User talk:Carlos/Archive 3: Difference between revisions
(archiving) |
(moved 2008 messages to Archive 2) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ArchiveNavBar}} | {{ArchiveNavBar}} | ||
== Uploading jpg and mp3 == | == Uploading jpg and mp3 == | ||
Revision as of 22:02, 1 August 2009
Archives: 01 • 02 • 03 • 04 • 05 • 06 • 07 • 08 • 09 • 10 • 11
Uploading jpg and mp3
Hi Carlos. When you've got a minute, would you mind looking at a problem that Thurlow Weed is experiencing that he's described on my talk page? Many thanks. --Bobnotts talk 17:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
placing images
Carlos,
I was able to successfully upload an mp3. It seems the compressed mp3 generated by Finale is an issue. Saving as a WAV and then converting to mp3 allows it to be accepted.
I've also able to upload a GIF and JPEG. Now my question is, how do I get the gif or jpeg installed on my page as a thumb? I attempted the [[{{ns:6}}:file.jpg]] bit but couldn't get it to work. I'm presuming the "file" gets replaced with the image file name? However, in my Element Properties window, there are "Address" and "Location" URLs. I've found if I just paste the URL in by itself, the image shows up, but is HUGE! The original image was saved as a thumb 266x199px, but arrives at CPDL as 800×600px?
Further, the image page (Image:TBW.jpg) tells me it is not linked to any CPDL page.
How do I get this organised? What I'm trying to get is a small image like Bobnotts has on his user page. Tweedfour 18:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Thurlow, you just have to use the word "thumb" in the image link, as shown below:
- [[Image:TBW.jpg|thumb|200px|Thurlow Weed at the Church organ]]
- You can change the thumbnail size by using a different number instead of "200px". Both the size and the caption text are optional. Carlos 21:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Carlos, it looks great! That's precisely what I was wanting to do. I figured it was something simple like that, but it looks like I didn't have the code arranged quite right.Tweedfour 22:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Personal email address vs. functional email address
Hi Carlos,
With reference to this page, what about replacing your personal email address with the functional email address of the IT Operations staff (admin(@)cpdl.org) or another function? --Choralia 09:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Max, that is fine for me! I was not sure whether the admin email would be used exclusively for IT Operations. Carlos ? 11:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- Following the discussions made on the administrator-restricted area of the BB, I'm assuming that we will use admin@cpdl.org as functional address for the IT Operations team. I've already configured it to forward emails to you, Chuck, John and me. --Choralia 12:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Various
Hi Carlos. Thanks for the tip on the editor/contributor thing. As far as the extra space in (?) the Add work form, it seems it might indeed be a space I accidently include as I cut 'n paste, since it didn't happen with the score I uploaded today. Strange, though. Cordially, joachim 18:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with using MulitVoicing template?
