User talk:CHGiffen/Archive 9

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives: 010203040506070809

Work by Ariel Ramirez - copyright issue?

Hi Chuck, I've just noted that you created a category for works by Ariel Ramirez. This composer was born in 1921 and still alive, so it's unlikely that is works are in the public domain. Is this issue under control? --Choralia 19:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 19:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi Max. I was simply reacting to the creation of a composer page for Ariel Ramirez and the fact that there is already a work of his (in an arrangement by Adrian Cuello) listed there (with its own work page).

Reply by: Choralia 21:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


What about contacting Adrian Cuello for clarifications?

Bach Cantatas are the manager, but I don't see why you do that with 1 cantata and not with all of are not following the same criterion. This cantata has only 2 numbers in CPDL, like many others.....If I am volunteering with the page I'd like to know what criteria to follow because now I don't know what to do. I try to order things, but then you order again undoing things...It is also unpleasant that if I am volunteering maintaining the page my choices are not respected and you change things without telling me you know I had a discussion because of this with one far it seems that everybody move things as they please...Bach page is a complete mess and ordering things takes a lot of time and work...then I ask, what is the volunteering program for if things are kept as if there is no one maintaining the page? Perhaps I just should step out the program and leave things on your and Mr. Mix hands.---About Ariel Ramirez works...He is Argentinian and alive. I live in Argentina and worked with him....all of his work is copyrighted.-Saniakob 20:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Saniacob,
No disrespect was meant, but this is a collaborative undertaking and JSB surely benefits from having more than one person allowed to work on him, even if one is assuming the main initiative. That requires a clear explanation of your choices and a willingness to discuss changes from the way other people have contributed.
Chuck, thanks for weighing in! I look forward to working constructively with both of you in the future. Richard Mix 21:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 22:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi Santiago. First, let me thank you for adopting the Bach page. Like many things at CPDL, there are a lot of "projects" that need work, including the fixing of the Bach cantata mess. This is something I started working on quite some time ago (but never could finish because of other matters), so I waded in and fixed BWV 7, but you are right: there are many other cantatas that also need fixing. I'll work on them when I have time. What I hoped to accomplish by doing BWV 7 was to illustrate (by example, which is the way that a lot of things are done here) what is needed. I truly do appreciate you taking on the Bach page, and you have done wonders with it already. Hopefully by making each cantata (represented at ChoralWiki) have its own page (with all relevant movements merged to its page), we will be able to achieve an even better appearance, not only of the Bach page, but also of the (currently haphazard) way of locating cantatas (and movements thereof). Please accept my apologies if I have offended you - that was not my intention at all. You have already become a valuable asset to CPDL through your generous and time consuming work!

I stepped out. I am no longer volunteering. Offer the position of volunteering with Bach Page to Mr. Mix who thinks he can do a much better job than me...I wish he would have made something when no one was maintaining the page for years and not just now when someone else started doing the job. I worked for 10 years as manager and copyist of a music repository at a university and I thought I knew some stuff of the trade...but I guess I was wrong. Besides, you modified things in the page (adding the templates for the cantatas) and you didn't told me anything about my way of organizing things...just now when I have this discussion you tell me about CPDL rules and make me look like a fool when I try to defend my point of view with Mr. Mix. Finally, If I did not read wrong, the Adopt a composer program states clearly that there is 1 volunteer per "collaborative work" as Mr. Mix call it doesn't apply for some changing things at will... I understand collavorative work is teaching people how to make a submission to CPDL correctly (which I did) because the information given by the site is confusing....or translating pages to other languages to make CPDL more accessible to everyone (which I also did)... I know perfectly what collavorative work is. I am a professional with enough experience in my field and I won't work under this conditions. Perhaps I misunderstood what CPDL was about...if that's the case then I am to blame. Thank you. Saniakob 02:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Template LastName

Hi Chuck, after seeing one more user wrongly editing this template, I decided to follow your advice and renamed it to NameSorter, ok! —Carlos Email.gif 14:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Rossi: Rorate caeli

Thank you for your reply! --Christophero Manco 23:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What you did is not fair

