User talk:CHGiffen

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Romanization of non-English scripts

Chuck, I noticed that you created Category:山本 健司 compositions, and I'm concerned that this creates a precedence for page titles in other non Latin scripts as well, as Greek, Arab, Russian etc. Although CPDL is making an effort towards internationalization, I think we should discuss this better before giving such a big step. For the moment I'd suggest that the composer be contacted to allow for his pages to use w:Romaji transliteration instead of w:Hiragana (although we should keep redirects in the latter script). —Carlos Email.gif 17:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carlos. I agree with you, and it does indeed need discussion. I only made the compositions category to keep the indexing current. I think that such pages (including the composer and works pages) should appear transliterated. I'm in a hurry now. Hopefully, this will get some discussion so we can know how to proceed. Thanks! – Chucktalk Giffen 20:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi Chuck, the lyricist names were written in a couple of different ways; after correcting them in the works pages, a few duplicate categories could be deleted. —Carlos Email.gif 00:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Carlos, I'm aware of duplications in lyricist names due to middle names, initials, etc. ... but I thought I'd create all the relevant categories first, which makes it easier to scan the resulting list and find those which should be combined. You'll note I also created edition categories for the CPDL editors ... this should make it possible to keep better track of an editor's editions. – Chucktalk Giffen 00:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
You're right, creating the categories made it easy to spot the duplicates. I'm keeping the form used in Wikipedia as the standand whenever possible. —Carlos Email.gif 00:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that we should generally try to follow the Wikipedia form. I do know that Henry W. Longfellow will have to be changed to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (I hope Wikipedia has it that way!), because every U.S. American knows him by his full name!! – Chucktalk Giffen 00:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Re; An editor's editions...

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for your message - I've added one of your links to my user page, and the resulting layout of my scores looks much neater! Thanks for this.

Best wishes,
Edward Tambling 13:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Metre (ok meter) for hymns

I've been discussing with Robert Nottingham the best way to add hymns and have been following the scheme he suggested, especially as regards meter. However, when I've done this for some (see Draw nigh and take the body of the Lord (Sullivan)) it comes up red, which presumably means the category does not exist. (We are stepping over the boundaries of my competence here!) Is there a simple way to correct this, or is it better for me to leave it to the editors to sort out? Robert says that you are the expert here, Chuck! --Jamesgibb 14:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

View counters

Hi Chuck, Just a curious note. I noticed the view counters at the bottom of the pages seem to have disappeared. Is that a policy revision that has gone into effect? Just wondering. Cheers, Paul Marchesa 15:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Paul. I think we discovered that, when we went to a distributed structure with one Contributor and two Visitor sites, the counters became somewhat meaningless, because most views are on the Visitor sites, and they are daily updated with the previous day's Contributor site count. We are working on a different type of counter for downloads. Best, – Chucktalk Giffen 17:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Message from Angelina Figus

Hallo, I am Angelina Figus. Thanks for your help. You can remove the «cleanup template» on the one page, because it is OK now. Grazie ancora! Ange 11:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:SATB split

Hi Chuck,

Vaarky & I are talking about reorganizing SATB, modeling on your very attractive version of 2-part choral music. I'm afraid I dont quite understand all the details, though I've experimented with transplanting the code to 10-part choral music, with slightly less elegant results. How can empty categories be undisplayed, how can multichoir subcats be grouped with parent, and how would the new SATB minor divisi subcategories be created? Richard Mix 01:05, 23 January 2011 (CST)

score error

Please, explain a new user: What's the "relevant edition" and How to find the correct page ? Aspergillus 08:11, 1 March 2011 (CST)

Oh, I've seen the answer... Thank you. Aspergillus 08:16, 1 March 2011 (CST)


Hi Chuck, I tried to include {{EditionsLink}} on Glenn O'Brien's page, but a strange SQL error appeared. I suspect it's related to the apostrophe in his name. Would you like to check? Thanks. —Carlos Email.gif 09:57, 24 March 2011 (CDT)

Hi Carlos, As near as I can decipher from the error message, it seems definitely related to the apostrophe in a PAGENAME. When I pass "Glenn O'Brien" as the (optional) parameter, it works fine. I'm guessing that the internal code (to DPL) tries to use an apostrophe as a delimiter somewhere, and when it encounters the apostrophe in the name it aborts because of what follow the apostromphe. Smells like a bug that needs fixing. Thanks for the alert! – Chucktalk Giffen 14:51, 24 March 2011 (CDT)
Great to know that it worked fine with the trick! Thanks, —Carlos Email.gif 18:10, 24 March 2011 (CDT)

Page title problem

Hi Chuck, I've uploaded a new piece, but seem to have encountered some problem with one of the templates. It put the title of the piece in as the author as well. Unfortunately, I don't think I have that level access to change a page title or move it, so I ask for assistance. Or let me know what to do to change/move the page if I DO have the ability to do so. The composer is Claudio Monteverdi, and it is already listed on the Monteverdi page as well, linked I guess to here: the current page: [1]. Thanks! Paul Marchesano Marchesa 16:11, 26 April 2011 (CDT)

Hi Paul, it looks as if Richard Mix already fixed the problem. You do have the ability (permission) to move a page to a new title (use the "move" tab), in case you ever need to in the future. Thanks for the new Monteverdi "Angelus ad pastores ait". Chucktalk Giffen 08:02, 27 April 2011 (CDT)

New user

Hi Chuck, you wrote: Welcome to CPDL and thanks very much for your Morley edition. It is much appreciated. I've taken the liberty of creating redirects from User:B.peterson to User:Burkard Peter and from User talk:Burkard Peter to this page, which is the way that most users with an Editor username different from their Login username have things set up. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me or any of the Administrators. – Chucktalk Giffen♫ 08:21, 7 May 2011 (CDT)

Thank you for your message. Is it possible to change my login username also into Burkard Peter, so that no redirection is necessary? Another question: Why the scores I've contributed are only visible when I'm logged in? Thank you, bp 06:15, 10 May 2011 (CDT)
Hi Chuck, I already replied to Peter in his talk page. I thought it was a good time to install extension RenameUser and test it. Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 08:54, 10 May 2011 (CDT)
Thanks Carlos! I've been embroiled with Finale playback issues while working on a large-scale work that has diverted my attention - frustrating, to say the least. On the other hand, you've had an excuse to give the RenameUser extension a workout! Chucktalk Giffen 10:06, 10 May 2011 (CDT)

When texts cannot be translated…

Hello Chuck, thanks again for comments, feedback and suggestions on my translations.

I'm trying to answer all translation requests from IT or LA since I have a bit of time these days, but have found myself dumbfounded by some texts that, for lack of proper spelling, punctuations, etc., just don't mean anything. I have the advantage of graduate knowledge of IT and LA literature, at quite advanced levels, but simply can't make out what lyrics should be, or what they may have been intented to mean.

Is there a "please find the real text" flag on Wiki? If not, what would your advice be: leave the {{NoTranslation}} tag as it is, or remove it and place an explanation on the discussion page? Any guidance/advice would be most welcome.

Thanks Francesco aka Campelli 16:28, 9 June 2011 (CDT)

Hi Francesco, now you made me curious! :) Could you please cite a few of these texts that you've found difficulty in extracting the meaning? Perhaps I could help you by searching for better sources. By the way, thanks for correcting errors and punctuation in so many Italian texts! —Carlos Email.gif 22:06, 9 June 2011 (CDT)
Hello, Carlos! Here are some examples: Lodar voi donn'ingrate (Jacques Arcadelt), Poss'io morir (Jacques Arcadelt), Io mi pensai (Jacques Arcadelt). Other poems have the issue of ab-so-lu-te-ly no punctuation, but I'm looking for the texts within my employer's library (a university). For the Arcadelt, I haven't found source/authorship yet. Thanks for suggestions. Francesco (Campelli 13:30, 10 June 2011 (CDT))

Spanish names


Spanish surnames often come in two sections. The first surname comes from the father and the second from the Mother. This is explained here

So the primary surname for the composer Gabriel Garcia de Mendoza is "Garcia" not "Mendoza" which is effectively a "matronymic" and his name should in my view be sorted on "Garcia" in the same way as the composer "José de Torres y Martinez Bravo" has a primary surname of "Torres". The Novelist Gabriel José de la Concordia García Márquez is usually referred to as "García Márquez". See his entry on Wikipedia

Sometimes identifying the sort name is difficult as in "Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz". My view was that it was better to sort on Juana than on "Cruz". In any event I was not "monkeying about"!

