Difference between revisions of "User talk:Bobnotts"

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(back from holiday)
(Thank you: new section)
Line 163: Line 163:
 
joseph
 
joseph
 
[[User:Joscquin|Joscquin]] 15:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 
[[User:Joscquin|Joscquin]] 15:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Thank you ==
 +
 +
Been a bit busy, so only just got round to correcting it, so it's all in good order. It is a pretty perfect chant, isn't it? I've put another up- Psalm 149's chant by Stanford, another wonderful one (especially if one happens to be a bass) and I hope it measures up to the scrupulous standards that seem to be going.
 +
 +
Thank you,
 +
 +
[[User:Njhl tenor|Njhl tenor]] 22:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:16, 7 May 2009


Archives


Translation request

Hi Rob. Here you go:

VOOR IEDERE PARTITUUR HET FORMULIER SLECHTS EENMAAL INVULLEN, AUB. De software genereert een cpdl-volgnummer voor uw partituur wanneer u het formulier verstuurt - er komen dus een aantal overbodige nummers op de lijst indien u dit meer dan eens doet. Het publiceren van de partituren gebeurt door vrijwilligers, en het kan dus even duren eer u uw bijdrage terugvindt op cpdl; u moet hier even geduld voor oefenen. Bent u bij het invullen informatie vergeten te vermelden, dan zet u dit beter recht met een mail (bij voorkeur in het Engels) naar addscore (at) cpdl.org - ook hiervoor hoeft u het formulier dus geen tweede keer in te vullen.

Ideally, though, this warning would also appear (if it were only in English) on the actual form, don't you think? Cordially, joachim 18:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rob, here we are with the Italian version.
PER FAVORE NON RIEMPITE IL MODULO "ADD WORKS" PIU' DI UNA VOLTA PER UNA STESSA EDIZIONE. Una volta inviato il modulo viene generato un unico numero CPDL che diventa obsoleto se il modulo viene prodotto una seconda volta per la stessa edizione. Dei volontari riceveranno il modulo che avete inviato e lo pubblicheranno nel contesto wiki entro qualche tempo - per favore siate pazienti. Se avete dimenticato di includere qualche informazione la prima volta che lo avete inviato, per favore scrivete una mail a addscore (at) cpdl.org con i dettagli piuttosto che inviare il modulo nuovamente. Tra i volontari che gestiscono i moduli ci sono persone che comprendono l'italiano, quindi potete scrivere la mail in italiano se è più facile per voi. Grazie.
Please note: I've added a phrase saying that some volunteers managing the forms are able to understand Italian (Carlos actually does, and I can also help if necessary), so emails to addscore (at) cpdl.org may be written in Italian if it's easier for the contributor. I hope you agree with this. If not, just remove the phrase "Tra i volontari... ". Choralia 09:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rob, after reading Max' translation, I think I ought to mention that the Dutch version urges people to mail in English. If you disagree (I'd be willing to translate should the case present itself, of course), just omit (bij voorkeur in het Engels). joachim 09:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks both of you for those translations - I've added them to the page. Hopefully that will make an impact. You both made the right call with the language of emails - as you say, Max, Carlos can translate the Italian if we need it but no-one on the admin team speaks Dutch so it's probably best to stick to English even if it's not the contributor's first language. If you know anyone who would be able to translate the English text into another language (German? Spanish?) that would be really useful - thanks! --Bobnotts talk 10:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

CPDL #18861

Hi Rob. The score in question belongs here, actually. I'd have done it myself, but I haven't got a clue as to how move things about in wiki environments. Cordially, joachim 19:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Joachim. I've fixed this now. --Bobnotts talk 10:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Tisokuan's scores

