User talk:Carlos/Archive 4

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: 01020304050607080910

Change in policy

Hi Carlos. In this edit you missed off the score link. Has there been a change in policy since I was last here? ;-) Not trying to trip you up - did you just forget? I've added it anyway. --Bobnotts talk 15:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No Rob, I deliberately leave these links off as I think it's an unnecessary double work that over time leads to numerous inconsistencies on the composer pages, besides making them too cluttered with icons. I've proposed more than once that this policy be changed, but while a consensus is not reached, I don't mind if others include the missing links (thank you for that).
I particularly think we should use the precious time dedicated to CPDL to accomplish nobler tasks, as helping people publish their files uploaded long ago (you know there are hundreds of editions that were "lost behind", as the one just published). A change in the Add Work process is also something that I consider urgent, if we want to somehow stop this hemorrhagy of editions that are sent but never get published. —Carlos Email.gif 15:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not taking sides, here, but just adding what little I know about the situation. For what it's worth, since the add scores form includes score icons, I would guess that current policy (and policy/practice that has been in effect since the inception of ChoralWiki) indicates that score icons/links should be included (where there is just one edition) ... Raf and others argued that we should reduce the number of "clicks" to get to the sheet music. I suggest that perhaps we need to (re)open this policy topic ... preferably at the forums. -- Chucktalk Giffen 17:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Chuck, I agree that it would be a good thing if we could discuss this at the forums, hopefully with the presence of the other admins so that we could also hear their opinions and eventually reach a reasonable compromise. Another unfortunate decision that Raf Ornes took long ago that is also very inefficient in terms of the wiki system is the way files are linked today. When we link a file like this Icon_pdf.gif instead of like this PDF, the wiki system is unable to create a relationship between the page and the file, and we are unable to know what files are linked, and where they are linked. That's why at Wikipedia this kind of linking is totally discouraged. For this, an alternative would be to always use a template to link to local files, and make this template at the same time display an icon and create an invisible link to the file. More food for thought. —Carlos Email.gif 06:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Carlos, until such discussion has begun and been concluded, please respect the standards currently in place regarding score links on composer pages. I have just added links to Cristian Gentilini. I would like to discuss any possible reform of this area but until we've reached a consensus, we need to keep things consistent. --Bobnotts talk 16:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
"we need to keep things consistent" — Wow, that'd be great! Then please go across all 1,464 composer pages and verify each of their works pages to make sure that all icons on the composer page are "consistent" with the policy. ;^) (You see what I mean? Consistency is simply impossible under the current policy.) Now being serious, I see your point, and will abstain to create new works pages until this subject is thoroughly discussed on the forums. —Carlos Email.gif 16:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that things certainly aren't consistent at the moment. And whilst I appreciate you're not being entirely serious Carlos, I feel I need to explain my rationale for why I don't (or haven't yet) gone through every composer page and checked them. Basically, it's to do with acts and omissions. If I'm editing a score page for one reason or another, I will endeavour to correct any other problems with it even though I'm editing it for a different reason. But if I don't come to a page to edit it, I won't correct any minor inconsistencies, such as an incorrect listing of the number of editions of any of the works listed there. However, if I edit a page and deliberately fail to correct a serious problem that I notice (or at least flag it up with the cleanup template), then I fall short of my editing standards.
But please don't stop adding works from the add works email output. While I'm taking my exams, I can't keep up to date with all the latest submissions so I'd really appreciate it if you could just carry on adding works in line with the current standards until we figure out if (and if so, how) we're going to change them. Is that OK? --Bobnotts talk 09:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Carlos & Rob. I'm pretty sure that the original reason for links being constructed as external links like the Icon_pdf.gif link Carlos cites (but originally icons were not used) instead of internal wiki hyperlinks of the form [[media:Schu-Zwe.pdf|PDF]] was that, at the Stanford site, Raf had set things up so that clicking on an external link would open up a new browser page. This facility(?) was lost when we migrated ChoralWiki to new servers. I almost said something about it then, but then read up a little and found that such new browser window action is generally to be deprecated now. Since then, I've had no problem right-clicking and selecting "open in a new window" or "open in a new tab", so it no longer bothers me. All this suggests that it might be wise to convert back to internal links (for files hosted here). We would have to abandon the traditional use of clicking on icons in the process, but we might try something of the form Icon_pdf.gifPDF ... [[media:Schu-Zwe.pdf|PDF]]{{pdf}}. -- Chucktalk Giffen 12:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Files

