User talk:Claude T

Archives of this page are here (2007-2010), here (2010-2012) and here (2012-2013).

extpdf vs pdf

Hi Claude. I see that you changed the format icon of my score on Ay_qué_dolor_(Joan_Cererols) from pdf to extpdf. Can you please explain the difference? Jrmh (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Joseph. Thank you for your contribution above. It's easy to explain: the link goes to an external site (not CPDL one - the file wasn't uploaded 'here'). So, the user knows he is going to be redirected on another site when he clicks on such icon. On each work page, you'll see the two different icons on the 'Legend' lines. Claude (talk) 14:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Requests

Thanks Claude for tidying upmy edits and demonstrating how the code works for pages at Category:Requested. I wonder if contributors are always aware of requests! Richard Mix (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard, you did well also finding which were to change from 'requested' to 'completed'. I think many 'pending' requests should return to 'requested'. Claude (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits?

Hi Claude. You reverted two of my edits to ChoralWiki:Adopt-A-Composer. Why? In the process of doing this, you not only removed my insertion of a new template CiteUser, but also removed the addition of a newly adopted composer. Please explain to me just what your thinking is, because it seems to be erroneous. – Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 02:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Chuck. I'm really sorry about that. It happened without my will and I wasn't aware of it. I noticed the hour when it happened, I was browsing the recent changes page through an iPad, where links are very near between (see the) 'Diff'(erences) and 'Revert'. Sorry, again: too small tablets or too large fingers, or too old guy!Claude (talk) 08:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Good enough, Claude! I guessed you must have made a mistake. But your are not old!! ... Old would be me!!! Thanks for reverting the edits. – Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 13:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding an old misplaced Brian Russell score

Hello! I was doing some cleaning of the Arcadelt page and discovered that a Brian Russell score linked on Arcadelt's "Sapet'amanti" page was in actuality William Byrd's "Boy, pity me" (the second part of "Is Love a boy"). After moving the file to where it belongs I did some further investigation, and it looks like somehow the proper Russell file was never uploaded: there are sequential Brian Russell PDFs up through 302, which was the mislabeled file, but while the sequence continues after 304, there is no score for 303. I suspect that missing file is the real "Sapet'amanti". Think it could be hiding somewhere in your files? Wboyle (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your contributions to CPDL. I remember having found that page in 2011, then creating PDF files from about six hundred NWC files recently uploaded by another admin at that time, then deleting the "To update" template, leaving only seven editions I was unable to reach. The work you mention isn't one of them. Sorry for not beeing able to help you furthermore. Claude (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I was able to find the missing files (apparently labeled 294) by scraping the Russell midi files from his preserved website and looking through their title metadata in iTunes, and I've placed them where they belong. As an aside, file 303 was also a missing score, the second half of William Byrd's "Wounded I Am". I may look closer at the Russell files currently on the site and see if anything else is unaccounted for. ~ Wboyle (talk) 23:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Just finished the overview. I was able to fix all but one of the links needing updating: only Rore's "Datemi pace" remains broken. I also found a variety of other orphaned links, mostly to pieces that were "part 2" of a two-part work. More interesting to me, though, was that in the course of looking over the Brian Russell files I found a big chunk of some 75 works that don't appear to have been added to CPDL at all. I'm not sure what to do with these, since I don't know what the procedure should be for re-uploading the works of someone who's no longer around. As an admin / someone who has done this before, do you have any thoughts? (for reference, here is a link to the relevant files) ~ Wboyle (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all this precious maintenance work to improve our community site. Any thoughts, Carlos? (I think you're the admin which did the massive upload)Claude (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Claude and Walker, I don't remember if it was me or Max who uploaded Brian's files, but we didn't change the original names, so the problem probably already existed on Brian's old site. Claude made a great job creating the pdfs for them.

Walker, thanks for fixing the missing entries! These c. 75 works not added to CPDL by Brian Russell seem to be still available via his old website hosted by CPDL (http://www.cpdl.org/brianrussell). One solution would be to edit his site in order to include links for the pdfs too, what do you guys think of it? —Carlos (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey Carlos, thanks for the input. Adding pdf links to the archived site is something that could definitely be worth doing at some point. Entering all 700 or so pdf links by hand seems like it would be rather more effort than it would be worth, but I could imagine it being done with some kind of regex find-and-replace setup (the number-based naming of files actually would be very helpful there).