Jonathang 03:08, 23 November 2011 (CST)

Hello Charles,

I noticed you posted a note regarding a possible error for my "Hyfrydol" descant. You suggested that the f/d chord in the penultimate measure should possibly be g/e. I confess I must be missing something; measure 31 doesn't contain an f/d chord. The only place the descant splits is the last two measures. Help me see what you're seeing! Thanks, Thurlow Tweedfour 15:42, 14 January 2012 (CST)


Nice work with categorising pages for Lent, Chuck. I'm sure a lot of church musicians will find your efforts very helpful :-) --Bobnotts talk 05:58, 25 January 2012 (CST)

Thanks Rob. This is something I've been meaning to do, now that Richard Mix has done such a great page of organizing the Sacred music by season categories. And, with the new English translation of the Roman Missal, there has arisen a greater interest in settings of the Mass Propers, especially amongst Roman Catholics. – Chucktalk Giffen 08:55, 25 January 2012 (CST)

Sweelinck move


I notice links to Cantiones sacrae (Jan Pieters Sweelinck) are broken; I'd be happy to move it myself but thought you might figure out a way to catch others remaining, if any. All the best! Richard Mix 17:10, 5 February 2012 (CST)

Thanks, Richard. I forgot to move that page to Cantiones sacrae (Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck) (which is now done). – Chucktalk Giffen 21:14, 5 February 2012 (CST)


Hi Chuck, thanks for helping add the Voicing template. I'm going to sleep now and will leave the script running until it ends. I'm aware that there'll be a few cases that will require fixing; I'll take care of these tomorrow, ok? —Carlos Email.gif 01:13, 18 February 2012 (CST)

BTW, I'm planning to remove the unnecessary categories in a second step, you don't need to worry about them now. —Carlos Email.gif 01:15, 18 February 2012 (CST)

Hi Carlos, you're welcome! I'm also adding Genre templates when I see that they are missing. I'm also heading off to bed shortly. Some day, I need a tutorial on DotNetWikiBot, because it must have a lot of useful applicagtions. – Chucktalk Giffen 01:17, 18 February 2012 (CST)


Hi Chuck, the Category:Good-bad is now being populated with all Sacred works still requiring a sort key, hope this helps with your work.

On a related subject, do you think that Requiems should also be included in the Masses category? I've seen both uses ({{Genre|Sacred|Requiems}} and {{Genre|Sacred|Masses|Requiems}}), but the former seems to be more abundant. —Carlos Email.gif 23:58, 21 February 2012 (CST)

Thanks, Carlos! For Requiems, you're right that categorizing them both as Masses and Requiems is more prevalent. And I guess there is some precedence for this, since a Requiem is indeed a Mass ("Requiem" is the first word of the Introit for such Mass). Consequently, I've been adding Masses (or Requiems) whenever I encounter a Requiem which is missing one or the other of two categories. I'm being careful to list Masses first and Requiems second in the Genre template, so that removal of Masses would be a simple matter if at some later stage we don't want both categories. Right now, I'm working on the sort keys for Masses (and Requiems), but I'll be using the Good-Bad category later, once I'm finished with Masses and Requiems. One side note, I see that the script that has installed the Genre template (as well as the one that installed the Voicing template) definitely get some of the categories messed up (for instance when the link [[Mass]] appears instead of [[Masses]] in the Genre line, or when something like [[:Category:SATB.SATB|SATB.SATB]] appeared in the old Voicing line). It will take a while to sort all this out, I suppose. For some of the changes that got messed up, one can find funny looking categories (such as "Mas" instead of "Masses", because of the anomaly mentioned above). Anyway, it gives us something to do!! – Chucktalk Giffen 00:18, 22 February 2012 (CST)
Oh yes, I refined the script as much as I could so as to cover 4-5 different situations, but a few ones got messed up indeed. I already listed all those that had "Category:" inside the template (~32) and corrected them. Most of the other cases are showing up as wrong categories in Special:WantedCategories, and I've been correcting these one by one too, but this will take a bit longer.
With respect to the Mass/Requiem approach, it's ok for me. —Carlos Email.gif 01:03, 22 February 2012 (CST)
Yep, I've been looking at the WantedCategories, too (I do that from time to time, anyway), and when I get the present stuff done, I'll join you on that. – Chucktalk Giffen 01:06, 22 February 2012 (CST)

Bach template

Hi Chuck,

Couldn't we use the naming convention Incipit, BWV n (JSB) rather than Cantata n nonmdash Incipit (JSB) for Bach and the other for everyone else? It might not be as much work as one would fear, since I notice several pages already do this: Erfreut euch, ihr Herzen, BWV 66 (Johann Sebastian Bach) and the not-yet-created but linked from Johann Sebastian Bach - list of cantatas Aus der Tiefen rufe ich, Herr, zu dir, BWV 131 (Johann Sebastian Bach), to which I wish to move two other pages. Richard Mix 23:53, 8 March 2012 (CST) p.s. I now see why it was red; will update composer page Richard Mix 00:04, 9 March 2012 (CST)

User:CHGiffen/CPDL organization

Hi Chuck. It would be quite nice to publish this document at some point soon. Do you plan on updating it in the near future? If not, would you object to me bringing it up to date? --Bobnotts talk 18:01, 19 March 2012 (CDT)

Edward Tambling editions

Are you allowed to say why they are all being withdrawn, Chuck? A pity, since they are valuable additions to CPDL. Jamesgibb 12:00, 6 June 2012 (CDT)

transcluded Editions

Chuck, may I ask you to please stop creating and adding these "Edition" pages until this is discussed and agreed upon by the other admins? I fail to see the advantage of this; on the contrary I only see disadvantages the way it is now; how is the contributor supposed to change his/her own submission if when he/she edits the page they only see a cryptic "*{{:Edition:CPDL xxxxx}}" and nothing else? You know that I am also in favor of keeping data in a structured format, but there are better solutions using templates (these Edition pages should not be in the main namespace, BTW), and ultimately we should give Semantic Forms a try if we want to properly implement what you and I have in mind. Regards. —Carlos Email.gif 21:17, 10 June 2012 (CDT)

Hi Chuck, I'm sorry for the unnecessarily harsh tone of my message above. I've been trying to deal with my general tendency to react impulsively sometimes, but I don't always succeed, as you probably noticed... Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 15:55, 26 July 2012 (CDT)
Hey Carlos, no problems. I understand where you're coming from. I was giving a dry run to my ideas, mainly with pages for which editions have been marked as removed and went on to do the whole page. I do think we need a separate "Edition:" namespace for this. I'm still hesitant about Semantic Forms, though. Anyway, we're good! – Chucktalk Giffen 17:12, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

Surrexit pastor bonus

Chuck, I've just added a version of this, where the previous version has been witHdrawn at the request of Edward Tambling. I don't think I overwrote anything on the works page, but the withdrawal message seems to have disappeared!

I'll get back to you on the other matter you raised shortly. Jamesgibb 13:24, 12 June 2012 (CDT)

Hi James. For some reason "wanted" appeared in the status field for the edition record, but it should have been "withdrawn" - and I've fixed that now. I also un-commented out the Sheet music and Renaissancxe music categories on the "Et respicientes viderunt (Luca Marenzio)" page, so all is well now. Thanks for the question and I'll hear from you soon. – Chucktalk Giffen 15:57, 12 June 2012 (CDT)


Hi Chuck, the template above uses #ifexist, which is considered an "expensive parser function": when used above a limit it stops working and adds the page in category:Pages with too many expensive parser function calls. This is currently happening with a couple of large work pages:

This problem affects other templates as well; Composer is not working in these pages. If you don't mind I'll try to fix this by replacing #ifexist with another function; if it doesn't work, I'm afraid that we'll have to remove the #ifexist and let the links appear in red (we still can make them blue with font color). Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 11:21, 17 August 2012 (CDT)

Hi Carlos. Thanks for the catch! I forgot about #ifexist being expensive. It's probably best to go with the simplest solution and not worry needlessly about workarounds. Leaving red links is alright with me. – Chucktalk Giffen 17:08, 17 August 2012 (CDT)

Re: Unintended(?) side-effects of Vcat

Hi Chuck, have you come to a conclusion about the best option? Shall we leave things as they are now? Regards, —Carlos (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2012 (CDT)

Adoramus Te, Christe (Lassus)

Chuck, as I am about to do an edition of the 4-part version of this, I'll split the page into two before I load the new version. Jamesgibb (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2012 (CST)

James, that sounds good to me. – Chucktalk Giffen 11:13, 12 November 2012 (CST)


What is the difference between CiteCat and Cat? Jamesgibb (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi James. The template Cat simultaneously categorizes a page in a category and provides a link to that category. The template CiteCat just provides a link to the category (without categorizing the page). The various categories such as Advent I, Advent II, Good Friday, etc. are intended to be used for categorizing actual works, not text pages. Hence, on the text pages, I've been changing the instances of "Cat" to "CiteCat". Don't worry, though, because it's an easily fixed subtlety. What you have been doing is fantastic!! – Chucktalk Giffen 20:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Right. Will endeavour to remember in future! (Every time I think I'm beginning to master things, I realise the greater extent of my ignorance! How like life! Jamesgibb (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Text categories

