ChoralWiki talk:2005 news

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Concerns about new wiki format

My concern with the WIKI format is the general openness of the content. Is there any way to arrange to control access to certain pages at some point, permitting access to a particular page to be limited to a moderator? For example, I can see one contributor spending a great deal of time cataloguing the available works of Palestrina, only to have another contributor completely undo the work of the first, and substitute his or her own.

I also fear more deliberate mischief....

Noel Stoutenburg

Hi Noel!
It is VERY open (a strength and challenge...) It is certainly worth a try. There may be some 'turf' battles, but pages can be edited and re-edited, and old pages can be retrieved. BTW, would you be interested in being a monitor?
Rafael Ornes

General editing guidelines

1718 CDT 24 August Rafel

My time is stretched rather thin at the moment, as I'm in the midst of major projects. So the best answer at this moment is probably "maybe". For the time being, I'll watch for and alert to problems as I see them. I think that it would be reasonable and proper at this point to establish some ground rules; for example the preferred way of handling a composer for whom there is ambiguity about the dates of his birth and death. Another example: I think some guideline needs to be set for naming scores. At the moment, under the Palestrina pages, all of the "Agnus dei" settings group together; three ways to deal with this come immediately to my mind: 1) establish a "super title", for example "Missa 'Tu es petrus'", which, if present would be the first sort criterion; 2) establish a uniform nomenclature, so that for any Mass the names of the movements are

"Missa 'name [if any]'" 1 Kyrie, "Missa 'name [if any];" 2 Gloria,&c.

A "Missa brevis", then, might omit the movements not set


I agree that there is a great deal of work to be done. In the case of masses, the lists are ridiculously long on the composer pages. I think that all movements should be moved to a works page (check out Mozart's 'Organ solo' Mass for an example). Unfortunately, CPDL was not originally designed to think in terms of works, but scores, so there will be a great deal of work to fix this issue.

0727 CDT 25 August, 2005 [4 shopping months til Christmas] Rafael:

WRT "Scores, not works", It is the exception, rather than the rule, to be able to purchase a single movement from a Mass. To stick with Palestrina, the composer in question, purchasing the choral score to "Missa Papa Marcellæ" gets all five mass movements, in one score.

Another issue that needs to be addressed, I think, is the question of ambiguity or confusion about things such as composer's dates, and in some cases, spelling of name. The 17th / 18th century Mexican composer, Manuel de Sumaya's name is alternatively spelled in some sources "Zumaya", and there is some question as to the date of his death; I have seen both 1756 and 1754 in sources of about equal credibility.


There is a way round the problem of variant spellings. First, we simply choose one spelling as 'canonical', and use that in naming the pages. (It can be an arbitrary choice.) Then we create redirect pages for all the variants.
For instance, we create the composer page Manuel de Sumaya and put all the normal stuff in there about the composer. Then we create another page, Manuel de Zumaya, and make that a redirect page: that is, the entire content of the page is the following text: #REDIRECT[[Manuel de Sumaya]]. As a consequence, anyone who tries to visit the Zumaya page gets seamlessly bounced over to the Sumaya page.
Creating a lot of such redirects is a time-consuming job, but it can happen over time. ~Wombat 02:50, 3 October 2005 (PDT)

External scores and counting

1727 CDT 25 August, 2005 [3 shopping months, 30 1/4 days til Christmas] Rafael:

Another issue that I think needs to be addressed is making it clearer where a score resides, and reconsideration whether a score on an external site should be counted in the score count. I have my own thoughts on this, but prefer not to state them at this point.


Protection of talk pages

I noticed that the talk page for the main page is protected. In general, talk pages should not be protected. -- 19:36, 30 September 2005 (PDT)

Agreed. I'll unprotect it. ~Wombat 02:53, 3 October 2005 (PDT)
I've noticed that the talk page for the main page is protected again, along with a few other talk pages. -- 03:13, 26 October 2005 (PDT)
It seems that there are ~5 pages that are 'spam magnets'. Several times a day, they are defaced and need to be reset. Can anyone come up with a better plan? -- Admin 05:49, 26 October 2005 (PDT)
Well, Wikipedia uses robots.txt to prevent bots from accessing the edit functions [1], and it seems to help a lot. -- 20:10, 26 October 2005 (PDT)

link to recent changes

Hi, I think you should change the link to recentchanges. Now it is a not-working link. It goes to Sepcial:Recent... and should go to Special:Rec... Effeietsanders 12:51, 13 October 2005 (PDT)

Thank you for pointing out the error. It has now been fixed. ChuckGiffen

main page forum link error

The link to the forums on the main page (not the side bar) is wrong. It should be and not - notice the capitalization? -- 03:15, 26 October 2005 (PDT)

Thanks for pointing it out, it has now been fixed. Admin 05:50, 26 October 2005 (PDT)

since registration is now required

I know that several pages have been protected due to spam. But since registration is now required, would it be a good idea to unprotect some of those pages? Of coruse, important pages, like the Main Page, should probably remain protected. --Ixfd64 11:36, 20 December 2005 (PST)

is this page superseded?

  • Posted by: Vaarky 03:36, 4 September 2008 (PDT)

Is this page superseded by the News page and the user forums? I'm thinking it would be good to fold this into the user forums archive to preserve the content.