User talk:Claude T/Archive 4

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: 01020304

extpdf vs pdf

Hi Claude. I see that you changed the format icon of my score on Ay_qué_dolor_(Joan_Cererols) from pdf to extpdf. Can you please explain the difference? Jrmh (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Joseph. Thank you for your contribution above. It's easy to explain: the link goes to an external site (not CPDL one - the file wasn't uploaded 'here'). So, the user knows he is going to be redirected on another site when he clicks on such icon. On each work page, you'll see the two different icons on the 'Legend' lines. Claude (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Requests

Thanks Claude for tidying upmy edits and demonstrating how the code works for pages at Category:Requested. I wonder if contributors are always aware of requests! Richard Mix (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard, you did well also finding which were to change from 'requested' to 'completed'. I think many 'pending' requests should return to 'requested'. Claude (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits?

Hi Claude. You reverted two of my edits to ChoralWiki:Adopt-A-Composer. Why? In the process of doing this, you not only removed my insertion of a new template CiteUser, but also removed the addition of a newly adopted composer. Please explain to me just what your thinking is, because it seems to be erroneous. – Chucktalk Giffen 02:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Chuck. I'm really sorry about that. It happened without my will and I wasn't aware of it. I noticed the hour when it happened, I was browsing the recent changes page through an iPad, where links are very near between (see the) 'Diff'(erences) and 'Revert'. Sorry, again: too small tablets or too large fingers, or too old guy!Claude (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Good enough, Claude! I guessed you must have made a mistake. But your are not old!! ... Old would be me!!! Thanks for reverting the edits. – Chucktalk Giffen 13:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding an old misplaced Brian Russell score

