User talk:Carlos/Archive 3

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: 01020304050607080910

Uploading jpg and mp3

Hi Carlos. When you've got a minute, would you mind looking at a problem that Thurlow Weed is experiencing that he's described on my talk page? Many thanks. --Bobnotts talk 17:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

placing images

Carlos,

I was able to successfully upload an mp3. It seems the compressed mp3 generated by Finale is an issue. Saving as a WAV and then converting to mp3 allows it to be accepted.

I've also able to upload a GIF and JPEG. Now my question is, how do I get the gif or jpeg installed on my page as a thumb? I attempted the [[{{ns:6}}:file.jpg]] bit but couldn't get it to work. I'm presuming the "file" gets replaced with the image file name? However, in my Element Properties window, there are "Address" and "Location" URLs. I've found if I just paste the URL in by itself, the image shows up, but is HUGE! The original image was saved as a thumb 266x199px, but arrives at CPDL as 800×600px?

Further, the image page (Image:TBW.jpg) tells me it is not linked to any CPDL page.

How do I get this organised? What I'm trying to get is a small image like Bobnotts has on his user page. Tweedfour 18:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thurlow, you just have to use the word "thumb" in the image link, as shown below:
[[Image:TBW.jpg|thumb|200px|Thurlow Weed at the Church organ]]
You can change the thumbnail size by using a different number instead of "200px". Both the size and the caption text are optional. Carlos 21:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Carlos, it looks great! That's precisely what I was wanting to do. I figured it was something simple like that, but it looks like I didn't have the code arranged quite right.Tweedfour 22:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal email address vs. functional email address

Hi Carlos,

With reference to this page, what about replacing your personal email address with the functional email address of the IT Operations staff (admin(@)cpdl.org) or another function? --Choralia 09:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Max, that is fine for me! I was not sure whether the admin email would be used exclusively for IT Operations. Carlos ? 11:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Following the discussions made on the administrator-restricted area of the BB, I'm assuming that we will use admin@cpdl.org as functional address for the IT Operations team. I've already configured it to forward emails to you, Chuck, John and me. --Choralia 12:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Various

Hi Carlos. Thanks for the tip on the editor/contributor thing. As far as the extra space in (?) the Add work form, it seems it might indeed be a space I accidently include as I cut 'n paste, since it didn't happen with the score I uploaded today. Strange, though. Cordially, joachim 18:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with using MulitVoicing template?

Hi Carlos. I just saw that you changed my use of {{MultiVoicing}} on the Bach Christmas Oratorio page. My question is: why? Do you also intend to change it on other pages where there are rather complex combinations of numbers of voices and voicings? The template was created on the request of someone (I forgot who), who needed to handle more complicated situations. In particular, the {{Voicing}} template does not allow for citing "Voicings:" instead of "Voicing:". Moreover, if you consult the documentation, you will see that {{Voicing}} could be redefined as a special case of {{MultiVoicing}} - namely:

{{MultiVoicing|4|1st=SATB|var1st=SATB ''divisi''}}

and

{{Voicing|4|SATB|SATB ''divisi''}}

are equivalent. -- Chucktalk Giffen? 21:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chuck, there's nothing wrong with this template, but as you said it's better suited for "complex combinations of numbers of voices"., i.e., works that have 2vv, 3vv and 4vv arrangements, for instance. In this case both arrangements are for 4 voices, so why complicate things unnecessarily. I thought the idea behind using templates was to have simpler and shorter code, and that's not what happened in this specific case, compare:
  1. {{MultiVoicing|v=4|v_add{{sp}}plus 4 soloists|n=2|1st=SATB|1st_add={{sp}} plus {{cat|Solo Soprano}}, {{cat|Solo Alto}}, {{cat|Solo Tenor}} & {{cat|Solo Bass}} (original);|2nd=SSAA|2nd_add={{sp}}(arrangement)}} (209 bytes)
  2. {{Voicing|4|SATB}} plus {{cat|Solo Soprano}}, {{cat|Solo Alto}}, {{cat|Solo Tenor}} & {{cat|Solo Bass}} (original); and {{cat|SSAA}} (arrangement) (146 bytes)
The second code is easier to understand and significantly shorter (~50%), and the result is practically the same, with the exception of the "s" in Voicings. That's why I favored the second form, I hope you'll understand my reasons. —Carlos Email.gif 01:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I see, but don't necessarily agree that shorter code is always better. Also, I just noticed that I had not specified put an "=" after "v_add", causing the text " plus 4 soloists" not to appear (my mistake, because I intended that to be part of the Number of voices information). But the real point was to have a uniform way of handling, at very least, all of the situations which the simplest application of {{Voicing}} does not handle. After all, as more editions are added (with transpositions and arrangements, and such), we can only expect the voicings issue to become more complex. My thought is that by having {{MultiVoicing}} already in place (and perhaps at some point actually making the redefinition of {{Voicing}} mentioned above), we would have in place a single, uniform way of handling all cases, therefore not having to force an editor to figure out an ad hoc replacement in each case (more people will edit than just you, Rob, and I). -- Chucktalk Giffen? 13:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

A translation request

Hi Carlos. I have a favour to ask. As I'm sure you're aware from looking at the add score output emails, many contributors have been submitting the form several times for the same edition. This obviously means we have a number of duplicate CPDL catalogue numbers being created, a situation which isn't ideal by my reckoning. Some time ago I added the following text to the page to try to stop people from making duplicate submissions:

"PLEASE DO NOT COMPLETE THE "ADD WORKS" FORM MORE THAN ONCE FOR THE SAME EDITION. Once you have submitted the form, a unique CPDL number is generated which becomes obsolete if the form is run a second time for the same edition. Volunteers will receive the form which you submitted and post it on the wiki in due course - please be patient. If you forgot to include some information in the form the first time you submitted it, please email addscore (at) cpdl.org with the details rather than submitting the form again. Thank you."

However, some contributors have continued to do so, I suspect mostly because of a language barrier. I wonder if you would mind translating this text into Portuguese (and any other languages that you are able to translate to) and I will add this translation to the page as well. I've already got Italian, Dutch and French covered. Any languages in addition to Portuguese would be a bonus. I hope that you're able to help - thanks! --Bobnotts talk 21:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure Rob, here is the Portuguese version. A Portuguese Add Work page would be a good idea too, one day I'll find the time for it. —Carlos Email.gif 06:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
"POR FAVOR NÃO PREENCHA O FORMULÁRIO "ADD WORKS" MAIS DE UMA VEZ PARA UMA MESMA EDIÇÃO. Cada vez que o formulário é enviado, uma numeração CPDL única é gerada, a qual se torna obsoleta se o formulário é preenchido e enviado uma segunda vez para uma mesma edição. Voluntários irão receber o formulário que você preencheu e irão criar a página correspondente no menor tempo possível - por favor seja paciente. Se você esqueceu de incluir alguma informação no formulário na primeira vez que o preencheu, por favor envie os dados faltantes para o email addscore (arroba) cpdl.org em vez de preencher o formulário novamente. Obrigado!"
Thanks for that, Carlos. It would indeed be good to have the add works form (or guide) in Portuguese, though only when we've implemented and refined the new one! How's the work going on that? --Bobnotts talk 17:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

DotNetWikiBot clobbered the Palestrina page

Hi Carlos. Take a look at this page, which was the result of a DotNetWikiBot edit by QuasiBot. I discovered it when browsing for some Palestrina music, and I've found the culprit (the edit removed a --> that was supposed to close a commented out listing), and I've and fixed it, but I've not checked the rest of that group of edits yet for other possible problems. -- Chucktalk Giffen? 16:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I had to re-fix you fix because the bot had also removed a valid link. The problem was in the Benedictus entry, that besides being commented out was also messed up with a half-implemented Link template, that confused the bot. —Carlos Email.gif 17:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect fixer?

