User talk:Bobnotts/Archive 4

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: 0102030405060708

Transpositions

Hi Rob, I saw that you removed a few works from Adrian Cuello's page. I understand your point, they aren't really original compositions, but those that I saw were not simple transpositions too, he did a lot of "rewriting" to adapt them for female choir. Do you think he could leave them under a specific section in his composer page, say, Re-arrangements? If not, perhaps in his user page... but I think that his "intellectual" work on these scores deserved being mentioned on his composer page. I don't know if there's already a consensus on this subject here at CPDL, if so please let me know. -- CarlosTalk 23:27, 14 May 2008 (PDT)

Hi Carlos. I have to say that I didn't look closely at the level of arrangement that Adrian made to the works. The ones that I skimmed over I compared to the originals and saw mainly just transposition. If you have any specific references to hand, I'd like to take a closer look. I have to say that I'm against listing so-called "arrangements" on individuals' composer pages as, in my opinion, anything but considerable re-writing isn't arrangement - it's editing. However, I'd think it's fine for an editor to list his editions on his editor page like Chuck and I have. Now I realise this may develop into something of a discussion of semantics, not the actual issue, so here are a few example that I think are useful:
  1. David Fraser has edited many works by William Byrd. Byrd often wrote for ATB or subdivisions of that, ATTB, AATB, etc. I know that Dave often transposes some of Byrd's works for SATB as most choirs use those forces, but I would never consider him an arranger because of this transposition, rather this is a part of editing - making a work which was composed some time ago suitable for modern day performance.
  2. User:Denis Mason has made 2 editions of Cantique de Jean Racine by Gabriel Fauré, one for SSA and one for TBB. Are those arrangements? I'm not sure but they're not listed on his composer page (he doesn't have one), nor on his editor page.
So I guess it comes down to the amount of re-writing. If there's some considerable re-writing then it's probably fair to call it an arrangement. If the person has just swapped a few clefs around then I don't think that counts... --Bobnotts talk 19:30, 23 May 2008 (PDT)

User:Thierry

Hi Rob, thanks for fixing things in Thierry's userpage, I erroneously thought his username was Thierry Buclin and moved his talk page with no reason. Must remember to look more carefully when a User: page is really a userpage. :) -- CarlosTalk 02:31, 24 May 2008 (PDT)

No problem :-) --Bobnotts talk 04:49, 24 May 2008 (PDT)

Add works form problems

Hi Rob,

I tried to use the create works page to put up a new mass setting i've finally finished.. after entering all the info, i clicked submit and got the error message "unable to update table". Any help or advice of what's going on? Thanks Paul R. Marchesano

Hi Paul. You get this error message when you use an apostrophe without putting a backslash before it. Simply follow the instructions at the top of the page, "Technical note: If you use an apostrophe, you must use a backslash before it, or the program will not work correctly" and you should be fine. Please note that all movements of a mass should be added to the same score pages. Hope that helps. --Bobnotts talk 07:04, 30 May 2008 (PDT)
Thanks for adding the composer to the Mass page. I didn't have an apostrophe, but I did have quotation marks. That may have done it. --Paul Marchesa 13:52, 3 June 2008 (PDT)

Mulitple editions

Hi Rob. I see you have been removing parentheses around multiple editions listings on the Victoria page by typing out, eg. 3 editions available. I'm not sure I understand your rationale behind this, since from earliest times we have had such items appear as (3 editions available). See Template:3editions, Template:Editions, etc. As far as I'm concerned, the Victoria page (which I had adopted) looks horrible with that material not enclosed in parentheses ... the italics of the work title conflict with the italics in the number of editions information. Moreover, the " - " that has been removed makes it look even worse. I think that any such changes in style should not be made by hand by circumventing the templates already in place. If change is warranted, it should be made with the templates themselves. As for the Victoria page, I'm reverting all the editions information back to templates. The one change I am contemplating (with the templates) is to have them read, eg. "(3 editions)" ... ie. not including the parentheses themselves inside italics. -- Chucktalk Giffen 02:48, 27 June 2008 (PDT)

