ChoralWiki:CPDL support, help, and feedback

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

CW:SUP redirects here.

External Bulletin Board Upgraded

As the first action of the CPDL Transition Committee, the external Bulletin Board (aka "forums") has been upgraded and is now located at The upgrade should prevent the majority of spammers and solve posting problems. You can use your old login on the upgraded BB. The Bulletin board here at ChoralWiki will be active at least for the time being, so feel free to use either.


CPDL support, help, and feedback

This page is part of the ChoralWiki:Bulletin board.

Starting a new topic: Click on the [edit] link at the right of the General topics (most recent first) section and type

== <title of new topic> ==

at the beginning of a new line, below the comment line that reads "Start NEW TOPICS immediately below this line, ABOVE (BEFORE) any other topics." Then post your initial message as described below. Thus, a new topic will appear before (above) any other topics, to make for easier browsing. For example, typing

== Looking for works in Quenya ==

will start a new topic, appearing as:

Looking for works in Quenya[edit]

Starting new topics in the Announcements and special topics section should follow the same protocol, but such topics should only be started by CPDL Admins/Sysops.

When adding a message to an existing topic, simply click on the [edit] link at the right of the topic title and post your message below any previously posted message(s) on the topic as follows:

Posting a message (note NEW syntax): Start a new line, and use the Template:ItemPost in the format:

|by=<your name & date>
|text=<your message>

The easiest way to sign and date your message is to type four tildes (~~~~) for <your name & date>. Thus, for example, typing

Here is a sample message
several lines.<br>

It even has more than one paragraph.

resulted in:


Here is a sample message spread over several lines.

It even has more than one paragraph.

N.B. The old syntax for Template:ItemPost still works but is now deprecated in favor of the new syntax.

You can track the activity in this forum by adding this page to your Watchlist - simply click on the watch tab at the top of this page.

Announcements and special topics (most recent first)

Use of this forum


Use this forum for HELP at Choral Public Domain Library as well as FEEDBACK. It is an alternative to the corresponding forum on the external Bulletin Board.

General topics (most recent first)

Contrafactum question: Which title to use?

I have completed a work by Richard Dering, "If Sorrow Might so fully be express'd", replacing the original words by the text for "O sacrum convivium". The music is unchanged. There are notes about the music source and the text change in the score. Should it be listed under "O Sacrum Convivium" or "If Sorrow Might so fully be express'd?"? Or should I include both titles, either If Sorrow might so fully be express'd (O sacrum convivium) or O sacrum convivium (If Sorrow might so fully be express'd) Thanks and best wishes

Permission difficulties: New score files uploaded, but not allowed to Add Work to Composer Page

I am an experienced composer/contributor, for over 10 years. But I have experienced some new problems. After filling out the "Add Work" questionaire for my new piece "Sharawadgi (Gracious disorder)" and uploading the PDF, MIDI, and MXL files, I received the usual page of mark-up language to be inserted in my Composer page, and in the new Work page. However, I am blocked for editing my composer page. The error message says that my e-mail has not been confirmed. Even though my e-mail has not changed, I went to user Preferences, deleted my e-mail, and then re-created it. Then, I went through the process to confirm my e-mail by responding to an automated message from CPDL. Now, looking at my Preferences page, I can see that I am, in fact, classified as a user with a confirmed e-mail. However, this does not fix my original problem of being unable to edit my Composer page.

I'm sorry, but probably I must ask you to do this for me. After the new work exists, I can come back later and add the lyrics, I hope.

My system: Windows 10, Chrome browser, Norton Internet security. Cookies are enabled, and I have a few from CPDL. A possibly-related problem is that I keep "falling out" of logged-in status when I change pages: Why?

Thanks and best wishes, Peter Bird (pbird)

Add Work to New Page

I am afraid I may have made a mess. I searched for the piece that I wanted to add, and found it did not have a page. I clicked the link to create the new page and entered the information based on other pages on the site. However, after finishing, there is no link at the top to add a new work. This is the link to the new page: Please help.

Hi Brian,
In principle one can make working links by studying code on existing pages, but to be assigned an edition number you have to run Form:Add work, which will do much of the work for you. You can then paste the output into a page of the form "Title (Composer)", in this case Il est né le Divin Enfant ‎(Traditional). Welcome, and good luck; I'll keep an eye out. Signing with 4 ~'s, Richard Mix (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Richard,
Thank you very much for your clear instructions. I have added the new page, added my new edition to it, and added it to the 'Traditional' composer's page. I could not have done this without you!! The only remaining item is to get rid of the original page I created (which is not named properly - missing 'Traditional'). It isé_le_Divin_Enfant. Does it need to be removed by someone else or is it something I can do as well? Again, thanks for your help.
Congratulations, and glad there weren't any snags! It probably does take an administrator to delete the old page, which I've just done. Richard Mix (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi Richard, thanks again for you help. There is one last issue I want to ask about. I notice that it is only searchable by typing the name exactly as it appears, using the é character. Not everyone has this character on their keyboard and may not even know about that special character. Is there a way to make is searchable as 'il est ne le divin enfant' (without the special é) as well? Thanks, Brian