Hi Carlos, I really like what you did with creating the subcategories of Files. Thanks for doing this! -- Chucktalk Giffen 17:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well Chuck, in fact I thought that the category system would work better, but couldn't find any simple way to add the categories using the bot. There is a semi-automated way: to copy all filenames from, say, ChoralWiki:MID and paste them on a document as a list, so that the bot may read from it and categorize the files properly. I made such test to populate Category:MID, but am still not sure which presentation is better. What do you think? —Carlos Email.gif 06:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Search engine Dutch translation

Hi Carlos, underneath is the Dutch translation of the search engine manual. Cordially, joachim

Kies voor één of meerdere categorieën de gewenste optie in het uitrolmenu, en klik daarna één maal op List works om de titels van de stukken te zien te krijgen (momenteel krijgt u slechts 200 titels te zien).
Hoe meer categorieën u benut, hoe specifieker de zoekopdracht en hoe minder werken u als oplossing te zien krijgt. Wil u een categorie niet langer opnemen in de zoekopdracht, dan kiest u terug de blanco optie in het uitrolmenu.
(*)in de optie Number of voices (stemmenaantal) moet u ook een bezetting kiezen.

Update Hi Carlos, this is the translation of the remaining items. joachim

1= *Geen resultaten gevonden|
2= Specifieer een Bezetting of deselecteer Stemmenaantal|
3= Gelieve minstens één categorie te selecteren|
5= Categorieën|
6= Genre|
7= Religieuze muziek|
8= Profane muziek|
9= Subgenre|

10= Liturgisch gebruik| 11= Stemmenaantal*| 12= 1 stem (unisono)| 13= 2 stemmen| 14= 3 stemmen| 15= 4 stemmen| 16= 5 stemmen| 17= 6 stemmen| 18= 7 stemmen| 19= 8 stemmen| 20= 9 stemmen| 21= 10 stemmen| 42= 11 stemmen| 22= 12 stemmen| 23= 13 tot 15 stemmen| 24= 16 of meer stemmen| 25= Bezetting| 26= Solo| 27= Koorsolo| 28= Muzikale periode| 29= Middeleeuwse musiek| 30= Renaissancemuziek| 31= Barokmuziek| 32= Klassieke music| 33= Romantische music| 34= Vroeg-20e eeuwse muziek| 35= Hedendaagse muziek| 36= Taal| 37= Begeleiding| 38= Geef titels weer| 39= Wis gegevens| 40= Nog geen resultaten| 41= Resultaten