Hi Chuck. I meant to reply to this a couple of days ago and got distracted... the reason for my removing the editions templates was that I saw a development for Template:Editions which we could introduce. We know how many score pages there are on CPDL, but we don't know how many editions there are since the catalogue system has been skewed by people misusing the add works form. Would it be useful to know how many editions there are on CPDL? Maybe. If so, I think the best way to determine this would be to use the existing Template:Editions to add a category to the score page to categorise it as "Works with 2 editions" or "Works with 3 editions" etc. Then we could find out how many editions are on CPDL. Now, if the template is used on composer pages too, this would, of course, mess up the count. What do you think about extending Template:Editions? --Bobnotts talk 23:38, 28 June 2008 (PDT)
Hi Rob. Are you trying to count CPDL number used or what? I'm not sure what counstitutes an "edition", since, variously, people have used more than one edition number for what amounts to a single edition with separate CPDL numbers for individual movements or even individual paper sizes, while others have put these under one CPDL number. I strongly suspect that a simple-minded thing like the editions template is going to fill the bill.
If we had some accurate idea as to what it is we wish to count, then the editions template might be expanded to included it, or, more likely, it might not (for example for a work with major movements, some of which have differing numbers of editions, currently usually covered under the rubric "multiple editions"). Furthermore, if we ever do get a handle on what it is we wish to count, then a separate template for the counting purposes should be added to the works pages. At present, the editions template does not count CPDL numbers, because of the above-mentioned problem of multiple CPDL numbers being used for what really is a single edition. Neither does it count PDFs or MIDIs. What the editions template does when it provides a number (sometimes it does not!) is to give a subjective count of the number of editions available, and in its present form, I think it is something we should leave pretty much alone, at least for the present.
If tracking and counting CPDL numbers is the goal (and I think it probably should be a goal, since CPDL numbers are like "catalog numbers"), then I think something like [[Category:CPDL jklmn]] should be added to the page containing the CPDL number "ijklmn", and this category page should itself be categorised [[Category:CPDL numbers| jklmn]]. This would make the Category:CPDL numbers a complete list of all individual CPDL numbers, each linked to the page containing the edition information. -- Chucktalk Giffen 02:05, 30 June 2008 (PDT)
I'm not really sure I understand the last part of what you said there, Chuck. Why create c.15,000 categories on the wiki just to check the catalogue numbering system? Surely there's an easier way? Anyway, the idea wasn't to count CPDL numbers used instead the number of editions on CPDL. The latest CPDL number is 17407 but I we both know there are many fewer than 17407 editions on CPDL... as for what constitutes an edition, we could go into that later... I know exactly what Template:Editions does at the moment and I think that we wouldn't have to have a subjective decision - we could make guidelines. Thanks for the award, btw! Is there going to be an alto clef award?! --Bobnotts talk 07:45, 30 June 2008 (PDT)

And the envelope, please...

Bass clef.gif The Bass Clef award
  for basic work essential to the functioning of CPDL

is hereby awarded to Robert Nottingham for tireless, countless, ongoing and steady edits and contributions to the overall look and feel of CPDL. — Chucktalk Giffen

Your IMSLP Forum Posting

Hi Bob, Might want to get back on the IMSLP forum. David Newman (owner of the "Art Song Central" site has objected to your proposed removal of his PDF-file "Branding" in his Art Song Central PDF files. If you read the comments on his user page you will see he proposes his PDF files be only linked to, and Chuck recently deleted all the copies of his PDF files which were on CPDL, in favor of remote links to the same files. (See Ralph Vaughan Williams, "Songs of Travel")

Your IMSLP Forums post in reference:

I've just discovered Art Song Central and I want to copy all the PDFs over to IMSLP. Can someone explain how to remove the text at the bottom of the PDF pages? I have Acrobat 6.0. Alternatively, is someone willing to remove this text themselves? I couldn't find a help file on this which is why I'm asking here. I'd be happy to write a help page if/when I work this process out! Cheers, Rob

Feel free to delete this post after you have read it. Johnhenryfowler 06:33, 8 July 2008 (PDT)

Blank page

Hi Rob, I couldn't understand your reasoning in restoring this blank page and protecting it for admins access only. Do you intend to begin editing it soon? Vaarky has offered to create a text draft for this page and I thought it would make more sense to let her recreate the page only when she had the draft ready. —Carlos Email.gif 00:29, 28 July 2008 (PDT)

