User talk:Bobnotts/Archive 6

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: 0102030405060708

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) - 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) 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) 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)


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 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 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 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 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 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


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


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)



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.


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)

Hi Nived. Thanks for the latest chant, one that I know very well (and I'm a bass!) Keep up the good work. --Bobnotts talk 22:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Mass delete by DPL query

Hi Rob, you probably haven't yet noticed this new tool that can be found in the Special pages. With it you could have deleted all those categories with just these DPL parameters:

titlematch        = CPDL%
namespace         = Category

Next time give it a try! If you have any doubt about how to use DPL parameters just ask me or consult DPL:Manual. —Carlos Email.gif 19:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Carlos. Thanks for that. I did consider the mass delete DPL thing but when I searched just for CPDL in the title, it didn't come up with anything so I gave up, deciding it would be quicker to do it by hand than learn how to use the tool. Thanks for (briefly) telling me how to use it. --Bobnotts talk 20:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hymn meters / Other languages

Hi Rob, could you help me please, I'd like to categorize all subcategories similar to Category:Two line meters in a new category. What would be the most appropriate name for it? I thought of "Meters by number of lines" but perhaps there's an specific term for that that I don't know. About this new category, would it be OK to add it under Category:Hymn meters?

Another unrelated question: I'm trying to find a suitable name for a category that will gather all translations of CPDL pages into other languages (as Category:French pages). The ideal would be to use simply "Translations", but it's already taken for the text translations. What do you think of "Category:Localisations" (LocaliZations?), or "Category:Article(Page?) translations"? Perhaps you can think of a better term. Thanks, —Carlos Email.gif 16:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For the second question: what about "Category:Translated (Page/Article)"? Claude 17:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Claude, "Category:Translated pages" was the first idea that came to my mind too, and I even added it to a couple of pages, but haven't created the category page yet, waiting for more suggestions. I was trying to find a more generic term to be displayed in Category:Contents, just like "Composers", "Lyricists" etc., that's why I was more inclined to use "Category:Localisations". Let's see what a native user of English has to say about it :) Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 18:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys. As for the meters, "Meters by number of lines" sounds like the best title to me but I'd be open to alternatives. For a title for a category of all pages translated into languages other than English, "Translated pages" would be my preference. I personally don't like "Localisations" - it's suggests to me more than the same page in another language. --Bobnotts talk 20:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Rob; searching for alternatives in other wikis on the net I saw that a great deal of them created a "Category:Multilingual" to accomodate their pages with multiple translations. Do you guys like this name? Otherwise I'll stay with "Category:Translated pages" as you both also suggested. Rob, just one last question: for your ears does it sound exactly the same to say "Dutch pages" and "Pages in Dutch"? Thanks, —Carlos Email.gif 04:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, "Translated pages" and "Pages in Dutch" seem most appropriate to me. -- Chucktalk Giffen 10:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree on "Pages in Dutch", Chuck, but my inner pedant has a little trouble with "multilingual". This word (being an adjective) needs to have something to describe and for me, it can't sit on its own. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word as either an adjective or a noun, but the noun form refers to a person who is able to speak in more than two languages. "Multilingual pages" would be preferable to "Multilingual", though that may suggest that the pages categorised as such are written in more than two languages. Anyway, this is all a bit of a moot point since you've already decided on "Translated pages" which is fine by me. --Bobnotts talk 13:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Modifying Wikipedia links

Hi. I've recently signed up here on CPDL, to work on interconnection between CPDL and Wikipedia. My main aim is to add CPDL links to Wikipedia articles, however, I'm going to also correct links here to Wikipedia, when incorrect. But I'm not sure, when I find a link here, that points to a redirect on Wikipedia, whether I should correct it to the 'canonical' Wikipedia article name or leave it as it is. Which one would you recommend? Thank you. --Tomaxer 13:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tomaxer. Thanks for all the work you're doing correcting and adding links - it's great! Links to Wikipedia from CPDL should point directly to the article on Wikipedia, not a redirect, though it's not a problem if they do point to a redirect. Thanks! --Bobnotts talk 22:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, Rob. --Tomaxer 10:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Page move function