An excellent question! Even "Il est né" gets your page as the second (!) result and "il est ne" gets nothing, at least on the first page. One kludge that occurs to me is to create a redirect page from "Il est ne" but it's an important enough issue to raise at the other forum, CPDL Support, Questions, and Feedback Richard Mix (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Text omission

I've just uploaded a score (36758) but failed to add the text as a separate entry & can't see how to do this. Happy to send it to you as an attachment. Sorry for the trouble.

Could you be talking about the red linked Domine, Dominus noster (Charles West) on this page? If you got a CPDL# assigned you might also have gotten the code to paste into the work page. Once the page is created the text can still be easily added beneath. Richard Mix (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Please upload my score

I have just uploaded a pdf of the Gloria from the Missa Ego flos campi by Jacobus Vaet. The file is here: I uploaded the Kyrie from this Mass previously as a standalone piece; perhaps, a new work page can be created for the Mass and pages underneath it for the different movements. I will be uploading the remaining movements of this Mass over the next few months. For any further information, please contact me, Vicente, at Thanks. --Vicente Chavarria 22:59, 19 February 2014 (PST)

Thanks for your contribution to CPDL. The first step to add a score is to upload the PDF to this server. You did it yourself yesterday. The second one is to use the AddWork form to get an edition number and other informations. Then the third and final step is to cut and paste those informations on the 'Missa Ego flos campi' yet-existing page. Regards, Claude (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Please fix a few files/critique my posting

Hello all. I've just made my first posting at Nunc Dimittis Quarti Toni "Quia Viderunt" (Cristóbal de Morales). This is an arangement of an existing work which I discussed on the forums before posting.

I've realised I've made a hash of the filenames. I managed to post the pdf file as mora-nunc1.pdf (which is OK), but posted the MIDI file and capalla source file as NuncQuartiToni.mid and NuncQuartiToni.capx respectively. I'd be grateful if someone could rename these to mora-nunc1.mid and mora-nunc1.capx respectively and fix the broken links.

I'd also be grateful if someone could take a link at the new works page and tell me what could be improved upon.

Many thanks, Burtm (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2012 (CDT)

Hi Harrison, thanks for posting your edition. I'll correct the file links as requested. Regards, —Carlos (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2012 (CDT)

Hello All. I've made a right royal dog's breakfast of adding an edition to Purcell's Music for a While. It added a new work to a new composer called Simon. I definitely filled the form in correctly (yeah sure!). I've altered the composer to Henry Purcell but it is still there as a new work not a new edition. Please sort the mess out for me, moving the edition to the correct work, removing the new work, and removing the spurious composer called Simon. Many thanks in advance! Simonjshaw (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

New Gesualdo file

Hello everyone, I am new to CPDL; I hope I am posting my request at the correct topic. I have just finished a madrigal by Gesualdo on Sibelius 6. I am not quite sure how to upload it and I could use some help. Should I email the sib. file to an Admin and wait? Unfortunately I can't export the file into a pdf. format and in general I am having some difficulty following the instructions of the Guide. Anyways, please contact me and hopefully the CPDL will soon have one madrigal to its treasury :-) --Chrysalifourfour 08:56, 17 May 2012 (CDT)

Hello! Uploading is the easiest part, just go to this page: Special:Upload. After that, please fill in the Form:Add work and your part is finished! Regards, —Carlos Email.gif 10:20, 17 May 2012 (CDT)
I've just uploaded a piece, I'm not too sure it all went ok. I've got about 30 more madrigals ready to be uploaded, but I am having a hard time following the instructions. If someone could help me that would be great, thanks!--Chrysalifourfour 09:56, 6 July 2012 (CDT)
Just fill up the Add work form with as much information as you can about the work. Don't worry if it's not complete, any missing data can be added later, ok? —Carlos Email.gif 11:22, 6 July 2012 (CDT)
For what it's worth I still get confused by the process myself, but hang in there! A little trial and error usually works in the end. If you'd like a pdf, I have a Mac and can make one from a Sib3 file. Richard Mix 23:14, 8 July 2012 (CDT)

