Difference between revisions of "ChoralWiki:Operation and implementation issues"

From ChoralWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Request for extension to Template:Editor)
Line 13: Line 13:
= General topics (most recent first) =
= General topics (most recent first) =
<!-- Start NEW TOPICS immediately below this line, ABOVE (BEFORE) any other topics -->
<!-- Start NEW TOPICS immediately below this line, ABOVE (BEFORE) any other topics -->
==Request for extension to [[Template:Editor]]==
{{ItemPost|[[User:Bobnotts|Bobnotts]] <small>[[User talk:Bobnotts|'''talk''']]</small> 22:01, 21 July 2008 (PDT)|
I've just been updating [[O magnum mysterium (Tomás Luis de Victoria)]] with the names of the editors from Mutopia (see <nowiki>http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/piece-info.cgi?id=244</nowiki>) who have edited this work. Unfortunately, the Editor template cannot take more than one editor in its current state. Would it be possible for someone to extend it in the same manner as [[Template:Language]]? I would but it takes me a while to get my head round template code and I know other people are better at it :-)
==LilyPond icons==
==LilyPond icons==

Revision as of 05:01, 22 July 2008

CW:OI redirects here.


Operation and implementation issues

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


This forum is for more techincal discussions of ChoralWiki implementation and operation at CPDL, primarily of interest to admins and others doing editing of pages at CPDL. Some topics of a more technical nature or involving CPDL policy from CPDL support, help, and feedback will be moved here.

General topics (most recent first)

Request for extension to Template:Editor


I've just been updating O magnum mysterium (Tomás Luis de Victoria) with the names of the editors from Mutopia (see http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/piece-info.cgi?id=244) who have edited this work. Unfortunately, the Editor template cannot take more than one editor in its current state. Would it be possible for someone to extend it in the same manner as Template:Language? I would but it takes me a while to get my head round template code and I know other people are better at it :-)

LilyPond icons


I came across this page whilst doing some spam reverting and noticed a few LilyPond icons (Icon_ly.gif) in place of the usual text "LilyPond". What do people think about adopting this icon universally and adding it to the Legend? I've just created Template:extly which outputs an icon with the globe (Icon_ly_ext.png) for LilyPond files hosted externally. I figure, the more icons and less text on score and composer pages, the better.


Hi Rob, I never thought about this before, might be a good idea. The icons for the PDF and MIDI files are quite obvious and universally recognized. I just wonder if people visiting score pages won't be a bit confused at first with icons they don't know yet (I suppose we'd adopt icons for the other sources too, as Sibelius, Encore etc.?), but as soon as they look at the Legend everything would be clear. The ideal would be if we could make the tooltip (that appears when we drag the mouse over the icons) show the program name instead of the link that it shows now.

Administrative remedies to mitigate current (July 08) spam storm?

  • Posted by: Kkroon 20:42, 11 July 2008 (PDT)

An observation that struck me as I was looking through the Recent Changes for pages that needed to be reverted: all of the perps appear to have ten-character usernames, the first and sixth characters of which are capitalized.

Is there any way to use this information to disallow (for example) the creation of userIDs with that format (for the time being)?

Signed, An occasional volunteer who's been annoyed with these spates of Wikispam ever since they started.

Kkroon 20:42, 11 July 2008 (PDT)


Unfortunately, there is no such mechanism for disallowing the creation of UserIDs with a particular format. It is indeed a bothersome situation for all of us, especially admins who try their best to keep up with reverting the spambot edits and blocking] the offenders. When (and if) we ever get a new version of the wiki software, it is hoped that it will come equipped with visual confirmation requirements (such as Capcha) that would prevent a bot from being able to register. In the meantime, thank you very much for your concern and also especially for your help in reverting the spam edits.

  • Posted by: Kurtis 23:42, 13 July 2008 (PDT)

And none of these admins (except maybe Mr. Ornes) can install an extension like http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ConfirmAccount ?

Sure, it would cause some administrative overhead -- confirming or declining an account application. Maybe it would help ... but what do I know?

Kkroon 16:37, 13 July 2008 (PDT)


Some other suggestions to implement, in case any of the admins can reach and edit LocalSettings.php: Preventing access and Usercan Hook. With these we could restrict a bit the attacks to fewer pages, by protecting entire namespaces as User:, Category:, ChoralWiki: and Template:.


Unfortunately, only Raf Ornes (User:Admin) has direct access to the database and other system files, hence none of the rest of us admins is able to access and edit LocalSettings.php or install MediaWiki extensions.


Chuck, what if we all wrote to Raf asking him to do something, or at least to grant one of us permission to do it in his place? If he keeps silent even after being warned, then I guess I'll start having big concerns about the future of this project and the time and effort we all put into it.


I'd definitely like to see some Capcha style protection on this wiki so if you've got the time, please go ahead and make your request to Raf, Carlos. It may be prudent to suggest to Raf that you're not expecting instant action, but a short reply which details when he may get the chance to update the wiki software and add the Capcha addon. I'm sure we'd all be please to hear of any reply you get. I'll probably send an email to Raf soon and then write to him every week till I get a reply...


I'll do that, Rob! But I believe the more people write him, the more he'll feel the urge. Should I use the email at his user page or do you know of any personal email he checks more often? Thanks.

  • Posted by: --Choralia 06:16, 15 July 2008 (PDT)

Carlos & Rob, as we discussed via private email in the past, I'm also rather concerned about the future of this project. Please let me know if you want me to also write to Raf. If you don't get any response from Raf, I think we should contact the administrators of the server farm where CPDL is hosted, and find some workaround to preserve CPDL as a significant music asset that cannot be lost. Apparently, the hosting server is ccarh-www-2.Stanford.EDU (IP address, at the Stanford University. Let's consider this as a back-up solution in the case you cannot get in touch with Raf. Regards. Max


Has anyone tried calling Raf at his church? If something has happened to him, they would likely know. His number as published on the church website is (650) 851-8282 x106. I glanced through the church news, but didn't see any mention of him being indisposed or away. I'd be surprised, though, if he was willing to let CPDL fall into disrepair, and clearly the spambot thing is a major problem.

Category:New works added to Template:NewWorks


Some of you have noticed that I modified Template:NewWork so that it, in addition to adding a category of the form yyyy-mm-dd (used by Template:LatestScores and the ChoralWiki:yyyy-mm-dd_Scores pages to provide listings of new editions posted), the template now also places a page in Category:New works, sorted by the posting date passed to the template. This latest feature should make it easy for us to remove "stale" instances of the NewWork template. I have tentatively stated that instances which are more than two years old can be safely removed. Currently there are somewhat over 500 instances of NewWork being applied to editions which are more than two years old. I see that Rob has begun removing such templates, and I shall do more of the same in coming days/weeks (holidays and other things have intervened for my getting much of a start).