Hi Carlos. I've no idea what this is but it seems to be causing some serious problems as it "fixes" some pages. See for example this edit and this edit. I've blocked it to prevent it from doing any further damage. Do you know what's going on here? --Bobnotts talk 12:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is crazy! I have no idea why it behave so, good thing that you blocked it. There's probably an "official" way to stop it, will see if I can find something on this. —Carlos Email.gif 17:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, here it is [1], there seems to be a bug in it, the tech guys recomend to disable this function using $wgFixDoubleRedirects = false; (just added to LocalSettings.php). —Carlos Email.gif 17:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Some tasks (such as fixing double redirects) are probably best done by hand. The present situation illustrates the importance of thoroughly testing in a safe setting any new extension or bot that we are not totally familiar with. I also find it disconcerting that a number of non-superfluous redirects have been deleted ... requiring us to sift through the work(?) done by the bot that removed them. -- Chucktalk Giffen? 15:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was already clear that the double redirect "fixer" is not a bot, but a system function that was added to the newer versions of the wiki software by default, that I had to investigate (as always) and disable. Also please show me a couple of the non-superfluous redirects that you've found and I'll gladly fix them. Once again, it was not a work done by a bot, but by me using the extension Mass Delete, and I visually checked everything that was being deleted so as not to include useful redirects, though I admit I may have deleted a few by mistake. Chuck, what I find disconcerting is that you're so quick to criticize other's work, but not so when a good job is done. That's a pity. —Carlos Email.gif 16:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, Carlos. The work you are doing is indeed very good. But I didn't see where it was described just what User:Redirect fixer is, so I assumed it was a bot. Also, the Mass removal deletions were all marked as bot edits (which contributed to the confusion, especially since one has to select "show bots" explicitly in Recent changes). Be assured, I'm glad you caught the various Victoria redirects that were deleted before I had a chance to log on; thanks much! Also, I had not realized that the composer redirects such as Robert Parsons (composer) were no longer necessary - I just checked WikiPedia and see that you had changed the ChoralWiki template and updated its usage there - I was aware that we had originally made redirects here to make the use of the ChoralWiki template at WikiPedia simpler, but I guess you have opted for the "more work there, rather than here" approach (it's okay, I just was unaware of the changes); of courae, those were redirects I had in mind when I replied here above. I did not mean to criticize, and I'm sorry, because I know that you are doing truly excellent work here at ChoralWiki. On the other hand, I sometimes do feel that the rest of us are left a bit in the dark when minor (hopefully never major!) mishaps occur, such as those pointed out by Rob as well as the ones that had me concerned at first. -- Chucktalk Giffen? 16:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Chuck, my connection was down the whole day and I couldn't answer you before. I do understand your concerns with respect to CPDL, coming out of the zeal with which you have been managing the site since Raf Ornes got distanced from the administrative tasks. Rest assured that my intentions are the best too, although this alone isn't enough to keep us from making bad decisions at times. With relation to the edits marked as "bot", I've been marking them like this via SQL so as to not clutter up the Recent Changes page, as it once annoyed you. As for the composer redirects, I remembered to have changed most of them at Wikipedia, but will re-check the ones deleted (around 6-7) to be sure! The changes made in the Wikipedia template were primarily aesthetical, so that the links to CPDL there wouldn't show the "(composer)" part in them. —Carlos Email.gif 03:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Weird formatting messup

Hi Carlos. Just a minor point, but I thought I'd let you know in case it helps you in the future: in this edit I corrected an indentation on the "Edition notes" line which was somehow removed, perhaps by an automated edit? If it was like that when I made my previous edit to that page, I feel sure I would have corrected it then. Anyway, I've corrected quite a few of these over the past couple of weeks so something for you to ponder if you have nothing better to do! --Bobnotts talk 19:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rob, thanks for point that out, it was indeed one of the automated edits I ran in January. The remaining pages were just fixed. —Carlos Email.gif 22:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A ghost page

