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/Jul 2008 • Oct/Dec 2008 • Jan/May 2009 • Jun/Dec 2009 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013

Brian Russell files

Hello! I recently discovered a fairly large stash of apparently unuploaded Brian Russell files, and I'm not entirely sure what exactly should be done with them. I've been talking with Claude T about the files over on his talk page, and we were wondering if you might have any input (I don't know if you saw his shout-out or not). ~ Wboyle (talk) 10:10, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me, Walker! Have just replied there. Regards, —Carlos (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Fabio

Hi Carlos, do you speak italian? How can I answer to you and to others people that write to my on talk page? Like you say, I'm the same nick Valla79 (I've forgotten the nick!) so you can join togheter the nick so I'll use just one. Let me know.

Grazie Fabio 10:02, 29 May 2014‎

Please delete this file

Hi Carlos,

I was contacted by the manager of a composer whose work I uploaded here. This is the URL: http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/File:Tinggal_Sertaku_(Pohan).pdf

Would you please delete this file. I have tried to do it myself, with no avail. I actually didn't mean to upload it. It was one of my first attempts to upload something on CPDL. My choir got a license to his work, but he obviously didn't want it to go public. The composer objected upon the upload. He wanted it to be deleted.

Thank you.

Regards, Hendra, 14:54, 13 June 2014

Done! —Carlos 05:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sortable tables

Dear Carlos,

3 questions; I hope easy ones! 1) I started making a table at Souterliedekens and am puzzled by the behaviour of the incipit field: it lists them in reverse numerical order on the first click, only alphabetizing on the second click. 2) Are the slashes (Psalm 140/141) in the red-linked titles a potential problem? Nested parentheses seem less elegant... 3) how are piped Ps. No.'s handled? Tia! Richard Mix (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Richard!

1. That's strange... for me it seems to work correctly on the first click. If I click on a column for the second time, even if another column has been clicked in between, it then sorts the column in the opposite order. I guess this is standard behaviour.
2. I would suggest avoiding the slashes in title by keeping only the Vulgata number in it. If I'm not mistaken, that's usually how other works based on the Vulgata give this information in the title. Inside the page, the conversion is already made explicit in the Text & translations section, when {{LinkText}} is used.
3. To sort columns like this one, we have to resort to a trick: invisible texts are introduced before each visible text, and the sorting is done on the invisible texts. Template {{hs}} is used for this effect.

Regards, —Carlos 06:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! 1. So strange I tried it several times over to be sure, but today it works as you describe instead. Settling time perhaps??? 2. A good idea 3. Thanks for doing it already; I'll try to remember the trick. All the best, Richard Mix (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Audi e partitura e edicao

Olá caríssimo, estou sim disposto a disponibilizar a partitura e editar uma página da música (como essa) por exemplo, mas estou tento um pouco de dificuldades com os códigos, você poderia me auxiliar nesse início. Tenho bastante experiência na edição da Wikipédia, mas resolvi me mudar para cá. Muito obrigado. Amats (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

O Cântico de Maria

Thanks! :-) - Estarei upando outras músicas do compositor ainda hoje, mas antes vou terminar as correções no artigo dele. Uma questão, aqui temos uma predef. para link com o artigo na wikipédia? ou uma "interwiki" como chamamos por lá? Se houver uma lista de predefs a serem usadas pode me passar o endereço? Grato Amats (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Olá, há uma lista de predefs em Templates. Para criar um link a um artigo da wikipédia, pode usar a sintaxe [[w:pt:Artigo|Texto que aparece]]. —Carlos 21:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hi Carlos. Thanks for the welcome. cpdl.org is a great place for posting my free scores. Hoping they will be a bit of some use for others. By the way: is there any method to read how many downloads are made on the scores? Kind regards, Pascal. 18:06, 9 August 2014

Thank you!

Hi Carlos, Thank you for your welcome note! I'm glad you enjoyed the Magnificat video :). -Susan 14:39, 20 August 2014

Musica Colonial scores

Carlos

A choral director in Vermont has asked me if I can supply a translation one of the Musica Colonial scores, Nebra's "Rompan los vagos espacios" which he wants to perform. Obviously a translation is needed if it is to be performed in an Anglophone country. My Spanish isn't really up to this. These scores are often very obscure. Do you have any ideas? I realise of course that your native language is Portuguese, rather than Spanish.