website victoria change

Hi Carlos. Unfortunately, you changed the Victoria link at Website without checking that all the links for Victoria scores originally pointed to the partituras.html subpage where Victoria's works are listed - and there are navigation instructions for finding those scores in the Edition notes of each of the Nancho Alvarez editions of Victoria's works. These will now have to be changed or else the individual links on Victoria pages changed to something along the lines of {{website|victoria}}/partituras.html. I'm guessing you made the change because of the Guerrero and Morales pages, as well as the Otras Partituras page. But this now, shallow linking upsets the previous less-than-shallow linking we previously have always had for Victoria scores. I'm willing to insert "/partituras.html" into each of the links necessary, and even to insert "/guerrero.html", "/morales.html", and "varios.html" for the other instances necessary ... but I think it will take some time to track these down. Perhaps a better solution might have been to leave the victoria field of website as it is and add extra fields, perhaps of the form vict-guerrero, vict-morales, vict-various for links to these other pages. What do you think? Which is easier? I don't want to lose the careful instructions for finding Victoria scores. -- Chucktalk Giffen 03:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chuck, the necessary replaces were already done! :) (you probably haven't seen them because they were marked as 'bot' so as not to fill up the Recent changes page). This morning when I noticed that many pages were still pointing to the old site, my first reaction was to add the new site to the template Website. Then I saw that it was already there, but pointing exclusively to the Victoria's subpage. I had three choices: 1.Leave the field for "Victoria" intact and create new fields "Victoria2", "Victoria3" for the other subpages on that site (as you also suggested); 2.Change the entry to link to a higher level and then use it for all subpages; 3. Simply update the links in work pages without using the template Webpage. I initially opted for this third alternative, and made the following replaces:
At this point I realized that this was not going to be the best solution, and decided for the 2nd alternative instead. I then changed the template Website and continued with the following replaces:
And finally, converted the remaining new links to also use the template:
I tried to be as carefull as possible, but didn't remember to check the instructions on the score pages. I suppose that at least the instructions for Victoria's works are still valid, because these links haven't changed effectively. —Carlos Email.gif 05:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carlos. I'm sorry that I didn't see you did exactly what I was thinking of- yesterday I only saw this last night after a very very long day returning from the hospital where my father-in-law had heart surgery (successful!). I had seen problems early yesterday morning when I was working on Guerrero, merging pages with the scores for the same works. When I saw the template changes last night, I simply jumped to the conclusion that there was still work to be done!! Actually, what prompted this was my simply going to the Victoria page and clicking on the net icon for Missa Pro Victoria on that page - which sends me to the http://www.uma.es/victoria/ main page, not to ~/partituras.html - so I figured the Victoria work pages were in the same state, and that's when I wrote you the message here. When I saw your reply, I went back to the Victoria page and checked - one is still sent to the main page, not the partituras page!! So I looked at the code on the Victoria page and see that all those links use LnkWeb, thereby "covertly" sneaking past the "bot" edits you did (LOL)! I guess we'll have to change those links, too. Again, sorry for the confusion and thanks for making all the changes you did already. -- Chucktalk Giffen 11:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Chuck, I had forgotten about LnkWeb; have just done the replaces required in the Victoria page.
PS: Hope your father-in-law recovers promptly! —Carlos Email.gif 19:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, thanks Carlos! -- Chucktalk Giffen 11:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

solo SATB category, etc.

  • Posted by: Vaarky 06:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 Help 

Hi, Carlos--would you mind discussing the Category:Solo SATB and similar categories a bit?

I have a vague concern that it creates a duplicate hierarchy for someone to look through, both SATB and solo SATB when they have one of each voice type. It's not that I think there aren't differentiating factors that are clear, but I also worry that there are some that may be fuzzy and might result in works being categorized unexpectedly. Admittedly, I sing mostly Renaissance and modern music where this isn't as likely to be an issue as with Baroque through Romantic, for example. I'd like to understand better what would account for whether a song gets slotted into the solo SATB versus the SATB category and how to make sure users are aware of both types if needed and don't have to duplicate look-ups first on one and then the other.

Can you help explain what the differentiating factor would be for when something falls into one category versus the other? Composer's specification? Other factors? Tx.

Hi Vaarky, you have probably seen this category among the ones created by me yesterday. In fact these were created for works pages that were already categorized in them, so that these categories might show up in the Multi-Category Search. The missing categories were found in Special:WantedCategories. I can't discuss the merit of whether the works in them were correctly categorized or not; I just trusted in what the creators/editors of these works pages specified. I agree that "Solo SATB" may be a bit confusing to a new user, but according to the current standard followed at CPDL, I understand it means that it's a work for 4 soloists, voiced SATB, and no choir. You probably remember that there was a topic on this subject at the forums some time ago; if you prefer we may continue the discussion there: Solo voice categories. Thanks, —Carlos Email.gif 07:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Confusion with Template:LastName in DEFAULTSORT