The archived site aside, I was actually more wondering about how to go about making CPDL entries for the new works, since that is something that has already been done for most other Brian Russell editions, and would be worthwhile doing for these as well. I don't know how this was done in the past - did the uploaders just use the "New Works" form and enter Brian's name for the "editor" field? Once I know what procedure to follow I'd be happy to start the process of adding works data, but the prospect of doing all 75 alone is a little daunting... Would either of you like to take responsibility for some subsection of them? Or do you know anyone else who might?

Many thanks to both of you for the input! ~ Wboyle (talk) 05:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Walker, in fact I thought that all Brian Russell editions on CPDL had been submitted by him; not sure if others have submitted editions on his behalf. Anyway, the procedure would be the same as for new editions, having to fill out the Add works form for each one of them. It's quite a lot of work! As for adding links for the PDFs on Brian's website, I think it can be done with automated find/replaces. —Carlos (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'll get started making entries. I'll be working sequentially upwards from 705, if anyone wants to start going from the other direction (from 781). ~ Wboyle (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I could make the PDF files from NWC, as I did in 2011. Who could create corresponding pages/editions? Claude (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe those files are actually already available, though I have no idea who made them. Perhaps they are yours from 2011? They're accessible from www.cpdl.org/brianrussell/[edition number].pdf . The uncatalogued works span from 705 to 781. ~ Wboyle (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops, Ok. I've mailed Max, to inform him. - Claude (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

This subject (including some missing numbers) was discussed in 2009 in a forum thread visible to administrators only. In summary: we decided to maintain http://www.cpdl.org/brianrussell (or http://brianrussell.cpdl.org) as a memorial of Brian Russell's work, without changing anything on it (aside minor and obvious corrections). Then I downloaded to my PC (almost) all NWC files from Brian Russell's website, and I batch-converted all of them to pdf format. Then I uploaded all pdf files to http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/images/brianrussell/<filename>.pdf so that they could be deep-linked to the relevant work pages. Pdf files were then gradually linked to the relevant work pages by various admins. Certainly there might still be some missing or misplaced files to correct. Max a.k.a. Choralia (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Max, what is your opinion regarding the many editions that are found only on Brian's website but were never submitted to CPDL? Should we create pages for them on CPDL (Walker has graciously offered to start this), or alternatively (simultaneously?) insert links to the PDFs on Brian's webpages? —Carlos (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Carlos, please note details about this subject on the forums, at http://forums.cpdl.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4418 (admins access only). I think that, taking also into account the permission we received from Brian Russell's widow, the decision was to leave our local mirror of Brian's website "as is", so we shouldn't add pdf files to it. No problem instead to create pages on CPDL for works existing on Brian's website but not existing on CPDL yet (Walker was very proficient last night on this task!), and link pdf files to the relevant work pages on CPDL. - Max a.k.a. Choralia (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Max. I had forgotten that it was a request from Brian Russell's widow to keep things as they are. In this case, creating new pages on CPDL is the only way to make these PDFs available. —Carlos (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Just finished with that, actually - it was easier than I was anticipating. Kudos to whoever developed the new automated submission form! Along the way I had the haunting realization that the last major work Brian completed was a full edition of Orlando di Lasso's Lagrime di San Pietro. I never knew him, but from what I can gather about Brian's dedication to this site and to early music in general, I can think of no more fitting capstone. All the best, ~ Wboyle (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC) (also, my apologies to Claude for cluttering up his talk page with so much discussion. I never thought a single misplaced score could lead to this much activity!)

No problem, Walker. Thanks for your work. Very impressive. - Claude (talk) 11:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:mp4

Hi Claude, I noticed that you created a new icon to represent videos in mp4, good idea! Unfortunately, when sized so small, it becomes difficult to understand that your icon stands for a tv screen (at first I thought it was simply a dark rectangle). I picked a few images from the internet as suggestions, do you like any of these?
Regards, —Carlos (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Carlos, the third from left with green triangle could be my best choice. Claude (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, I've applied it to the template. If you change your mind later, feel free to revert my edit or to pick another icon instead! —Carlos (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Claude, as a test I replaced the green arrow with the text MP4 in red, what do you think? —Carlos (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It's fine, by me. Thanks. Claude (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

{{pdf}} -> {{net}}

Thanks for catching this! :) —Carlos 16:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, Carlos. Futebol ao vivo ;-) Claude (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Lol! In fact I'm not a big fan of football, but I'll probably watch some of the World Cup games. Bravo pour ton portugais! ;) —Carlos 16:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Layout of individual parts

