User talk:Carlos

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;

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

• Mar 2008 -> Jul 2008
• Oct 2008 -> Dec 2008
• Jan 2009 -> May 2009
• Jun 2009 -> Dec 2009

check me on user page redirects?

Hi, Carlos--
I'm going through trying to help catch up score adding, and I've gotten rusty. I think I understand correctly that:

• the talk page for the full-name version redirects to the talk page for the real, abbreviated userID
• the main page for the real, abbreviated userID redirects to the page with the full name in the user space

However, I'm less confident I did the right thing about redirecting the full name version in User: space and Composer space. Whenever you have a chance, could you mind checking User:Alexander_Ertl? Tx. -- Vaarky 18:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vaarky, sorry for the delayed reply; just checked the redirects and they seem to be all right! —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] ] 03:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Vaarky 08:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hand-written scores suitable for inclusion?

Hi Carlos. You added an overlooked edition of Mendelssohn's Thanks be to God a couple of days ago. As you're no doubt aware, the PDF is a scan of hand-written sol-fa notation and because of this, I don't think we should be hosting this "edition". In the context of CPDL, the word edition means several things, particularly that it should be typeset. The majority of CPDL users will expect such typeset editions and I believe this is a good place to draw the line for "admission criteria" to allow only typeset scores. What are your thoughts? --Bobnotts talk 11:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rob, thanks for alerting me. I tried to open the pdf file with my Acrobat reader but received an error. Even after updating the reader the pdf would still not open correctly, so I supposed it was a perfectly valid edition. I will delete the file then. regards —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] ] 13:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

On a related subject, could you please opine and vote in this discussion: Libera animas —Thanks

OK no problem. I've deleted that page and archived the discussion. --Bobnotts talk 17:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

M. Praetorius - In dulci jubilo

Hi Carlos, I yesterday uploaded a new edition of this work, thank you for refining the page. Please note that, in my opinion, splitting the page for this work into two pages (one for edition #9437 and one for editions #14586 and #20896) may not be correct, as the work is the same. They look different as one edition is notated in 3/4 and the others are notated in 6/4, however they are almost identical in the soprano part (minor differences exist at bar 11, 19 and 30 if you refer to bar numbers edition #9437). Harmonization of the other parts is different instead, however I think this is not sufficient to consider them as different works. So, I would propose to merge the two pages into a single work page. Max a.k.a. Choralia 11:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Max, the soprano part is in fact almost identical, but only because it is the hymn tune proper, based on which each harmonization was created. Now, if we could prove that one of these harmonizations was made by the editor, then I'd see no problem in re-merging the works, stating that one of the editions is an arrangement. On the other side, there is a good chance that Praetorius, a very prolific composer, made the two harmonizations for different occasions, in which case I support that they be kept in separate pages, as we currently do for different harmonizations of Bach's Chorales. —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] ] 16:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

OK Carlos, let's leave it as it is. Choralia 17:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

ScoreError changes

Hi Carlos. I see you changed Template:ScoreError. While I like the idea of making the yellow lighter (less obtrusive), I think it might be just a bit too light now. As for using span instead of table, I find the border that span produces on each line somewhat annoying and inconsistent from page to page (sometimes the border at the bottom of one line overlaps the border at the top of the following line, but sometimes it doesn't creating a double border effect). Moreover, the inline use of the template with span causes awkward appearance when a short error report starts at the end of one line and ends near the beginning of the following line. It was for these reasons that I changed the template to use a boxed (table) format: the only border is around the entire error message (not appearing between lines with inconsistent widths due to overlapping or nonoverlapping), and the "dangling" effect from one line to the next for short summaries. I'm going to darken slightly the yellow now, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on the boxed versus spanned versions. Thanks! -- Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 17:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Chuck, thanks for asking, after changing the template I came up with yet other ideas that I'd like to discuss with you. First of all, the border overlapping was unexpected, since I had adjusted the line height so that it should not happen, but after you said that, I made a test and noticed that in I.E. it still overlaps (though not in Firefox). The idea in changing back from table to span was that many users add the ScoreError template in the Edition notes line, but when "table" is used, it automatically adds a line break, moving the error notice to the line below: conf. with span - with table. When the user notes are long, that looks fine, but not when they are just a few words. In fact it's a matter of taste, but we could try to standardize its use; here are my suggestions:

1. change the ScoreError template again so that it behaves in a similar manner to the Editor template, by adding an automatic line break and indentation to it.
2. remove completely the borders; in fact it has always bothered me why the error notice should call more attention than the edition itself. The icon alone is enough to show that there's a problem in the edition. A compromise could be to keep the border just for the icon and standard message, but not for the user text.

Below are some examples of what I'm proposing:

Alternative 1 (compromise)

• CPDL #1276: Finale 2000

Editor: Claudio Macchi (submitted 2000-08-26).   Score information: 188 kbytes   Copyright: CPDL

Edition notes: Finale file is zipped.

Possible error(s) identified. Error summary: In bar/measure 21 the last note of the Soprano part should be a G not an E, also in bar/measure 147, the sopranos should sing an E rather than a C

Alternative 2 (Editor template style)

• CPDL #1276: Finale 2000

Editor: Claudio Macchi (submitted 2000-08-26).   Score information: 188 kbytes   Copyright: CPDL

Edition notes: Finale file is zipped.