Well, after a couple of years I finally managed to create pdfs and upload them successfully, no less than 16 of them! However, I am still having trouble with actually adding the works. Specifically, when I complete the Add works form, there is no "Add works data" button at the bottom of the page. Am I doing something wrong? I have filled in the template as required, yet still no button. Could someone point me to the right direction? Thank you and Merry Xmas from Greece! --Chrysalifourfour (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I admit being a total fool. Screen resolution had been set in such a way the Submit Work button was in fact there, alas invisible. I think I'm getting the hang of it after all... Happy holidays everyone! --Chrysalifourfour (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
A happy ending! Congratulations, and thanks for the editions. Richard Mix (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please upload my score

I have just uploaded a pdf of 'David rex propheta' by Jean Crespel (mid-16th century), the file being entitled cres-dav, and would appreciate it if a volunteer could post it. For any further information, please contact Mickswithinbank at Thanks. Mick Swithinbank

--Mick Swithinbank 16:01, 2 September 2011 (CDT)

Uploading a score

I recently uploaded a score of mine: Tantum Ergo for 2 sopranos and piano/organ by Ian Coleman. Unfortunately I am unable to return to the details in order to set up the wiki link for it to appear fully on cpdl. The URL is <>. Could you advise, or even finish the job for me (it's my first time!). Many thanks.

Hi, Ian--
We received the e-mail with the details of your submission. If not adding a score yourself, there is typically a delay until CPDL volunteers can get to a score. There's more information about that here. A volunteer will review it and add it or else contact you if there are any questions. Thanks for your contribution. -- Vaarky 07:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Incomplete templates

I was just trying to put up a warning that the Cancionero de Palacio list of contents is not exhaustive and discovered no appropriate template, not even UnderConstruction. Could we have templates like IncompleteList, PartialWorkList, SelectedContents and so forth, or would a generic Template:Incomplete do the job?

I also found Category:Incomplete editions woefully underused, but it's not clear whether this should be applied when two editors have completed a Bach cantata between them: technically two incomplete editions, but common sense says otherwise ;-) Richard Mix 05:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Naming of sources


I will soon begin submitting my editions of Renaissance sacred music (.PDF and .MID). My source is always, of course, a published edition which may or may not be in copyright, but I always make changes. I may or may not add/remove sharps/flats, change text underlay, change note values, transpose up or down and add a translation, and I always reset it with my music program. For example:

From the Eton Choirbook. Our source: Vol I, ed. Frank Ll. Harrison, 2nd ed. 1967. Notation here is a tone lower than original with time values halved. Translation, text underlay and musica ficta by John Hetland and The Renaissance Street Singers.

My question is: Should I identify my source? or is that just asking for trouble?

Reply by: Vaarky 07:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


Hi, John--

As a general practice, it's scholarly good practice to post what the source used was, and we encourage doing so.

Whenever possible, we recommend consulting the original out-of-copyright manuscript when available, or basing an edition on an out-of-copyright edition if possible. If consulting editions that are still under copyright, as Frank's books are, it's important to ensure that the new edition is not picking up creative elements that are subject to copyright protection (such as when Frank recreates a line for which the partbook is missing or damaged in the original).

I'm familiar with your wonderful editions, and will drop you e-mail with further thoughts.

What happened to my upload

  • Posted by: mkuemmel 10:00, 21 Oct 2009 (UTC)

Dear all,

I tried to add a score on Oct. 18th. I can see the upload in the log but the score did not appear. ((Upload log); 10:35 . . Mkuemmel (Talk contribs) uploaded "File:Marenzio magnV1.pdf" (New score)) This was the first time, and likely I did something wrong. Could someone look into this??

Cheers, Martin

Hi Martin. Don't worry, you didn't do anything wrong. Your edition will be posted in due course. Thanks for your contribution. --Bobnotts talk 10:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please Upload My Score

  • Posted by: Pes 15:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I followed the two steps (i.e. upload and "add work") to submit a score and midi file yesterday (April 30) but don't see the result in the list of new scores for May 1. File locations: Thanks for your help!

  • Posted by: Carlos Email.gif 16:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Res! Please have a bit of patience, your edition will be posted in due time. Remember that CPDL admins work as volunteers and not all of them deal with the new submissions, so it may sometimes take a couple of days until they are properly posted. Regards,



Hanacpachap cussicuinin (Anonymous) is getting moved around a lot, but trying to make a redirect brings up dire warnings against recreating a deleted page. How is this normally handled? Richard Mix 02:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply by: Chucktalk Giffen 14:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


The present location/title of Hanacpachap cussicuinin (Anonymous) was settled in mid-August with the decision to use the version of the title given in the source manuscript. This did involve moving the page back to its original title (it had been moved to Hanaq pachap kusikuynin (Anonymous) which is now a redirect page. When making redirects, the dire warning isn't really dire, but simply informative.