My choice of two years was a bit arbitrary (mainly because I was not wanting to offend anyone). If hindsight and the holiday weekend provide any retrospect, it might be that two years could be further reduced, say, to one year. But I'm posting this here to get feedback.

If anyone wants to help pruning the stale instances of NewWork, just New works, click on a page near the top of the list, find the stale template and remove it. It would further help CPDL if you check through any such page for errors, corrections, and any other improvements, such as formatting and proper application (ie. read the instructions) of such templates as Edtions, Composer, Voicing, Language, etc.)


Hi Chuck! To be honest, I don't see much sense in adding to a page something that we know that will have to be removed anytime later. I'd like to recommend a change in the way this template works, adding a bit of "intelligence" to it: we could make it compare the entered date with {{CURRENTYEAR}}, {{CURRENTMONTH}} and {{CURRENTDAY}} and dependind on the results, make it show or not the "NEW" icon on the score page, besides including or not the page in "New work" categories. We'd only have to change the template to also accept the format {{NewWork|yyyy|mm|dd}}, and adding the logic would be quite easy (I can help with that). The best of the worlds would be if we could deal with the date strings in use now ("yyyy-mm-dd"), so that we wouldn't have to remove or edit the stale instances, but I couldn't find on Wikipedia any function that breaks a string in smaller parts :(( Do you know of any?


Hi Carlos. Unfortunately, we don't have the MediaWiki ParserFunctions and StringFunctions. The Template:Switch is a template kludge for the MediaWiki #switch, and I don't see any easy way to kludge other such functions. Without these, it would be next to impossible to implement the scheme you suggest (which we have thought about and wished for before!).


I have created a new Template:NW which is an extension of Template:NewWork which (if it replaces the latter) is backwardly compatible with the latter and which (at least, down the road a year or two) could prove useful somewhat in the way that Carlos suggested above ... albeit it is more primitive than we would like (since we don't have MediaWiki ParserFunctions and StringFunctions here).

I have taken the liberty of replacing {{NewWork|2006-02-19}} in Uno spirto celeste (Giovanni Maria Nanino) with {{NW|2006-02-19|2006}}, so that you can see the result - namely, that the "new" icon does not appear, and the categories 2006-02-19 and New works don't appear either.

On Mein gläubiges Herze (Johann Sebastian Bach) I've replaced {{NewWork|2008-07-08}} with {{NW|2008-07-08|2008}} - and the "new" icon does indeed appear along with the categories 2008-07-08, New works, and a new category 2008.

If NW is used exactly like the present NewWork template (ie. with only the one date parameter in the form yyyy-mm-dd), then NW functions exacly the same way as NewWork does. The idea behind the functioning of NW with its second year (yyyy) parameter is that if the year given (eg. 2006) is two or more years older than the present year, then the template does nothing, as in the Nanino example above. As presently configured, the two year trick has to be updated annually (by adding another |case: yyyy= field. At present the only such field is |case: 2006= (since there are no instances of the NewWork template prior to 2006).

When and if we ever get the MediaWiki update required, the template can be changed to do everything automatically and precisely, but in the meantime, it might be a good idea to change NewWork over to an extension which looks something like NW does. If people approve, I'll probably go ahead and make such a change, although I'll probably have the template not add a Category:yyyy (since it is not really needed).

Your comments are encouraged!


That looks good to me, Chuck. Thanks for your work. Would it be possible to make the deciding factor for the template a little more accurate, ie. make it dependant on not just the year but also the month and day?


Sorry Chuck, I hadn't seen your last message here about the NW template (these bot edits made your reply slip through) when I wrote to you in your talk page. Feel free to move that talk here if you want so. I made that test unaware that you had already offered another solution here, sorry if it looked like I was competing with you, I thought you were still making tests, just as me.


No problem, Carlos. Indeed, my thoughts now favor (at least until we can get the right WikiMedia update) your solution using Template:IsNew. Even though it will require more frequent mainenance, it does offer the finer dependence upon yyyy-mm-dd that Rob asked about above.

I think the biggest question now is just how long do we want the "new" icon to remain on an edition - 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, or what? The current setting for 12 months seems alright enough for me.


Perhaps we could opt for a trade-off between IsNew accuracy and its maintenance frequency: everytime a maintenance is done, IsNew would be set to test for 12 months behind and 6 months ahead. In the following six months, IsNew time range would grow from 12 to 18 months, until a new maintenance is done again. Another option is to set it to already test dates 2 years ahead from now, and every couple of months we'd only have to delete the trailing block of older dates (though I'm not sure whether the extra 365 x2 test entries would affect its performance). In order to make maintenance even simpler, I treated all months as having 31 days, since it doesn't affect IsNew results.

Testing a new set of Link templates


Hi, I know it may sound a bit exagerated, but I started testing 3 new templates to deal with the linking of music files inside composer and score pages. They are {{Link}} (for external files), {{LLink}} (for local files hosted at cpdl.org) and {{LLinkAlt}} (for local files hosted at wso.williams.edu). Perhaps it would be better to have just one instead of three, but then I wouldn't be able to shrink the links well. All of them were temporarily applied to Palestrina's page, the differences can be checked here. The advantages would be more simplicity in adding links and smaller page size. In the case of Palestrina, page size was reduced from 46kb to 32kb with them, almost 50%. Please again, have a look and say if it's something worth to keep developing or if it was just a silly idea of mine.


Great work, Carlos! I would suggest that LLinkW (for Williams) is a shorter (hence better) name than LLinkAlt. Also, the three "&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;" are better replaced with " &nbsp; ", and the only other &nbsp;'s should be immediately after the "(" and immediately before the closing ")" ... in other words, between each pair of items inside the "(&nbsp;...&nbsp;)" there should be just one ordinary space. Otherwise, I'm impressed by your work on shortening the Palestrina page ... and ultimately shortening the work of those of us who have to add stuff by hand.

As an additional comment, I would suggest replacing the "&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;''2 editions available''" with " - {{editions|2}}" (and similarly for more editions) as a means of shortening the page, as well as making these additions uniform across the board at CPDL.


Please see my comments on my talk page in reply to Chuck as to why I think using Template:Editions on composer pages as well as score pages is a bad idea.


... And see my reply/comments to Rob's comments on his talk page.

Edit: Note that using the editions template on the Palestrina page has reduced its size from 32Kb to 29.5Kb.