Hello! I was doing some cleaning of the Arcadelt page and discovered that a Brian Russell score linked on Arcadelt's "Sapet'amanti" page was in actuality William Byrd's "Boy, pity me" (the second part of "Is Love a boy"). After moving the file to where it belongs I did some further investigation, and it looks like somehow the proper Russell file was never uploaded: there are sequential Brian Russell PDFs up through 302, which was the mislabeled file, but while the sequence continues after 304, there is no score for 303. I suspect that missing file is the real "Sapet'amanti". Think it could be hiding somewhere in your files? Wboyle (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions to CPDL. I remember having found that page in 2011, then creating PDF files from about six hundred NWC files recently uploaded by another admin at that time, then deleting the "To update" template, leaving only seven editions I was unable to reach. The work you mention isn't one of them. Sorry for not beeing able to help you furthermore. Claude (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! I was able to find the missing files (apparently labeled 294) by scraping the Russell midi files from his preserved website and looking through their title metadata in iTunes, and I've placed them where they belong. As an aside, file 303 was also a missing score, the second half of William Byrd's "Wounded I Am". I may look closer at the Russell files currently on the site and see if anything else is unaccounted for. ~ Wboyle (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Just finished the overview. I was able to fix all but one of the links needing updating: only Rore's "Datemi pace" remains broken. I also found a variety of other orphaned links, mostly to pieces that were "part 2" of a two-part work. More interesting to me, though, was that in the course of looking over the Brian Russell files I found a big chunk of some 75 works that don't appear to have been added to CPDL at all. I'm not sure what to do with these, since I don't know what the procedure should be for re-uploading the works of someone who's no longer around. As an admin / someone who has done this before, do you have any thoughts? (for reference, here is a link to the relevant files) ~ Wboyle (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all this precious maintenance work to improve our community site. Any thoughts, Carlos? (I think you're the admin which did the massive upload)Claude (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Claude and Walker, I don't remember if it was me or Max who uploaded Brian's files, but we didn't change the original names, so the problem probably already existed on Brian's old site. Claude made a great job creating the pdfs for them.
Walker, thanks for fixing the missing entries! These c. 75 works not added to CPDL by Brian Russell seem to be still available via his old website hosted by CPDL (http://www.cpdl.org/brianrussell). One solution would be to edit his site in order to include links for the pdfs too, what do you guys think of it? —Carlos (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey Carlos, thanks for the input. Adding pdf links to the archived site is something that could definitely be worth doing at some point. Entering all 700 or so pdf links by hand seems like it would be rather more effort than it would be worth, but I could imagine it being done with some kind of regex find-and-replace setup (the number-based naming of files actually would be very helpful there).
The archived site aside, I was actually more wondering about how to go about making CPDL entries for the new works, since that is something that has already been done for most other Brian Russell editions, and would be worthwhile doing for these as well. I don't know how this was done in the past - did the uploaders just use the "New Works" form and enter Brian's name for the "editor" field? Once I know what procedure to follow I'd be happy to start the process of adding works data, but the prospect of doing all 75 alone is a little daunting... Would either of you like to take responsibility for some subsection of them? Or do you know anyone else who might?
Many thanks to both of you for the input! ~ Wboyle (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Walker, in fact I thought that all Brian Russell editions on CPDL had been submitted by him; not sure if others have submitted editions on his behalf. Anyway, the procedure would be the same as for new editions, having to fill out the Add works form for each one of them. It's quite a lot of work! As for adding links for the PDFs on Brian's website, I think it can be done with automated find/replaces. —Carlos (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'll get started making entries. I'll be working sequentially upwards from 705, if anyone wants to start going from the other direction (from 781). ~ Wboyle (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I could make the PDF files from NWC, as I did in 2011. Who could create corresponding pages/editions? Claude (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I believe those files are actually already available, though I have no idea who made them. Perhaps they are yours from 2011? They're accessible from www.cpdl.org/brianrussell/[edition number].pdf . The uncatalogued works span from 705 to 781. ~ Wboyle (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Oops, Ok. I've mailed Max, to inform him. - Claude (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
This subject (including some missing numbers) was discussed in 2009 in a forum thread visible to administrators only. In summary: we decided to maintain http://www.cpdl.org/brianrussell (or http://brianrussell.cpdl.org) as a memorial of Brian Russell's work, without changing anything on it (aside minor and obvious corrections). Then I downloaded to my PC (almost) all NWC files from Brian Russell's website, and I batch-converted all of them to pdf format. Then I uploaded all pdf files to http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/images/brianrussell/<filename>.pdf so that they could be deep-linked to the relevant work pages. Pdf files were then gradually linked to the relevant work pages by various admins. Certainly there might still be some missing or misplaced files to correct. Max a.k.a. Choralia (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Max, what is your opinion regarding the many editions that are found only on Brian's website but were never submitted to CPDL? Should we create pages for them on CPDL (Walker has graciously offered to start this), or alternatively (simultaneously?) insert links to the PDFs on Brian's webpages? —Carlos (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Carlos, please note details about this subject on the forums, at http://forums.cpdl.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4418 (admins access only). I think that, taking also into account the permission we received from Brian Russell's widow, the decision was to leave our local mirror of Brian's website "as is", so we shouldn't add pdf files to it. No problem instead to create pages on CPDL for works existing on Brian's website but not existing on CPDL yet (Walker was very proficient last night on this task!), and link pdf files to the relevant work pages on CPDL. - Max a.k.a. Choralia (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Max. I had forgotten that it was a request from Brian Russell's widow to keep things as they are. In this case, creating new pages on CPDL is the only way to make these PDFs available. —Carlos (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Just finished with that, actually - it was easier than I was anticipating. Kudos to whoever developed the new automated submission form! Along the way I had the haunting realization that the last major work Brian completed was a full edition of Orlando di Lasso's Lagrime di San Pietro. I never knew him, but from what I can gather about Brian's dedication to this site and to early music in general, I can think of no more fitting capstone. All the best, ~ Wboyle (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC) (also, my apologies to Claude for cluttering up his talk page with so much discussion. I never thought a single misplaced score could lead to this much activity!)
No problem, Walker. Thanks for your work. Very impressive. - Claude (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:mp4

Hi Claude, I noticed that you created a new icon to represent videos in mp4, good idea! Unfortunately, when sized so small, it becomes difficult to understand that your icon stands for a tv screen (at first I thought it was simply a dark rectangle). I picked a few images from the internet as suggestions, do you like any of these? Icon vid.gif Icon vid1.gif Icon vid2.gif Icon vid3.gif
Regards, —Carlos (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Carlos, the third from left with green triangle could be my best choice. Claude (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
That's fine, I've applied it to the template. If you change your mind later, feel free to revert my edit or to pick another icon instead! —Carlos (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Claude, as a test I replaced the green arrow with the text MP4 in red, what do you think? —Carlos (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
It's fine, by me. Thanks. Claude (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

{{pdf}} -> {{net}}

Thanks for catching this! :) —Carlos Email.gif 16:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Carlos. Futebol ao vivo ;-) Claude (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Lol! In fact I'm not a big fan of football, but I'll probably watch some of the World Cup games. Bravo pour ton portugais! ;) —Carlos Email.gif 16:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Layout of individual parts