Hi Carlos. I just saw that you changed my use of {{MultiVoicing}} on the Bach Christmas Oratorio page. My question is: why? Do you also intend to change it on other pages where there are rather complex combinations of numbers of voices and voicings? The template was created on the request of someone (I forgot who), who needed to handle more complicated situations. In particular, the {{Voicing}} template does not allow for citing "Voicings:" instead of "Voicing:". Moreover, if you consult the documentation, you will see that {{Voicing}} could be redefined as a special case of {{MultiVoicing}} - namely:
{{MultiVoicing|4|1st=SATB|var1st=SATB ''divisi''}}
and
{{Voicing|4|SATB|SATB ''divisi''}}
are equivalent. -- Chucktalk Giffen? 21:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Chuck, there's nothing wrong with this template, but as you said it's better suited for "complex combinations of numbers of voices"., i.e., works that have 2vv, 3vv and 4vv arrangements, for instance. In this case both arrangements are for 4 voices, so why complicate things unnecessarily. I thought the idea behind using templates was to have simpler and shorter code, and that's not what happened in this specific case, compare:
- {{MultiVoicing|v=4|v_add{{sp}}plus 4 soloists|n=2|1st=SATB|1st_add={{sp}} plus {{cat|Solo Soprano}}, {{cat|Solo Alto}}, {{cat|Solo Tenor}} & {{cat|Solo Bass}} (original);|2nd=SSAA|2nd_add={{sp}}(arrangement)}} (209 bytes)
- {{Voicing|4|SATB}} plus {{cat|Solo Soprano}}, {{cat|Solo Alto}}, {{cat|Solo Tenor}} & {{cat|Solo Bass}} (original); and {{cat|SSAA}} (arrangement) (146 bytes)
- The second code is easier to understand and significantly shorter (~50%), and the result is practically the same, with the exception of the "s" in Voicings. That's why I favored the second form, I hope you'll understand my reasons. —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] ] 01:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I see, but don't necessarily agree that shorter code is always better. Also, I just noticed that I had not specified put an "=" after "v_add", causing the text " plus 4 soloists" not to appear (my mistake, because I intended that to be part of the Number of voices information). But the real point was to have a uniform way of handling, at very least, all of the situations which the simplest application of {{Voicing}} does not handle. After all, as more editions are added (with transpositions and arrangements, and such), we can only expect the voicings issue to become more complex. My thought is that by having {{MultiVoicing}} already in place (and perhaps at some point actually making the redefinition of {{Voicing}} mentioned above), we would have in place a single, uniform way of handling all cases, therefore not having to force an editor to figure out an ad hoc replacement in each case (more people will edit than just you, Rob, and I). -- Chucktalk Giffen? 13:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
A translation request
Hi Carlos. I have a favour to ask. As I'm sure you're aware from looking at the add score output emails, many contributors have been submitting the form several times for the same edition. This obviously means we have a number of duplicate CPDL catalogue numbers being created, a situation which isn't ideal by my reckoning. Some time ago I added the following text to the page to try to stop people from making duplicate submissions:
- "PLEASE DO NOT COMPLETE THE "ADD WORKS" FORM MORE THAN ONCE FOR THE SAME EDITION. Once you have submitted the form, a unique CPDL number is generated which becomes obsolete if the form is run a second time for the same edition. Volunteers will receive the form which you submitted and post it on the wiki in due course - please be patient. If you forgot to include some information in the form the first time you submitted it, please email addscore (at) cpdl.org with the details rather than submitting the form again. Thank you."
However, some contributors have continued to do so, I suspect mostly because of a language barrier. I wonder if you would mind translating this text into Portuguese (and any other languages that you are able to translate to) and I will add this translation to the page as well. I've already got Italian, Dutch and French covered. Any languages in addition to Portuguese would be a bonus. I hope that you're able to help - thanks! --Bobnotts talk 21:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sure Rob, here is the Portuguese version. A Portuguese Add Work page would be a good idea too, one day I'll find the time for it. —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] ] 06:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- "POR FAVOR NÃO PREENCHA O FORMULÁRIO "ADD WORKS" MAIS DE UMA VEZ PARA UMA MESMA EDIÇÃO. Cada vez que o formulário é enviado, uma numeração CPDL única é gerada, a qual se torna obsoleta se o formulário é preenchido e enviado uma segunda vez para uma mesma edição. Voluntários irão receber o formulário que você preencheu e irão criar a página correspondente no menor tempo possível - por favor seja paciente. Se você esqueceu de incluir alguma informação no formulário na primeira vez que o preencheu, por favor envie os dados faltantes para o email addscore (arroba) cpdl.org em vez de preencher o formulário novamente. Obrigado!"
DotNetWikiBot clobbered the Palestrina page
Hi Carlos. Take a look at this page, which was the result of a DotNetWikiBot edit by QuasiBot. I discovered it when browsing for some Palestrina music, and I've found the culprit (the edit removed a --> that was supposed to close a commented out listing), and I've and fixed it, but I've not checked the rest of that group of edits yet for other possible problems. -- Chucktalk Giffen? 16:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I had to re-fix you fix because the bot had also removed a valid link. The problem was in the Benedictus entry, that besides being commented out was also messed up with a half-implemented Link template, that confused the bot. —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] ] 17:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Redirect fixer?