That one appears in listings like the one I'm working on, but can't be opened to rename it (because there is superfluous special character after the '!' in the title) and to add text. Thanks in advance. Claude 13:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the page in question is a blank page, and the extra character should simply be a space. The spurious page can be safely deleted. Something must have gotten fouled up when the work was submitted (I think someone tried to insert a no-break space in the title), and a new page needs to be created with the title as follows: St Mark Passion: No. 22 - Kreuzige ihn! (Reinhard Keiser). -- Chucktalk Giffen 18:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Claude (and Chuck), I still don't understand why some pages have had their titles messed up with these strange characters. I guess it happened during the migration of the old system to the wiki format, as it seems all pages with such problem are older than that. The page is now available under the corrected title given by Chuck above. The page does indeed exist (that's why it was categorized) but when someone clicks on the malformed title/link, is directed to another page, this one blank. —Carlos Email.gif 19:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see three of this kind in the English text requests : H: Honeymouth, M: Moonchild, W: Wind, The. Very few indeed, among more than a thousand. Thanks in advance. - Claude 17:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Claude (the "Ghost Hunter" :^), the page titles were corrected. I also put the articles in the beginning ("The Wind", etc). Regards and thanks again for the texts you're supplying us with. —Carlos Email.gif 19:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help. I added separate files today - and some of it seems to work! I cannot get it to say "Sibelius 5".

Text when anonymous user tries to edit a page

Hi Carlos. Currently, when a user who isn't signed in tries to edit a page (ie. click on "View source"), they get the following Mediawiki standard text:

You do not have permission to edit pages, for the following reasons:
  • The action you have requested is limited to users in the group Users.
  • You must confirm your e-mail address before editing pages. Please set and validate your e-mail address through your user preferences.
You can view and copy the source of this page:
[page code]

Putting myself in an unregistered user's shoes, I don't think this is a very helpful message - it's potentially quite confusing since it suggests they just need to confirm their email address. Do you agree that it should be changed to something simpler like "You must log in or register if you wish to edit pages"? Since you have edited Mediawiki standard messages in the past, I thought I'd consult with you before changing this message. --Bobnotts talk 14:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes Rob, I agree that the message given is not very clear. But in fact this is not one single MediaWiki message, but a combination of three:
  1. MediaWiki:Permissionserrorstext-withaction
  2. MediaWiki:Badaccess-group1
  3. MediaWiki:Confirmedittext
I believe you could change the message #2 to the text you suggested, what do you think? —Carlos Email.gif 06:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for those links, Carlos. I've changed the second one as you suggested. I think making the wiki as accessible as possible is very important if we are to encourage new users to contribute. --Bobnotts talk 13:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Obrigado!

Que bom que conseguiu fazer funcionar, mesmo não sendo do jeito esperado... Acho que o que você fez pode servir para resolver um probleminha parecido que tivemos lá no Wikilivros.

Fiquei na dúvida: não seria melhor "Inclua uma partitura" em vez de "Inclua sua partitura"? Afinal, não é um projeto só para composições dos colaboradores, já que podemos carregar partituras de compositores renomados... O que acha?

Depois me avise que vou querer ver a tradução da página principal... =D

Um bom fim de semana pra ti! Helder 12:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Filling the Recent changes list

Carlos! You said you wouldn't fill the recent changes with text replaces! Could you mark the latest ones as bot edits or something please?! Thank you! --Bobnotts talk 22:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but the replaces are still under way! lol. As soon as it finishes I'll hide them. —Carlos Email.gif 22:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Motets?

Hi Carlos, I visited my watchlist page and I noted that text replace has categorized as "motets" works that, in my opinion (but please note that I never received any music education), are difficult to classify as such (e.g., "Vesperae Solennes de Confessore" by Mozart, "Gloria" by Vivaldi, etc.). Maybe text replace is also replacing something that shouldn't be replaced? Max a.k.a. Choralia 20:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Max, these last changes made via ReplaceText were just to replace unformatted text with their template counterpart. No logic was involved to analyze the works, so none of them was "recategorized". See here and here to understand what I mean. These works were classified as Motets by the person who created the pages, or by someone else in a later time, but not by ReplaceText itself. Of course the correctness of this categorization can always be discussed with the editors of the works. Regards —Carlos Email.gif 21:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
You're right Carlos, I was mislead by the way the replacement is made. Quite strange that such works were categorized as motets, but this is a different discussion. Keep up with the good work. Max a.k.a. Choralia 22:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Dutch score submission guide