Hi Chuck, I notice your edition to Category:Ave Maria‎ and would like to suggest that we keep using the template {{TextPageCat}} for these categories (new name of template TextSettingsCat), and create a new template similar to {{CompCatLink}} to be added to the Text pages, with a wording in the line "The list of works on this page is manually maintained. See <text category> for a possibly more up-to-date list of settings based on this text, sorted alphabetically by title." What do you think? —Carlos (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: On a second thought, your idea is not bad either, as it puts everything together in a single page; but in this case I think we should take a step further and really unify both pages: the text inside Ave Maria, for instance, would be moved to the category and Ave Maria would become a redirect to it. I believe I can tweak the wiki code to allow for category moves. —Carlos (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi Carlos. Thanks for your message. We need to do something, because I was a little stunned to see a not-yet-created "Ave Maria" category at the bottom of my "Ave Maria a 3" page, and then I realized that the LinkText template categorizes pages as well as pointing to a text page. I'm still thinking this through, but I feel that probably the text category pages are the way to do, with other material (basically what is on the current text pages, with some modifications) transcluded to the corresponding category page (this would be more in keeping with Wikipedia styles of transcluding all or parts of other pages in a major article). If we go with text categories, then perhaps the corresponding textual material should either be subpage or else reside outside the Main: namespace. I'm still thinking about this, and I'm sure you are, too. Let's keep each other informed as to our current thinking before going whole-hog into making sweeping changes. Thanks for your message. I hadn't even thought of CompCatLink and TextSettingsCat ... I was just making a knee-jerk reaction to seeing an uncreated category. – Chucktalk Giffen 02:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If ye love me

Hi, I noticed this is described as a communion antiphon for Easter 6; am I right in guessing this is a Sarum thing? Richard Mix (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Richard, I'm not sure if it was Sarum use, but it is given as the communion antiphon in the current 3rd edition of the Roman Missal. I first encountered it in the Sacramentary and the St Joseph's Missal in the 80's. Chucktalk Giffen 19:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah! Is it given as an official English equivalent to Spiritus Sanctus docebit then? Richard Mix (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Never mind, I see it in Today's Missal too. Is there a Latin equivalent? Richard Mix (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
In the Divine Office for Saints Philip and James, Apostles, there are some antiphons, one of which is Si Diligitis Me: “If you love Me, keep my commandments, alleluia, alleluia, alleluia” (Jn 14:15). Chucktalk Giffen 03:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Search engine for CPDL

Is it possible to configure the search engine on CPDL so that a search on a given string of text retrieves instances of that string where a letter bears an accent. In other words, where the title of a work contains an accented letter as in "Válgame dios y que tres" should one always include an alias without the accent? Jonathang (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

17,000 scores

Hi Chuck, the score count has just surpassed the 17,000 mark. Shall we add a "news" item on the main page? Max a.k.a. Choralia (talk) 08:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi Chuck, I can see that 'original pitch' might be confused with varying pitch standards. Mightn't 'original key signature' also lead to some confusion with 18c practice and dorian/lydian signatures? "Original transposition", "originally notated pitch" might not be improvements either. "Original key" (even in a Webernian context!) at least has an unequivocal meaning to Lied singers and ought to work for modal music as well. Richard Mix (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Richard. Good point ... I shall not use "original key" instead of "original key signature" from here on out (and go back and remove the one word later. I should have been thinking in modal music terms, for then I might have got it right from the outset. Many thanks. – Chucktalk Giffen 02:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Matías Juan de Veana


Matías is the correct first name of the composer in question. "Mathias" is the archaic Spanish spelling. Could you make the correction please? The link to Wikipedia will then work correctly. Jonathang (talk) 14:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Done! Thank you. – Chucktalk Giffen 16:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi Chuck, I noticed that you are also removing the {{NewWork}} template after the 3-month period is gone. I've requested Claude not to remove it when the posting date is different from the submission date, so that we may eventually keep track of this difference. I hope you agree with this. Best, —Carlos Email.gif 16:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carlos. Oops, sorry, I didn't realize this. I'll be sure and compare in the future (actually, I don't think it is absolutely necessary to remove the templates, since it "turns itself off" after 90 days anyway). Best wishes! – Chucktalk Giffen 16:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not exactly true, Chuck: on each page opening, the template NewWork calls the template IsNew, calculates the difference between today's date and NewWork's template date, then decides not to show the red flag. And that, even a thousand years after the end of its usefulness!! Claude (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Finale versions

Hi Chuck, I don't think it was a good idea to remove version information from every Finale link! You could have added the Finale icon without removing this info. It's something that I particularly consider useful, and other users might think so, too. Please discuss with the other admins before performing mass replaces like this one. Thank you. —Carlos Email.gif 13:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Carlos. With the recent iconifying of the LilyPond files (and it not being brought up), it seemed the logical next step, and it does seem a little odd that apparently only Finale files carry a version date. Although I used to feel differently about this (and I am a long time Finale user), I no longer feel that it is necessary to track version numbers (all the way back to something like 1998) of Finale scores, when they can be opened and viewed and edited by current versions of Finale. – Chucktalk Giffen 15:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I've got Finale 2009, after having bought Finale 2005. I can't open Finale 2012 files, for example to extract lyrics. Sibelius has also versions 6 and 7.Claude (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Carlos and Claude, I think Finale versions are relevant information, since Finale files are not backward compatible. I even think it would be (have been) a good idea to add version number to Lilypond files, since Lilypond syntax is also changing continuously, and a later version of Lilypond may give quite different results than the one the file was written for. Imruska (talk) 09:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

formatting of withdrawn editions pages

Hi Chuck,

I've been updating some links to the Robert Parsons Project but am in doubt about how Ave Maria (Robert Parsons) is supposed to be edited: is the code really meant to stay on a different page Edition:CPDL 03801? Richard Mix (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories of categories

Hi Chuck,

We currently have three categories that serve the same purpose, but with quite different titles: Compositions by composer categories, Lyricist settings categories and Compositions by editor. I'd like to standardize these titles; what do you think of "Works by composer categories", "Works by lyricist categories" and "Works by editor categories"? Another option would be the much simpler "Composer categories", "Lyricist categories" and "Editor categories". Do you have any other suggestion? Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 03:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 04:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi Carlos,

This sounds like a good idea to me. I like your shorter category names better than the longer ones, but I also think that something like Composer works categories, Lyricist works categories and Editor works categories might be even better, since it retains the notion that subcategories list works according to the relevant Composer, Lyricist and Editor.

Great, Chuck! I like your suggestions, they are concise while still conveying the proper notion. I'll make the changes tomorrow, need to sleep now. Thanks, —Carlos Email.gif 06:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Main page

Hi Chuck,

I was just looking at the main page listing of seasonal music, which has Music for Advent, Christmas & Epiphany, Music for Lent and Holy Week & Music for Easter. What if there was a rotating display, with say Advent/Xmas for medium-range planning and then the coming Sunday? Ideally the calendar could be automated. THere should also be a simple link to Sacred music by season, I think. Richard Mix (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 20:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi Richard,

I've been thinking of something very much along the lines of what you suggest. In fact, I'm already thinking about how to implement it, so I'll ramp up my efforts and see what I can come up with. Thanks for bringing this up!

Hope something is in the works! I haven't updated in a while. Carlos made a separate page [[]] btw. ChoralWiki:% pages aren't categorized (by design?) so there's a guessing element in finding out whether ChoralWiki:Music for Lent, ChoralWiki:Music for Lent, Holy Week and Easter, ChoralWiki:Music for Lent and Easter, or (bingo) ChoralWiki:Music for Lent and Holy Week are already created… Richard Mix (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Carlos is interested too and suggested I start ChoralWiki talk:Seasonal music. Richard Mix (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Alice V. Stuart

I'm currently having another trawl through the English text pages, and also adding Lyricist pages where they are missing. One I've just added is the above, about whom I have found very little, apart from birth and death years. It turns out that there are 7 settings of her verse by Huub de Lange but, as she didn't die until 1983, they are almost certainly under copyright in the EU until 2033, and possibly still under copyright elsewhere. Question: how do I (or we) deal with this?
Jamesgibb (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this, James. The scores of all these works (there are actually only five) say "Copyright text (c) 1953 A.V. Stuart, Scotland." It is 61 years since they were copyright; however, if the EU provision is in effect, that works are copyright for 70 years after the author's/composer's death, then we may have a problem, because then her works would be copyright until 2053. I've posted a note with the copyright issues group at the forums. – Chucktalk Giffen 22:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Chuck. Seemed sensible to pass it through you, since I don't always know the best destination for such issues. I think there are 6 settings; I had mistakenly counted "4 Stuart songs" as a separate item, but there are also "A Christmas Fable" and "In a green arbour".
Jamesgibb (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right, there are six (not seven or five) settings; I had miscounted, too! More discussion at the Copyright Concerns section of Administrative Discussions over at the Forum. – Chucktalk Giffen 19:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Need a new Meter category

Hi Huck! Would you be able to create a new meter category? "44. 6. D (with refrain)" needs created for a tune I recently composed (CPDL #34301). Thanks! Tweedfour (talk) 16:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I assigned the meter 86. 86 (C.M.) with refrain to the tune, since that is what both the poetic text and the musical structure of the tune dictate. I hope this is okay with you. – Chucktalk Giffen 21:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't though of that, but it's probably easier. "Songs for the Cycle" includes the meter, and "44 6 D with refrain" is how it's listed, along with Coventry Carol as the suggested tune.Tweedfour (talk) 21:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Help with a dissertation

Hi Chuck. Cindy Bauchspies is interested in writing a dissertation focusing on CPDL, and I suggested her to contact you, since Bob is not having much time lately to dedicate to the project. I'll be glad to help by answering her questions, if you happen to be busy at the moment. Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 15:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Carlos. I just received a (forwarded?) email from Cindy Bauchspies, and I should be able to answer her questions and offer help. Thanks! – Chucktalk Giffen 16:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