While on the subject of redirects, it is unnecessary to make redirects which simply change the capitalization of titles, since the wiki search ignores upper/lower case when one hits "Go" (or "Enter" after typing in a search box). As a test, try typing "aVe MaRiA" in the search box and then click on "Go".

Reply by: Richard Mix 21:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the reasurance, these differences with Wikipedia are always confusing, and I couldnt understand why the move from hanaqpachap kusikuynin didnt automatically leave a redirect. I've added a number of redirects for different divisions of the first word but stopped short of hyphenations or (anon.) for (Anonymous). btw, thanks for adding the page number for the extra verses! The facs. server isnt working at the moment but I look forward to picking a few more verses when my Quecha translator gets back from vacation. Richard Mix 21:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

CPDL needs a tickler-type calendaring system?

  • Posted by: Vaarky 03:30, 4 September 2008 (PDT)

I'm wondering if CPDL needs a tickler-type calendaring system to help with time-triggered follow-ups. I think this can easily be done with a Category, and the filling in the Category may even be automatable within some templates. For example, if a page is proposed for merge/split/deletion, that template may be able to automatically insert a FollowupDate value for the future (maybe increment by a month?) when the discussion should be checked. Or, if there is a question about whether CPDL can host something or there is a violation of copyright, this is a good way to prevent follow-up from falling through the cracks if multiple people discussed the issue and it was waiting on the author, but no specific volunteer was tasked with checking back on a certain date.

That way, volunteers can go to the page that lists follow-ups due by date and delete the follow-up date when it's been taken care of, or reset the follow-up date to one further in the future if needed.

Corrupt MIDI file? Hail Glorious Spirits by Christopher Tye

  • Posted by: Bubbapebi 02:20, 27 August 2008 (PDT)

The MIDI file of "Hail Glorious Spirits" by Christopher Tye is corrupt, and will not play in QuickTime. It has been in this condition for at least two weeks. I could find no way to report technical problems, so I am posting this information here. Thanks to whoever takes care of these things, for taking care of this one.

  • Posted by: Choralia 06:50, 28 August 2008 (PDT)

I've also tried to play the file using Windows Media Player, and it did not work. However, the program that I normally use to edit music files (Harmony Assistant) was able to import it. Probably this program is more tolerant with respect to an incorrect MIDI file format. The content was a bit odd, with several initial empty measures, and notes in wrong time position (offset) with respect to bars. I've removed the empty bars, corrected the offset, and re-exported the file in MIDI format. Now Windows Media Player is able to play it. You can download the corrected file from here:

However, it seems still not perfect: for example, the last note of bass, bar 18, is a B in the pdf file, while the MIDI file contains a very dissonant C. So, it seems there is still some mismatch between the sheet music and the MIDI file. If you find it's too garbled, I may re-create a MIDI file from the sheet music using optical music recognition.

Offsite Score Linking Etiquette Question

  • Posted by: Vaarky 17:24, 9 August 2008 (PDT)

When adding offsite links to a piece on the score page for a particular piece (and on the composer's page where the piece title is indexed if there is only one score for that particular title), is it preferred that the direct link to the piece itself be provided if directly linkable, instead of linking to a different page that the user then has to visually search, or that it be left as whomever created the page preferred?

More specifically, if you happen to figure out the direct offsite extpdf-type link for a piece, is it preferred (or should it be, if currently not?) that you update the link (either by adding an additional direct link or by replacing the prior one) so people clicking can go directly to the score? Having the direct link there allows people wanting to download, say, all works by Adam Gupelzhaimer, to use automated tools such as wget, whereas the automated tools don't work if there's no direct link to the external score page.


Hi Vaarky. Short answer - deep linking is most certainly not preferable unless the link is added by the person who owns the web space, in which case it is tolerable in my opinion. Here's an extract from a message I left on John Henry Fowler's talk page some time ago:

"Deep linking to resources, such as the link you added to the PDF of Après un rêve, Op. 7, No. 1 (Gabriel Fauré) from the Mutopia Project is considered bad netiquette (net etiquette) because it uses another site's bandwidth without actually linking to one of their web pages and giving them visitors. Where the link is to a PDF/MIDI/etc on the Williams College or CPDL servers, of course it is fine to have a direct link. Even if you have permission to deep link to the Mutopia Project in this fashion, it's not useful for users who miss out on the other resources available on the MP score page including PDFs in alternative paper sizes, MIDI and source files."

One thing that I didn't mention above was that broken links are also a serious problem with links directly to resources. For instance, if a site changes its set up so that PDFs are moved from "" to "" then we would have to correct every case where that site is linked to from CPDL.

There are disadvantages, of course, to not providing direct links to resources but I believe my points above outweigh those significantly.