Hi Carlos. I've run into several instances of users replacing "LastName" with the composer's last name in Template:New composer - eg. something like the most recent {{DEFAULTSORT:{{Cainer}}}} on the new Josef Cainer page. I changed the instructions for the Composer page template in an attempt to help users figure out what to do. But really I think maybe it is the name of Template:LastName that is the real source of confusion. Perhaps we should change "LastName" to something like "NameSorter"? -- Chucktalk Giffen 20:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Chuck, thanks for the more detailed instructions, I believe it'll be enough to make users avoid wrongly editing this line. Let's wait a couple of weeks to check, and if these errors continue, we could try the other way around: simply ask users not to change this line at all. But if you really think that the name is the problem, then I suggest that an alias (redirect) be created pointing to LastName and used in Template:New composer in place of LastName. After a few weeks, if no new problems arise, we can then move LastName to the alias name. —Carlos Email.gif 16:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Dutch sites

Hi Carlos, for the multi-category search, I think the best Dutch translation would be zoeken op eigenschappen. I've tried to follow the instructions you left on my talk page to create the redirect, but I'm afraid even those simple operations are beyond me. I've noticed Max is working on an Italian translation - I'd be willing to contribute Dutch versions. Please let me know how to contribute those if you're interested. Cordially, joachim 08:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Joachim, no problem, the redirect was created as you suggested. —Carlos Email.gif 19:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Carlos, I've begun translating the pages you indicated. When working on ChoralWiki:MainAnnouncement/nl, I was puzzled by the word comment as in comment the box to add an announcement. Since I don't know what it means in English, I can't translate it into Dutch. Grateful for a hint, here. Cordially, joachim 18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Carlos, I just reverted your two edits to the noteperfect banner to one which works for pushing the website info to one line and centering the previous line. It seems that the banner text does not "know" anything about wiki markup, so nowiki tags, big tags, nbsp's and the like don't work (they are interpreted literally). Only by directly inserting no-break spaces did I get the result Rod wanted. And I doubt that there is any way at all of changing font-size or font-weight within a sidebar banner. I sent Rod a message with a CC to administration@cpdl.org about it. I think he will be happy enough with the website address on the last line by itself. (added a bit later: Rod liked everything about the banner except the web address, so let's not fiddle with it any more - white on green should stay.) -- Chucktalk Giffen 13:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I see you just uploaded a version of the logo with the text included, pretty much as Rod wants it. Go ahead then and install it. (sorry, we both seem to have been working on it at the same time!) -- Chucktalk Giffen 13:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem, Chuck. I've just read in the forums that the www.note-perfect.com link wasn't fitting in one single line, and I stranged it because for me the banner text was being displayed more or less the same as it is now inside the image (with the difference of the formatting only). —Carlos Email.gif 13:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

redirects for user pages using full names

  • Posted by: Vaarky 15:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 Help 

Hi, Carlos. When you create user page redirects such as the one for Daharja‎ redirecting to Leanne Daharja Veitch, do you do this for all users who supply a full name, or all users who are also composers and/or editors, or only upon user request? I want to understand better so I can figure out how to address this when writing the privacy policy. Tx!

Hi Vaarky, I usually do this only when I know that a registered user is also a score editor, in order to create a connection between their editor page and their registered user account. Another redirect is created from the editor's talk page back to the registered user's talk page so that they may be informed by the wiki system anytime someone leaves them a message. I think there isn't a written rule about this, I learned it from observing what the other admins used to do in these situations. Hope it helps! —Carlos Email.gif 22:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This sounds like a useful practice. I want to make sure we include mention of it in the privacy policy, so I'm making a note and hope you'll keep an eye out for it too. --Vaarky 02:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Translation to Spanish