Hi Carlos. I've no idea what this is but it seems to be causing some serious problems as it "fixes" some pages. See for example this edit and this edit. I've blocked it to prevent it from doing any further damage. Do you know what's going on here? --Bobnotts talk 12:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Wow, this is crazy! I have no idea why it behave so, good thing that you blocked it. There's probably an "official" way to stop it, will see if I can find something on this. —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] ] 17:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Some tasks (such as fixing double redirects) are probably best done by hand. The present situation illustrates the importance of thoroughly testing in a safe setting any new extension or bot that we are not totally familiar with. I also find it disconcerting that a number of non-superfluous redirects have been deleted ... requiring us to sift through the work(?) done by the bot that removed them. -- Chucktalk Giffen? 15:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- I thought it was already clear that the double redirect "fixer" is not a bot, but a system function that was added to the newer versions of the wiki software by default, that I had to investigate (as always) and disable. Also please show me a couple of the non-superfluous redirects that you've found and I'll gladly fix them. Once again, it was not a work done by a bot, but by me using the extension Mass Delete, and I visually checked everything that was being deleted so as not to include useful redirects, though I admit I may have deleted a few by mistake. Chuck, what I find disconcerting is that you're so quick to criticize other's work, but not so when a good job is done. That's a pity. —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] ] 16:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- My apologies, Carlos. The work you are doing is indeed very good. But I didn't see where it was described just what User:Redirect fixer is, so I assumed it was a bot. Also, the Mass removal deletions were all marked as bot edits (which contributed to the confusion, especially since one has to select "show bots" explicitly in Recent changes). Be assured, I'm glad you caught the various Victoria redirects that were deleted before I had a chance to log on; thanks much! Also, I had not realized that the composer redirects such as Robert Parsons (composer) were no longer necessary - I just checked WikiPedia and see that you had changed the ChoralWiki template and updated its usage there - I was aware that we had originally made redirects here to make the use of the ChoralWiki template at WikiPedia simpler, but I guess you have opted for the "more work there, rather than here" approach (it's okay, I just was unaware of the changes); of courae, those were redirects I had in mind when I replied here above. I did not mean to criticize, and I'm sorry, because I know that you are doing truly excellent work here at ChoralWiki. On the other hand, I sometimes do feel that the rest of us are left a bit in the dark when minor (hopefully never major!) mishaps occur, such as those pointed out by Rob as well as the ones that had me concerned at first. -- Chucktalk Giffen? 16:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Chuck, my connection was down the whole day and I couldn't answer you before. I do understand your concerns with respect to CPDL, coming out of the zeal with which you have been managing the site since Raf Ornes got distanced from the administrative tasks. Rest assured that my intentions are the best too, although this alone isn't enough to keep us from making bad decisions at times. With relation to the edits marked as "bot", I've been marking them like this via SQL so as to not clutter up the Recent Changes page, as it once annoyed you. As for the composer redirects, I remembered to have changed most of them at Wikipedia, but will re-check the ones deleted (around 6-7) to be sure! The changes made in the Wikipedia template were primarily aesthetical, so that the links to CPDL there wouldn't show the "(composer)" part in them. —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] ] 03:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Weird formatting messup
Hi Carlos. Just a minor point, but I thought I'd let you know in case it helps you in the future: in this edit I corrected an indentation on the "Edition notes" line which was somehow removed, perhaps by an automated edit? If it was like that when I made my previous edit to that page, I feel sure I would have corrected it then. Anyway, I've corrected quite a few of these over the past couple of weeks so something for you to ponder if you have nothing better to do! --Bobnotts talk 19:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Rob, thanks for point that out, it was indeed one of the automated edits I ran in January. The remaining pages were just fixed. —Carlos [[[:Template:Carlos]] ] 22:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)