Help needed creating links to already uploaded files


I have created a Sibelius vocal score for the Berlioz Requiem arranged for SATB (original is SSTTBB)that could be easily re-arranged by others to suite their particular choir balance. I have successfully uploaded the scores (links below), but I have been completely unsuccessful in creating the links to the composer page. Can someone help me with this next step? Thank you. - Thomas Lloyd, Haverford College, Philadelphia


Hi Thomas. I've just formatted your message according to the notice above and restored the rest of the messages on this page that you deleted. Please try not to do that again. I've removed the URLs from your message and have started to add them - thanks very much for your contribution! If you have any editions that you would like someone to add in the future, feel free to get in touch with me via email - my address is on my user page.

File size limit


I have prepared a .pdf of a larger work, and it breaks the allowable size limit for uploading on I understand the need for a file size limit, and I know I could host the file elsewhere, but...
1) Perhaps someone can offer to optimize this .pdf for me and thus reduce file size?
2) Is there an admin workaround available for such cases?

The file can be found (for now) here: [1].

Reply by:Carlos Email.gif 01:58, 30 July 2008 (PDT)


Hi Pefty, I opened your pdf and couldn't see any reason for it being so large. I believe you can re-create it in a much smaller size if you set the dpi value (dots per inch) properly. It is probably too high, try reducing it to 300dpi, 150dpi or even lower if necessary. It seems you used GPL GhostScript to generate the pdf, have a look at its settings and you'll probably find this dpi info there somewhere. Good luck!

Score Submit Help instructions

  • Posted by: Vaarky 14:27, 28 July 2008 (PDT)

Per the announcement on the main CPDL page that the offsite BBS is curtailed. I tried to update the Help:Score_submission_guide#Help_if_you_can.27t_complete_these_instructions to point to this forum instead.

I fear the process and instructions for participating in this forum are too complicated for users who can't navigate uploading a score and filling out a form. Please take a look and roll back my changes if it was better before.

To make it easier to use the local forums for this, I think we should create a separate page for upload requests, link to it directly, and keep the formatting code they see there at a minimum. Having it link directly to a talk page, where they can simply click the plus symbol, get a box for the subject line and a big box for their text, is even better. Even this would leave a significant group of users intimidated. Any way to provide an e-mail escape hatch?

New syntax for ItemPost plus companion Reply template


N.B. This has been edited/revised somewhat from my original posting, to reflect changes in the Reply template.

New topic started by Green

Reply by: Grey


Reply to Green by Grey

Reply by: Red


Reply to Grey by Red

More of topic by Green

Reply by: Blue


Reply to Green by Blue

Reply by: Green


Reply back to Blue from Green

Reply by: Magenta


Reply to Green by Magenta

More of reply to Green by Blue

Reply by: Yellow


Reply to Blue by Yellow

Okay folks, the above was generated by typing (Edit: note that the code has been indented to show nesting, but the indentation is not necessary):

New topic started by Green
Reply to Green by Grey
Reply to Grey by Red
More of topic by Green
Reply to Green by Blue
Reply back to Blue from Green
Reply to Green by Magenta
More of reply to Green by Blue
Reply to Blue by Yellow

Edit note: The following is slightly edited to reflect current state of affairs (previously mentioned templates ReplyR, ReplyG, ReplyB, ReplyY, ReplyM have been supressed, since their functionality has been combined into template Reply through the use of an optional color parameter).

The above example (which replies to comments in the "Suggested Edits to Help System" topic below} shows how a new syntax for Template:ItemPost can be used together with a new Template:Reply. Note that the nesting already creates the indentation usually found for replies on Talk pages. The old syntax still works, but in order to include Reply templates, you should use the new syntax.

Note: My original intent was that the Reply template could used in conjunction with the ItemPost template on Talk pages when replying to ItemPost (or other Reply) generated postings (in place of the usual indenting obtained through use of colons), especially where the reply is to a part of the original, creating a non-linear thread. As with the more traditional use of colons, this should be done judiciously, perhaps even sparingly.

The Reply template without the optional color parameter defaults to a grey background for the text field. If the color parameter is used, the allowable parameters are:

r (for red)
g (for green)
b (for blue)
y (for yellow)
m (for magenta)

All of these choices (as well as the default) are illustrated in the example that begins this post. My original thought was that selecting a different color for your reply to someone else's post would enhanced readability.

The Reply template also has an optional level parameter for situations in which the Reply template is placed outside any containing ItemPost or other Reply. Available levels are 0,1,2,...,8, and level n produces 20n pixels of indentation. The level defaults to 0, producing no indentation - this default value is the right choice for the above situations where the Reply is placed inside a containing ItemPost or other Reply.