Hi Rob. Tisokuan seems to maintain the website for the Aeolian Consort - an early instrumental group. Such groups frequently perform choral scores. Recently, one of my CPDL editions was converted to a recorder piece (with my blessing) and posted elsewhere. Tisokuan has made several choral/instrumental editions (which came first, I'm not sure), and they have been posted here, albeit with the somewhat awkward route that provides us with a link to the instrumental editions which then link to the choral editions. I caught your ScoreError and removed it, with a note on how to locate the choral score. Maybe such a note should be posted in the edition notes of other Tisokuan editions? -- Chucktalk Giffen 20:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm yeah thanks for pointing that out. Maybe the best solution would be to just link directly to the web page that has the choral scores listed on it, rather than the instrumental scores? We could achieve that with the website template, of course. --Bobnotts talk 21:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Linking to the Choral page (using {{website}}) at his website would be the best solution. The only question is whether Tisokuan would mind us doing that. -- Chucktalk Giffen 16:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Scores not found

Hi, Bob, On that page, you will see, under A, B, C and D letters, many scores to which I cannot have access. I noticed Adrian Cuello's site may have changed, but it seems that all this scores aren't on the new site. Could you please check this and put broken link templates if necessary? Many thanks in advance. Cordially, - Claude 11:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Claude. You're just as able to correct broken links as I am. I'll correct ones as I see them but I'm afraid I don't have a crystal ball to look into to see where Adrian Cuello hosts his music. If you can't find one of his works on his website, I suggest you email him. --Bobnotts talk 18:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Again about SIAE etc.

Hi Rob, I've noted that you are proposing for deletion a work by Cristian Gentilini, as it cannot be performed without permission from SIAE. As discussed already on the forums, I personally disagree on deleting pages in such conditions, as there are some circumstances, foreseen by the copyright laws, where a copyrighted work can be used without permission from anybody (i.e., the composer or the association in charge of managing the intellectual property rights on behalf of the composer). By removing the works, we make impossible all uses, including those not requiring any permission. I'd rather prefer leaving the works available, but adding a clear disclaimer when attempting to download the score (similarly to IMSLP). Choralia 12:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I disagree with your position on this, Max, but I'm afraid I don't have the time to form a proper response to your message on the forums - sorry for not being able to do this. I hope that we might have a full discussion before implementing any new policy. I hope to contribute to the discussion towards the end of this week as it's a particularly busy one for me. --Bobnotts talk 18:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

redirects

Hi Rob, I saw that you deleted again Untreue (Friedrich Silcher) but if you check you'll find there are still 2 pages linking to it. You probably imagined these were dynamic pages but no, they are old logs created by hand. There are a couple of other redirects in the same situation. Until we decide what to do with these log pages, do you think it would be good to keep their links valid? —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] Email.gif] 12:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Chiming in here, I would say delete the old log pages, now that they are replaced with DPL pages. -- Chucktalk Giffen 13:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Untreue (Friedrich Silcher) was actually not a redirect but a duplicate score page but that's by the by. I did indeed assume that the pages which link to it were dynamic but you're quite right, they were compiled manually. Since there seems to be some agreement here, I've gone ahead and deleted those two pages. By the way, I get an "Expression error" when I open ChoralWiki:November_2005_scores. Any idea what that's about? --Bobnotts talk 20:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The expression error is now gone - it disappeared when I opened the page for edit, previewed it (without the error appearing) and then saved it (null edit). I guess just "touching" the page solved the problem. -- Chucktalk Giffen 20:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Date added