Well it's all done! :) Not Argentinian Spanish at all...perfect standard. It was much easier than what I imagined... It was so good to help... I am an artistic painter, a graphic designer and I understand a little of web programming. In the music fields I am a singer (tenor training to counter-tenor), copyist and publisher, being my most beloved styles everything that goes until baroque period ..So whatever you need a volunteer for...just knock on my door... Thank you! ...Saniakob 06:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Done! There is a little help text in the Multi-category search page which is in English, but you didn't indicate it needs translation...should I translate that text?...The result is weird since there are some texts which are still in English, but I guess that's because the system requires it to be so...As regards my name...my real name is Santiago and the origin of the name is Saniakob... =)...Obrigado! ...Saniakob 01:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

New scores list

Hi Carlos. Thanks for solving the Español in the language page. A small question: I recently uploaded this piece and created the score page, but it doesn't show in the new scores list on the main page. Any thoughts on this? Cordially, joachim 12:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Joachim, when you copied the code for the page of Beata viscera, you probably forgot to include the categories at the end of the page (conf. here). They are required so that the work may appear at the Main Page :) Cordially, —Carlos Email.gif 15:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carlos. Thanks for fixing that, it seems to have been my bad indeed. Too bad the system isn't idiot-proof. :) joachim 16:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

tenebrae

Hi, I created Category:Tenebrae before later stumbling on Category:Lamentations of Jeremiah, which doesnt have a parent category yet. How would you like to handle the merge? Richard Mix 07:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge complete and Tenbrae deleted. -- Chucktalk Giffen 17:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chuck, Shouldnt Tenebrae have become a redirect? I cant see what was 'merged'; Lamentations of Jeremiah could use a wikilink (Tenebrae (sevice)) or explanation of the office and a See also category:Tenebrae responsories at the very least. The other problem is that it (or rather category:Lamentations of Jeremiah) has only "hidden categories" and dosnt appear in category:Sacred music, category:Sacred music by season or category:Holy Week. Richard Mix 20:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Richard has a valid point, in fact the category:Lamentations of Jeremiah was created not as a part of the Sacred music by season navigation system, but rather as a support category for the DPL code inside of the Lamentations of Jeremiah text page. Perhaps the idea of having a separate Category:Tenebrae wasn't so bad after all. —Carlos Email.gif 21:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
In that case, why not simply unhide Lamentations of Jeremiah and also make it a subcategory of Sacred music and of Holy Week? -- Chucktalk Giffen 21:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
In doing so, all works manually added to this category will be automatically listed in the text page Lamentations of Jeremiah as sharing that text. Do all Tenebrae works take their texts from the book of Lamentations of Jeremiah? In such case this solution may work fine. —Carlos Email.gif 21:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I did some checking, and my understanding is that the Lamentations are separate from the Responsories, both being a part of the Roman rite Tenebrae. This is most clearly illustrated by looking at the tomasluisdevictoria.org page for the Officium Hebgdomadae Sanctae (Victoria composed complete settings for both the Lamentations and the Responsories. The Lamentations form the first lessons for the first Nocturn and have been set by many composers. The Responsories have been set by several composers, though not as many as for the Lamentations. This suggests that the two categories reference each other. They might be made subcategories of a separate Category:Tenebrae, but in keeping with the Wiki principle against an article being made a member of both a category and a subcategory of that category, I would not recommend making every Lamentaions or Responsory setting a subcategory of the parent Tenebrae category. On the other hand, I wonder if it is sufficient that both Lamentations of Jeremiah and Tenebrae responsories be subcategories of Holy Week? If we really do want Category:Tenebrae, containing these two as subcategories, then Tenbrae would have to be a subcategory of Holy Week, and the categorization of Lamentations and Responsories in Holy Week removed. Does this make sense? -- Chucktalk Giffen 22:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Jeremiah is always used for the first nocturn, which appears the only one set to music, so that sounds viable. The Responsories are another matter, but could go in See Also. On the other hand, it might be more logical to discuss both together on a restored tenebrae page. At least having a redirect there might save someone else the trouble of recreating the page!
Wikipedia is a bit confused, with three articles Tenebrae moved from tenebrae (liturgy) to tenebrae (service) and music split between Lamentations of Jeremiah the Prophet and Genre of the Lamentations. Richard Mix 23:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm in doubt now about what's the best alternative (having Tenebrae as an intermediary subcategory under Holy Week or not). I'll let you guys decide this one, the Church feasts always confused me. ;) —Carlos Email.gif 02:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of overly nested categories. What if Tenebrae and category:Tenebrae responsories were merged and we had T-resp and Lamentations in Holy Week? Or better to merge the two into a single category:Tenebrae? Richard Mix 06:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Whenever Matins have 3 nocturns, the readings in the first nocturn are Old Testament, the remaining nocturns have readings from the New Testament and a church father. After every lecture, a responsorium prolixum or elaborate responsory follows (the other services in the office have responsoria breves). The Lamentations are the source for the readings in every first nocturn of the triduum. The responsories don't really have any sort of direct relationship to them, so putting them in a joint category (apart from the general Holy Week) doesn't seem to serve any useful liturgical purpose. Just my five cents. joachim 07:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your mail