Finally, note that, although it is possible to insert either 2= or text= before the second parameter in the old syntax and then insert Reply template(s), this is deprecated, and the new syntax is much preferred.

Reply by: Vaarky 09:47, 28 July 2008 (PDT)


Wow, very nifty. It's great that even if someone doesn't use ItemPost for their initial posting, Reply still works on a stand-alone basis.

This is not music-specific at all and could be welcomed by other sites, in case you want to contribute it to some Wikimedia repository of tools (if one exists).

  • Posted by: —Carlos Email.gif 15:54, 28 July 2008 (PDT)

Hi Chuck! You did a nice work with the Reply templates! They look great nested this way. I just was a bit concerned when I saw the code, because I noticed that our replies would also have to be nested inside other's messages, and a tiny mistake of ours would mess it all. I did some tests myself dealing with indentation only, by using parameters inside a table; I was almost certain it wouldn't work, but it did work well; the results are here.


Edit note: I have edited this somewhat to reflect changes in the Reply template.

While I like your idea in principle, Carlos, there is still one major problem, namely that of a very long multiparagraph post (or reply, for that matter), for which various people reply to different paragraphs – a nonlinear thread. With the method you suggest, it would still be necessary for the user making a reply to break into the post (or reply) by closing it at the break point with }}, inserting the new reply, and then continuing the broken post with a new ItemPost (or Reply) start for the continued material. To me this seems just about as tricky as the problem of inserting a reply by the method I gave.

By the way (and by way of example), it is still possible simply to insert a comment via a colon. And if things later get complicated with many replies, someone then might enclose such a colonized (!!!) comment in a Reply template.

Moreover, the appearance of the result does not at all convey the structure of the original multipart post (or reply) that has been broken: the "More of topic by Green" and "More of reply to Green by Blue" sections of your scheme illustrate this defect. With the necessity of breaking into or inserting a reply being pretty much a trade-off in inconvenience, the visually evident "containment" for nesting in nonlinear threads was the deciding factor for the way that I chose to go.

Recall that my intention has been that the Reply template might be used in conjuction with ItemPost on Talk pages For short posts and replies, which produce a linear structure, the nesting is probably superflous and replies should be placed outside the post or reply they refer to, presumably with the optional level parameter set to the level of indentation required (much like Carlos's example, although the level in my version does not also set the background color, which is probably superfluous.

By the way, I think it would be best that we not give any further "examples" of format here, since they seem to take up a lot of space. If necessary, we can simply refer to a suitable test page.


I've just finished adding rather comprehensive usage and syntax instructions for Template:Reply, together with a lengthy, illustrative example, replete with code. This complements the instructions already given for Template:ItemPost.

Suggested Edits to Help System

  • Posted by: Vaarky 22:02, 26 July 2008 (PDT)

Help:Where can I discuss CPDL with other users? links to, which gives a NotFound error. There's no link that would allow me to edit it directly.

  • Posted by: Vaarky 22:11, 26 July 2008 (PDT)

Additionally, it would be great to include a clickable mail link at where it says people can e-mail the score to a manager if they can't upload it themselves. I know a couple of people who said they have scores for uploading but didn't have the time (one knew how already but the other one didn't and seemed to find the prospect overwhelming--this has held me up too but I'm near to getting over it, as you can tell by the help pages I'm reading.


Hi Vaarky. Thanks for raising the broken link on that help page - I've updated the info there. As for the add works form, this isn't something that I can edit directly but a brand new form is in the works and should be put into place in the near future. I'll try to remember your suggestion for when that happens. The score submission guide should take you through the whole process quite comprehensively (I wrote most of it!) If you have any problems submitting, feel free to leave a message here or on my talk page.

BTW, if you want to add an internal link, simply use the page title and two square brackets, eg. [[ChoralWiki:CPDL support, help, and feedback]], rather than [[ChoralWiki:CPDL support, help, and feedback|bulletin board]]. Also, the ItemPost template which we use on these forums should only be used here, not on any other discussion pages, and new discussion should be added at the bottom of the page (but here it's added at the top). Thanks again for the feedback!


Rob... I have no problem at all with using the ItemPost template on talk pages as well as here, as long as one remembers the protocol for talk pages is that new topics are started at the end of the talk page rather than at the top (as on the Bulletin Board). If you seriously object to this, I'll just make a new template with a different name that does pretty much the same thing as ItemPost, for use on talk pages. Vaarky's comment on another page that ItemPost really helps to differentiate posts is a good one.

  • Posted by: Vaarky 12:54, 27 July 2008 (PDT)

I'd like to bring up one more minor point in support of putting more recent topics at the top of Talk pages the way it's done in the user forums. I'd welcome hearing some of the considerations in favor of the other approach too.