Hi, Chuck. Thanks for having changed the obsolete template for the new one. Any way, in this edit, you restored the old one and switched dates so that edition appears now as created after its publication. How is this possible? BTW, what do we do with these long strings as [[Category:Posting dated]][[Category:2014-06-11]]{{#ifexpr:{{#time:Ymd|20140611+30days}}<{{#time:Ymd}}|[[Category:Posted over 30 days ago]]}}{{#ifexpr:{{#time:Ymd|20140611+90days}}<{{#time:Ymd}}|[[Category:Posted over 90 days ago]]}}. Are they still useful? Claude (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Claude. I've no idea at all how that happened, because at the time I was using ReplaceText to make changes from NewWork to PostedDate. That particular case is unusual in that, while it was originally posted on 2011-12-28, the NewWork template had been applied with the date 2011-08-16 (the original date of submission), which you corrected earlier in the day yesterday. I can only guess that, since I ran a ReplaceText on the same day, it must have accessed a cached version from before your edit—strange behavior, to say the least!! Anyway, I've rolled back the wrong edits so that it is correct now. Thanks for picking that up. – Chucktalk Giffen 15:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Shape notes

Hi Chuck,

Barry Johnston and I started a discussion about the categorization of shape-note editions; since you've dealt with this subject in the past, you're welcome to join the discussion. —Carlos Email.gif 03:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Chuck, do you have any strong reason to make these cosmetic changes like this one? I particularly prefer it the way it was before, because when we mix the text with the closing curly brackets on a single line, chances are higher of someone making mistakes when moving text around or deleting duplicate lines of text at the end.
PS: I'll be making the suggested changes to the Shape notes categories in the next few days. I suppose you're not against it, since you haven't commented on the ongoing discussion yet, but there's still time. —Carlos Email.gif 23:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Solo voice categories

Hi Chuck,

I tried moving Category:Solo Countertenor to Category:Solo countertenor as an experiment, and as I expected the works are left on the redirect page. Is there a way to automate moving the works in Category:Solo vocal music to a consistent capitalization? Richard Mix (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Richard. Moving a Category page doesn't recategorize the pages. One has to go in separately and change the category assignments. But the good thing is that most of this can be done by invoking Special:ReplaceText. As background, when those solo voicing categories were originally set up, we used capital letters for actual standard voice names (Soprano, Alto, etc.) as opposed to lower case for broader rangers (high, medium, low), mostly because of the capitalization of (Soprano, Alto, etc.) elsewhere in voicing categories, and especially so for multiple solos (Solo SS, etc.). I'm not averse to making the change you seem to be suggesting (or perhaps change from "Solo Soprano" to "Soprano solo" etc., which actually "feels" and "looks" better to me). However, whatever changes we might decide to make with these categorizations would have to be mirrored in the AddWorks forms (else we would continually have to update the categorizations). – Chucktalk Giffen 04:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Form:Add work, Add music, Addworks whatever else I've missed are certainly a confusing mess! The naming convention of Category:Choral solo music would be consistent with "Soprano solo" which I agree is more elegant. I'll wait and post something to Category talk:Voicing before using ReplaceText: shall we continue there? Richard Mix (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Richard. Noticing your discussion with Chuck, I decided to put into practice an idea that I had been considering for some time. You can see it in action here. It's just a workaround that can potentially avoid having to rename all solo categories, simultaneously making the text displayed on works pages look more natural (as examples, Solo ST is displayed as Soprano-Tenor duo, and Solo SATB as SATB quartet). But, just like Chuck, I wouldn't oppose to renaming the categories themselves; we just need to thing of all dependencies before undertaking such a move. (e.g., the Multi-category Search also depends on these cats and is probably no longer working for Solo Countertenor!) —Carlos Email.gif 05:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Carlos, as I try to explain at Category talk:Voicing it's not reading the display that's an issue as much as remembering what to type. Or do I misunderstand what Template:Solo does? Btw, Countertenor is back. Richard Mix (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Underlay text removed

Chuck, I think it is not a good option to remove the transcription of the score underlay text as you did recently. I noticed that the contributions on that pages are no editions, but just links to scores grabbed from IMSLP. If you want to remove such "editions" or the whole pages, please proceed. But please remember that the usefulness of the text on a work page is to retrieve a work from a part of its text, especially when you aren't sure of its exact title on CPDL. When removing text (or text link), you restored the sentence: "Text and translations need to be added". If you removed the text, I'm sure you don't want someone to restore it! What I've in mind: 'NoText' should be reserved to "No text on the score" so that "No text will be found on the score", which is important regarding a choral work! The present 'NoText' template means "No (existing) underlay text has yet been added" and "Please, do it yourself". Another bad named template ;-) Claude (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Claude. I restored the text you refer to. It got deleted by accident. Sorry. – Chucktalk Giffen 13:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Main page

Hello Chuck, hope everything is fine with you!

Regarding the new info added to the Main page, is it temporary, or intended to stay? I'm afraid that it may affect page loading times, because it depends on an ever changing data that cannot be cached properly by the server. Maybe it's worth making some loading tests to be sure. Best, —Carlos (talk) Email.gif 14:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Carlos. It didn't occur to me that getting the current time might increase load times for the Main Page. Perhaps this shouldn't be done on the Main Page, since it already uses a number of templates with DPL calls?   Chucktalk Giffen 14:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a good question! DPL can be cache-friendly when parameter |allowcachedresults=true is used, but I'm not sure if all the Main Page queries have it set. —Carlos (talk) Email.gif 20:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Voicing Distinction

Forgive me if this is already in another post, but is there was a way of making a distinction on the category page results of which pieces have what voicing? Ex. Advent II results show:

Deus convertens (Wolfgang Joseph Emmerig)

Deus tu convertens (Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina)

Deus tu convertens (Henry Thomas Smart)

Deus tu convertens, K149 (Johann Joseph Fux)

but I have to open every link in order to see what the voicing is and whether or not it will fit the schola size that I have on any given Sunday.

So, could it instead show something like:

Deus convertens (Wolfgang Joseph Emmerig) : SATB or 4-voices

Deus tu convertens (Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina) : ATTBB or SAATB

Deus tu convertens (Henry Thomas Smart) : SATB

Deus tu convertens, K149 (Johann Joseph Fux) : SATB ?

This way I know that, if I only have 3 singers for that Sunday, I probably won't need to waste my time clicking through every link to see if any of it has 3-part voicing, whatever that voicing may be. Especially for the Sundays/Feast Days with more popular propers where I open 12 pages and maybe manage to find 1 or 2 pieces that are even logistically doable.

--CCooze10 (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)CCooze10

By themselves, categories (such as Advent or Advent III) cannot include the voicing or number of voices of works they contain. However, using Multi-Category Search you can do much of the work yourself. Simply choose "Sacred" for the Genre, then choose your desired Liturgical Season, say "Advent", and select the number of voices, say "3 voices". When you then click on the "List Works" button, you will be shown all the works at ChoralWiki fulfilling the criteria you have selected. With the sample choices I made ("Sacred" "Advent" "3 voices"), today I got 13 works. I hope this helps, and thanks for your inquiry. – Chucktalk Giffen 05:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
<kibutz> There are some tools that might do that, but I understand they're heavy on computing resources. If you start from Category:Advent II you'll notice a blue link in the propers table for the text page Deus tu convertens, which is a hand-annotated list. Extra sharp eyes and updaters are always welcome! </kibutz> Richard Mix (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


Is updating Mass Propers pages something done by you who run this site, or is it supposed to happen automatically? For example: I uploaded Heinrich Isaac's Alleluia 2 and Communio for The Ascension (tagging them as such), but it doesn't come up when you click on "Psallite Domino" on the Ascension page, nor does it show that there are any (clickable) entries for "Dominus in Sina." I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong, or if that's something that happens on your end..? Thanks. --CCooze10 (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, If I understand you, there was a delay in the appearance on the text page Psallite Domino of the message "Other settings possibly not included to the manual list above Heinrich Isaac — Psallite Domino"? Adding it to the annotated list is done by hand and volunteer help is very welcome!
There don't seem to be any "Dominus in Sina" pages yet; for Viri Galilaei there is a text page that is not yet linked to the propers table; you can just add brackets. But that page itself can use a little cleanup and a decision about whether the antiphon or the introit (with or without verse(s) is primary, if indeed that is the source of the variations.
Btw, I'm changing this page's {{Cat|Ascension template to {{CiteCat, abreviat-able to {{CC|. Richard Mix (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That all makes more sense now. I'll try to do update those things accordingly. I appreciate it. (I'm not sure I'm "responding" to this thread correctly. Apologies. --CCooze10 (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Editions by Contributor Abel Di Marco

I believe that Abel Di Marco has perhaps lost his domain at which he was hosting the music files posted on CPDL. I have no idea how something like that should be handled, but I just wanted to make it known that his links are no longer leading to music.--CCooze10 (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Corinne, for letting us know. I changed the path to the old websites into archived ones for 'cantoral' and 'cantoral gregoriano'. Please check if it works. Claude (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Ciro Grassi

Chuck, owing to my inability to add up, I've realised that the Ciro Grassi works I've been adding are still in EU copyright. So I've added a copyright warning, which I found on the Edward Bairstow page. However, I also noticed that, since Bairstow died on 1st May 1946, his works are now out of copyright (just) in the EU. I've left the notice intact, since there may be places with a copyright period greater than 70 years, but if not, perhaps it should be removed.