Thanks Carlos (specially for making the effort to write it in Spanish, that was a great gesture I a appreciate a lot). I decided to stop volunteering. I don't find the conditions at CPDL are proper for me to keep up with the job. Thank you again.-Saniakob 02:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Pascha concelebranda (Monteverdi)

Hi Carlos,

thank you for tidying up my chaos! Regards from --Christophero Manco 17:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you weigh in on a discussion?

I'm not really sure how to proceed - Talk:Se de una hermosa rosa (Manuel Pancorbo). Thanks --Bobnotts talk 20:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Carlos. Thanks for your words on the talk-page of the song. I think the better way to solve the translation question is, simply, wipe out the Swedish text and put a link to the Swedish version; this solution prevents confusion.
On the Swedish song Jag vet en dejlig rosa: could it be more logical, to put Eva Toller's arrangement and mine under the same title? If you think so, please help me do it!
--Mpancorbo 22:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Manuel, I followed your suggestion and merged Eva Toller's arrangement and yours in a single page: Jag vet en dejlig rosa (Traditional). I also agree that the Swedish translation is not necessary in the Spanish page, will do the necessary changes. Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 23:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Translating help pages

Hi Carlos,

Back in the old days :)) I started translating the help pages (I'm sure most of that is on the forums somewhere). I'm not sure whether the text is still up-to-date, though, so perhaps you might consider using some of that Wiki wizardry of yours to turn the help pages into numbered items, like you did with the main pages? Cordially, joachim 19:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Joachim, the numbered items system works well when we have short texts to translate, but for longer texts as those in the help pages, things get more complicated because of the various formattings that can be found on such pages (as tables, bulleted lists, etc.), so in this case the free text system is more practical. Sorry for not being able to help with this. —Carlos Email.gif 23:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Les Cloches by Debussy

Hi Carlos OK to have both versions on one page but maybe it would be useful to have a clearer description of what each version is. The David Newman submission does not state which version it is and the "General Information" refers only to the soprano solo and piano version and not to the SSSATBB version. Is it possible to make the general information refer to both versions or does that cause a wiki-problem? Also the Isabella Parker translation of the (David Newman) soprano and piano version would have to be included in the "Original text and translations" in addition to my translation for the SSSATBB version. If you would like me to do this, let me know, otherwise I'll await your suggestions. Kind regards David dwsolo 15:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorting the Request pages