Hi Rob, with respect to this edition, I understand that if a user uploaded files and ran the Addwork form on day X, that should be the date used on his edition, even if we create the entry for it one year later. If I'm using the CPDL# from his own work submission, it makes sense for me to use also the related date. Has there been any previous agreement on this subject? Thanks, —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] Email.gif] 12:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically, no, I disagree. The edition info may well have been submitted on day X and a file uploaded but it has been added to (or indexed in) the archive today. Also, from a practical perspective, it will now appear on the Main Page under "most recent scores" whereas if we used the date submitted, it would not be visible to the majority of users who use this feed as a way of finding out which editions are "new". --Bobnotts talk 12:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as a user/editor, I'd prefer to see in my edition the real date on which it was submitted, not the day the CPDL guys decided to finally put my edition online (remember that in the Add Work confirmation message it says something as "your edition will be available in a couple of days"...). As for the second argument, my understanding is that it was "indexed" (i.e. received a CPDL#) on the day the user ran the Addwork form. What I did was just a "maintenance task" to put his work online. Also, about the date used to show a work on the Main Page: it's the date in the NewWork template, not the one in the Edition template. Anyway, it seems we'll need to hear some more opinions to find a consensus on this. —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] Email.gif] 12:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Carlos about the submission date being preferred over the posting date. In my experience with scholarly and professional journals, articles are always tagged with the date of submission/receipt - eg. "Received on January 23, 1986" even though perhaps only published in the 2nd quarter, 1987 issue of the journal, which might actually not appear until late 1987 or early 1988). It is most unfortunate that the submission form for the edition in question was only discovered a year later in the database. So, while the edition was submitted quite some time ago, it has only just been "published" here. I think that the wording "added yyyy-mm-dd" is itself misleading and probably should be changed either to something like "received yyyy-mm-dd", which is easy enough to via the {{Editor}} template.
There is, however, another (albeit perhaps minor) problem that hasn't been mentioned yet: Since both the {{NewWork}} and {{Editor}} add (in this case different) date categories to the page, the statistics supplied by {{NewScoreCount}} are skewed (by one for each instance of a NewWork/Editor date mismatch). If I am not mistaken, the fact that NewWork adds date categories is now simply an artifact from a previous time when we did not have the Editor template adding date categories or before the Editor template became universal (thanks to mass editing). Thus it would seem that removing the date categorization currently added by NewWork is a simple enough solution to the extra date category problem. -- Chucktalk Giffen 15:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: If we want the Main Page) to reflect publication date (as opposed to date of submission/receipt) through the (possibly different) date appearing in {{NewWork}} after its date categorization has been disabled, then the DPL code in ChoralWiki:LatestScores can be modified (DPL can detect templates and parameters passed to templates). -- Chucktalk Giffen 15:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Addendum, round 2: I decided that the complexity of using DPL as described above is like trying to swat a fly with a sledge hammer, so I made simple modifications to templates {{IsNew}} and {{NewWork}}. Now NewWork only adds a date category if the date passed is within 10 days of the current date, although the new icon and categorization in New works still persists for 90 days. Thus, any NewWork/Editor date categorization mismatch only occurs for 10 days. -- Chucktalk Giffen 16:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Chuck, I liked the solution you found for this problem of double categorization! I was also mistaken in what I wrote to Rob, in fact any of the templates NewWork/Edition can be used to show a new work on the Main page. I also agree with the suggestion to change the wording of "added" for something more appropriate. —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] Email.gif] 17:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Carlos! I've just changed "added" to "submitted" (at least for the present) - wasn't sure whether to use "submitted" or "received". -- Chucktalk Giffen 21:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
OK... I think I understand this correctly, that if we post an edition on a different day from that which it was submitted then we leave the "Editor" template as it is (date it was submitted) and change the "NewWork" template to today's date? If so, surely the edition which kicked all of this off needs to be changed? Also, Carlos, why do we have a "submitted" date of 2009-02-27 for Agnus Dei (from Missa Laetare) (John L. Wright)? It was actually submitted on 2009-02-26 as CPDL #18963‏... --Bobnotts talk 10:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rob, for some reason I stopped receiving the Addwork emails again, so when I checked in the database for the Agnus Dei entry, I only saw the last one (#18972 dated 2009-02-27) and didn't see it was a re-submission. In this case the data from the first submission can be used on the work as well. —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] Email.gif] 18:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[shift left]

Ackkkkk! I seem to have opened a Pandora's box! To prevent any (especially one or two day) submitted/posted date mismatches, I've changed things yet again. Template NewWork now does the following:
  1. categorizes in Category:Posted yyyy-mm-dd (for 10 days - and the LatestScores page detects these via a new template {{PostedOn}} that substitutes for {{ScoresOn}}),
  2. displays the new icon followed by (Posted yyyy-mm-dd) and categorizes in Category:New works for 90 days.
It took awhile to get the format straight, but at least it's a workable solution. -- Chucktalk Giffen 15:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Dowland: When Phœbus first did Daphne love