Lyricist template


I am doing some tests with a template that mimics the {{Composer}} template, which I have conveniently called "{{Lyricist}}". Just as the Composer template, it creates a link to the lyricist page and inserts the score page into [[Category:"Lyricist name" texts]]. Please have a look at the test category Torquato Tasso texts and give your opinions. I intentionally left two descriptions in this category because I couldn't find the best wording, am open to suggestions.

Once again, as with the "Text Categories", the idea behind this template is to decrease the amount of editing necessary to keep CPDL up-to-date. Whenever a new score page is created that uses this template, the page will automaticaly appear in the lyricist texts category, and the lyricist page won't need to be edited to include a link to the new score page, because it already has a link to the texts category, which should suffice.


That looks good to me, Carlos. Thanks for your efforts. I prefer the second wording. Also, I think it would be a good idea to include all information about a lyricist on the same category page. Good work!


Looks good to me, too, and (like Rob) I also prefer the second wording. I'm assuming that biblical and other canonical texts will not have a lyricist assigned to them. Also, in a growing number of instances, the Lyricist field to a works page is just one of at least three references to the lyricist on the page (Lyricist, Description, and Text-translations fields), so I ask: Is this really necessary? To me it seems to verge on overkill. Note that, usually the composer's name generally gets mentioned once (in the Composer field), rarely twice (Description field).


I agree, Chuck. Let's have the lyricist/source of lyrics only in one place on the page, under "Composer".


Hi guys, thanks for your feedbacks. Rob, the idea of including all the lyricist info on the same category page sounds good to me. I think it will look better especially in those cases in which the lyricist category has only a few entries and that page would look too "empty". And Chuck, what I had in mind was to apply this template at first to only a handful of lyricists, because the majority of them still haven't a biographical page or have just one work available at CPDL. I also agree that there is no need to put extra references to the lyricist; I've been usually using the Descrition field just to inform what work is the text from. As for my phrase wordings, both of you please remember that English is not my first language and always feel free to correct my text translations and phrases that may sound awkward to your ears.


Hello John, I saw that you moved all Shakespeare information to the category page, as you suggested. I had done the same for Torquato Tasso, but then I remembered that it would affect the Category:Lyricists and reverted the edit; it divides that category into two kinds of entries (pages and subcategories), and in fact I didn't quite like the way the subcategory entries look like, all ending with "... texts" instead of just the lyricist name. It also breaks the logic of the {{WikipediaLink}} template that follows the biography. Do you think it is worth doing the move even so?


It was actually I who moved the info around, Carlos, and yes, I do think that it's a worthwhile change. Having the works listed on the same page as the biographical info makes sense to me - why have them on separate pages, forcing the user to load another page? I agree that the separation on the lyricist cat page and WikipediaLink not working is a nuisance but I think it's a fair trade off given the ease at which a score page is listed on the lyricist page. As for the "texts" title thing, we could just change all the lyricist cats to be "Firstname Lastname", not "Firstname Lastname texts". This might cause a problem when we get to individuals who are both composers and poets though...


Take a look at Lyricists now, and you'll see that the "William Shakespeare texts" category no longer appears as a sub category, and there is a listing for "William Shakespeare" under "S" in the "Pages in category..." section. The solution is simple: on the redirect page William Shakespeare, simply add [[Category:Lyricists|Shakespeare, William]] ... and on the William Shakespare texts page, change the "Lyricists" category to something like "Lyricist text categories" (which I have done as an example). This seems to maintain the homogeneity of the Lyricists category.

Edit: This also makes it easy enough migrate a lyricist page to a category, putting the appropriate redirect and category on the old lyricist page after moving the contents of the lyricist page to the new lyricist (text) category page.

Might I suggest one change though? Instead of having, eg. the William Shakespeare texts category, why not simply name the category Category:William Shakespeare (of course the redirect on the William Shakespeare page will have to be changed to point to the William Shakespeare category). This would solve an issue that was bothering me when I first read the above posts ... namely that "texts" seems to imply (to me, at least) that there are links to the actual texts, which is what English texts does, for example.


That's a very good solution, thanks Chuck!


Hmm I'm not sure that naming the lyricist categories as just a name is the best idea. I mentioned earlier in my reply to Carlos that this might cause a problem when we get to individuals who are both composers and poets... I think it would be good to have another word after the name. Perhaps "William Shakespeare settings"?


Bingo!! That's an excellent suggestion! Thanks Rob.


I've just altered Torquato Tasso and William Shakespeare as we agreed above. However, I'm not entirely happy with the wording of the overarching category, "Lyricist text categories". Any better suggestions?


How about just "Lyricist settings"? I'm not happy with "Lyricist text categories" either ... it shouldn't be necessary to have the word categories in part of the name of a category.


Hi Chuck and Rob (not John, sorry for the confusion above), my internet connection was down in the last couple of days and I couldn't follow up the developments you were doing, but the solutions you both came up with are fine to me. I didn't know one could categorize redirect pages! -- CarlosTalk 16:02, 3 July 2008 (PDT)

Semi-automation now available


Hi friends, I have some good news, especially for those of you who do a lot of editing. After some unsuccesful attempts at using AutoWikiBrowser (a Wikipedia tool) to implement some automation at CPDL, I finally came up with a satisfactory alternative: UltraEdit Macros! UltraEdit is an excellent text editor that I use a lot, but I had never played with its Macro features before. Then I read somewhere that these macros can execute "Regular Expressions", a very powerful "language" that allows for advanced find/replace and logical operands. I started creating a couple of macros and the results are impressive: As an example, please see the last edit done to Nun will der Lenz uns grüssen (Udo Baake). It was completely automated, the only thing I had to do was to copy the code from the CPDL site, paste it into UltraEdit, run a macro and paste the result back to the score page. I know the work is still in its beginning and will still need lots of refining, but I believe we can already say goodbye to those tedious repetitive edits. :) CarlosTalk 17:02, 14 June 2008 (PDT)

New template - copyright warning


After seeing all the new Vaughan Williams scores popping up, it occured to me that it might be a good idea to have a template to sit at the top of composer and score pages to indicate to users that the work is public domain USA, but it may not be public domain in their own country. I've started on this template at Template:CopyrightWarning though I'm not satisfied with the wording yet. Suggestions and alterations are welcome.

How should we handle entries for composite works, where two separate "works" are in the same file


The work recently submitted by Sabine Cassola incorporates two sections of "Officium Defunctorum", namely the 5 part SATTB "Circumdederunt" and the 4 part (SATB) Invitatorium "Venite exultemus". Should two entries be put into the composer page both pointing to the "Circumdederunt me (Cristóbal de Morales)" page ? In the current situation someone looking for the "Venite exultemus" section of the work would probably not find it.


