English usage (under which his pieces were conceived) is to omit the "major" from major keys. Thus the Child service should be titled in E flat (not E flat major). A quick scrutiny of the Magnificat page will prove that.
I made up the 1590 manuscript (as a verifiable item). Clearly Patrick was dead by 1595, and his works were not transmitted orally. Manuscripts tend to be undated, with clusters around 1630-40 and 1720. Boyce acted as a clearing-house for all that had gone before, and I have dated a lot of pieces, sometimes with semi-fictitious sources, to counter the clumsy "First published" line, which leads those with less knowledge to think that there was no flourishing Anglican choral tradition before 1768. Mea culpa (not much)
I think we are probably through the stormiest waters, since Nathaniel Patrick is the composer Arnold misstated most. You appear to be in close communication with Mr Wallen. I e-mailed him direct on 20th re Maurice Greene (supportive, not abusive) but have had no acknowledgement. Did it perhaps miscarry?Cjshawcj (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC) P.S. upon re-reading, forgot to thank you for the un-decoupling of the NatPat M&G

Anonymous lyricist settings

Hi Barry, did you find out the answers you were looking for? Being succinct, the invisible Anonymous lyricist settings is basically a "ghost" page, used to mimic the inclusion of the work in a category. Instead of looking for all works in Category:Anonymous lyricist settings, the DPL checks for all pages that link to the hidden page Anonymous lyricist settings. I made that change to avoid having to create hundreds of categories, one for each lyricist. Hope that helps! PS: Whenever you need a prompt reply from me, please email me, ok? Regards, —Carlos (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Carlos, I did find the answers I needed, thank you. I wrote the post on your talk page, and later deduced how you had designed the page. I removed the post after my realization, not wanting to bother you with a question I had the answer to. Thanks for following up, and I will use email next time. — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
No problem! And sorry for being so absent lately, I'll try to reply promptly next time :) —Carlos (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

In dulci jubilo

Hi Barry, thanks for your messages, I think (after much googling and trial and error) I have succeeded in getting the composer list to sort correctly - I have also added 'Latin only' to the bottom table - see what you think (although actually the score in question is not Latin only, it has both English and German text!) Mandy Shaw (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mandy, wow! I learned a few things here, thank you very much. It looks good, all except for the "Latin only" issue. You're right, Medley of Renaissance carols (James W. Keefe) was incorrectly categorized – I have changed it to Language: Latin, English, German. As I look further, there are some in German, English, and Latin; as well as in German and Latin, and Latin and English. The "Latin only" issue involved one score (CPDL 61987) in In dulci jubilo (Bartholomeus Gesius) – Maybe this edition should be moved to a page of its own, to facilitate its inclusion in the "Latin only" table? Meanwhile, I have created a manual-only table, I agree, not very satisfying.
This is a very big issue, that I have not been able to completely solve yet – adding editions to a page with different language, text, lyricist, or voices than the original composition. I dealt with this in cleaning up the Johann Sebastian Bach page (and all of his works!) – where I decided that editions in a different language deserved a separate page. However, with In dulci jubilo, someone decided to deal with this by turning the text page into a disambiguation page – which is okay, it just makes CPDL more internally inconsistent. And it still looks weird on the Works in German page to see In dulci jubilo. There are several other ways editors have dealt with this, and many pages that are a combination of approaches, like In dulci jubilo. — Barry Johnston (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous disambiguations