By putting the most recently started thread at the top of a talk page, it is easier for people to tell at a glance what topics are new without unnecessary scrolling down (people don't always post descriptive comments, and sometimes save without updating the comments at all. This may be especially useful while broken e-mail verification prevents people from getting any change notification e-mails (not having seen one of those e-mail messages about a watchlist change, I don't know how much difference it makes).

  • Posted by: —Carlos Email.gif 16:42, 27 July 2008 (PDT)

Chuck, my only objection to using ItemPost everywhere is because with it we can only create linear threads. In talk pages we usualy have many nested, indented replies that produce non-linear threads, as example below:

New topic by A
Reply to A by B
Reply to B by C
Reply to B by A
Reply to A by C
Reply to C by A

If we could reproduce the same structure with ItemPost (I tried a bit and couldn't), it would be fine.

  • Posted by: Vaarky 18:07, 27 July 2008 (PDT)

What if the template for ItemPost were modified so argument one was still the username, argument two was still the message, and if the user wanted nesting they could put the number of colons they wanted as argument three (or it would be left blank if not filled in)? That would minimize people needing to put an extra bar if they don't intend nesting, and it would still work for people who haven't gotten the memo about changes to the template's syntax. Would something like that be doable?

Indicating Macaronic Text

  • Posted by: Vaarky 20:35, 26 July 2008 (PDT)

In te Domine speravi (Josquin des Prez) has macaronic text. This piece raises several questions and I posted some discussion on the talk page for that score. One of the questions is not score-specific: I didn't see a way to indicate macaronic text on the help page about templates for text/translations; if one is created, should there be some way to indicate what the two or more languages are and what icon/flag should be used?

Since this is a more general question, is this the best place to discuss it? If so, I or someone else should add a pointer to the talk page for that piece pointing here.

  • Posted by: —Carlos Email.gif 05:28, 27 July 2008 (PDT)

Vaarky, Template:Text now accepts up to 3 different languages (the help page hasn't been updated yet). Please check the template page for instructions on the proper syntax in each case.

How should we handle entries for the second editor


The work "Circumdederunt me (Cristóbal de Morales)" recently submitted by Sabine Cassola has two editors, one is not listed as a "CPDL Contributer", but is listed in a footnote as Sabine says in her email to me:

Hi John, Would you be so kind to post these pieces for me on CPDL. Some of them are a coproduction with my colleague Dr. Ulrich Bartels (UB) as you can see at the bottom of some of these pages. If it is not possible for you to post the material, please, let me know Best wishes Sabine

How shall we add a second editor accreditation to the works page ?


I suggest that this situation should be handled in the same was as other editions which have more than one editor - simply change "Editor" to "Editors" and list both individuals' names with separate links to their respective user pages (create new ones if necessary). Eg:

:'''Editors:''' [[User:Sabine Cassola|Sabine Cassola]] and [[User:Ulrich Bartels|Ulrich Bartels]] Hope that helps.

  • Posted by: —Carlos Email.gif 04:57, 27 July 2008 (PDT)

John, per Rob's request, Template:Editor has been extended to accept up to 3 editor names. Check the template page for instructions on the proper syntax in each case.

Slow upload times

  • Posted by: Callidus 23:00, 14 May 2008 (PDT)

I'm recently uploading a lot of scores, and it takes too much time for the pages to open or reload.(on average 10-20 seconds).

What can I do about it? (my location is Slovenia and I have 1.5Mbit/384Kbit line). Is there a way to to mass-upload pdf, and midi files?
Thank you very much!


I think the problem is probably with the server which hosts CPDL. I'm in the USA and have DSL (albeit from a large provider whose service has been spotty at times), and I'm continually experiencing long times for pages to load, edits to be processed, etc. Unfortunately, I don't know of any method for mass uploading PDF and MIDI files.


Same problem here. I noticed things get worse when it's daytime in the U.S., when I have to wait sometimes up to 1 min to have pages loaded (as is right now). What I do is to avoid doing my edits during this period. I prefer to come here at night (in Brazil), when it's midnight in the U.S. Hope it helps.


If anyone's having problems uploading files, feel free to email them to me and I'll upload them on your behalf.

Ability to post more than one pdf, as well as MusicXML file?

  • Posted by: Mduiuc 06:06, 7 May 2008 (PDT)

I have posted a version of America (My Country Tis of Thee). To make life easier for all, I'd like to post a MusicXML version I have in addition to the original (and likely best) version from Sibelius 4. Is there any way to accomplish this? In addition, I would like to have two pdf versions: one that is a pdf of the Sibelius file (cleanest version) as well as a scan of the 1917 original. In the upload page, in addition to not allowing the XML filetype, there seems to be room to add only one pdf. Any help is appreciated!