I suppose it's a question of the work - is it really two separate works or is it indeed a single work which should be on a single score page? If it is two separate works, then a link to one score page from the other should be fine. If it's one work, merge the pages.

How should we handle entries for the second editor

Moved to ChoralWiki:CPDL support, help, and feedback#How should we handle entries for the second editor

New template "CompCatTxt"

  • Posted by: Bobnotts talk 09:28, 25 May 2008 (PDT)

I've just finished categorising all Dowland score pages under Category:John Dowland compositions and created the category. As there are likely to be many of these categories in created in the future, I think it's necessary to have a set text for the category - a template seemed the best way to go about this so I created Template:CompCatTxt. The template currently has 2 required variables, 1=Composer's first and any middle names 2=Composer's surname. I did this for the category sort key. I considered making a third variable for some alternative text for the second sentance of the template's text, eg. For an alternative list ordered by {{{3}}}, see [[{{{1}}} {{{2}}}]]. The alternaitve text would be "genre" or "publication date" etc. What does everyone else think about a third variable? By the way, the ItemPost template doesn't seem to be able to handle this code which is why I haven't used it...

Quoting from the previous post: "By the way, the ItemPost template doesn't seem to be able to handle this code which is why I haven't used it..."

The problem with Template:ItemPost occurs when you type an equal sign ("=") inside the template... something like

I think all this = baloney.

For then, the template thinks that everything before the = is a parameter (even if not declared in the template definition) and that everything after it is what is being passed to the parameter. I enclosed both of Rob's = signs within nowikis, and put his post (above) inside the ItemPost template which now works properly. I had run into this problem ("bug") before but forgot to mention it until now.

Nomination for adminship


I'd like to formally nominate Carlos for adminship. Carlos has put a lot of work into CPDL over the past 4-5 months including welcoming newcomers, providing texts and translations, correcting mistakes and doing some admin related tasks including merging and moving pages. He has shown a clear undertanding of the wiki framework of the site, he has good musical knowledge and a couple of languages other than English up his sleeve. He has also adapted to the weird and wonderful (and mostly undocumented) practices here. I believe he has earned the community's trust and should be made an admin (sysop) for these reasons. Please state your opinions below and we will come to a consensus on whether or not to make Carlos an admin in due course.


Wow, thank you guys, this nomination is quite an honor for me! Whatever be the community's decision, I'll continue to gladly contribute to this wonderful site!


Rob already knows my feelings are definitely and strongly in favor of Carlos/Carlos becoming an admin here at CPDL. I had raised the matter with Rob in an earlier exchange of emails, and since then Carlos has continued his excellent service and more than earned our trust that he will prove to be a capable sysop. I would hope that we can reach a consensus before the end of this month.


I vote to elect Carlos to position of Admin/SysOp for CPDL. Welcome Carlos !


I have just made Carlos (User:Carlos) a Sysop, since there have been no objections or reservations expressed to his nomination. Please join with me in congratulating Carlos for a continuiung job well-done. We look forward to his contintued devotion and service to CPDL as an Administrator.

Aside to Carlos: Now you can delete pages instead of having to request their deletion!! *smiles*


Thank you, Chuck and all! I was editing a page and all of a sudden a lot of new "options" appeared, lol. Later will have to ask you what some of those are meant for. ;-)

PS: Next round of beer is on me!!

Moving to the new BBS system


We have a workable BBS system at


Which I think we should transition to. The current system does not encourage new users, and even though we "Techies" can make use of it I don't think it is a good permanant solution. Certainly the current pink announcement box could send users to the above resource. Currently to find "new posts" I have to find edits in the "Recent Changes" list, and go to the modified page. With the very slow load times we are now experienceing this process takes a lot of time, and I find I "read" new posts much less frequently than I used to. Consequently I don't help new users much because to the inadaquacy of the current system. What do other CPDL users and admins think ?


I agree with you, John; in fact this forum is not very much newbie-friendly, and as it shares the same platform with CPDL, in case of a server failure we'd lose contact with each other. But would we have to create a new account to access this new BBS?


You sign up just the way to signed up to use the "forum" BBS. It's also much faster than trying to read messages here, and you can tell which posts are new and unread. It makes sense to use it ASAP.

  • Posted by: --Choralia 17:06, 16 May 2008 (PDT)

I agree, of course. I just wonder if someone has admin access rights onto the "traditional" phpBB2 forum, so that he can possibly add a link or even re-direct the phpBB2 forum to the new phpBB3 forum. I think this would facilitate the migration of the users.

Add brass to accompaniment cat?


I've just come across this score Psalm 100 - Jauchzet dem Herrn (Johann Pachelbel) and I wondered if we should add "Brass ensemble" to the accompaniment list & add appropriate templates etc?


Good idea! I just created and added Brass accompaniment to Accompaniment and made the template {{BrassAcc}} (with optional sortkey parameter 9) to facilitate listing and adding the new category to the Instruments fields of relevant works. The default form in which this template appears is "Brass ensemble". Sorry it took so long, but I have been inundated of late.


Thanks, Chuck. I've updated the page in question.

New template for formatting of credits in Translations section


I was trying to find a simple way to format the credits line in the translations section and came up with this little template By. I used it as a test in Ay mi Dios (Pedro de Cristo), please have a look inside and say if you like the results. A few examples on how to use it can be found on the template's page. I bring it now to public appreciation for opinions whether to use it or not. Thanks


I think this is a good idea but I think it would be better if it were integrated into Template:Translation and we had "user" as the default option, not the exception. Also, I think it's worth discussing 2 broader issues to do with translations on CPDL:

  1. Should translators be credited? Anybody can come in and make major edits to them - how far are they still the work of one person? Wikis are about collaboration, so indicating ownership of work is something of a backwards step. The exception to this is, of course, the main aim of this site - editions. Editors are listed for them, I hear you cry. Well - I think this is an exception because the files cannot be edited by anyone at all, just the editor.
  2. Should pages with translations be categorised as having them? At the moment, the category Category:Texts-translations only accounts for texts added...

What does everyone think?