Hi Barry,

I was about to update the textpage link to Agnus Dei (Old Hall Ms.) (Anonymous) but would like to get your ideas first: I've been using things like title (source) Anonymous and the roman numeral convention, ending up with Salve sancta parens IV (D-Ju MS 33) (Anonymous) and the like, but with OH there's a conventional numbering so I've treated it like a catalog number in Gloria, Old Hall 21 (Leonel Power). So, do you think we need parentheses for Agnus Dei (Old Hall 139) (Anonymous) or as it now stands Agnus Dei 13 (Old Hall Ms.) (Anonymous)? Richard Mix (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Richard,
When I first made the complete works table, I assigned a number after the title, so Agnus Dei 1 (Anonymous), Agnus Dei 2 (Anonymous), etc. I thought about Roman numerals, but some of these run to 15 or more! Nonetheless, soon after that, another editor (User:Droopop) changed most of the disambiguation numbers in the table to the sequence in the publication, as Agnus Dei, Old Hall 6 (Anonymous). He seems to know more than I do about this manuscript, so it looked like a good idea to me. But he didn't change all of them, there's still some that need renaming (moving) – I was waiting until others noticed the full table and had a chance to comment. I think we are there, so I say go ahead and move Agnus Dei 13 (Old Hall Ms.) (Anonymous) to Agnus Dei (Old Hall 139) (Anonymous). There are several others that need moving (or renaming in the table), too.
By the way, what does the abbreviation "tro" mean in the DIAMM list? — Barry Johnston (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'm hoping at some time in the future the composer page will look for a parenthetical argument to the left of "(Anonymous)", so Gloria, Old Hall 21 (Leonel Power) but Gloria (Old Hall 1) (Anonymous) instead of Gloria, Old Hall 1 (Anonymous), if that makes sense.
Not spotting "tro" at the moment, though. Richard Mix (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Boyce Cathedral Music

Hi Barry,

I was just about to add Blessed is he that considereth the poor (Michael Wise) when I discovered IMSLP is missing pages. Do you happen to know other facsimiles of Cathedral Music (William Boyce)? British Library looks confusing on my first stabs at a search. Richard Mix (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Second edition of Vol. 3 at BNF. That's all I could find right away. I'll look more later. — Barry Johnston (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Richard Mix (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Choralis Constantinus

Thanks again for the autolist at Choralis Constantinus (Heinrich Isaac), which I've been using to update Introits & Communions in the hand list. I might be tired right now, but can't spot the reason Jerusalem surge (Heinrich Isaac) is omitted? Richard Mix (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Jerusalem surge (Heinrich Isaac) was missing the "|vol=Volume 1" and the pub reference was "[[Choralis Constantinus]]" (a redirect page) rather than "{{NoComp|Choralis Constantinus|Heinrich Isaac}}". (Also, the MultiPubList call shouldn't include the date when Template:Volumes is used.) Cheers. — Barry Johnston (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Of course; thanks! Some others are Domine quinque talenta (Heinrich Isaac) & Fidelis servus et prudens (Heinrich Isaac) (I assume latency issue?) and Missa Paschalis a 4 (i) (Heinrich Isaac). Richard Mix (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Both of these last two have been corrected. — Barry Johnston (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

God Will Provide for Me (Charles Albert Tindley)

Hi Barry. I've added some discussion to the talk page of this work, about the (short) syllable count in verses 2 & 3 (only 10 syllables, where there should be 11). -- Chucktalk Giffen 02:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

MultiPubList on Pratum musicum (Emanuel Adriaenssen)

Hi Barry, I wonder if you could help me solve a mystery on this page I just added. As I have many times, I used the Volumes template to distinguish between the three editions of the book. Lacking any information about the contents of the third edition, I proceeded to enter the contents of the other two, as normal. I then added Pub templates, using the vol= parameter and NoComp, since there are multiple composers. Long story short, the MultiPubList only displays two works in Edition 1 if I include the 'seq' parameter, and it includes several items in Edition 2 for which I did not add a Pub field indicating such when I don't include the 'seq' parameter. For example, Appariran per me (Orlando di Lasso) shows up in both editions in the 'Works at CPDL' section, but should only appear in Edition 1. What am I missing? I went back and made sure every Pub template on every work page has the no= parameter as well, but other than that I am stumped. - GeoffG (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Geoff, I looked into this a little, and see what you're talking about. I tried some simple tests, but no solutions so far. The two that appear in Ed. 1 are the two for which you have two Pub lines, not sure if that's significant. I will look into this more later, it might take a while. Thanks! — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Barry. As you can see, I added two Pub lines for those two works because the same piece appears in the same edition twice, with two different arrangements. I can't recall ever doing that before. Is there a better way to express that with the current templates? Might it be better to include both items on one Pub line (with a note about the arrangements)? - GeoffG (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
No, please don't change that, you did it the best way. There really isn't a better way, and others have done the same before anyway. The current problem is in a different area, I think, maybe with design of MultiPubList? — Barry Johnston (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I have a possible solution to the second issue, works being listed in both volumes when only one is intended. I modified MultiPubList to include not only "Category:Edition n" but also "Category:YYYY works". (Because yesterday, works were included in the list if they were in the "Category:Edition n", and some works were in that category but not in Pratum musicum.) My modified code is in Templates:MultiPubList5 (and MPList5). I applied my test code temporarily to Pratum musicum (Emanuel Adriaenssen) – could you please check the lists there to see if they are correct now?
And further, do you think is this fix going to function correctly in future? In other words, do you foresee a case where a work will have two Pub lines (from different publications) from the same year, both with the same vol word? If so, then I need to do more work.
I can deal with the first issue, using the seq parameter causes incomplete output, a little later. — Barry Johnston (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Barry. That definitely helped. There are still four works showing up in both lists, however. They are all works by Lasso that appear in the first edition of 'Pratum musicum' (1584) and also appear in a Lasso compilation from 1592. As for other cases, it is already the case that a work such as Ancor che col partire (Cipriano de Rore) appears in two different publications from 1584, both with the vol word 'Edition'. This doesn't seem to cause a problem. It is also the case that a publication such as 'Il terzo libro de madrigali a cinque voci (Cipriano de Rore)' has two editions from the same year. This also appears to be working properly. - GeoffG (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I made some changes, but there are still 26 works in Edition 2, including several that shouldn't be there. This is going to take some time to resolve. — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Still working on this: there are works in Edition 3 that shouldn't be there either. I will keep going… — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Robert Barber (I) and (II)