I've left the Grassi works there for the moment, after adding copyright warnings, but if you think they should be removed, let me know. Jamesgibb (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)



Might I suggest a new category for "psalms"? Many psalms are used as the basis for hymns, but others have a quite distinctive style. They are not motets either. Examples of composers who used the psalm format include William Lawes, Francisco Valls and John Callcott.

Many thanks

Jonathang (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


Hi Chuck,

Now that Pandolfo is creating pages for all cantatas, Could a new Template:bach (Template:JSB?) be created to add

*[ Complete libretto at U. Alberta]
*{{IMSLP2|Der Himmel lacht! die Erde jubilieret, BWV 31 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)}}
*{{WikipediaLink|Der Himmel lacht! Die Erde jubilieret, BWV 31}}
*[ Der Himmel lacht! Die Erde jubilieret] at the Bach Cantatas website

…to the external links section? I'm also getting ready to replace Johann Sebastian Bach - list of cantatas with a sortable list. Richard Mix (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Separate Psalms are mixed up

On 19 June 2013 I created entry #29428 Psalm 1, with the tune "Weedon Bec" for a text by Isaac Watts. The PDF & MP3 files were uploaded and are still accessible in the archive. Today I uploaded another setting of Psalm, with a different tune, different text, all different data, but something went haywire after I placed the Composer Entry onto the page. When I then went to click on "Psalm 1" to paste in the "Works Entry" I saw my 2013 file was there already.

I added the new works info (CPDL #42618) and then deleted the info that was showing up for the #29428 entry. Now I have two listings for Psalm 1 in different locations showing the 42618 info.

Under my "Shape Notes" section should be Psalm 1 #29428, and under the "Christopher L Webber" section should be Psalm 1 #42618. How can I fix this to have the correct listings show up? It's further complicated by the fact than when I studied my upload history from 19 June 2013 it seems the incorrect PDF & MP3 files got associated with #29428 (Psalm 81 Wellington). How do I fix this? I need to recreate #29428 (with corrected PDF & MP3 links) in the Shape Notes section, and keep #42618 limited to Chris Webber's section HELP!!! #29428 info: 18:57, 19 June 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+643)‎ . . N Psalm 1 (Thurlow Weed) ‎ (Created page with "==Music files== {{Legend}} *{{PostedDate|2017-01-11}} {{CPDLno|29428}} [{{filepath:Weed_-_Psalm_81_NV._Wellingborough.pdf}} {{pdf}}] [{{filepath:Weed_-_Psalm_81_NV._Wellingborough.m...") Tweedfour (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Mr Weed. I thank you for your contributions to CPDL. I understand what happened: having the same name, the second version borrowed the first one. I reverted your recent changes, restoring the first version under Psalm_1_(Thurlow_Weed) and created a new page with the recent infos: Psalm_1_(b)_(Thurlow_Weed). You'd have to rename both page titles as you want. If you cannot, just let us know which should be the complete titles. Claude (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

PDF not showing

Hi Chuck, For some reason the PDF for CPDL ID #33824 (Life presents the puzzles) won't display. I tried uploading a revision, but that didn't seem to take. The PDF refuses to display. Any idea why? Thanks. Tweedfour (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, just one minute ago it opened instantly, (from this page. Claude (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
How odd! When I go to that page and click on the pdf icon, I get a blank online pdf screen with a message across the top saying "This PDF document might not be displayed correctly" along with a button offering to open in a different viewer. Clicking the button offers the option to save or open with Adobe Acrobat. When selecting to open, I get an error message in Acrobat stating "There was an error opening this document. The file is damaged and could not be repaired."
So it would seem that for some reason my PC is having an puzzling issue, if you're able to open with no problem. Very strange. No other PDF on my CPDL page (so far) has this issue.Tweedfour (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Thurlow and Claude. I just got these messages (was away this morning), and I have had no problem at all opening the PDF score. Clicking on the PDF icon opened it immediately, so the problem is a mystery to me, but I suspect something is wrong at Thurlow's end. Chucktalk Giffen 21:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Jubilate Deo omnis terra (Josquin des Prez)

Hi Chuck,

If it's not much trouble, could I request an MXL file for Jubilate Deo omnis terra (Josquin des Prez)? I'm considering performing it up a minor third with my mixed choir. Richard Mix (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all Richard. I'll do it right away. -- Chucktalk Giffen 01:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of a broken works page that was accidentally created.

Today (2019.02.09) I added my new song to CPDL: "Movin' left (Peter Bird)". Unfortunately, due to some error in this process (probably mine), there was also an extra, unwanted page created at about the same time: "Mivin' left (GEORGE)". I would appreciate it if some administrator could simply delete this extra, broken page. Thanks! Pbird (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Done!! And thanks for your new song. -- Chucktalk Giffen 00:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have a new bug-fix to request; it is probably related to yesterday's problem concerning "Movin' left (Peter Bird)", but this time it concerns a different song. Today I uploaded ANOTHER new work, using the "Upload Now" buttons included within the "Add Works" form page. For the most part, this worked correctly. However, the new Works page that was created is labelled "One track(GEORGE)", whereas it should be labelled "One track (Peter Bird)". I have fixed the source code "{Composer|GEORGE}" to read "{Composer|Peter Bird}" and this is half of the solution, because now "One track (GEORGE)" appears on my (Peter Bird) composer page, as it should. However, I cannot figure out how to change the file-name (or other top-level name). Some background: "George" is actually my legal first name, appearing on my credit card. I don't use it in either music or science, however. I think these difficulties date from the time I signed up as a subscriber, and used my credit card (GEORGE PETER BIRD) to make payments. However, you can probably see that "George" does not appear anywhere on my Preferences page. Thus, I think the bug occurred during the set-up of my account at CPDL. If it is convenient to just delete that account, I won't mind; I can always try again to create another one. (Of course, I would NOT want you to delete any of my Works, previously contributed.) Best wishes, Peter Bird Pbird (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, Peter. It's just a matter of doing a page "Move" which you could have done yourself, but I went ahead and did it anyway. At the top of the works page with (GEORGE) as the composer, click on the "More" button to open a drop-down menu with some choices ... the second one is "Move" ... click that, and change the name of the page to what it should be. I also unselected the "leave a redirect" choice, since the old page is irrelevant and with this choice it will be deleted along with the move operation (which essentially amounts to a renaming of the page). By the way, looking at the photo of you on your composer page made me wonder if I've seen you before or even if we might have met, although I have no recollection of such. The fact that you became a geophysicist yet pursued music on the side is not unlike my own experience, except I was an algebraic/geometric topologist. If you have any questions or need any other help, just let me know! -- Chucktalk Giffen 21:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, instruction, and encouragement! Actually, it seems unlikely that we have met, since I spent my whole career at UCLA while you are(?) in Virginia, and we're in different fields. But I appreciate your point that we have had similar careers, and both became seriously involved with choral music ~2005. It is a bit of a cliche that mathematicians and scientists are drawn to classical music. In my own case, I don't think of it in terms of any transfer of relevant skills (although that is conceivable); I just feel that my "right brain" (i.e., emotional/illogical/creative) side had been suppressed and ignored for so long that it needed a chance to break out and play, in a field where you do not have to prove anything; you just have to feel strongly that it is right, and possibly valuable to others if shared. Peter Bird Pbird (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Requesting cleanup of composer page for John Sheppard

This page has become a bit of a mess. The various works listed really could do with sorting into their proper categories. I would do it myself, but it seems that a lot of the links are sorted automatically using hidden category pages and I have no idea how these work. The list should look like this:

MASSES: Mass "Cantate"; Credo from Plainsong Mass for a Mean.

RESPONSORIES Christi virgo dilectissima; Filiae Hierusalem; Gaude, gaude, gaude Maria; Hodie nobis coelorum; In manus tuas (I); In manus tuas (II); In manus tuas (III); In pace; Justi in perpetuum; Laudem dicite; Non conturbetur (I); Non conturbetur (II); Reges Tharsis; Verbum caro.

HYMNS Beata nobis gaudia; Christe redemptor omnium; Deus tuorum militum (II) (the uploaded setting is actually the second of two); Jesu salvator saeculi verbum Patris; Martyr Dei qui unicum; Sacris solemniis; Salvator mundi, Domine; Sancte Dei pretiose.

ANTIPHONS Gaude virgo; Libera nos (I); Libera nos (II); Media vita.

MOTET: Inclina Domine (I).

MAGNIFICAT Esurientes.

ENGLISH WORKS Christ our paschal lamb; Christ rising again; I give you a new commandment; The Lord's Prayer; The man is blest; Rejoice in the Lord; Submit yourselves.

