User talk:CHGiffen/Archive 6

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: 010203040506070809

problems with uploading scores

Thought you should know that scores do not upload properly. I just uploaded a revised version. The system prompted me to overwrite the old version, but the old version is still displayed. Jonathang 18:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply by: Choralia 19:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 Help 

This may be a side-effect of having activated the wiki cache on this new server. The file has been probably overwritten already, but the cache still provides the old version to you. You may try to recall the same page, and add ?action=purge at the end of the URL. This is supposed to clear the cache, so the new version should be displayed.

Tried this. Old version still displays. Tried uploading again. System recongised 3rd version as a duplicate but still displayed orginal version. Jonathang 19:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 19:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 Help 

The problem wasn't with the uploaded file(s) but rather with the page Tota pulchra es (Francisco Valls) which was loading from a cached version. As soon as I opened the page in an edit window and then clicked on "Submit" to re-edit the page (even though I changed nothing), the correct PDF now loads when the PDF icon is clicked. This is not an unusual occurrence that a page needs to be "touched" in order to update the links that originate from the page.

Chuck. Sorry this has not cured the problem. The old version is still displaying. You will know that you have the right version when there are no prefatory staves and when the source "Arte de Canto Llano" by Martin y Coll appears in the top left hand corner of the first page. Jonathang 19:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Post script. I have solved the problem for this specific axoew* by uploading the new version with a new file name. The ability to overwrite old versions probably needs to be checked carefully. If you need any further help from me let me know. Jonathang 20:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC) (N.B. "axoew" = "score" shifted one key to the left on the keyboard :)
Hi Jonathan, there's nothing wrong with the upload system for new versions, it's just that now the site has a file caching feature activated and it may imply in that some links are not updated instantly. Anyway, uploading the new files with a different name is not the best solution either, next time just ask an admin to delete the old versions (as was done for you) and the new ones will instantly become available. Alternatively, just wait for a couple of hours (or days?) and the cache system will correct the links. —Carlos Email.gif 06:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of "Scorch" designation for Sibelius source file.

Hi Chuck. Noticed your changes to my recent post of Palestrina's "Alma Redemptoris". I fixed the PDF file link, which was a cut-n-paste error. I also reverted the change to the "Scorch" designation. When I do a CPDL post I give full access to the Sibelius source file, (you can download it with a right-click on "Sibelius 4"). If you double-left click on it, and you have Sibelius's "Scorch" utility installed, it will come up in Scorch, but you can't print it or save it from there. Some editors may want this restriction, and labeling their scores with (Scorch) would indicate this limitation. Hence I prefer the "Sibelius 4" designation I've been using, indicating free access to the source file, with no limitations. Johnhenryfowler 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen

 Help 

Hi John. I had hoped that the PDF file was missing because of a cut and paste error. In my browser, the Sibelius 4 file loads automatically into Scorch with a single click, not a double click as you describe. Anyway, I'm glad my "correction" caught your eye so you could perform the real correction!!

Spelling mistake

Apologies. I have just noticed that I made a spelling mistake in the title of Callcott's Miserere. Not sure how to correct this. I don't want to make things worse by trying so have dated the entry tomorrow so it does not appear in "latest editions" Jonathang 08:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 12:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

 Help 

Hi Jonathan. Not a problem. I moved the page to one with the correct title and updated all the links so they didn't flow through the redirect the move created, then deleted the redirect on the wrongly spellt page which resulted from the move. In the future, don't be afraid to do a move yourself, since nothing drastic happens (any links to the orginal page still work via redirection until they are fixed and the old page with the redirect on it is deleted). I also changed the submission date to 2008-10-11, since that is when you actually submitted the work.

Text requests

Hi Chuck, Since things seem to be getting along nicely again at cpdl, I'm willing to devote some time to reviewing/editing pages again. I've started by having a look at the Latin text requests, and tackled this one, which onfortunately happened to be in the wrong language cat :)) Still, when I complete a text, does that mean I have to delete the title from the request list? Cordially, joachim 18:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC) P.S.: How about the Virgo serena by Pipelare? Fancy a go at the alto part?