Jonathan (talk) 07:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan, I can understand Spanish quite well, but as you said, the text of this music is a bit unclear. I'll give it a try, let's see what I can apprehend of it. —Carlos 17:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks Carlos! Jonathan (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan, there you have it! I did my best but some parts don't seem to make much sense even in the original. You may want to ask someone else to revise the translation. If they decide to use the translation as provided by me, please ask them to credit me. Thank you, —Carlos 06:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Carlos, many thanks for your help. It looks fine to me and I will follow your request. Jonathan Jonathang (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

To Gratiana Dancing and Singing - W Denis Browne

Thanks for picking this one up Carlos. And thanks for creating the new Composer and Title pages for me. I have now uploaded new PDF and Sib7 files which correct a small misprint in the poem which appears inside the coverpage.

Thanks again. PeterH PeterHarris (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Yaroslav versus Yaroslavsky Chant

Hi Carlos. I noticed that you have replaced "Yaroslavsky" with "Yaroslav" while referring to a particular form of Slavonic chant. For the piece in question ("A mercy of peace...") the work is listed as: "Yaroslavsky Chant - for the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great - g (618 KB)"; moreover, in the PDF score itself the source is cited as "Yaroslaskago rospiva" (Ярославскаго распыва). "Yaroslav" is a noun, while "Yaroslavsky" (while sometimes a noun) is an adjective form for "Yaroslav". It's no different than the situation with "Gregory chant" or "Gregorian chant", or "Kiev chant" or "Kievan chant" (in both cases, the second form is correct). Can you cite a reason for your change? I'm totally mystified by this! – Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 16:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chuck. I'm aware of the difference in meaning between the two terms; I made extensive searches for both expressions "Yaroslav[sky] chant", and references for both are extremely hard to find on the internet. The only site using "Yaroslavsky chant" is the one from where the CPDL score comes ([1]); all the other results on Google are in fact just references to this same work ([2]). On the other side, "Yaroslav chant" is cited a couple more times on websites directly related to Russian Orthodox music ([3] [4] [5]), and in a book digitized by Google ([6]). So, mine wasn't a completely uninformed decision, even though I cannot affirm that the current form is the most correct one. Grove has no references to this kind of chant, maybe you could help to settle this issue if you happen to have books on this subject at hand. —Carlos 17:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

category problem

Hi Carlos, Thank you for fixing my "category" problem. I read your reply to my post and I understand what happened and how to avoid this error in the future. -Susan 17:13, 5 November 2014

Localization of Main Page

Hi, Carlos, Many thanks for having moved Seasonal music to a separate page, I was able to generate the translation. Anyway, the two words 'Seasonal music', on top, remain in English. Moreover, unlike all wikis, top part of the left pane also remain not translated :-(( Claude (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Claude, very good! The headers ("Seasonal music") can also be tweaked to receive a translation; I'm leaving in one hour for a week-long trip; when I'm back I'll have a look at it. Regarding the left menu, from items "Main page" to "Help", they are generated by an extension introduced by Max some time ago; I'm not sure how to add translations in this case. Perhaps the extension's documentation has something related to it. Cordialement, —Carlos 18:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, Claude. I haven't fixed the headers issue yet, but I have some good news for you: now the months on the Main page are translated, as you had asked me once. ;) —Carlos 07:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yesssss! Many thanks! I've also seen a template you modified today, which is called PostedOn and which exists since 2009. It is a good candidate to replace the bad-named NewWork template I delete each morning after 90 days, isn't it? Should I restore a 'PostedOn|same date as edition date' everywhere I deleted the 'NewWork' template (editions since 2006)? Claude (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I replied to you question on template talk:PostedOn (and at the forums, too!). Best, —Carlos 19:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you Carlos, for your help! -Huub 18:07, 9 December 2014

merging text pages and so on

Carlos
Good points both. I'll endeavour to remember to add explanations when I merge pages (which is not often).
On the other point, I think the easiest thing is for me to contact the composer direct and solicit his view.
Jamesgibb (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Haven't bothered to start a new subject.