Best wishes Jason SmartJason Smart (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Done! However, all works formerly categorized as Hymns have been recategorized as Office hymns, so if some distinction should be made it will be necessary to alter things a bit. Looking at the code on the page should illustrate what I did. -- Chucktalk Giffen 04:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Very many thanks, Chuck! And thanks also for for re-categorizing the office hymns. Good idea! Best wishes Jason Jason Smart (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No problem, Jason! Thanks for your suggestion and for all the contributions you have been making, too! -- Chucktalk Giffen 20:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Insulting behaviour

Chuck, I've just seen a totally inappropriate comment made to Claude by Christopher Shaw. (See Claude's page under the heading inappropriate tinkering). I do not think that such behaviour should be tolerated, especially when addressed to someone as valuable to CPDL as Claude. My own view is that an immediate apology should be demanded and, if not given, Christopher Shaw should be banned from the site forthwith. Jamesgibb (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi James. Thanks for the heads up. I've posted a reply to this situtuation on Shaw's talk page, requesting an apology. And I've also pointed out to him that he could simply have put the Template:InUse at the top of any page for which he has a series of ongoing edits. Let's see what his response is. Many thanks again. -- Chucktalk Giffen 16:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Ave Maria (Robert Parsons)

Hi Chuck

Sorry to bother you again, but could someone please help me out? While uploading an edition of the above work my computer perpetrated a glitch that I did not spot until it was too late. As a result the work was uploaded to a new page with an inappropriate name instead of the composer's existing one. I couldn't find any instructions about how to move the work to the correct page, so I renamed the page to 'R Parsons', but obviously the mess still needs sorting out properly.

Best wishes

Jason Jason Smart (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Jason,
I've merged your edition on top of Ave Maria (Robert Parsons).
If a work is already present on CPDL, just click on 'Add new edition' in the upper right part of its page ;-)
Claude (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed, Chuck. Yes, I did actually use the 'Add new edition' link, but my computer decided to overwrite some of the fields with some auto-complete complete entries. I thought I'd taken care to avoid this, but evidently not! Best wishes Jason Smart (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Blank lines

Hi Chuck, I noticed that you've been removing blank lines from composer pages, as in here. Depending on the web browser you use, you may be seeing something different in the displayed text, but for me it looks as if nothing has changed in the page layout after the removal of those lines. Am I missing something? Regards, —Carlos (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Editing Categories

Hi, Chuck, Could you please do me a small favour? On my composer page my descant for "O worship the Lord" is listed under the heading "Compositions" while my descant for "Abide with me" is listed under "Arrangements". I think the proper place for both of them is under the latter category, but I can't work out how to do the necessary edit as the lists appear to be generated automatically. Could you help, please? Best wishes Jason Jason Smart (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jason. I changed "Composer" to "Arranger" on the "O worship the Lord" page and refreshed your composer page, and all seems to be good now. All the best! -- Chucktalk Giffen 02:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Chuck. So that's how it's done! Very many thanks! Jason Smart (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Tallis Mass

Hi Chuck

I am so sorry to have to trouble you yet again, but the problem that I had above with Parsons's Ave Maria has just recurred while uploading Tallis's Mass 'Puer natus est nobis'. If you could kindly transfer the pdf to the correct page (which already exists) and delete the one I inadvertently created I would be very grateful. Thanks,

Jason Smart (talk) 22:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jason. Done!! Hope you are doing well. -- Chucktalk Giffen 02:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Before this year and how to count

Hi Chuck, I noticed your changes to TopMatter and the new Category:Before this year. Being a little dense, I must admit I am confused by how these counts are done. Could you explain this, please? A minute or so ago, TopMatter reported "1563 new score pages this year" (based on notcategory=Before this year), yet {{NewWorkCount|{{CURRENTYEAR}}}} gives 2082. Adding up the numbers from the ChoralWiki:<month> 2020 scores for the five months gives 2096 "new editions" and 1891 "new works". I think I understand what "new edition" and "new work" mean (though it is suspicious that both counts were exactly the same in January through April). Is "new score page" a different concept from "new edition" or "new work"? Thanks for your help. — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Barry. The problem is that, when DPL was upgraded and you changed the code in NewWorkCount, which clobbered the original logic and ended up producing the same as NewScoreCount (in effect, you eliminated a crucial subtraction, which caused the problem). I noticed the equality of both counts a couple of months or so ago, tried to fix the result using the form of the logic that I had used before, but without the use of suppresserrros, it was impossible to produce just the required number (NewWorkCount) without a pile of error messages. I let the matter lie for awhile and only just in the past week or so decided upon the current form of logic (which entails notcategory=Before this year). You'll notice that I use (notcategory=Before this month) to get the corresponding NewWorkCount for the current month in the list of recent scores on the Main page. I hope this helps to explain what I did and why I did it. Even in the previous version of DPL, it was necessary to subtract the count of all score pages in existence prior to the current year (or month) from the count of all score pages (the number of pages in category=Sheet music). It's just that the quirkiness of the new version of DPL necessitated a different approach. To see where a score page gets inserted in category:Before this year, just check template:Editor (it uses the submission date of the edition). Hope this helps!! -- Chucktalk Giffen 04:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Chuck. I wish I had known about the problem with NewWorkCount before. It's partly my fault: I didn't understand the logic of NewWorkCount (version of 5 June 2009), but instead of asking (should have done) and not wanting to change too much, I changed it just enough to make it work with DPL 3. I still don't understand what was intended. Basically A minus B. I think I understand A, but I don't get the dpl. You said above "it was necessary to subtract the count of all score pages in existence prior to the current year (or month) from the count of all score pages (the number of pages in category=Sheet music)." I created an experimental template called NewWorkCount2; — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
NewWorkCount2 not what is intended, since same as NewScoreCount. I'm working on it. — Barry Johnston (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi, Barry. Indeed, NewWorkCount2 is a roundabout way of getting the same result of NewScoreCount - which just counts the score pages in CURRENTYEAR (ie. those which have had editions posted in the current year). Because these pages in CURRENTYEAR include some (many!) which have editions posted in previous years, the count of score pages which have scores posted in previous years has to be subtracted. The accurate way is to subtract the scores in Before this year (as I have done now). My earlier attempt (which relied on lastrevisionbefore) subtracted the number of score pages in CURRENTYEAR which had a revision before the current year (ie. so that lastrevisionbeore the current year returns a result). It was a bit tenuous, because a score page may have been created with no score on it in the past (and hence have a revision before the current year) but no actual edition added until the current year - but that is not an oft-occurring situation. At the time of the first coding, I didn't want to create a whole pile of categories of the form "Before year nnnn" as well as categories of the form "Before nnnn-mm" - since I was trying to provide accessible statistics into the appearance of new works. So, I've opted only for Before this year, Before this month, and Before last year. Hope this helps explain both the logic of the coding as well as the reasons it was all done in the first place. I've wanted to keep the current yearly & monthly counts of new works (as well as last years count) for the purpose of the banner on the Main page and for comparison with last year - the new works banner (with goal) has worked to encourage the submission of new works, not new editions of works already present at CPDL. Thanks for all your work and for your discussion and efforts!! -- Chucktalk Giffen 22:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Title template

Hi Chuck, I see you are changing '''Title:''' to {{Title}} throughout – a good idea! There are some publications (that are not larger works) that were changed; is it your intention also to include publications? I can see advantages both ways. Template:Title appears to be designed for works. Also, the AddWork form should be changed to include the template, since lately new works are being added around the clock. Cheers — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

And if you have time I'll look forward to discussion of some bugs at Template talk:Title. Richard Mix (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


Hi Chuck. I see that there is a CPDL page for John Fawkyner with three compositions in the Eton Choirbook to his name. This is actually an error: Only the composer's surname is known for sure; there was no such person as John Fawkyner. The error seems to have arisen as a result of the series of Eton Choirbook CDs released by the choir of Christ Church, Oxford. On their first disc they included "Gaude rosa", which the cover does indeed attribute to John Fawkyner. However, Tim Symons' liner notes only say that "Nothing at all is known of the life of John Fawkyner" without explaining why he is listed with that Christian name. On their third disc the choir recorded "Gaude virgo salutata", this time attributed to Richard Fawkyner. This is a better guess. There was a chaplain-conduct at Kings, Cambridge called Richard Fawkyner in 1482-4, so, given the links between Eton and King's, he might be the composer. The page really needs to be retitled either "[Richard?] Fawkyner", or, more safely, just plain "Fawkyner". Best wishes Jason Smart (talk) 20 June 2020

Hi Chuck. Very many thanks indeed for seeing to this and for correcting the link to the antiphon I uploaded. Yes, I would like to edit his other piece sometime, though it is not likely to be very soon, I'm afraid as I have a lot of other things on my plate at the moment (haven't we all!) Best wishes Jason Smart (talk) 30 June 2020

overwhelmed watchlist

Hi Chuck, Is there an option to hide minor/automated edits from my watchlist, such as on WP? Alternatively, can I 'block' User:CHGiffen for a period not to exceed 5 minutes? ;-) Richard Mix (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Richard. On your Watchlist page simply click on the bar "Active filters" - then scroll down to find a check box to hide minor edits. Sorry about the many (maintenance, many automated) minor edits I've been making - but Claude has been making wayyyyyyyy more than I have!! :-) -- Chucktalk Giffen 00:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
No apologies necessary, of course! I now see the text box has authorship filters, besides the icons for Namespaces and Tags. If I type "minor", I can select "Minor edits", but this has the cryptic memo "Edits the author labeled as minor" without catching the "Text replacement - ":Edition notes: ==General" to ":Edition notes: ==General" [rollback 1 edit]" blizzard. Richard Mix (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I noticed that, too. It's more cryptic than I had realized! I don't mind if you block me for awhile!! LOL -- Chucktalk Giffen 02:49, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Time to try Help_talk:New_filters_for_edit_review, I guess. Richard Mix (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I normally uncheck "Announce these edits via Special:RecentChanges and watchlists" on Special:Replace text, when I'm doing mass changes (more than 50 or so). But maybe you're doing mass changes using some other method? — Barry Johnston (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Larger works: are they Sheet music?