Hi Carlos. I blanked the page and protected it for the same reason that I blanked it and protected it before you deleted it, "so that spam bots cannot create the page which is potentially a system page". I don't plan on editing it any time soon but if Vaarky fancies writing a draft, she can do so on a user sub-page. As site policy, it should be checked and ratified by admins before being published in my opinion. --Bobnotts talk 06:00, 28 July 2008 (PDT)
Thanks for trying to make it more convenient for me. FWIW, the approach Carlos suggested makes perfect sense to me. A draft for something like this is best reviewed in the discussion page section, so it doesn't create an impression that the document is ratified by the site's administrators until it actually has been. Requiring admin approval for edits to a page that purports to represent CPDL policy sounds like a fine idea. --Vaarky 10:10, 28 July 2008 (PDT)
Hi Rob, now I understood what you did! But isn't it a bit weird to maintain a page protected and empty just to avoid it being spammed? What do you think if we put some text on it (like, "Under construction" :), or even a redirect to the Main Page, anything that would make it more meaningful/useful until we have a true policy to show. If you like the idea, please feel free to do what you think is best. —Carlos Email.gif 13:54, 28 July 2008 (PDT)
(Sorry, I meant the approach Rob suggested (protecting it) when I wrote Carlos) --Vaarky 14:34, 28 July 2008 (PDT)
I'd say it's not weird, Carlos, since clicking on it and being redirected to the main page would just be annoying and having a sign which says "under construction" is rather obvious if the page is empty. Some spam edits slip through the net and I wouldn't want users to click on what seems like an official page to arrive at a load of spam links. You can edit it if you feel strongly about the subject. --Bobnotts talk 06:08, 29 July 2008 (PDT)

External tool for editing score pages

Hi Rob, you've been editing and adding templates to a lot of score pages lately! Would you like to experiment a bit with the macros I was talking about at the forum? I uploaded the necessary files here (program) and here (CPDL macros). The macros aren't still totally developed, so you may want to customize them to fit your needs (or ask me to if you don't know how). Some step-by-step instructions:

  1. Unzip ue32v90.zip to a folder
  2. Save CPDL.MAC in the same folder
  3. Execute uedit32.exe
  4. On menu Macro -> Load, select file CPDL.MAC
  5. On menu Macro -> Set Auto Load..., select the same file
  6. Now open a new empy document: menu File -> New
  7. Edit a score page on CPDL and select all text (Ctrl-C)
  8. Paste the text (Ctrl-V) to UltraEdit's new doc
  9. Now (Ctrl-L), select macro CPDL__Score and OK
  10. Select all text (Ctrl-A), go back to CPDL page and paste (Ctrl-V)

That's it! Now just compare changes and see if there's something missing. It may sound a bit difficult at first, but with some training you'll do all steps very quickly.

This is just a temporary solution. I'm working on a way to implement a bot that would accurately do most of these edits for us. Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 06:26, 31 July 2008 (PDT)

Thanks for that, Carlos. A bot would definitely be a good idea, something I looked into a while ago but determined I don't have the programming skills. I use a macro in MS Word at the moment but that's quite basic. Have you tried Python? I might have a go at the program you suggest when I get a mo, thanks. --Bobnotts talk 05:45, 1 August 2008 (PDT)
You guessed it, Rob! I was trying to customize PyWikipediaBot (a Python based bot) to run these macros in place of UltraEdit, but I'm not sure yet if it'll work as a standalone bot. Python was totally new to me, but it seemed to be one of the solutions that could be best customized to work with other "non-pedia" wikis. —Carlos Email.gif 13:37, 1 August 2008 (PDT)

Contributor of Winterreise (IMSLP)

Hi Bob, You changed the "Contributor" of Winterreise (Franz Schubert)) to "Edward W. Guo" - where did you find this name. I used the "uploader" at the main page for Winterreise:

http://imslp.org/wiki/Winterreise%2C_D.911_(Op.89)_(Schubert%2C_Franz Uploader: Feldmahler (24 February 2006) Johnhenryfowler 02:00, 1 August 2008 (PDT)

Hi John. I changed it because that's his real name, elusively hidden on his user page ;-) --Bobnotts talk 18:39, 1 August 2008 (PDT)

did you mean to delete this page?

Just came across this page which was marked for deletion a while ago and wanted to check if it fell through the cracks or there was some decision to hold off (didn't see any indication on its talk page): Requests-chronological Vaarky 04:49, 29 August 2008 (PDT)

I've just deleted it, thanks for reminding me. --Bobnotts talk 19:32, 4 September 2008 (PDT)

deleting superfluous redirects

I noticed you (and I think others) deleting superfluous redirects--thanks. When we rename a page by using the Move function, it leaves behind a redirect at the old location. When the redirect is superfluous, is there any recommended way to request such deletion, or is the appearance in the change logs sufficient? Tx. Vaarky 09:11, 4 September 2008 (PDT)

You can mark any page for immediate deletion by following the instructions here. --Bobnotts talk 19:32, 4 September 2008 (PDT)

thanks for Epitaph on a Doormouse!