The reason why I have uncapitalised something like A Marriage Blessing, even though it's clearly a title, is that it seems more sensible to follow the instructions for adding works to the letter, rather than to make exceptions. We could add to the instructions by saying that, if it's a title and not part of the text, then it can be capitalised. However, I think that would result in arguments from some of our more irritating contributors (and one in Texas springs immediately to mind!) arguing that it is up to them to decided what their works pages are called. I don't have a problem if they want to capitalise titles on their composer pages but I think if we leave the capitalisation decision to the contributors, we are going get a randomised mess, which will corrupt the sorting of titles on, say, the text pages. Another possible advantage of keeping it simple and consistent is that contributors will tend to pick up good habits and give less work to the editors. My impression is that, since I tidied up the Latin and English text pages a year or so back, more contributors are checking whether their text already exists and adding a {{LinkText}}.

So that's why. I agree that it will make little or no difference to how a title like A Marriage Blessing is sorted, though. Happy to change if the consensus is that titles should be left as they are.

On the second point, what does not creating a redirect link to the the pages that are linked to the original page? Does it automatically link the composer page and, say, links to things like carol books, for example?
Jamesgibb (talk) 12:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi James,

Thank you for taking the time to explain your thoughts. I imagined that the capitalization of song titles in English followed some general rules, more or less like those found at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. But in fact, on CPDL's guidelines, editors are encouraged to follow the same simple rule that you are applying to titles. If we consider the arguments cited by you above, this is probably the best thing to do for the moment. Let's not complicate things unnecessarily. :)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understood your question, but will try to reply to you: if you don't keep the redirect when moving a title, pages that were linked to the old title will still point to it, even after it's deleted. You'll have to check ("what links here") and correct manually, as usual. The only advantage is that not creating a redirect will avoid you the extra step of having to delete it later.

Happy holidays and all the best. —Carlos 16:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you have understood my question, at least, your answer explains this very well. But what you suggest will save at least one unnecessary delete. Thanks very much, Carlos, and have a good holiday. Just picked up my son from Heathrow, so we have the whole family together, which is good.<br. Jamesgibb (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirects and own contributions

Happy new year, Carlos! I think one problem with not keeping the redirect when moving pages is that it's possible to lose links to the old page. It doesn't matter if it's the composer page, or the lyricist page, since they are easy enough to check. However, if there is a link to something like a carol book, that does not seem to be transferred to the new page. Given that it's not that much extra work to delete the redirect page after checking for links, I've gone on doing that.

Happy new year, James!

In fact you can check links to a page even after it's deleted, that's why I suggested to move pages without keeping the old title, if you intend to delete it later. You're still supposed to click on the old title (now deleted) and check any pages that link to it in order to correct them manually (except those from automated listings).

Another point. After discussion with one of our contributors, I've (slightly reluctantly, since I think the disputed page is an arrangement, not an original composition) agreed to reinstate the deleted page. Before when this has been necessary, I've done it via the Recent Changes page but, because there has been so much site activity over the last few days, the relevant link is more that 500 items ago. The relevant deletion was either on the 30th or 29th December. Question: how do I access my own activity, rather than everyone's?
Jamesgibb (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

About last question, see your contributions page. Claude (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Claude, for adding the link, I'm still away from home and checking the Internet from time to time only. In this case, I think that the deletion log will be more useful for James: Special:Log/delete.

James, note that in both cases you can narrow down the search by specifying a year/month, title etc. —Carlos 16:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

...and check the 'Hide minor edits' box I produce many of them ;-) Claude (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Navigation through archive pages

Hi, Carlos, Thanks for having tweaked my archive talk pages to navigate easily between them. I wish you the best for 2015. Claude (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Claude! May it be a good year for all of us! —Carlos 19:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Latest contributions

Carlos,

two of my latest contributions have not shown up in the Most recent scores tablet on the welcome page. It concerns my Tantum ergo and my Tristis est anima mea. Could you fix that please?

Best regards, jenskklimek

Hi, Jens. Thank you for your contributions on CPDL. I saw that, after the last translation paragraph, two mandatory categories were missing (they were in the part to cut and paste from addwork form): especially the 'Sheet music' category. I've just corrected one of your contributions (Tristis) and I'm going to correct the second one. Glad to help you. [Edit: but I'm unable to see what is the problem for the second one (Tantum). Carlos?] Claude (talk) 16:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Jens! Claude was faster than me in correcting your Tristis est (thanks, Claude!); as he already explained, those two categories at the end of the page are required for a new edition to be listed on the Main page. In the case of your Tantum ergo, it was posted on Jan 17 but I only noticed that the cited categories were missing on Jan 29 (i.e., after the 10 days period had passed in which a work is displayed on the Main page). I just advanced the "posted date" to today so that your work will finally be displayed on the Lastest scores list, but after the 10 days period is over I suggest that we return the posting date to its original value. Regards, —Carlos 20:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Tony Kline

Sorry Carlos. Hadn't seen your reply, even though the page was apparently on my watch list. (I've noticed this with other pages that I thought I was automatically watching recently, so perhaps I'm just watching too many pages an need to purge things.)

