User talk:Cjshawcj

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Tallis Dorian

As far as I'm aware, "short service" and "Dorian" are both 19th or 20th century titles, and both remain in use. There is an older title, the First Service (which, at a guess, was coined by John Barnard), but I can't say that I've heard it used. "Short service in the Dorian mode" seems reasonably unambiguous. Adrian M. Wall (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Webbe You gave me your heart

Possible errors:
Bar 20: Alto - last note should be B, not A
Bars 23-24: Tenor I - Missing slur.

Bar 14: Tenor I - G natural rather than G sharp feels more appropriate to me.
Jamesgibb (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

4 editor-induced errors (two bar zeros, and all subsequent bars misnumbered) corrected. Amended pdf will be posted soon. Thanks for the observation. Cjshawcj (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


You may have noticed that we have been making significant changes to the composer pages over the last few weeks. The main purpose is to automate, as much as possible, the process of uploading editions to the site. We have eliminated the file information from the composer pages because we have found from experience that when people upload new versions of files the are often unaware that the files on the composer page need to be adjusted manually. We were therefore ending up with a mismatch between the files. Another reason is that people need to be aware of any copyright restrictions before they download a file and these can olonly be found on the works page.

One side benefit is that the new system picks up works which have not been added to the composer page. (My record so far is 21, including, embarrassingly, one of my own!) It will also identify works where the composer is identified as arranger; any work in the list which has another composer's name is an arrangement.

It becomes less useful on the more complicated composer pages, particularly if the works are arranged by opus number, or by publication, but that covers considerably less than 10% of composers.

As one of the major contributors to the site, it would be very useful to have your feedback, whether positive or negative, on the changes.Jamesgibb (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Cantate Domino (Hieronymus Praetorius)

Great to see the new additions! I was wondering, could this be the Cantate Domino, No. 98 in Florilegium Portense I 1618 as well as the one published in Canticum B. Mariae Virginis (and other motets), 1622? Richard Mix (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes to Canticum, dunno about Florilegium. I have several Florilegium links to make soon (e.g. new Erbach's, and will check then. Cjshawcj (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

On precipitate tinkering

While it is unfortunate that Claude has (quite inadvertently) made edits to some of your posts that you still had edits of your own you wished to make (and then your edits were blocked, actually you should have had a request to merge your edits with the previous ones), it seems that you have really been rather unkind to Claude. I can assure you that Claude is extremely conscientious with his gargantuan efforts here at CPDL. He has made more edits than anyone by a factor of about two. And he works arduously to keep up with the current submissions of scores, so as to prevent a growing backlog. I see that Claude himself has made an apology when you posted on his talk page about this. But it seems to me that you might apologise as well, if only to clear the air.

In the meantime, may I suggest (actually, I am requesting and strongly urging) that you post the Template:InUse at the top of any page for which you are making sequential edits so that this sort of thing does not happen again. Simply put {{InUse}} at the top of any such page, and please remove it with you are finished with the editing sequence. You are not the only one for whom this getting blitzed by someone else's edits has occurred (it's happened to me numerous times). Now you know that there is a simple remedy.

Regards, Chucktalk Giffen 16:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


Christopher and I have discussed this situation and I feel that the following points need to be made.

1) The addition of the 'InUse' template is possible only after initial submission of the 'Add New Work' form, and therefore there is a clear opportunity for changes to be made by another user between that point and the addition of the template. The advised mechanism is only going to work seamlessly if the template is added automatically to the page generated by 'Add New Work' (maybe there could be a form option on this point).

2) The parallel edits introduce frustration largely because they don't appear to be contributing anything material, being typically limited to the addition/removal of spaces and carriage returns, typically within 10 minutes of posting. These changes make the work page fit a 'perfect' standard for a CPDL work page, but do not seem to me to affect the page's usability by choir librarians etc.; also, there is (as far as I can see) no documentation anywhere of this 'perfect' standard; plus, even the 'Add New Work' form does not, as presumably it could, enforce the 'perfect' standard. I do, therefore, feel that a lot of the present disagreement could be avoided at source.

3) As an interested observer and professional data person, I am honestly concerned that a lot of time is being spent trying to enforce a 'database' level of consistency and accuracy on a platform (i.e. MediaWiki) that isn't intended for it. I would personally love to see complete consistency across the site, but it is very clear to me that many other editors like to put a personal stamp on pages: major reformatting of composer pages, omitting of voicings, etc. It feels to us as if such activities are considered fine, while our inadvertent addition of superfluous carriage returns is not. I am sure you can understand the consequent frustration.

Thank you

Mandy Shaw (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)