Hi Rob, your suggestion of integrating it with the Translation template is nice indeed. As for having "User" as the default, that was my initial idea, but I decided to invert its logic because I thought that perhaps text comments would be more common than usernames. Now the broader issues:

1. I have thought about this a few times, without coming to a conclusion. I even started removing my credits from a few pages, but then turned back. I think the main reason for having the credits is for us to be able to contact the translators and discuss with them any detail of their translation. On the other side, I've also made minor changes to other's translations (usually in punctuation, but sometimes even changing a word for another I consider to better represent the meaning) without contacting them, and wouldn't mind having my own translations being modified by others (if for better! :).

2. That's another point I was going to discuss with Chuck in near future; I too noticed that the translations weren't being listed on Category:Texts-translations, and was going to propose him the creation of Category:Translations (by language) just as there is for Category:Texts (by language). I definitely think translations should have their own category.

Uniform sort keys for categorization templates on sheet music pages


I've begun converting (typically optional) sort key parameters for categorization templates on sheet music pages to a uniform parameter 9. Previously, such sort key parameters had various numbers (usually 2, 3 or 4). I reckon that it is much easier to remember just one choice that works for all such templates than to have to remember all the variations (or check the template code/documentation itself).


Excellent initiative, Chuck! I saw how confusing adding sort keys can be when I was editing ¿Qué pasa ó redor de min? (Adrian Cuello): for Composer, Pcat and Text templates it was the 3rd parameter; for Lang and Language, the 9th; for Acap the 2nd and so on. :) Having just one parameter number to remember will tremendously simplify things. Thanks!


Glad you like it. I'll get to all the other templates that go on sheet music pages as soon as I can. Fortunately, it is not difficult to identify those relatively few instances where the old sort key was used and change them manually.

New add works form

Some comments moved here from User talk:Bobnotts#Add New Works form

  • Posted by: Arie 02:10, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

Hi Robert,

I'm still working working on the form and the results, and I'm a bit puzzled how to 'render' part of larger work. Should it come directly under the title? e.g.

Title: Just a title, Op. 65, No. 7

Part of: Larger work, Op. 65

Also I don't know what to do with the second composer entry, you requested. Yours, Arie

  • Posted by: Arie 06:11, 1 May 2008 (PDT)

I also noticed that the template {{Acap}} renders as:

Instruments: a cappella

whereas e.g. {{OrgAcc}} just gives the category. IMHO all the templates concerning instrumentation should render the same way, in order to maintain the PHP-script easier.

[EDIT - bobnotts: Template:acap now behaves in the same way as other accompaniment templates and should be used in preference to Template:a cappella]


Hi Arie. Thanks for all the work you've done so far. I agree that the "a cappella" template should operate in the same way as the other instrument templates. However, as both {{Acap}} and {{A cappella}} are used on over 500 pages, we don't want to change either template. I propose to create a new template for the purpose, "acappella", which the add works form would use. The new template would be the same as the existing "acap" template except that it wouldn't include "Instruments:" as you suggest.

As for the second composer entry, I'm sorry for not making myself clear. Some works listed on CPDL have more than one composer (albiet a very small number, eg. Two Anglican Chants for Psalm 65 (Thomas Attwood Walmisley and W. A. C. Cruickshank)). In the case of a submitted work having more than one composer, we would need to have a separate (optional) field on the add works form. The output would be {{Composer|2|Thomas Attwood Walmisley|W. A. C. Cruickshank}}

As for movements of a larger work, see Ye People, Rend Your Hearts (No. 3 from 'Elijah') (Felix Mendelssohn) which I believe is a good example of the appropriate output. I hope this helps!

  • Posted by: Arie 03:13, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Hi Robert. Thanks for the reply. It seems that I partially solved my own problem. As for the {{Acap}} template, I had to check the choice of accompaniment anyway, so you can leave it as is.

Second composer is clear, shouldn't give too much of a problem to implement that.

Another thing though is the implementation of the larger work. Key is that it must be filled in exactly, otherwise the link back will not work. I will think about this overnight.

Can you (or any of the other admins) access the original PHP-script? This would be helpful in order to figure out how the CPDL-number is issued. Thanks in advance.

Current state of the form is at Add a new work. Feel free to try it and comment on it or if you have any wishes, please let me know.


Thanks for this, Arie. As I see it, the form shouldn't automatically add a CPDL no. - this would be added by the admin who reviews the works page and then removes {{AwaitingReview}}. So there is no need to get the old form - could we have "nnnnn" in place of where the number should be?

There's quite a few things I've picked up on - I hope it's not too much work for you!

  • Add 2 radio buttons next to "Lyricist or source of text". The choices would be "Lyricist" (ie. an individual who wrote the words) or "Source of text" (a part of the bible, for example). The output code would reflect the choice of radio buttons. If "Lyricist" was chosen, we should have {{Lyricist|Charles Wesley}} (for example). If "Source of text" was chosen, we should have '''Source of text:''' John 14: 15-17
  • Could you add these languages to the drop down list:
    • Basque
    • Catalan
    • Czech
    • Finnish
    • Greek
    • Ancient Greek
    • Hungarian
    • Huron
    • Icelandic
    • Lowland Scots
    • Middle English
    • Nahuatl
    • Old English
    • Quenya
    • Serbian
    • Slovenian
    • Ukrainian
    • Zulu
  • If the user doesn't select an option from a compulsory drop down list, currently a dash "-" is outputted. Can we change that to {{Language|Unknown}} or {{Cat|Unknown genre|Unknown genre}} or whatever?
  • Can we add an optional box for the text of the work (which would have a line break, <br> added to the end of each line)?
  • Remove "Ancient" from period list
  • Add "Other" to instruments list.
  • Separate keyboard reduction & keyboard version into 2 separate tick boxes (elaborate on descriptions for tick boxes - "Includes a keyboard reduction of the choral parts" & "Includes a keyboard version of a non-keyboard accompaniment". The former will add {{KbdRed}} and the latter would add {{KbdVer}}
  • Year of first publication should not be a required field (nor should it add a template - one does not exist)
  • Cannot type in ensemble specification box.
  • In Music Notation software list:
    • Capitalise "p" in "LilyPond"
    • Remove "-" from "Finale 1998", "Finale 1999" etc.
    • Correct capitalisation of "Encore"
  • Remove "(give URL, or name or file)" from line "Music notation file"
  • Replace the existing list of copyright choices with the following:
    • CPDL
    • Creative Commons
    • Free Art License
    • GnuGPL
    • MutopiaBSD
    • Personal
    • Public Domain
    • Religious
  • We need the existing free text box so users can specify the type of Creative Commons license they are using (if applicable).