Hi Claude! Can we please discuss this before you continue with these edits? I've just seen that Peter Rottländer has hundreds of editions, and if we're going to change them all, it should be a move to something that all agree as being a standard. In the case that no agreement is reached, I would suggest leaving things as they are. I don't favor putting individual parts ("Vocal parts"/"Basso Continuo"/etc.) in the same indentation as the standard Edition entries (CPDL#/Editor/Edition notes). The layout that Peter used here (a single line starting with Instrumental parts:) would be a good compromise, but preferably without the ScoreInfo template for the parts. Very few people will be interested in the instrumental score(s), and with just a single click they can know what is inside it, like page format and number of pages. Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 15:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Carlos. Peter didn't made any mistake. But on all other works pages, an edition is what goes from an asterisk to another, beginning with a CPDL number. Only Peter uses another asterisk (without CPDL number) inside an edition. This is not consistent when someone wants to count number of editions, number of links, etc. I'm ready to use any indentation character EXCEPT asterisk. Just choose one and I will review all the unindented editions. Claude (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean regarding asterisks; I see no problem in avoiding them. Any of the following formats would be fine by me. Do you have any other suggestion?
  • CPDL #20231: Icon_pdf.gif Icon_snd.gif   Instrumental parts: Icon_pdf.gif (Violins), Icon_pdf.gif (Basso Continuo)
Editor: Peter Rottländer (submitted 2009-09-21).   Score information: A4, 3 pages, 595 kB   Copyright: CPDL
Edition notes: Version 1.1, spelling errors corrected
  • CPDL #20231: Icon_pdf.gif Icon_snd.gif
Editor: Peter Rottländer (submitted 2009-09-21).   Score information: A4, 3 pages, 595 kB   Copyright: CPDL
Instrumental parts: Icon_pdf.gif (Violins), Icon_pdf.gif (Basso Continuo)
Edition notes: Version 1.1, spelling errors corrected
  • CPDL #20231: Icon_pdf.gif Icon_snd.gif
Editor: Peter Rottländer (submitted 2009-09-21).   Score information: A4, 3 pages, 595 kB   Copyright: CPDL
Instrumental parts: Violins: Icon_pdf.gif   Basso Continuo: Icon_pdf.gif
Edition notes: Version 1.1, spelling errors corrected
Carlos Email.gif 16:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Examples 2 and 3 are not accurate because they don't use the order that is on all other pages: 1. CPDLno 2. Links to files 3. Editor and date. Only first example is accurate and may (or not) use any indentation between main group of files and secondary ones. Also, many of these secondary groups of files have their own score info. Ok? Claude (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Fine, I like the first one, too. And it's also the most common format among other editors. Let's go for it? —Carlos Email.gif 17:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok by me, Carlos. Thanks. Claude (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey Claude, bonjour! You seem to be doing something slightly different from what we had agreed upon above ;) The ScoreInfo information looks terrible when moved to the first line, between the icons. It should stay in the traditional place. Please have in mind that the ScoreInfo template is only an informative bit of text about the main score posted in that edition. Complementary scores (individual parts etc.) should not use this template, in my opinion. Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 15:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Seu desejo é uma ordem, subcomandante ;-)) Done. Claude (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Aïe! Pardonne-moi si je semble autoritaire parfois, ce n'est pas mon intention! C'est tellement difficile de trouver le ton juste à une conversation dans une autre langue, n'est-ce pas? Merci pour ta patience! :) —Carlos Email.gif 13:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Pas de problème, Carlos, I was joaking! Claude (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

MIDI file

Hi Claude, thank you for adding a MIDI file for my setting of "The Lamb." I just had a chance to update the page with a link to a YouTube recording featuring Tenor Matthew Curtis so there is another audio option there now. I also added a YouTube recording link to "The Tyger" page as well.

Hi, Susan. No doubt a recording is way more representative of your work than a MIDI file. I use to add such file for another purpose: that rehearsal files be easier to generate. I'll add such one for "The Tyger" as well. Let me know if you think there are errors and/or don't agree. Claude (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Claude,
Ok, I understand the need to generate rehearsal files but would rather provide .mp3s for each voice part from the higher quality recordings. Do you mind if I remove the MIDI files when the .mp3s are available and uploaded? I think the MIDIs sound awful.
I agree about MIDIs sounding awful. But we can easily get each voice louder than others, which is impossible with MP3s. Anyway, you are the composer. So, please proceed as you think. Claude (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Ok. I will generate MIDIs directly from Sibelius and post them when I have a chance -- probably sometime next week. The MIDIs generated from the PDFs contain some errors.
Thank you, Susan, I'm convinced this is the best way of doing: MIDI files for rehearsal (each voice separately), MP3 and/or video files to appreciate many aspects that are not visible on the score (tempo, for example). Claude (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)