Thanks for doing an edition of Epitaph on a Doormouse. We sang it this week with our sight-singing group, and it's a sweet piece. Some of the singers were familiar with an earlier, out-of-print edition were grateful to have an edition that is easier to read. Vaarky 03:23, 13 September 2008 (PDT)

No problem - it's quite harmless isn't it? Thanks for the feedback. --Bobnotts talk 03:34, 13 September 2008 (PDT)

Modification of the (french) submission guide

Hi, Bob, Two or three hours ago, someone modified the (french) score submission guide, introducing a paragraph specifying that a french person isn't allowed to transfer copyright to CPDL. You can see that modification at the recent changes page. It should be incorrect to have texts changing too much comparing between languages. Regards, Claude 22:02, 24 September 2008 (PDT)

Hi Claude. I don't know anything about French copyright law but I've posted a message on the forums which will hopefully get a response. Thanks for flagging this up. --Bobnotts talk 22:27, 24 September 2008 (PDT)
Honestly speaking, I don't think that any law in a democratic country may limit the freedom of the owner of intellectual property rights to choose the type of copyright license he/she prefers. If you own the property rights of a certain work, you can decide what is allowed and what is not, what is permitted for free and what is not. It's your property, you decide. So, it sounds very strange to me that in France an author cannot choose the CPDL license to copyright his/her works. The CPDL copyright license is just a license - intellectual property always remains with the author. Perhaps the person who added such a note thought that CPDL owns the intellectual property rights for the works hosted at CPDL, but this is wrong. Anyway, I've submitted my considerations to a French guy with significant experience in the field, let's see what's his opinion. --Choralia 07:04, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

Which User talk page is correct for Raf?

Hi Rob, I see you copied messages on User talk:Admin to User talk:Rafael Ornes and put a redirect on the former to the latter. But shouldn't it be the other way around, since User:Admin is Raf's login ID? I thought it was preferable to keep the User talk:<LoginID> as ones main talk page, so that one gets informed when messages are left there. For example, User talk:Robert Nottingham redirects to User talk:Bobnotts, etc. Has the protocol changed? -- Chucktalk Giffen 13:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chuck. Both accounts "Admin" and "Rafael Ornes" are actually registered (check out the contributions for "Rafael Ornes" and "Admin", though you're right that Raf only seems to have used the former account in 2006. I seem to recall him using this account more frequently... perhaps lost in the crash last year? In any case, yes, that's generally what we've done here (have the login ID as the talk) but I think this should be an exception: having "Rafael Ornes" as both the User: and User talk: sections means that new users are less likely to confuse his talk page for an admin forum or a place to post admin related queries. As both accounts are registered, he should receive a notification if User talk:Rafael Ornes or User talk:Admin are modified. I hope that makes sense! Do you agree? --Bobnotts talk 15:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see what you mean, Rob. I was aware that Raf was registered under both usernames but that the one account was used only for a period od 19 days in August 2006. Let's hope that users will indeed be less confused. -- Chucktalk Giffen 13:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A la nanita nana

Please note that it is, on current websites (except the one cited by you), described as traditional (Spanish or whatever), and therefore in the public domain. My score posting pre-dated your information by at least a couple of years, and this notice (December 2006) seems to be the first anyone has heard of Celi's authorship. Indeed, the attribution to Celi seems to have escaped everyone - perhaps even The Cheetah Girls and Howard Goodall (his arrangement on a current CD describes the carol as 'Traditional Spanish'). And after The Cheetah Girls everyone seems to have it as a ring tone. You really must be careful of your own tone, as I remarked in my e-mail to you; though if Celi is indeed the composer (as opposed to arranger) then of course he should be acknowledged as such and I would be the last to wish to infringe his copyright. But this infringement, if it is one, is small fry in comparison with the massive infringements (if they are such) on the internet and airwaves as a whole. Perhaps you should turn your attention to them rather than the very small field that is the CPDL website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Douglasbrooksd (talkcontribs) on 14:10, 22 October 2008.