Hi, Barry. I see that you have tidied up the pages for the two Robert Barbers, but I wonder whether their numbering could be reversed. You have allotted (II) to the Tudor composer and plain 'Robert Barber' to the 18th century man. Normally when there are two composers with the same name, '(I)' is allotted to the elder and '(II)' to the younger (as in Grove's Dictionary, for example). I realise that the plain 'Robert Barber' has more compositions than the Tudor man and also that his page was created first, but surely these should not be the criteria by which composers are categorised? It just seems illogical to me to have (II) coming before (I).

Best wishes, Jason Smart (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jason, you are correct; it was laziness on my part. I would like to lose the parenthesis, though, for two reasons. First, it looks odd in CPDL's syntax:
The night is come (Robert Barber (II))  versus  The night is come (Robert Barber II)
Second, there are several CPDL programs that might have to be rewritten, that search on the final parenthesis in a page name.
I will make the changes that you asked for. Thanks for the input. — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi Barry,
Many thanks for that. Much appreciated! Yes, there would be no harm in losing the parentheses.
Best wishes,
Jason Smart (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Funeral (Samuel Wakefield)

Hi Barry. First of all Season's Greetings and Happy New Year! There is a slight (but glaring, to me) underlay error in your edition of Funeral by Samuel Wakefield. The 1837 edition of Christian's Harp ( ) which you cite as a source, has first line of text "Stoop down, my tho'ts, that used to rise," -- where you (and several other editors through the ages) have the grammatically incorrect "use". Even the text page at CPDL has it wrong! I'm not sure what we should do about this, at least eventually. My preference would be to change all instances of "use" to "used" (perhaps leaving alone the sometimes abbreviated "us'd"). What do you think we should do? -- Best wishes for a truly great and happy 2024! -- Charlestalk Giffen 23:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Chuck, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you!
I noticed this also, but I didn't think it was incorrect. Back in 2015, I got the text for this page from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, which was transcribed from an eighteenth-century book. The oldest book I have access to at the moment is a 1735 edition of Watts' hymns, printed in London, and it clearly says "Stoop down, my thoughts, that use to rise." So, I thought, maybe "use to" is archaic, and should be changed? Or maybe it's a British-ism? I regularly change old texts to more modern spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, but this seems to be a different case.
Then (after your post) I noticed this web page. It appears that currently both are correct, though I'm not sure I fully understand the discussion there. And here's another page from Merriam-Webster.
Now I'm inclined to leave it the way Watts wrote it. But I'm not very sure, since I don't use "use to" in speech or writing.
— And best wishes to you and your family! Thanks for all you do for CPDL. — Barry Johnston (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

ChoralWiki:Seasonal music

Hi Barry, Could you take a look at where these edits went wrong? I'm assuming the week ending Feb 18 is no. 7 and am working with ChoralWiki:Seasonal music/Test for now, which dosen't seem to be breaking the main page so far. Richard Mix (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)