No problem, James, that's what I supposed that had happened. :)

I think I saw what i was doing as a mere temporary solution, while I was restoring some sense of order to the Petrarch pages, since I agree that he is not a lyricist. However, I think we do need to find some way of automatically listing the works of (significant) translators, if this is not too difficult. If that is not possible. then I agree that manual construction may be the only other way. I'll stop treating him as a lyricist from now on, but won't remove the ones I've done so far, since at least the bogus lyricist page will be useful if we (=I) have to resort to a manual solution (and also for purging the lyricist references on pages where the link is).
Jamesgibb (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm already thinking of a way to automate translator's listings, your feedback will be appreciated after I come up with a prototype. On a related subject, I've implemented a new template named {{Alias}} that is called from inside of {{Lyricist}}. It allows us to write e.g. {{Lyricist|Petrarch}} and still link to the correct lyricist page. Let me know if you remember other useful aliases to be added to the list. —Carlos 19:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Just catching up after flying back from Italy, Carlos.

I'll have a think about other possible aliases. Of course, it sometimes applies to some composers as well, but, in a way, I think that's not much of a problem, unless the composer is very obscure, since the surname usually remains the same.
Jamesgibb (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

Hi Carlos, thank you for your kind welcome and well met to you!

I am glad that my choral arrangements and my editions are available online.

I am going to upload others soon.

Best regards, Francesco.

Fraspi (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

TextAutolist

Thanks, Carlos. That sounds a really useful addition, since it solves a problem that I was aware of, but had no idea how to solve. I won't, of course, remove the template - it needs to be there to catch future problems - but I will ensure that the missed items are correctly linked to the text page when I come across it.local

I haven't had any time to spend on CPDL work since we got back from Italy last week. Unfortunately, one of the local (non-musical) societies that I work for has had a bit of a crisis with a large event they are organizing at the beginning of March, so I've had to pick up the pieces. With luck, everything will be back under control by the middle of next week.
Jamesgibb (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What's with all the Category manipulations and deletions?

Hi Carlos. I see that now you are mass deleting a whole bunch of (text) categories. What is going on? The way that things have been progressing lately, it is difficult to know what is going on, and I'd like to be kept in the loop with what you have in mind. It seems as if, more and more, things are done pretty much without informing other interested members of the user interaction and the maintenance and improvement groups that originally existed. In the future, could massive changes such as I'm seeing these days be discussed at the forums? Thanks in advance!   Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 05:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chuck, sorry if you were caught by surprise. As you are one of the editors of {{LinkText}}, I supposed that you had been notified of the recent activity at its discussion page too, where my last changes to the template were explained. Basically, these changes eliminated the need for text categories, and the ones deleted by me yesterday were already empty. Edmund Gooch and Claude, who were the two editors most involved in the creation of these categories, had been informed by me, but I'll remember to also leave a note at the forums too, next time.

And since we're at it: I am planning to make a similar change to the {{Lyricist}} and {{LyricistSettingsList}} templates, in order to avoid the creation of lyricist categories (the ones found in category:Lyricist works categories. Those categories are currently only used by these two templates. Would you have any objection? Regards, —Carlos 15:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Carlos. I understand now! It makes sense, and your workaround is good. Sorry to have bugged you about it! – Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 01:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Adoramus te, Christe (Orlando di Lasso)

Hi Carlos, Don't you think it's a little premature to remove the cleanup tag? We have a broken link to an unidentified piece and no dab for the 4-part settings or the third 3-parter. Roman numerals are a matter of taste, though unavoidable when dealing with the 1604 print. Richard Mix (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Richard. From my experience with disambiguation pages, they are supposed to be as simple and "clean" as possible; links to the works available on CPDL are usually enough. I'm not against adding a comprehensive list of all possible settings by a specific composer, but this is not its main purpose. Information about voicings, broken links etc. also don't belong there. That's why I can't see the need for marking disambiguation pages for clean-up (the cleanup tag was broken, by the way). If you added the tag as a reminder for yourself, then I suggest instead the creation of a "To-do" section on your editor page to keep track of such cases.