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 20:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

 Help 

Hi Joachim,

It's good to hear that you are willing to resume reviewing & editing pages again. The Anima del cor of Monteverdi was mislabelled with respect to language, and thank you for correcting it and adding the Italian text. Indeed, adding a missing text automatically removes it from the coressponding text request list, which is generated via a Dynamic Page Listing (DPL) mechanism. The "Popular scores" item on the Main Page is also generated via DPL, and the various statistics under "Browse CPDL" are automatically updated via DPL, too (previously, I had to update the statistics once or twice a month by hand).

Yes, I'd be interested to tackle reconstructing the missing alto part for the Ave Maria - Virgo serena by Pipelare. Do you have a score with the other parts available?

Reply by: Vaarky 01:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 Help 

The DPL knows to list a piece in the automatically-generated list of pieces based on the "NoText" indicator and the language indicated for the piece on the score page. Once you replace the NoText with the corresponding Text|Latin or whatever coding, the absense of NoText causes the page to stop appearing in the dynamically-generated page for scores missing text in a particular language. A clever use of automation! Thanks for helping out.


Hi Chuck, I've been adding texts to the scores in the Latin text requests. Strangely, none of them disappear from the request list subsequently: this one and this one, for instance. Any thoughts? Cordially, joachim 17:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Figured it out myself - it was my browser's cache that got the better of me. :)

Popular composers & scores

Only just discovered these pages. Well done, they look great! Do you think there should be a link to ChoralWiki:Popular composers on the Main Page as well as scores? --Bobnotts talk 09:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob. I was thinking about including it, but just haven't done it yet. I'll rearrange stuff in the CPDL statistics template to include the Popular composers, too (in the meantime, I had simply cross-linked these with Popular compositions). -- Chucktalk Giffen 12:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

LatestScores automatically updated

Hi Chuck, now it's my turn to free you from this tedious work of creating the "yyyy-dd-mm scores" pages. :)
Please have a look at the pages just created: template:ScoresOn and ChoralWiki:LatestScores. This last one is basically the same as the 'Template:LatestScores' you used to update by hand, with the difference that now the dates are updated automatically with the use of the ParserFunction #time. You will still have to create the log page for the months, though; I haven't found a way to automate them yet. The daily pages are unnecessary, in my point of view. —Carlos Email.gif 17:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: The monthly scores list could be a bit automated too, with the use of template:ScoresIn. Have a look at the ChoralWiki:October 2008 scores page to see it in action. If you don't like the templates names, do change them at will. —Carlos Email.gif 18:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 23:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

 Help 

Nice job, Carlos. I reduced the number days to 10 (from 11), which is what I had tried to maintain (except on weekends when I often upped the number to 11 or 12, depending upon my expectation of being able to get online and do the updating manually over the weekend). I didn't really care for the individual day listings either ... they were a hold-over from Raf's original version.

Hi Chuck, I made some more changes to the templates, hope you approve them: added navigation links to the Monthly scores lists and made the daily headers automatically appear only when that specific day returns any results. Also added a line break separating the days, do you think it's too much spacing? —Carlos Email.gif 18:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 20:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

 Help 

Hi Carlos. I would remove the adde line break separating the days. Also, I would add a copy of the navigation links at the bottom of the page. Otherwise, it's good.

PS. I just made the changes I suggested.

Automating Psalm settings lists

Hi Chuck. How do you feel about what I've said on Talk:Psalm 150? --Bobnotts talk 11:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous edits

Hi Chuck, could you please check if these old editions were made by you? They were registered to an anonymous IP, and I intend to merge some of the most frequent IPs to their owners (mostly you, Raf, and a few others who were active back them). What do you think of the idea?
By the way, I know it's not my business but I noticed that your talk Archives begin only in 2007, but you had some entries back in 2006. Was it on purpose or did you forget these? :) —Carlos Email.gif 04:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Posted by: Vaarky 06:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 Help 

Hi, Carlos--saw your note and wanted to ask a question to clarify. You're only proposing to do this when the user confirms the association explicitly, right? I would be concerned about retroactively changing the association for privacy reasons without the consent of each individual involved, but consent may well be all you are proposing and I wanted to check. Thanks.