Hi CPDL Pioneer Mduiuc -

I've added place-holders for the 2nd PDF and the XML source files - edit the works page and put in the proper links.

Use file specifiers which look like: which you get by left-clicking on the file specifier. Try the steps given below to demonstrate:

Type in the URL:

Right-Click on the blue link: 01_America.pdf

Select "Properties"

Copy the file designation from the box which appears. (Highlight - then cut-n-paste)

    (It will be:

Use this info in the works page to specify your uploaded file.

--- Good Luck ! ---

Naming convention for Composer+Arranger scores


I'm in doubt about this subject: When we have a score that is an arrangement of a popular music, should its title be Music name (Composer name) or Music name (Arranger name) or still Music name (arr. Arranger name), or both names? There's also an specific case of Gregorian chant that has been harmonized. I named it Chant name (Gregorian chant) and informed about the harmonization inside, is that ok?


Hi Carlos. I'll try to answer as best I can though I expect my answer will at least be partly influenced by my personal opinion on the matter. I believe that the naming convention for pages should always be Title, Op. n, No. n (Composer Name). If there is no composer then the following should apply: "Anonymous" for works where we don't know the composer's name or "Traditional" where it is likely that the tune has been passed down orally so that the original composer isn't known. But that standard has been adopted fairly loosly... I think you're right to list the arranger on the score page. You're definitely right to list the chants as Chant name (Gregorian chant). I think the only exception should be if the arrangement is so well known that there are many editions of it contributed to CPDL, in which case it may warrant its own page (I can't think of an example). I believe that all arrangements of a work should be listed on the same score page for convenience to the user. However, Chuck disagrees with me and we haven't really come to an agreement on the matter (I'm afraid I can't find the discussion...) Hope that helps.


I don't exactly disagree with Rob on the matter. I just have the feeling that a "major" arrangement (ie. one which differs significantly enough from the original to warrant being a separate "composition") should have its own page, with the "composer/arranger" listed as the composer and a link placed on the page of the original source (assuming that source is represented at CPDL). In the case of "new" hymn settings (of old hymnns or hymn tunes) this is already what we do. We also do it for anthems/motets that are based upon earlier works (at least, I think we do). But in the case of an arrangement (say, for SSAA or TTBB) of a choral work originally scored for different voicing (say, SATB) in which there is little rewriting other than simple transposition of parts, the arrangement should be (and usually is) incorporated on the original work page and marked as a transposition or arrangement in the Edition notes. As an example of an arrangement that should (I believe) and does have its own page is the Joseph G. Stephens arrangement of Coventry Carol (Traditional) (which actually lists at least two "arrangements").


Rob and Chuck, thanks for your opinions on this fuzzy subject, your personal experiences can help a lot. If I understood well what you both said, then this score could be renamed to O voso galo, comadre (Traditional) without much controversy: inside we could have Miguel Groba's own arrangement (or harmonization) and Adrian Cuello's adaptation for female choir of Groba's work. Agree?

With respect to Coventry Carol, I decided to have a look at all the available scores to see if I had got right what Chuck had said, but I ended up more confused: Joseph Stephens' arrangement is definitelly diferent from the traditional STB setting by Thomas Sharp (which has two versions, one hosted at CPDL and one at Christmas Songbook). BUT, there are also two other SATB versions (one by Martin Fallas Shaw, at Christmas Carol Music and the other by Walford Davies at Christmas Songbook) which are significantly different, both harmonically and rhythmically, from the traditional one. If we follow Chuck's advice, shouldn't then their compositions be also in separate pages? On the other hand, if they are to stay where they are, then I think Joseph Stephens' arrangement should also join them on the same page. :)


Hi Carlos. I was aware of the other versions of Coventry Carol lurking on those external websites - and I'm not sure if it was ever intended that they be posted at CPDL. By the way, it is now (aomost) universally agreed that the F/F# clash in old scores is surely a copyist's mistake and that the offending F (natural) should, in fact, be a D.

Archived topics

Topics included in an archive are listed below the archive name. Click on the archive name to find the archived postings.

Archive 1

  • PDF File protected on Williams Server
  • Diacritics (e.g., ç) not accommodated in search & alphabetization features?
  • CPDL number
  • Template:Composer - being used and misused?
  • Art Songs category not working sorting by name of work
  • List of current CPDL problems
Moved to: Operation and implementation issues
  • Score count for March 1 - Same as Feb ?
  • Naming: Unaccompanied vs. A cappella
  • I've reposted a missing score
Moved to: Sheet music requests and questions
  • Should we consider setting up a mirror site?
Moved to: Operation and implementation issues
  • Can the CPDL Catalogs be brought up to date ?
  • Can we add a category for "Art Songs" ?