I've replied by email to the points you've made here, in your message on A la nanita nana (Douglas Brooks-Davies) and in your email. --Bobnotts talk 16:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

entries for scores in composer page

Bob

There seems to be a new convention (not covered in your score submission guide) for entries in the composer page (as in {filepath:Valls-pu.pdf}}) but when I try to use the convention the links to the score are not correctly displayed, so I continue to use the old convention and every time I make a new entry it has to be corrected. Can you explain the new convention? Jonathang 12:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Could it be that you are mistyping the entry (as above, which is missing a left "{")? The complete correct code for the above link to a PDF is as follows:
[{{filepath:Valls-pu.pdf}} {{pdf}}]
-- Chucktalk Giffen 13:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Jonathan. I've just fixed Loquebar de testimoniis (Heinrich Isaac). Have a look at the code - does it make sense? Using the filepath template is mainly a temporary measure to prevent a big mixup when we move back to cpdl.org which is why it doesn't appear in the score submission guide. --Bobnotts talk 16:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

French texts request and Text in French requests

On the French texts requests page, we have no more request but on the Texts request page we have many works in French, as 'La petite fille aux allumettes'. I can't figure out how to make some work-in-French-showing-no-text to appear on the French text requests page. Thanks in advance. - Claude 09:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Claude. The reason that La petite fille aux allumettes (Ludovic Sardain) and many other score pages don't appear on ChoralWiki:French text requests is because they have not been categorised as Works in French. The wiki only knows that they are in French because Template:Language is used to tell it. As an example, I will edit "La petite fille aux allumettes" to use the template and it will appear in ChoralWiki:French text requests. It may be possible in the future for someone with access to the database to change all the "Language" lines on all score pages to use the new template but until that time, it would be a very labourious process to change each one by hand. I hope this answers your question. --Bobnotts talk 09:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Done, with your explanation, thanks : 32 works now appear also on the French text requests list. It's now your turn with the Latin or/and English language template ! - Claude 12:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC) (Just kidding;-)
Ha ha! The clever people who have run the upgrade of the site (Max and Carlos) are looking into ways that this process might be automated so that, hopefully, things like the "language" line won't need to be updated manually. --Bobnotts talk 15:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Mysterious score

Hi Bob, I posted a little something yesterday evening, and saw it correctly displayed in the recent score list on the main page. This morning, it seems to have disappeared, although the 26th is still listed. Any thoughts? Cordially, joachim 09:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joachim. It appears when I view the Main Page... --Bobnotts talk 09:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I swear it didn't 15 mins ago. And now it does, indeed. Strrrrrrrrrrrrrange. joachim 09:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
"Cache effect", I guess. As far as I understood, if a cached version of a page exists and you are not logged-in, the cached version is shown; if you are logged-in, the "real page" is shown regardless the contents of the cache. So, you can occasionally see the same page differently depending whether you are logged-in or not, until the cached page is refreshed with the latest modifications applied to the real page. --Choralia 10:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Archived pages

Hi Rob, only today I noticed this archiving system, it's indeed interesting to have these talks kept for future reference. I was just imagining if it wouldn't be better if these pages belonged to a different namespace. The advantages would be that they would not be listed in the standard Search, and having a specific namespace for them makes it easier to find the pages, thus making the use of a category for them unnecessary. See for example these pages on the wikinew clone that were moved to a new namespace called "Archived": [1]
After the move, the namespace can be renamed to any other name (as for instance the current "DelArchive") and all pages will be moved together automatically, just like what has happened when the namespace "Requests" was renamed to "Request". What about it? —Carlos Email.gif 19:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Jumping in here, since I set up the Delete system, including the DelArchive. Yes, it would be nice to have a separate namespace for the archived deletion discussions. I suppose DelArchive: is as good a name as any (and won't require changing all those archives! -- Chucktalk Giffen 22:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've just created the namespace "Archived" and its corresponding 'talk' namespace, and moved all pages in Category:Archived deletion discussions in there. —Carlos Email.gif 00:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

New works & Text requests

Hi Rob, I've recently dug into the Latin text requests. It's an uphill battle, but I'm hoping to get there one day. As I usually encounter fairly short texts, I was wondering if the new Add Works form (if it's ever to be implemented) might contain a lyrics field, enabling contributors to add the text without having to make an additional edit to the works page - perhaps not all contributors feel 'safe' enough to edit pages, which might explain why so many of them don't contain lyrics. Even if only a small number of contributors were to use the lyrics field on the form, it would still mean some considerable time saving. Cordially, joachim 15:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joachim. Thanks for the suggestion. I'm afraid that I've not made any progress recently with the new add works form with Arie Fokkens. Part of the reason that I stopped was that lots of new templates were being implemented so I thought I'd let things settle down. Meanwhile, Carlos has been able to access and change the current add works form which may mean that we simply alter that rather than create a new one. I'll ask him if it would be possible to add a box for text & translation(s). --Bobnotts talk 16:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Archives: 0102030405060708