User talk:Carlos: Difference between revisions

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Missa: new section)
No edit summary
Line 101: Line 101:
Tudo bem!
Tudo bem!
Obrigado por arrumar.
Obrigado por arrumar.
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

Revision as of 15:15, 29 October 2009

Feel free to leave on this talk page questions and comments addressed to me.

  • Start new discussions by clicking here or on the "+" tab at the top of this page;
  • Continue discussions by clicking on the "edit" link directly right of the appropriate title below;
  • You may also send me an e-mail if you like.

If you have left a message on this page, I will reply here unless you request that I reply on your talk page. If I have left a message for you on your talk page, please reply there. The reason for this is to keep the discussion together. Thank you for your co-operation!

Archives

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 [[[:Template: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 [[[:Template: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 [[[:Template: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 [[[:Template: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 [[[:Template: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 [[[:Template: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 [[[:Template: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 [[[:Template:Carlos]] Email.gif] 02:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Missa

Tudo bem! Obrigado por arrumar.

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