I have recently uploaded a file, but being the clumsy typist that I am, have uploaded it with a typo in the name. I can't seem to find a page move button anywhere, so is it possible to move File:Hawryluk-All Glory, Land, and Honour.pdf to File:Hawryluk-All Glory, Laud, and Honour.pdf ? Also, I am thinking of going through Category:Sheet_music_errors and correcting the (usually minor) errors. But, how should I upload the corrections? It seems odd to make a new edition just to correct some typos, but I also would not feel comfortable overwriting another file with a CPDL number / contributor. What is the best procudure? Thanks! Freedomlinux 21:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bill. Thank you for your enthusiasm for correcting errors in editions. Ordinarily, these are done by the original contributor but if you feel so inclined, I see no problem with other users making such corrections. Substantial corrections should be done by the original editor.
However, I'm afraid you've gone about the process all wrong! Firstly, any corrections to an edition should overwrite the original file and edition entry, rather than creating another edition entry. Because of this, you should not run the "add works" form when you are correcting an edition but only when you are contributing a new edition. Finally, I've just looked at some of the PDFs you've uploaded and they seem to be of a much lower quality than what I would expect. The difference in quality between the first and second pages of When David heard, for example, is quite substantial. What software are you using to create PDFs? I think you must have it on a low resolution setting. I have reverted your edits for the moment, but don't be disheartened! Please try to recreate the PDFs and upload them then we'll set about replacing the older files with your updated ones. --Bobnotts talk 14:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I am afraid that this news of the policy of CPDL has deterred my editing. I was under the impression that editing and republishing an existing work qualified as an 'edition'. Also, what is the proper way to make corrections to a PDF hosted on an external site? Under your suggestions, my version would be lited instead of the original version, but I am not comfortable removing the link from the original author and thus affecting his page traffic. Also, your suggestion that major corrections be made by the original author seems to totally undermine the definition of a Wiki, which should inherently encourage community edits. When considered together, I consider these attitudes and policies quite disturbing.
As for the quality issues, I did not initally notice the issues that my editing workflow was introducing. I believe that the quality issue was most likely introduced by the PDF printer included in Fedora linux (GtkPrint ?). My workflow also occasionally includes GIMP graphics editor for minor text changes and ghostscript for joining the pages of a PDF. I have been away from my workstation for a while, so I will look into the quality of my workflow and try editing again. Freedomlinux 14:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Some articles

Hi, I've come up over a few articles that might need some attention:

  • Thomas Bayley. It is stated there that Ignaz Ritter von Seyfried is his alias. According to Wikipedia and NGDMM (New Grove Dictionary), Seyfried's birth and death dates are 1776, 1841. The B&D dates from the article here are 1836, 1907. However, I think, this article is meant to be about wikipedia:Thomas Haynes Bayly (1797–1839).
  • L. P. Breedlove. His name is Leonard Breedlove and I think, this article should be moved to this name, because it is more informative.
  • Robert Cornysh. The person in this article lived in 1465–1523. However a person with similar name, William Cornysh, lived during the same time. Also, I did not find any mention of Robert in NGDMM or using Google, so I think, it is the same person.

I hope, you can look at this issues. Because fixing them would require major changes, I wanted to consult them. Thank you. --Tomaxer 22:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm these are certainly tricky.
  1. The scores on give his dates as listed on the CPDL composer page (1836-1907). It could be that the alias was added incorrectly. In that case, he could indeed be the second Bayly that you mentioned, 1797-1839. There may even be a third Thomas Bayley, the one to whom refer. Perhaps the best way to move forward would be to email and ask them what there source is for those two editions, and if it's possible the composer/arranger is in fact one of the two you have indicated.
  2. I've moved the pages as you requested.
  3. It seems likely that this is William d.1523 after all. However, there's already an Adieu by William Cornysh but with a different tune to the one currently listed under Robert Cornysh! What are your thoughts on this?
--Bobnotts talk 12:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
So, regarding Bayley, I've sent the mail as you suggested and I'll inform you after I receive reply. But I'm not sure about Cornysh. You mean that Adieu and Adew, Adew are the same works, only their names are in different languages?
And I have one more question: when I find an article here without WikipediaLink, should I preventively add it even if there is no such article on Wikipedia? I think, it would be a good idea, because now I check new articles here, but I can't check new articles about composers on Wikipedia. --Tomaxer 16:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me wade in here. Tom, I believe I have already sorted out the problems related with Thomas Bayley, who was in fact Thomas Haynes Bayly as you suggested. The alias was simply misplaced there, and the dates had also incorrectly been taken from yet another person, Thomas Bailey Aldrich.
With relation to Robert Cornysh, please read Talk:William Cornysh for the conclusions that Chuck and I have come up with. "Adew" is in fact an anglicized form of French "Adieu", but William Cornysh has two different works that begin with such exclamation: Adew, adew, my heart is lost and Adew, mes amours. —Carlos Email.gif 19:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, so thank you to all involved in dealing with these articles. --Tomaxer 22:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Archives: 0102030405060708