Rob,

I noticed that you added the text to this page in October last year (I'm sure you remember it perfectly). I'd be really interested to know where the third stanza came from, since it's not in the original publication (or not in my copy; I think there was only one edition, though I may be wrong), yet it perfectly continues the truly appalling sentiments of the rest of the song. Do English undergraduates have to compose Elizabethan pastiches these days?? --DaveF 22:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dave: Alas, the extra stanza was not of my design though I think I should be rather proud if I had written it myself, despite the sentimental subject matter! I often get texts from the Lied and Art Song Texts Page if they are there since it seems to be a reliable resource. Checking it now, I find I probably got the text for "When Poebus" from this page. You may wish to contact Emily Ezust who runs the whole thing to see what her source is. (I'm now an English graduate, btw!) --Bobnotts talk 09:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Hm, interesting - I will check it out. I just wondered whether, if the poem appears in other sources besides the Dowland, the author might be recorded somewhere. And I hadn't forgotten you'd graduated - my not entirely serious (and not entirely well-phrased) suggestion was that you might have composed it as an exercise when an undergrad. --DaveF 19:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Of course you realised - mea culpa. I sometimes feel as though I have to tell everyone I talk to that I passed my degree...! --Bobnotts talk 22:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No more English texts?

The page 'English texts requests' I used until yesterday 23:50 doesn't work this morning. Instead of a list of pages, it shows only one line : 'This page lists score pages of works in {{{1|" as if the variable 'language' be empty. And now, at the Text request page, no more 'English text requests' anymore, just 'Middle English text requests' which show the same unique line as above. All that without any modification mentioned on the 'recent changes' page. Strange indeed. So, it's not a strike ;-), only a technical difficulty for me to proceed. Edit: I can pass by using 'Works in English', which works, choosing those without text. - Claude 13:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Gone back allright at this minute.Claude 14:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

instability of CPDL

Bob

System seems very unstable. Should corrective action be taken? Jonathang 14:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan. Thanks for the message - I share your concerns. We're aware of the problem and the IT team are trying their best to minimise the impact on users. It may be that we have take some more drastic action if these problems continue. --Bobnotts talk 15:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Midi/MusicXML

Greetings,

I'm using a program called MusicScore, provided freely to Linux users. As with most programs the file formats are limited. This one can read its own as well as MIDI and MusicXML. In my Windows days I used both Finale and Noteworthy when I was a frequent contributor to CPDL.

I recently joined a small parish choir - quite a departure from the Men and Boys choir I was with some years ago and there are limitations as to vocal ranges. I would like to turn Stanford's Mag 'n Nunc from G to F but doing it all manually from the PDF would be a real task. Having a MusicXML or MIDI file would shave many weeks off the task, as my day job occupies way too much time.

I appreciate what assistance you can offer.

Thanks,

Christopher Gacb 16:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Christopher. I've just updated my edition with a few minor corrections and I've also added a MIDI file. I'm afraid I can't see a way of creating a MusicXML file in Sibelius - it's not an option on the "export" list. Anyway, I hope you're successful with the MIDI file. --Bobnotts talk 22:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Score submission guide (Dutch)

Hi Bob. Updated as you requested. Cordially, joachim 08:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Same for Italian. --Choralia 16:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Very many thanks to both of you. --Bobnotts talk 21:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Answer to your message

Hi rob, thanx for your message, don't worry, i have some other works that i will upload. Now i havn't enough time (exams... i hate studying!)... but i will !

cool that other young people are interested in vocal music. here in france, it's really hard to find people that understand me, really.

bye bye

joseph Joscquin 15:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Been a bit busy, so only just got round to correcting it, so it's all in good order. It is a pretty perfect chant, isn't it? I've put another up- Psalm 149's chant by Stanford, another wonderful one (especially if one happens to be a bass) and I hope it measures up to the scrupulous standards that seem to be going.

Thank you,

Njhl tenor 22:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)