Hi Chuck, I see you have been removing Category:Sheet music from several larger works without score icons, e.g., Festgesäng zum Gutenbergfest, WoO 9 (Felix Mendelssohn) and The First Service (Robert Parsons). (I have been removing this category from publication pages that are not works at all.) Category:Sheet music is used by a number of templates and ChoralWiki pages; I think this category is often used to include all work pages. Examples include Recent postings, PostedOn, ScoresOn, ChoralWiki:New Works, Multi-category search, MultiPubList, and OpusList. In the last four, it seems desirable to include all works, including Larger works; and adding a new edition to a Larger work page is still possible. At least the way I see it, if Category:Sheet music is not going to include all works, then we would need a new category that does. Or, are you thinking of some future refinements that would take care of this? — Barry Johnston (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Barry,
Yes, it has been the policy since CPDL was ported to the ChoralWiki, that the category Sheet music is reserved only to pages that actually have (downloadable) sheet music posted. The statement on the Sheet music category page is, "A catalog of all scores on CPDL." Hence, if a page such as a Larger work page has posted editions on it, then it does not qualify to be in the Category:Sheet music; on the other hand, if it does have posted editions, then it does indeed belong in the Sheet music category. Thus the Category:Larger works is not a proper subcategory of Category:Sheet music, although the two may overlap on occasion. I should add that it is the presence of pages that do not have posted editions being in the Sheet music category that messes up statistics and things like new score counters, necessitating my going through (typically on the first of each month) to weed out pages that are in the Sheet music category and look (to the counting mechanism) as if they are "newly created score pages" but are not score pages (Sheet music) at all. So, to me at least, pages in Larger works and Music publications are, if they do not contain posted editions, are NOT Sheet music pages. Indeed, PostedOn, ScoresOn, New works, Multi-category search, should NOT be involved with pages which do not contain posted scores. If you think we need a container category for Sheet music plus Larger works plus Music publications, then maybe such a category should be created and simply called "Music". Anyway, I am worried that dumping more into Category:Sheet music than was originally intended (and on which several templates, counters, etc. depend) will do more harm in the long run than good. I hope you understand the situation better now. Let me know how you feel about it, especially if you think there are other ways to balance all of these considerations. Happy Easter! -- Chucktalk Giffen 17:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Chuck! I agree and will make sure that only pages with score icons on them are in Category:Sheet music. I agree that PostedOn and ScoresOn (and similar templates) should not be involved with pages without posted scores, and ChoralWiki:New works would not normally be anyway. However, I think that Multi-category search and OpusList should include all works because that's what the user would expect, and they may be looking for the Larger work. I have an easy way to do that, I think, without creating another category (using dpl parameter category=Sheet music¦Larger works). (I'm not sure about MultiPubList, I need to investigate further.) (If we need a new category, I would rather call it "Works"). If an editor later adds an edition to an otherwise scoreless page, then I assume we would have to manually add Category:Sheet music to it. — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The "or" pipe ( | ) for DPL sounds like a good workaround to include both categories, Barry. And "Works" for a new category (if needed) does sound better. I was also just wondering whether we might have one of the templates used when posting an edition (maybe PostedOn) simply add the Sheet music category to a page, thus saving us from manually having to add it to a Larger works page that gets an edition posted. -- Chucktalk Giffen 18:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Eric Esparza

I noticed that this person had just uploaded a piece by Samuel Barber, which surprised me, since I thought it would still be covered by copyright. There are also some uploads of pieces by John Duke, who died in 1984, so I suspect these are also breaches of copyright. One of his uploads is a setting of words by Alfred Noyes, who died in 1958. I'm not an expert, although for European purposes I can manage to add 70 to year of death! Does he need a nudge about obseving copyright restrictions, if only to protect the integrity of the site?Jamesgibb (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Template Edc

I see you changed {{Edc}} with an explanation "arrangements are also categorized in Category:<composer> compositions". Actually I have been using it in conjunction with template {{ArrangementsList}} on a composer's page, so that arrangements can be distinguished from compositions on the composer's page. If one uses template {{Arranger}}:

  • Automatically includes the work in Category:<name> compositions, making it difficult to separate arrangements from compositions. I have done it with dpl code on a few pages, and it is cumbersome and hard to replicate to a general user.
  • Looks a little silly sometimes when a work like "Adeste fideles" shows up as composed by ten or more different people, degrading the value of the first composer (or first arranger).
  • Is legitimate where the arranger is the "composer" most often associated with the work, e.g., J. S. Bach chorales, or when the "composer" is the first arranger of an otherwise unpublished work, like a folk song.

So this method (Edc and ArrangementsList) seems to allow more flexibility. I have been asked by several contemporary composers to separate their works in this way, and it has been successful using dpl on a one-time basis, but it needs to be more automated. The template {{ArrangementsList}} only displays those works for which the composer is arranger (cat:… arrangements) but not composer (cat:… compositions), and displays nothing with no results. I would like to change {{Edc}} back if you don't mind. — Barry Johnston (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

If you remove [[Category:{{{2|}}} compositions]] from Template:Edc, then look at Abel di Marco or Vojtěch Ulrich you can see what I mean. I have stopped the process now, about 1/5 of the way through changing work and composer pages over. — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Barry. Arrangements have (apparently until now) always been considered a subset of compositions, and this has been an important aspect of the way that the online Score catalog and also the online Composer catalog were structured (since DPL is incapable of dealing with the union (as opposed to intersection) of two categories. For example, the Score catalog lists all works (standalone compositions AND arrangements) by composers. If you need to insist that {{Edc}} NOT categorize arrangements as compositions, then we need to create, for each composer, a new (presumably hidden) category along the lines of "<name> works" or "Works by <name>".
  • To make a point(that may be a little different from what you report others as having communicated to you), it is particularly true of several composers of descants for hymns (tunes), including me, that they do not list themselves as composers on the work page of the original composer (see, for example, Come down, O Love divine (Ralph Vaughan Williams).
  • Your example of Adeste fidelis is somewhat weak, since the work is listed as "Traditional" - so that virtually EVERY contribution is an a arrangement of some sort. Another kind of example that argues in favor of a composer's arrangement as being a composition, even though the arrangement doesn't (and shouldn't?) appear on a separate work page from the original composer's work is the arranging for a different (usually smaller than the original number) combination of voices of a work.
  • Examples include arranging a 4 or more part work for, say one or two voices, perhaps with an accompaniment based on the other voices. Or making a 3-part arrangement of an original 4-part work (such as the Mozart "Ave verum" - which is exactly something that I have done) - the work is clearly a composition but is based entirely upon the original composer - yet the work should be classified as a composition by the arranger.
I know that you are also tweaking things to make separate composition and arrangement lists on composer pages (that are automated), but perhaps the composition list can be achieved from a compositions category (that includes the arrangements) via a "notcategory" field in the DPL code. Anyway, if you want to remove my change to Edc, go ahead, but then we have to solve the problem of the online Score catalog an online Composer catalog (which supposedly lists the total number of compositions, including arrangements). Sorry to take so long to reply, but I have been exceedingly busy with some other pressing matters. Let me know how we should proceed. -- Chucktalk Giffen 02:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Chuck. Thanks much for your careful analysis of this issue. I have been trying to improve on the current system, not replace it. I want to accommodate (as much as possible) what editors have done in the past. Template {{Arranger}} was created by Carlos in 2009 to make "a template for arrangers, linking (temporarily?) to template Composer". In 2019, Carlos and I improved this template by assigning works to Category:<composer> arrangements. From my point of view, I was wanting to follow the literature on early American choral works, which usually identifies arrangements, not necessarily separate from compositions.
  • ChoralWiki:Score catalog and ChoralWiki:Composer list. When I revised the code for CW:Score catalog, I did it using my new templates {{NumWorks}} and {{CompWorksList}}. These can be easily modified by adding a pipe, as I have done in experimental templates {{NumWorks2}} and {{CompWorksList2}}; tested here. In the test, all 19 of William Hauser's works are listed, including 15 currently called his compositions and 4 with {{cat|William Hauser arrangements}} attached to an edition. (Some of the works now in the first list would move to "arrangements" under my proposal). I don't see the need for a new category, but maybe I haven't looked at all possibilities.
  • I do not intend to change editors' preferences: if they chose to call their edition an arrangement (as in Come down, O Love divine (Ralph Vaughan Williams)), I say leave it as such, appearing on both composer pages. You can put it anywhere you wish on your composer's page, since it is not automated; with automation (e.g., William Hauser) it would appear under the "Arrangements" heading. On the other hand, if an editor chooses to call a whole work page an arrangement (J. S. Bach cantatas, Thomas Ravenscroft psalms and most songs), that's fine, too.
  • Actually, Adeste fideles is a good example. You're right, all editions are arrangements of one sort or another. I wouldn't change this page. Some editors have chosen to call some editions arrangements; what I would ask is that those editions be listed as arrangements on the arranger's composer page. There would be no "Category:Arrangers" – Arrangers would be a subset of Composers – even though Cat:<name> arrangements would partially overlap Cat:<name> compositions.
So here is what I would propose to do:
  1. Continue to categorize editions as Category:<name> arrangements, if the editor clearly says the edition is an arrangement. Leave other editions alone.
  2. If an editor has used Template:Arranger for a whole work (i.e., in the "General Information" section), then re-assess the situation. If the composer is Anonymous or Traditional and all the editions apply to the arrangement, then keep the template as is; if one of the editions is a different arrangement (or is the original) then add Cat:<name> arrangements to appropriate editions and remove the template. If the cited composer is the arranger, then keep the page as is, unless the page should be changed or combined with another page for other reasons. For example, if the editor failed to notice there was an page with the same name containing another edition of the same work.
  3. Change the code in CW:Score catalog and CW:Composer list to include both arrangements and compositions in counts and lists.
  4. Check other pages to see if similar changes may be needed (see list here).
  5. Add template {{ArrangementsList}} to all composer pages that are automated, and check those that are not.
  6. After all of that is done, remove "Category:<name> compositions" from Template:Edc. Test it extensively to make sure nothing has been left out of lists.
I believe my proposal would result in more flexibility for editors, while still retaining the current setup and minimizing changes to display of work and composer pages. — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
A comment: "Edc" is not an intuitive code-name, and even if it handles multiple parameters I'm not sure why "arranged by {{Cat|N N arrangements|N N}} {{for {{Cat|SATB}}" wouldn't be preferable in the Edition notes field. Richard Mix (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
(The above comment and discussion of it moved to Template talk:Edc). — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Description entry not displaying