When I got the outputted code, there were the following problems:

  • There shouldn't be a gap between "==Music files==" and "{{Legend}}"
  • The MP3 link was missing
  • There should not be a period (full stop) after the final file link
  • Can we use Template:ScoreInfo? If we do, we won't need any forced spaces (&nbsp;) on that line.
  • The additional copyright notes were missing
  • The lyricist line was above the composer line (the composer line should come directly below the title)
  • If the link is to a web page rather than directly to a file, the icon should be Network.png, {{net}} not {{extpdf}} or {{extmid}} (see this page for comparisons).
  • In the works output, all the info below the "year published field" was missing. We need "description" and "external links" below that, then the title "Original text and translations" with "{{NoText}}" if the text has not been added in the box above but "{{Text|Whatever}}" if the text has been added in the form. Also, any categories not added by the templates should be added at the bottom of the form.

That probably seems like a very long list! Sorry for that but it's best to get it right first time. Thanks again. Rob

  • Posted by: Arie 17:37, 2 May 2008 (PDT)

Hi Robert. Thanks for the elaborate input. As you say, it's better to get thing right the first time.

Some fields are hidden or disabled until the user makes a choice that enables the field. That is on the instrument field. This will only be activated in case of Wind, mixed ensemble or Orchestra. I thought in other cases this would not give any extra information.

The Keyboard version checkbox gives a different value according to the choice made. In case of A cappella, it's {{KbdRed}}, in case of an ensemble it will be {{KbdVer}}. In all other cases it will be ignored but then it not visible anyway. Maybe that's bot clear form the form.

The Network.png icon shouldn't have gone wrong, but apparently there's still a problem with evaluation of the URL.

I did use the {{ScoreInfo}}> template, but then I saw that in case of one page it says 'one pages'. That's all. Maybe you can change the rendering of the template to page(s), for the rare occasion there is only one page of sheet music.

As for the rest, I am working top-down, and construction of the correct links is the major challenge, so I didn't do the easy bits yet.

I've been tinkering a bit last evening, and did some cosmetic work on the lay-out of the form. I've tried to make groups of fields which are more or less related to each other, and made the form less wide, making it easier to read. Not sure you like it, but I think it's an improvement. As far as now, I've only tested it with Firefox (on Mac) and Safari (on Mac). I'll be glad if someone else could check it with browsers they use, like Internet Explorer, Opera and what other flavours there are (like Linux based browsers).

So I'll be working on items you pointed out, and hopefully you will see the result soon. Anyway, the form will be updated with any change I make.

P.S. I thought maybe make two textboxes for the lyricist: one for the lyricist, and one for the the origin of the lyrics. So you would be able to not only give the the name of the lyricist, let's say J.R.R. Tolkien, but also the source: Lord of the Rings.

P.S.2 I could run a script before the form will be submitted, in which case the user would be notified, if any compulsory fields have no appropriate value, like the dash in drop-down lists. It might require an external Javascript (depending on the length of the script), in which case there will be another extension necessary. You will already need the HTMLETS-extension for the form.


The fact that Template:acap and Template:a cappella include both Instruments: and a linebreak was a problem from the start. I wanted not to have the linebreak (and perhaps also the Instruments: part), but the winds were blowing in the opposite direction at the time. I would suggest that something shorter than "acappella" be used for the template name - editors like shorter names - maybe "acapp" would do just as well. If it meets with approval, I'll implement it.

NB. I corrected a typo: "Instructions" should have been "Instruments". -- Chucktalk Giffen 00:55, 13 May 2008 (PDT)


Excuse my intrusion here, but I saw something strange in the list of languages Robert requested to be added to the dropdown list: Quenya is in fact a language, but a constructed one created by JRR Tolkien and spoken only in his Middle-earth fantasy land. I know how fanatic the LotRings fans can be, but don't believe they'll ever compose a piece for choir in such language :))). If we're talking of the country Kenya, they speak Swahili there (not Kenyan! ;). By the way, the list of languages is continuously growing on CPDL, it would be a good idea to have a simple way of adding new ones to the list in the future. You all are doing a great work on this "new works" form, I can't wait to see it online! Regards

N.B. Oh my, forget all I said above, there IS a work in Quenya language at CPDL! Incredible... lol

Indeed, there is a work at CPDL in Quenya. That's why I created the categories for it in the first place. :) Actually, there are several Quenyan compositions, as well as compositions in some of the other Middle-Earth languages, but none hosted here.


Thanks for the reply, Arie. For a view of the new form from IE 7 on Windows XP, click here. You can see that the boxes don't span the width of the window. Firefox in Windows produces a similar result - I guess it's just a question of screen resolutions.

I've just taken a look at Template:ScoreInfo and it seems to work just fine - see the sandbox for an example.

As for the cosmetic changes, I like the separating boxes. It's also better when it fits into the width of the browser window. Do you think it would be a good idea to merge "Title, opus etc", "Composer, etc.." and "Composition information" into one box, titled "Work information"? I'm not sure that the blue highlight boxes of "Title of work:", "Opus number:" etc is necessary.

A few more points that I've noticed:

  • Can the subgenre list vary depending on whether "Sacred" or "Secular" is chosen? See this page and this page for sacred and secular subgenres.
  • Can we have an additional (optional) field for sacred season? The choices would only be available if the user has chosen "sacred" music in the previous list.
    • Advent
    • Christmas
    • Epiphany
    • Candlemas
    • Lent
      • Ash Wednesday
    • Palm Sunday
    • Holy Week
      • Maundy Thursday
      • Good Friday
      • Holy Saturday
    • Easter
      • Ascension
    • Whitsunday (Pentecost)
    • Trinity
    • Corpus Christi
  • Under "Number of voices", "ie." should be "eg."
  • What is the "description" box under voicing for?
  • Can you add a drop down box for choosing the catalogue type if other than opus number, eg. "K" for Mozart, "BWV" for Bach, HWV for Handel, etc.

In the output code:

  • Instruments output should be

'''Instruments''': {{WindAcc|Wind accompaniment: Flute, Oboe, Horn and Bassoon}}


'''Instruments''': {{WindAcc}}

:Flute, Oboe, Horn and Bassoon And in the output code:

  • Instead of saying "Part of", can we have '''Larger work:''' ''[[Name of Work]]''

Good work!

  • Posted by: Arie 01:56, 5 May 2008 (PDT)

Hi Robert.