Edition errors: In bar/measure 21 the last note of the Soprano part should be a G not an E, also in bar/measure 147, the sopranos should sing an E rather than a C

Alternative 3 (icon near score, similar to broken links)

• CPDL #1276: Finale 2000

Editor: Claudio Macchi (submitted 2000-08-26).   Score information: 188 kbytes   Copyright: CPDL

Edition notes: Finale file is zipped.

Edition errors: In bar/measure 21 the last note of the Soprano part should be a G not an E, also in bar/measure 147, the sopranos should sing an E rather than a C

For me the ideal would be #3, for consistency, but #2 is also acceptable. What do you think? —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] ] 15:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO alternative 2 is best. I don't think that alternative 3 is more consistent: if the broken link icon is close to the place where broken links are located ("warning: if you click here, you get an error message"), the best consistency is achieved if the warning sign for score errors is located close to the place where errors are described. This is especially valid if the error details are actually provided in the discussion page, so the icon is close to the link it refers to. Choralia 22:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I found overlapping variances with Firefox (I examined several pages, but I didn't keep track of which ones overlapped and which ones did not). Added later: Adoramus te, Christe (Claudio Monteverdi) and O vos omnes (Feria Sexta in Parasceve) (Tomás Luis de Victoria) exhibit the two variances in overlapping behavior in Firefox for me.

As someone pointed out previously, the ScoreError template really handles two kinds of situations, as pointed out on the ScoreError talk page: (1) blatant errors (eg. wrong notes, missing notes, misalignment of notes in separate parts, etc.) and (2) editorial variances (ie. differences amongst editions or versions). I would hope that the template, when refined, would allow for two different (boldface) declarations (I've abandoned my Error alert suggestion on the template talk page) - something like Edition error(s) and Edition variance(s), respectively.

As for format, I think that Alternative 1 is best for the time being, but with the two options instead of Possible error(s) identified. Error summary, if only because people have become accustomed to seeing some yellow which, to me at least, stands out more than just the triangular error icon. I do not like Alternative 3, which requires placing the icon in one spot and the Error/Variance declaration in another spot - in other words, I agree with Choralia on this point.

Hence, my proposal is the following, which has an optional "type" parameter to handle the different situations:

Alternative 4a (compromise)

Invoked by {{ScoreError|...}} or (ie. the default behavior is to announce '''Edition errors''') {{ScoreError|type=errors|...}}

• CPDL #1276: Finale 2000

Editor: Claudio Macchi (submitted 2000-08-26).   Score information: 188 kbytes   Copyright: CPDL

Edition notes: Finale file is zipped.

Edition errors:   In bar/measure 21 the last note of the Soprano part should be a G not an E, also in bar/measure 147, the sopranos should sing an E rather than a C

Alternative 4b (compromise)

Invoked by {{ScoreError|type=variance|...}}

• CPDL #1276: Finale 2000

Editor: Claudio Macchi (submitted 2000-08-26).   Score information: 188 kbytes   Copyright: CPDL

Edition notes: Finale file is zipped.

Edition variance:   In bar/measure 21 the last note of the Soprano part should be a G not an E, also in bar/measure 147, the sopranos should sing an E rather than a C

At some point, we might consider removing the yellow background to Alternativer 4 and moving towards something akin to Alternative 2. I would also be happy with Alternative 4 without the triangular error icon. – Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 04:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Max, your argument about the discussion page makes sense; I will follow you on alternative #2 then.

Chuck, with respect to the overlapping, the two examples you gave appear normally for me (I use Firefox 2.0.20); anyway, this problem is temporary, as we are reaching a consensus on a different layout.

As you said, currently the template is used for two different situations; I particularly see no problem in adding a parameter but I'm afraid that it will increase the complexity for users, ending up not being used by them at all. Couldn't we find a neutral wording that would be valid for both situations? For example, Edition variances/errors: or something in this line.

About removing the triangular icon: for me personally it is more informative than the yellow backgroung (which still doesn't please me for the reasons mentioned previously); we must also consider that the icon is listed in the template:Legend and users are probably used to it. When the background color is totally removed (now or in a second phase, as you suggest), the icon would become more useful than it's now. An alternative would be to change the image, if you don't like it: what about this one?

If we decide to move to alternative #2 in two steps (with alternative #4 as intermediary), what time span would you be comfortable with? —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] ] 13:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think people will know what we mean by variance, so the word Error needs to appear in there. I like the new look of it. --Vaarky 04:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vaarky, can you please be more specific about which of the new looks you do prefer? Thanks! —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] ] 07:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Rachmaninoff Vespers - Music publication?

Hi Carlos. I'm a little confused by your categorization of Vsenoshchnoe bdenie (All-Night Vigil), Op. 37 (Sergei Rachmaninoff) (a.k.a. Vespers) in Music publications. I have my own copy of the published score to this work, and it appears to me that it is not really a different sort of work than, say, Handel's Messiah, or Vaughn Williams's Five Mystical Songs, or Randall Thompson's The Peaceable Kingdom, or William Byrd's Great Service, or indeed any other of a host of multi-movement choral works (oratorios, passions, services, cantatas, etc.). Are all these works supposed to be categorized as Music publications, too? Could you please enlighten me on this issue? Thanks!! – Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 00:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)