Hi Carlos. I may be wrong, but I think something has gone wrong in the Dutch score submission guide, in the section where users are referred to the Composter Template. The reference doesn't appear as a link, so I gather there is a coding error? Cordially, joachim 15:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Joachim, thanks for warning me of this problem; the Composer template had been renamed, and when the links to it were updated an extra space was introduced by mistake. It's fixed now. Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 16:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Creative Commons links

Hi Carlos. I noticed that you made some changes to the Creative Commons copyright page. The associated template works by linking to the appropriate title on the copyright page but these links don't work if the titles are removed, as they are now. Do you think it would be good to reintroduce these titles? --Bobnotts talk 17:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rob, I'm sorry, I had no idea that the template was so closely dependant upon the page structure. Having a second look at the page, though, I noticed that it's so short in content that even if we restore the titles as before, most of them will never scroll to the top of the page when selected. Anyway, I'll see what can be done. —Carlos Email.gif 04:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
OK no problem. Thanks for the alteration. --Bobnotts talk 22:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Instruments" template

Hi Carlos. You used Template:Instruments on this page but it hasn't categorised the score page in the appropriate category (as far as I can tell). I appreciate that this template is in the testing stages, but perhaps it would be better to test it on sandbox pages and use the templates that work correctly on actual score pages? What are your intentions for Template:Instruments? Presumably just the idea to use one template rather than 10 or 20? --Bobnotts talk

Hi Rob, you're right. I expected the template code would be ready sooner so that the results could be judged by the other admins. But since the template in its current situation doesn't disrupt visually the work page, I ask you to wait a few more days before removing it or replacing it with other accompaniment templates. As you probably are aware of, there are many hundreds (if not thousands) of works which haven't yet received any accompaniment templates, and my idea is to make this process somewhat simpler. —Carlos Email.gif 18:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that probably there should be some wider discussion of just what else might (or might not) be put into this new Instruments template. And probably this discussion should come before, not after, the template is in more-or-less final form. I know that I have my own thoughts on the matter. Or, perhaps Carlos has some sort of large-scale changes in mind, in which case we should be made aware of them anyway for comments and suggestions. -- Chucktalk Giffen 19:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Well guys, the template is ready, as I roughly planned it. Please feel free to discuss it, change it at will or simply not use it at all. As you probably noticed, I prefer to present solutions first and discuss them later. If the presented solutions are rejected, no problem at all with me, I'm also learning a lot in the process of developing them. :) —Carlos Email.gif 19:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, Carlos. It's nice to know what's going on in your head sometimes! Let's start up some discussion somewhere else. --Bobnotts talk 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia links

Thank you for invitation here at CPDL. Also your information certainly helped me to clarify some details. --Tomaxer 10:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for you welcome

Carlos - thanks for your welcome to CPDL. I am planning to go through the scores with errors and submit the new, corrected editions. If you could help with a page move (because of my clumsiness), I would really appreciate it. Freedomlinux 02:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Sua conta

É impressão minha ou você moveu apenas a sua página de usuário para outro nome, sem renomear a sua conta "efetivamente"? É que eu achei estranho não aparecer mais o link Contribuições do usuário. Se não me engano você tem como renomear a conta, pois é um dos burocratas. Helder 16:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oi Helder, não sei se entendi bem sua dúvida, mas se você está falando da página User:Carlos Augusto Mourão, ela não é uma página de usuário de verdade, mas sim uma página de "contribuidor" como falam aqui na CPDL. A página da minha conta mesmo é a User:Carlos, que redireciona para a outra.
A propósito, você já viu a sugestão que dei ao "probleminha" que você citou em sua outra mensagem mais acima? —Carlos Email.gif 20:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Era essa página mesmo... Mas se era o esperado, tudo bem... =)
Ahh.. sobre o probleminha, eu tinha vindo aqui justamente procurar/descobrir onde foi q vc deixou aquele comentário, pois eu tinha lido ele, mas agora não sei onde foi... =/ Helder 21:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Obrigado por me lembrar da possível solução solução... Assim que der, faremos o teste lá no Wikilivros... Helder 13:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)