  • I've seen the problem with IE. I also had a chance to look at this morning on my work.
Part of it seems like a rendering issue on Windows. The description of the fields should be 200 pix wide all the way down, and it isn't. By the way, the colouring of the description area isn't necessary, but I thought it might help reading the form. The colour blue is quite arbitrary.
As for the textboxes, they have a fixed length (on screen). I estimated a total width of the page of about 800 pix wide, making it possible to view on about every monitor without problems. I might add another 200 pix to the lenght for the textboxes, making the page width about 1000 pix wide. I would very much like the textboxes have a fixed length on screen, instead of incorporating more JavaScript on the page.
  • The Fieldsets are also quite arbitrary chosen. I just looked for bite-size chunks, but combining composer and workdata into one fieldset is also possible.
  • I already thought of changing subgenre according to choice of secular vs sacred, but I got entagled in a major problem with textencodings, which took quite a long time to sort that out. Thanks for the links to the subgenre.
  • I should have looked at the implementation of the instrumentation templates, and as for the {{SoreInfo}} template, I must have had my double vision glasses on...
  • For the sacred season, I assume that where you have an extra indentation, you would like some kind of separator??
  • A drop down menu for the catalogues would be usefull indeed, but the only two sources I've found on the internet so far are [Composer Name ~ Cataloger Ident Codes] and this list on [Classical Net]. There are many ambiguities, and I didn't figure out how to implement this in a correct way. Any suggestion is more than welcome.

In all: the form is growing and best of all getting very complete. I will have not much time this week, so it may take until next weekend for some major updates. Sorry for that.

  • Posted by: Arie 06:46, 11 May 2008 (PDT)

To all: a new version of the Add new work form is on-line, incorporating as I believe most of the requested features, considering the above remarks.

To be tested by you what works best: at the accompaniment information: when you choose for Wind Ensemble, the receiving script puts in Wind accompaniment in the template, whereas in the case of Mixed Ensemble this is put in the text box below, so may change it according to your will. Just try it.

Well the link: Add a new work

Discontinuation of Village pump


This seems to have been superceded by the new wiki based bulletin board system now. Discontinue?

Making text-translations pages into categories


Following up on a suggestion made by Carlos, there are now three (for the time being) "test" text categories (as opposed to text pages):

Under the present system of text pages, one has to make edits on two pages:

  1. use Template:LinkText to link a score page to its text page, and
  2. add a link on the text page back to the score page.

But with a text category, one only has to make a single edit, using Template:LnkTxt on the score page which categorizes the score page in the text category and adds a suitable link to that category. This makes for considerably less work for those working on texts and translations for our scores. Moreover, the learning curve is not steep. For example, to categorize the Beethoven O salutaris hostia, one adds

{{LnkTxt|O salutaris hostia|Beethoven, Ludwig van}}

in place of the usual {{LinkText|O salutaris hostia}}.

As an example of how to migrate from a text page to a text category, I've moved the contents of the O salutaris hostia page to the corresponding category, replacing the contents on the original page with a redirect to the latter. Since the Beethoven setting has already been linked to the text category, the listing under "Muscial settings at CPDL" has been commented out. As more settings are categorized, they will be removed from the list (for the time being, I will just comment them out until we reach a consensus that this is a good way to proceed). And finally, when all listed settings have been categorized (making the list empty), the "Musical settings..." section can be removed entirely and the (then superfluous) redirect from the text page to the category deleted.

The Sancta Maria, succurre miseris text category was created anew just awhile ago, when I saw the Gabrielli setting and new that I had posted the Crecquillon setting(s) with text (so I made the text category and linked the two score pages to it). Carlos made the Mirabile mysterium category as an initial experiment.

All in all, I feel that we could migrate fairly smoothly from text pages to text categories, and propose that this is a route we should seriously consider. I'm in favor of it, as you can tell, and I feel strongly that, migration issues aside, such a text category system will make it much easier for those adding new texts.

As I explained to Carlos (and he agrees), we should be doing this on a trial basis, pending feedback from others on this issue.


Seems like a good idea to me. I assume Psalm and Mass texts would be handled using the old template.

List of current CPDL problems

(moved here from CPDL support, help, and feedback)


Feel free to add items to this post

  1. choralwiki.org/phpBB2/ : Posting at forums still not working
  2. choralwiki.org/phpBB2/ : phpBB2 software out-of-date
  3. cpdl.org/wiki/form/work.htm : Forms for adding works/composers cannot be updated
  4. cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Special:Preferences : Email authentication method not currently sending out email
  5. Procedural: no notification from User:Rafael_Ornes (User:Admin) of pending server downtime
  6. * Some routine administrative duties reguire User:Rafael_Ornes and are not done in a timely fashon.
  7. † Out of date wiki software - MediaWiki installation (update for increased security, reliability and to better prevent automated sign-ups) and extensions (such as Dynamic Page List - update for increased functionality)
  8. † Replace all instances of [[Category:CPDL Editors with [[Category:CPDL contributors and rename the existing category to conform (see discussion).

NB: Items with a * or † have been added to the list subsequent to its original posting.

  • Posted by: --Choralia 15:29, 2 April 2008 (PDT)

Please note: for the forum-related items, a (temporary?) solution is available already using the phpBB3 forum at http://choralia.altervista.org/phpbb/, which have been set-up with the same forums and categories as the "old" phpBB2 forum.

Update: No advertisement about the above mentioned "back-up" forum is being made on CPDL. As an obvious consequence, such a forum is not being used, despite the normal forum is out of order since several weeks, and despite the use of this alternative bulletin board under the wiki environment remains quite limited and not very user-friendly. It does not make much sense to me. Anyway, all things being equal, I'll close the back-up forum at http://choralia.altervista.org/phpbb/ within the next few days. --Choralia 07:03, 10 April 2008 (PDT)

Hi Max, you might wish to simply disable the board; it can subsequently be re-enabled at the flick of a switch. I'm sorry if there isn't any current agreement about whether to migrate discussions to the choralia board – unfortunately CPDL is operating in a rather “headless” fashion at present!

  • Posted by: --Choralia 15:50, 10 April 2008 (PDT)

Hi Philip, maintaining the board active, even though disabled, costs some money to me. It's a very small amount, so it's not a problem, however there is no reason to spend money for such a board if nobody uses it, and if there is no chance such a board is used in the future. I understand it's difficult that any decision or agreement is made at the present time. So, I'll keep it open further, and I hope that a decision is made, sooner or later.


Added item to list ( * )


Added † items

Should we consider setting up a mirror site?

(moved here from CPDL support, help, and feedback)


In light of the service interuptions, perhaps it is time to set up a mirror site. It may also be a good time to consider incorporating CPDL. I have a lawyer friend who would do the necessary filings for free.

A bit of money would allow the mirror server to be paid for, and incorporation would put an official face on the organization, and also some protection for the contributers and administrators.

What do people think ?