Hi Vaarky, I think there's no need to have such concerns about privacy issues here in CPDL; it's just a music site after all, not something like Wikipedia in what is related to intellectual content. Those early editions were mostly fixes to some errors created during the conversion from the old system to the Wiki, and only were made anonymously because people often forgot to log in before the edits. It only ended after the log in was made mandatory. But I may asure you I would only make such user mergers after I was absolutely sure of the identity of the anonymous IP (Raf often wrote personal messages anonymously, but signed his name as usual). —Carlos Email.gif 03:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 15:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 Help 

If I'm not mistaken, the IP address of those contributions was one that Raf was using (from his office, perhaps). Anyway, I'm rather certain that I did not make those edits and that they originated with Raf (see the history of his User page for two edits on 23 November 2005 from that IP address that I could not have made). Thanks for checking, though, since I see that the original contribution of my Creator of the stars was posted from that IP address.

To double-check, I just traced that IP address - to Santa Clara, California (a long way from my location!).

As for my Archives, I suppose I either overlooked those first few posts or viewed them as being so out-of-date that it didn't seem worth making and archive page for them.

Thanks Chuck for the information and for checking the origin of the IP! —Carlos Email.gif 03:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply by: Vaarky 03:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Help 

Thanks for the reassurance that you'd check in any case, Carlos--I figured that was probably the case. For what it's worth, I disagree with what you wrote about there being no need "to have such concerns about privacy issues here in CPDL; it's just a music site after all, not something like Wikipedia in what is related to intellectual content."

It sounds like it's moot in this case, since you said you'd only link the info with consent. But if you'd like to discuss the privacy issues further on a hypothetical basis, please e-mail me and I can explain my thinking about the privacy issues I see even with changing how you display that kind of history information on a music site.

NoComp

Hi Chuck, I see a serious problem in using your new template. Many times it's desirable to have a different title on the composer page, with some more details that the work title may not bring, and sometimes a title formatted with accents and accentuation marks that were not present on the work title (for example: Perchè fuggi, amica mia? ). When you applied the new template to Monteverdi's page (didn'd check the other composers yet), all these alternative titles were lost (cf. here the two Laudate Dominum entries and many many others). Perhaps you could add a 3rd parameter to the template for the alternative title? —Carlos Email.gif 05:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 14:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 Help 

Hi Carlos. Yes a few of these slipped by when I got to work on them. I thought about another parameter to allow for an alternate title, but adding an alternate title is more simply accomplished by what is already there - something of the form:

[[Page title (Composer name)|Alternate title]]

However, there are two situations where the template could be extended to accommodate two types of alternate titles:

  1. The first (sort of like pcat) would allow material to be appended to the title link (but at least with the Byrd page, I've simply added the material outside the link - which is a workable alternative).
  2. The second would allow material to be truncated from the title link.

I'll implement both of these in NoComp. Of course, the main reasons for this template are: (a) reducing the size of pages (especially large pages near or over 32 Kb), and (b) reducing the number of keystrokes for contributors.

The two "improvements" do, however, beg a more general question: Is it really necessary to have a proliferation of alternate page titles across CPDL? There are many instances of this, some concentrated on certain pages (I've discovered Monteverdi and Byrd are two prime examples). While some isolated instances might be necessary, I'm of the opinion that such exceptions should be quite rare. Why? - (1) as a matter of "uniformity" across CPDL, (2) as a matter of causing less confusion to users (who sees one title on a composer page and, at a later time, cannot find the work by its "alternate title"), (3) as a way of reducing the burden of "maintenance" by CPDL editors (when changes are made such as moving pages, combining editions making a retitling necessary, etc.). I guess I'm trying to follow the K.I.S.S. principle here. LOL

Anyway, I'll make the above "enhancements(?)" to the template, hoping they handle the vast bulk of "exceptions".