According to the Cleanup template on this page, we got a problem at the end of the list. I tried to put a DEFAULTSORT template on the Request page, but it seems to be to no avail. So I need your help. Thanks in advance. Claude 09:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Done! In fact the DEFAULTSORT doesnt't work in this situation, the sorting logic had to be changed inside the templates that deal with requests.
Just an unrelated note: when possible, please use a wiki link instead of an external link format for local pages:
  • [[Request:Autant en emporte le vent (Pierre de La Rue)|this page]]
instead of:
  • [http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Request:Autant_en_emporte_le_vent_%28Pierre_de_La_Rue%29 this page]
Thanks, —Carlos Email.gif 13:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Well done! What I was missing were the double square brackets around the link. Thanks. If you want another one (I just want to reduce the number of Cleanup notices), we have that notice with a link inside the template that doesn't appear. I'm sure you will like that one ;-) - Claude 13:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
That was tricky, the culprit was the equal sign inside the message. :) By the way, if there are working links to those works in Psalm 130, shouldn't the links in the editions be corrected instead of leaving them inside the cleanup notice? What do you think? —Carlos Email.gif 16:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You're mighty strong, Carlos. Thanks. For the little change, I can do it ;-) - Claude 16:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding editions without CPDL no.

Hi Carlos. If you're adding editions with the CPDL no. missing, would you please be so good as to include a cleanup notice to say so? It's just that otherwise I'd miss things like Zadok the Priest (George Frideric Handel) if the editor had not completed the add works form by mistake (which is the case here). Thanks --Bobnotts talk 20:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rob, I didn't add the cleanup notice because I was planning to return to these works later this night and check in the database if there were entries for them or not. But if you've added current numbers to them that's ok, too. Regards —Carlos Email.gif 02:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Missa

Tudo bem! Obrigado por arrumar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Agnaldobaeta (talkcontribs) on 12:49, 14 October 2009.

Seniores populi

Olá

Agradeço pela remoção, porque já estava causando "desconfortos" para mim. Eu pensei que não teria problema em fazer uma edição diferente, mas já que teve...

Desde já, obrigado —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Israel1992 (talkcontribs) on 12:15, 29 October 2009.

Nossa, eu ja mais queria causar tanto tumulto assim...

eu decidi postá-la, para que o publico tivesse acesso a uma coisa tão rara e bela (tenho essa gravação com o Lesne), mas não primei por este obstaculo...

Felizmente está tudo resolvido, inclusive minha situação com a equipe de lá

Francesco Sponga-Usper

Hi Carlos, I totally agree with you about using Francesco Usper as reference page, with redirection from Francesco Sponga. It's the same on Wikipedia, as I mentioned in my email to the contributor, that I cc-ed to you. Max a.k.a. --Choralia 13:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Page titles

Hi Carlos. I see that you've changed MediaWiki:Pagetitle and MediaWiki:Aboutsite to call this website "CPDL". I thought we agreed that this is ChoralWiki, the home of the organisation the Choral Public Domain Library? --Bobnotts talk 17:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rob, the changes werent't related to the discussion you cite; I was just following a recomendation given here (see #9), and putting CPDL in place of {{SITENAME}} was automatic. But it seems I was partly right; if you check the "About CPDL" link at the bottom of every page, you'll notice that it links to page "Help:What is CPDL anyway?", not to page "Help:What is ChoralWiki anyway?". But in any case, I don't think we have come to a final decision on this yet, as the opinion of just 3 people is not enough to establish a consensus. The ideal would be if we ran a poll at the Main Page asking users to vote in their preferred name for the site (unless Raf steps in and decides that everything should stay the way it is :) —Carlos Email.gif 23:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, we can make a change when there's a consensus. For the moment, I've changed things back to the way they were. --Bobnotts talk 13:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Pie Jesu

Hi Carlos,

TextSettingsList at present doesnt list Fauré, the most famous setting of this text. Is it really preferable to make a subpage for the one movement? Richard Mix 21:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Richard. A subpage would be an alternative, but since there aren't so many editions of Pie Jesu alone, it's preferable to keep it where it is now. Template:LnkTxt was added to the Requiem page, and now it's being listed inside Pie Jesu. Do you like this solution? —Carlos Email.gif 23:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes indeed, very elegant! Richard Mix 06:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)