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
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
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! -- Chucktalk 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:
- 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.
- 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)