  • Posted by: MandyShaw 19:35, 28 March 2008 (PDT)

I understood there already was a mirror of some sort in place, following the disastrous site failure last May. Maybe I am wrong about this, or maybe it's only the data that is mirrored. Was the recent downtime a server-level problem, or an Internet connectivity problem?

On another topic, the new forum is looking good, but it is worrying that it's on the main server (i.e. downtime cannot be discussed). I am also a bit worried that you do need wiki editing skills to submit forum entries - judging by their posts on the old forum, a lot of new posters of scores have never seen a wiki before. Are there any possible ways of front ending/simplifying this? I am happy to do some research myself if it would be useful.


I reckon a mirror site would be nigh on impossible to create. Allow me to explain. I don't know a lot about wikis but I do know that they are constantly changing (people are always making edits). Now if there were a mirror site which synchronised with the main site, say every 24 hrs, what would happen to edits on the mirror? If I edited a page on the mirror and someone else edited the same page on the main site, which edit should/would be kept?

However, as Mandy rightly says, there is a static mirror at http://www.choralwiki.org however, this site contains the bare bones of CPDL and isn't a resource that I think should be advertised (no searching, categories, texts and translations etc.)

As for incorporating CPDL, I think that's a positive move but one should only be made with the appropriate support from Raf and other admins. It is a subject that would require discussion at great length.

Mandy: Unfortunately, with new posts on the old forums being overlooked because of technical problems, I felt it best to advise users (on the main page) to post on this new bulletin board. I agree that it may be harder to use for some users and if you have some suggestions, I'm sure Chuck (who started this up) would be happy to hear them. However, I have to say that I haven't got a clue as to how this might be done.

  • Posted by: MandyShaw 00:58, 29 March 2008 (PDT)

Re mirroring, the only way you could mirror the data properly in a wiki context, without the sort of simultaneous update problems you mention, would be to set up some sort of automatic replication and then, in the case of a failure, fail over to the other copy, then, when all was well again, re-synchronise and go back - i.e., never to try to use both versions at once. The replication could be done at regular intervals (in which case we might have to do a bit of tidying up once things were back to normal) or continuously (probably better). It all rather depends on how the data is stored, though.

Re easier wiki editing - I'll have a poke around - there are a couple of wikis I'm involved with that do provide a nice 'rich text' wiki text editor, maybe there is an open source version of this. I guess what is needed is

a) select relevant forum

b) is this a new topic, or a response to an old topic? (if the latter, select topic to respond to)

c) type text

d) click on link which (somehow) causes the text to be fed into CPDL in the correct place.

  • Posted by: --Choralia 05:00, 30 March 2008 (PDT)

About one year ago I activated an automatic monitoring service that regularly checks the availability of the CPDL website. If we exclude the "big crash" of summer 2007, the measured availability is around 98.5%. This means that, if one tries to access CPDL at random over a sufficiently long period of time, he/she will experience one failed attempt every 66 successful attempts (approximately). Professional websites, using redundant servers in different locations, mirroring, etc., usually provide better figures, however I think 98.5% is acceptable for the nature of CPDL. What's important, in my opinion, is that the main asset of CPDL, i.e., the about 10 thousand scores, is safely stored. A temporary loss of access is far less important than a permanent loss of the scores. So, I would certainly recommend to pay a lot of attention to the back-up policy (e.g., frequent back-up of the scores onto a remotely located server) rather than to the real-time access.

As far as the forum is concerned, I think it would be relatively easy for me to reproduce the structure of the current CPDL forum on my servers of Choralia. I can activate the same PHPBB application, so the "look and feel" will be essentially the same as the normal forum. It can be used as a back-up until the normal forum is up and running again. Please just let me know if you (admins) want me to do that.


A new BBS that works sounds good to me. I don't think (judging from the lack of postings) that most CPDL users know how to post in the new way, and I miss the convenience and redundancy of the old BBS System.

  • Posted by: MandyShaw 08:19, 30 March 2008 (PDT)

I agree with John on all counts. A new PHPBB based forum would be excellent.

Incidentally I have been investigating rich text editing for MediaWiki based wikis. While a new PHPBB forum is a much better way forward in my view, I do think there could be benefit in enabling a rich text editor. There's a nice example here. It doesn't sound as if such an editor would be that hard to implement, but it has to be configured on the server.

(By the way I generated that last paragraph using the rich text editor - found it really easy to use.)


The phpBB that we have been running is rather out of date (which I see every time as I log in as an admin there), but there is little that anyone except Raf can do about it (which is the main problem). I set up the alternative board here because I had the feeling that the phpBB issues are not likely to be resolved with the expediency needed to keep lines of communication open. Yes, this is more awkward to use (especially if one is wiki-unaware), but at least it seems to be working (it took awhile for the phpBB board to get used when it was originally set up, too). What we really need is for Raf to upgrade the phpBB installation and/or restart the board.

Mirror sites, rich text wiki-editors, BB's that have better antispam protection, and many other bells and whistles (eg. from MediaWiki) are all wonderful, and I wish we had them (good grief, you probably have no idea just how many spam accounts are deleted from the phpBB by hand, by me and by other admins) ... but without help from Raf on these issues, I'm not sure just how much we can do.

  • Posted by: MandyShaw 16:37, 30 March 2008 (PDT)

Chuck, all points taken - it's clear that the admins are working within some pretty tight and frustrating constraints here. I think though that Choralia was offering to set up a new phpBB forum, to look like the old one, but on his own server.

Re editing, I was just passing on my optimism that, when the wiki does at some point in the future get upgraded/tweaked, this functionality might find its way in & make the lives of new users (and therefore hopefully admins) a bit easier. (Also the sandbox I linked to may be useful to some as a MediaWiki wiki markup learning tool. I've been working with wikis myself off and on for a year now, but I still have to use the Preview button extensively - and it took me until very recently to find out that not all wiki markup languages are the same.)

  • Posted by: --Choralia 20:55, 30 March 2008 (PDT)

I've set up a prototype new forum at Choralia. You can access it at http://choralia.altervista.org/phpbb/. If you like it, I can give the admin credentials to somebody who may possibly improve and refine the whole structure better than me.


I've tried out the new BBS and it works well. Suggest as an interim measure we advertize it as an option.

  • Posted by: --Choralia 03:23, 31 March 2008 (PDT)

Let's test it a little bit internally before advertising. I'm finding it rather slow at the moment

  • Posted by: --Choralia 15:41, 31 March 2008 (PDT)

I've just up-graded by a significant factor the quantity of resources available to the forum (database space and power). Let's see whether speed improves.