It is no fair that you put things back in the Back's was not your time and effort invested...And I decided this contribution I did should not be published. Respect my decision. - Saniakob 01:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Monteverdi: Pascha concelebranda (=Altri canti di Marte)

Hi Chuck, I've produced my next disaster: both on the composer page, as well as on the work page I wanted to write as in the headline of this message - but I failed. Result: 1 wrong button on the composer page and 2 wrong work pages. Now I dare not to change anything. Sorry --Christophero Manco (nomen est omen) 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


I noticed some funny italics at Victimae paschali laudes and experimented with using <poem> in place of individual line breaks, with limited success. Is <i></i> deprecated for some reason I'm unaware of? Richard Mix 00:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Debussy - Les Cloches

HI Chuck
I've just uploaded a choral version of Debussy's Les Cloches
The page appears OK on searches. However, it doesn't appear in the list of "new works" on the CPDL main page. Could you please include it on the main page?
Many thanks
dwsolo 06:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Porting revised CPDL goals to Help system?

  • Posted by: Vaarky 07:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Chuck--any reason not to post the revised CPDL goals wording at User:CHGiffen/CPDL_organization#Goals_of_CPDL to Help:What's_it_all_about?#What_is_CPDL.3F? Helps avoid discrepancy.


1. Hi Chuck, your "revamping" of CPDL statistics looks good to me. I'd suggest only that the entries "Music publications" and "Copyright information" exchange places. It makes more sense to me to gather all informative pages ("Help", "Downloadable tools" and "Copyright information") in a single place. What do you think?

2. With respect to adding the number of views to the Latest Scores, the new layout looks "crowded" and a bit confusing to me. Once thing that could be done is to move the view count into another column, by adding the folowing line to the DPL query:

|listseparators=\n{¦width="500",\n¦-\n¦[[%PAGE%]]\n¦align=right¦%COUNT% views,,\n¦}

The table widths can be adjusted as percentages, too. That would probably be necessary to display it correcty in the Main Page. See if you like it. —Carlos Email.gif 19:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Carlos. That was all interim that you saw, since I was using it to realign things, with a wider space for the Latest scores (occupying the right column) and everything else in the left column. Take a look at the MainPageTest for what is now approaching the format I had in mind (I no longer use the revamped CPDL Statistics). I just saved the new MainPageTest, after working on it for several hours. Let me know what you think about its new appearance. It may be worth incorporating your new column in the DPL query, as you suggested - just not sure yet, but many thanks for that suggestion! -- Chucktalk Giffen 19:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


Chuck, perhaps these messages would be better located under the MediaWiki namespace, as you suggested on the forums. —Carlos Email.gif 14:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That's quite okay with me, Carlos! I'll move them. Thanks. -- Chucktalk Giffen 14:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I forgot to say: one side benefit of using MediaWiki is that it's protected by default so that only admins can change it. :) —Carlos Email.gif 14:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
LOL true!! And I agree that it is as better spot for these notices. -- Chucktalk Giffen 14:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Chuck, if you can tell me how I should go about it, I'll translate the visitor's notice into Dutch. Regards, joachim 08:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I suppose consistently wrong is better than randomly wrong! I'll ensure that I include the line in future Jamesgibb 18:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

New template - "title"

Hi Chuck. Merry Christmas to you! I've been following your work on Template:Title and I have to say I'm going to be putting my spanner in the works round about now! I'm a little confused as to the purpose of this template. Is it to save typing those extra few lines or is there something more? To be honest, I'm quite firmly against introducing new templates for the sake of it, which is how this appears to me. My opinion is that the default should be to use wiki code except where some actual benefit may be obtained by having uniform templates, such as Template:Genre and Template:Voicing which ensure consistent categorisation. Surely a new template such as this is just a further stumbling block for the new user attempting to follow the general style? Also, why stick to just a template for the title, why not Template:Externalwebsites or Template:Description? I'm also sceptical as to the benefit of Template:NoComp and Template:NoCo if they are not introduced universally and used by the add works form. Maybe I'm exaggerating here but I feel that we need to keep a cap on this... --Bobnotts talk 13:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Archives: 010203040506070809