Regarding the Roman numerals, I agree with you that they are a matter of taste, but if I'm not mistaken, we've been using Arabic numerals in indices of Music publications. On disambiguation pages I favor the Arabic over the Roman, again, for its greater simplicity (thinking from the point of view of CPDL visitors), but if you prefer it the other way around I won't object. —Carlos 16:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Hi Carlos. Thanks for your note. Clearly an error on my part, so I'll be more careful in future.

On the question of leaving multiple redirects, partly the reason I remove them is my programming history. Many years ago when I was running overlaid Fortran vehicle-scheduling programs on 25K of core, getting rid of redundancies was essential, so I've tended to do that without thinking although, clearly, space is no longer a problem. Another reason why I've tended to remove the old page is that, if one does a search on the title, both pages will appear. This is not a problem if there are only a few pages with that title, but has unnecessary redundancies if there are more than 7 or 8. On the point you make about the original editor having difficulty finding their work if the title is uncapitalised, I don't think too much of a problem, since they can find it via the composer page or the text page (if that exists). The search box ignores capitalisation anyway. So, on the whole, I'd prefer to tidy, since it makes the search box more useful. I don't know whether things work differently on IMSLP as regards searches. On the whole, I've found that a less user-friendly site when I have used it.

On the changes you've made identifying works which refer to the text page but appear not to be in the manual list, that has proved really useful for completing the text pages. When I've come across pages with missing items, I've tidied them up, either by adding the missing items or by sorting out items where the works page has been renamed for some reason. I've only come across one issue, with a new edition of O vos omnes which was added yesterday. Since the O vos omnes text page is one with automatic, rather than manual, listing, the added version appears twice. I suppose we could remove the automatic listing and then I could create the manual listing, which I don't mind doing, provided there aren't too many such pages! What do you think?
Jamesgibb (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi James. I agree with you that redirects appearing on the search box are sometimes confusing. If I'm not mistaken, search settings can be changed in order to discard redirects (even though sometimes they are useful). IMSLP avoids this problem by using a different search engine based on Google's search engine. With regard to the broken links potentially created by deleted pages, I was referring to the situation when someone sends a link to a friend via email, or posts a CPDL work on Facebook, and so on. If that work is renamed soon after (as it often happens with new contributions), people clicking on these links will land on a CPDL page with an error ("This page was deleted on ... by ..."), and that's not good, in my view.

You've been doing a great work with text pages! I'm glad that {{TextAutoList}} proved itself to be useful for this task. It was added by mistake to O vos omnes, as it's not supposed to be used on the same page with {{TextPageList}}; I've just removed it. But if you decide to create a manual list, then please reinstate it. Thanks! —Carlos 16:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Extra blank line in Text template

Hi Carlos. The reason for my removing the linebreak inside the Text template is illustrated by the following code (try it yourself by removing the pre environment and preview the result to see an unacceptable extra blank line):

{{text|English|
one
two}}
Some text

{{text|English|
one
two
}}
Some text

{{text|English|
one
two}}Other text

{{text|English|
one
two
}}Other text

Do you see the formatting problem? As it stands, the extra blank line after the invocation of Text with a linebreak at the end of the text passed to the template is not acceptable behavior. If you want to modify the Text template so that anomaly doesn't happen, then go ahead. One other point, I have a problem with situations in which it would be nice to "escape" the poem environment, which cannot happen using the {{#tag:poem|{{{2}}}}} method, but it can be done if one uses <poem>{{{2}}}</poem> to process the text parameter poetically. – Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 02:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Chuck, you're right! It looks way better without the extra line; I'll remember to use this syntax in my future edits. I removed a line break from inside the Text template that could be causing this difference, but nothing changed in the output.

Regarding the other point you cite, if I understood it correctly, you suggest that we use the <poem> tags inside the template instead of {{#tag:poem}}, right? I see what you had in mind with this change (having the possibility of using </poem>...<poem> anywhere inside of a formatted text), but unfortunately it's not possible, poem tags don't work properly when inside a template. —Carlos 03:59, 14 March 2015 (UTC)