  • Edit: I've made the "enhancements". The new version has the facility to break the title into three pieces - Front,Middle,Tail (any of which may be empty) - and provide alternate to Font,Tail (either of which may be empty). This makes it possible to handle all cases.
Hi Chuck, while I do appreciate your effort in doing the above enhancements, on the other hand I would probably not use this template in complex situations, given its inherent difficulty. In fact, the division of the title in smaller parts, besides making the comprehension too complicated, also has the disadvantage of making the title virtually "hidden" to the extension ReplaceText, whenever we need to rename a work extensively.
If I may, I'd like to suggest that we keep your template for its original purpose of creating simpler links wherever necessary, and propose the use of a new template in the form that had been sugested by me some time ago in the forum, exclusively for work entries in composer pages. The difference is that this new template treats almost all situations related to such entries (I've not included an option for broken links yet), incorporating all variables in it. By applying it to the Claudio Monteverdi page at the test wiki, I could reduce the page size from 41.400 Kb to 26.560 Kb, almost half the size. The page also looks much more "clean", especially when we put each parameter in a single line. Please visit the Monteverdi page here and have a look at the various formattings I used. The template page is here. —Carlos Email.gif 22:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 23:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

 Help 

Hi Carlos. Okay, so yesterday and today you made the new Template:work over at the clone - it looks fine to me. Go ahead and use it wherever you wish, since it is clear that it will reduce page sizes. In the meantime, do you wish (or wish me) to revert/undo the edits I have already made using Template:NoComp? I'm sorry if I seem to have waded in to something that was of interest to you - I had simply seen all those large pages and was trying to reduce their size with a simple template - and then you made remarks about having an alternate title, and I changed the template (really intending to use it only when it would shorten the code, although I put all the Monteverdi works in the template as an exercise to illustrate that it could handle all situations. Perhaps I (or indeed all of us?) should inform each other of what we are thinking of doing before doing it???

Hi Chuck, yes, it seems a good idea if we all keep each other informed of new developments that might represent massive changes to a page. Though changes can always be reverted, the time we spent on it can't! :( I'm sorry to talk about the new template only now, but either I was too slow in its development or you were too fast in making the changes to NoComp and implementing them to Monteverdi's page; when I noticed it you had already done it all, hehe!
In fact the idea for template Work isn't new, and I had already cited something basically identical (but intended for work pages) around 3 months ago in this forum message. The purpose is basically to have just one template to deal with all work entry data, instead of the many now used ( {{NoComp}}, {{LLink}}, {{LLinkW}}, {{Link}}, {{LnkWeb}}, {{Editions}}, {{filepath:}}, {{pdf}}, {{mid}}, {{external}}, {{broken}}, among others). Unfortunately our conversation about this subject didn't evolve to a solution back then, but I would like to hear the opinions of the other admins now (you seem not to be against it, right?). We could leave the Monteverdi page as it is with template NoComp until we reach a consensus, what do you think? —Carlos Email.gif 02:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

subcategory question

Chuck,

I've got a question about the "Shape Note" category. I've written tunes in both American "Sacred Harp" style and the English "West gallery" style. While the music has common roots, there are quite different from each other. Since CPDL has no separate distinctions for this, I've created subcategories under my Shape Notes header. I'm thinking that this might assist users coming to my page in being able to quickly identify w/o having to open each one to look.

Alternatively, Tim Henderson has contributed a wealth of West Gallery music, and his are all categorised as "Hymns." What about the possibility of moving the "West Gallery" subcategory up to "Hymns?" The WGM is generally written in four-stave form, and frequently each voice part is its own melody. This makes it stand somewhat on its own, especially since I also have Sacred Harp and traditional English hymns there as well.

I'm trying to see this from the user's perspective. If the user is looking for hymns, and comes across my page (or any one else's), it might be helpful for them to see right away variant forms. I'd appreciate your thoughts and input on this.Tweedfour 14:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Archives: 010203040506070809