Hi Chuck. Have you any idea why, on the page for my Preces and Responses (not the ATB set, the other one), the text in the description section is not displaying? It used to do so, but apparently stopped doing so after Barry edited the page on 15 March. The text is still there if I go into edit mode; it's just not showing. The problem seems to be the YouTube link I gave. Best wishes Jason Smart (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jason. I think it's the "=" in the youtube link that breaks the Descr template. I moved that sentence to the ExtWeb section, and things seem to work now, albeit not quite what you may have intended. Thanks for the heads up! -- Chucktalk Giffen 00:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Chuck. Many thanks for that tweak. Much appreciated! Jason Smart (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Number of Downloads

Please how do I know the number of downloads on my cpdl work pages? These are my two cpdl work pages: Christ's Birth Carols: The Beatitudes: Thanks.

CPDL #65601

Hi Chuck,

Could you help, please? My E flat descant for Everton——CPDL #65601:   ——is failing to display. When I try to open it I am repeatedly getting a 'pdf failed to open' message. I tried uploading it again, but the software recognises that the file is a duplicate and won't co-operate, so I assume that the pdf itself is OK and the fault lies elsewhere. Thanks.

Jason Smart (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Help with Josquin Mass entries

Chuck, thank you for letting me know about the missing information on my posting. I believe I have now added the complete mass and the individual sections in a legal way.

I inadvertantly added a new composition on the Composer page "Missa Hercules Dux Ferrariae, Movement 1: Kyrie" which should be removed from there.

I also may have added a duplicate of the file Josquin_Missa_Hercules_Dux_Ferrariae-complete.pdf and I could not figure out how to get rid of it.

Thanks, Clarke

Cjweigle (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the duplicate file. ;-) Claude T (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Uploading times

Being slow, I generally require 5 minutes to effect alterations after I have posted up a new work-sheet. Three times tonight I have had my alterations blocked, since you have uploaded "corrections" within 3 minutes of the page's creation. Kindly desistCjshawcj (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. -- Chucktalk Giffen 19:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Chuck. Could you help me out, please. I have uploaded an edition of Tallis's Latin Magnificat, but it has finished up on the wrong page because I failed to spot that there was already a page for Royle Shore's fauxbourdon version in English. I would be grateful if you could make a separate page for the Latin setting. Thanks. Jason Smart (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

aborted finishing new edition

Hello. I completing putting up a new edition of the Distler "Die Tochter der Heide. 2. Fassung (Frauenchor)" All filed have been uploaded, but because of striking some wrong key I never got to finish the AddWork process. I cannot repeat the process because the files are already uploaded. I'm hoping you can help me resolve this problem. Many thanks, in any case. Charles Pearson (

Hi Charles. I see the files you uploaded (in the upload log, and you can check for yourself by clicking on "Recent changes" in the left panel). So, it seems to me that you can fill out a new Addwork form, entering the relevant filenames already uploaded, but just don't click on "Upload now' (which would ask for you to re-upload them). Give it a try and see if that solves the problem. -- Chucktalk Giffen 00:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn editions

Hi Chuck,

I tried the forum, but maybe you can help with a request I got by email to withdraw an edition, as I see you created Category:Withdrawn editions. Normally I'd just look under Help:Withdraw edition, but a lot of the help pages start with Help:How do I change my edition to a withdrawn one? or some such ;-) Richard Mix (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Richard,
Have a look at Edition:CPDL 67092 - where I used the template ShowEdition with a peculiar syntax that you can figure out by looking at the History of that page. I hope this helps. Others have done things a little differently, but this is what I have used in the past. -- Chucktalk Giffen 06:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding new edition

Hi Chuck. Sorry to bother you again, but I have a problem. I have just uploaded an edition of an anonymous setting of 'O bone Jesu' from the Gyffard Partbooks. The site software automatically decided to add an erroneous redirect to a setting by Manchicourt. I have removed that, but the Gyffard work does not show up in the list of additions on the main page, or in the list of works by Anonymous. The only way I can access the work is through my personal list of editions. I want to add a second version of my edition at an alternative pitch, but the page containing my edition is not giving me any option to do so. I'd be grateful for your help.

I also have the same problem with the page for John Redford. My edition of his 'Sint lumbi vestri praesincti' is not showing up there and I am not given the option of adding a new work (which I would like to do). Jason Smart (talk) 19:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jason. I think I've fixed these problems (actually, I think you handled the 'O bone Jesu' yourself). The problem with John Redford was that his page was only a lyricist page, and so I added relevant composer information (categories, etc.). Now there is an option to add a new work (I already added the work). -- Chucktalk Giffen 06:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

And again

Further to my message above. I am now having the same problem with Tye's Nunc dimittis. I uploaded an edition, but the page redirects to another with a different title and my upload is nowhere to be seen. I wanted to add a second version at a different pitch, but cannot do so.Jason Smart (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jason. I moved the Tye NUnc to the target of the redirect, since the text is in English and two other editions of the sam work are there. -- Chucktalk Giffen 14:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, Chuck. Very much appreciated, as always.Jason Smart (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Still Having Problems

Hi Chuck. Many thanks for your help. I spotted that you had tweaked the 'O bone Jesu' page when my edition showed up in the latest additions list on the main page, so I added the alternative edition before you replied to me.

Thank you also for adding 'Sint lumbi' to Redford's composer page. However there is still a glitch there. I have just uploaded an edition of his 'Christus resurgens', but it, too, is not showing up on his composer page (although it does appear in the latest additions). Ditto with Tye's Nunc dimittis. Could you amend these, please? Jason Smart (talk) 07:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jason. I added the automated score listing templates to the John Redford page and now all seems good (previously I added 'Sint lumbi' manually using the template "NoCo"). -- Chucktalk Giffen 14:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Copyright of William H. Harris works

Hi, sorry if I'm posting this incorrectly. Still getting used to the CPDL wiki format.

On my User Talk page, you had posted that this page is scheduled for deletion due to the composer's works being under copyright.

From my understanding, in the United States, the work should now be in the Public Domain because it was published in 1925 (> 95 years ago). It is not PD outside of the US, but does that limit the publishing on CPDL?


Holt Skinner (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Precipitate corrections

Once today and twice in my last session of uploads I have had to post second phase corrections (e'g. translations) twice, since the page has been updated by you whilst I was in preparation. Some texts, esp. in 3 languages are complex and can take 5 minutes to prepare. A couple of years ago you proposed some Micky-Mouse and unworkable solution about putting on a temporary protective template whilst working on a page. Perhaps, instead, you would kindly extend me the courtesy, if I am clearly still uploading, of forbearing to tinker with pages until I have had four minutes grace.Cjshawcj (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I apologse, but ofttimes is it not all that easy to know just when you are still uploading or when you are finished. I shall try to take closer note of your last access to a work page and allow extra time if it seems to be within 10-15 minutes. Again, I apologise. -- Charlestalk Giffen 23:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I was a bit short; I have spent 13 hours today uploading and (more time-consumingly, linking), and I felt that I was entitled to more than 21/2 minutes to do the heavy lifting of completing a new page. Something I have meant to ask previously is: what is it that you do to all my new pages; I can discern no difference between what is added and what is subtracted. Is it something I can do as part of the act of uploading a new edition?Cjshawcj (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)