Hi Claude! Can we please discuss this before you continue with these edits? I've just seen that Peter Rottländer has hundreds of editions, and if we're going to change them all, it should be a move to something that all agree as being a standard. In the case that no agreement is reached, I would suggest leaving things as they are. I don't favor putting individual parts ("Vocal parts"/"Basso Continuo"/etc.) in the same indentation as the standard Edition entries (CPDL#/Editor/Edition notes). The layout that Peter used here (a single line starting with Instrumental parts:) would be a good compromise, but preferably without the ScoreInfo template for the parts. Very few people will be interested in the instrumental score(s), and with just a single click they can know what is inside it, like page format and number of pages. Regards, —Carlos 15:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Carlos. Peter didn't made any mistake. But on all other works pages, an edition is what goes from an asterisk to another, beginning with a CPDL number. Only Peter uses another asterisk (without CPDL number) inside an edition. This is not consistent when someone wants to count number of editions, number of links, etc. I'm ready to use any indentation character EXCEPT asterisk. Just choose one and I will review all the unindented editions. Claude (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean regarding asterisks; I see no problem in avoiding them. Any of the following formats would be fine by me. Do you have any other suggestion?

• CPDL #20231:   Instrumental parts: (Violins), (Basso Continuo)

Editor: Peter Rottländer (submitted 2009-09-21).   Score information: A4, 3 pages, 595 kB   Copyright: CPDL

Edition notes: Version 1.1, spelling errors corrected

• CPDL #20231:

Editor: Peter Rottländer (submitted 2009-09-21).   Score information: A4, 3 pages, 595 kB   Copyright: CPDL

Instrumental parts: (Violins), (Basso Continuo)

Edition notes: Version 1.1, spelling errors corrected

• CPDL #20231:

Editor: Peter Rottländer (submitted 2009-09-21).   Score information: A4, 3 pages, 595 kB   Copyright: CPDL

Instrumental parts: Violins:   Basso Continuo:

Edition notes: Version 1.1, spelling errors corrected

—Carlos 16:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Examples 2 and 3 are not accurate because they don't use the order that is on all other pages: 1. CPDLno 2. Links to files 3. Editor and date. Only first example is accurate and may (or not) use any indentation between main group of files and secondary ones. Also, many of these secondary groups of files have their own score info. Ok? Claude (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine, I like the first one, too. And it's also the most common format among other editors. Let's go for it? —Carlos 17:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok by me, Carlos. Thanks. Claude (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey Claude, bonjour! You seem to be doing something slightly different from what we had agreed upon above ;) The ScoreInfo information looks terrible when moved to the first line, between the icons. It should stay in the traditional place. Please have in mind that the ScoreInfo template is only an informative bit of text about the main score posted in that edition. Complementary scores (individual parts etc.) should not use this template, in my opinion. Regards, —Carlos 15:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Seu desejo é uma ordem, subcomandante ;-)) Done. Claude (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Aïe! Pardonne-moi si je semble autoritaire parfois, ce n'est pas mon intention! C'est tellement difficile de trouver le ton juste à une conversation dans une autre langue, n'est-ce pas? Merci pour ta patience! :) —Carlos 13:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Pas de problème, Carlos, I was joaking! Claude (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

MIDI file

Hi Claude, thank you for adding a MIDI file for my setting of "The Lamb." I just had a chance to update the page with a link to a YouTube recording featuring Tenor Matthew Curtis so there is another audio option there now. I also added a YouTube recording link to "The Tyger" page as well.

Hi, Susan. No doubt a recording is way more representative of your work than a MIDI file. I use to add such file for another purpose: that rehearsal files be easier to generate. I'll add such one for "The Tyger" as well. Let me know if you think there are errors and/or don't agree. Claude (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Claude,

Ok, I understand the need to generate rehearsal files but would rather provide .mp3s for each voice part from the higher quality recordings. Do you mind if I remove the MIDI files when the .mp3s are available and uploaded? I think the MIDIs sound awful.

I agree about MIDIs sounding awful. But we can easily get each voice louder than others, which is impossible with MP3s. Anyway, you are the composer. So, please proceed as you think. Claude (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I will generate MIDIs directly from Sibelius and post them when I have a chance -- probably sometime next week. The MIDIs generated from the PDFs contain some errors.

Thank you, Susan, I'm convinced this is the best way of doing: MIDI files for rehearsal (each voice separately), MP3 and/or video files to appreciate many aspects that are not visible on the score (tempo, for example). Claude (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Recalling information for non-withdrawn editions?

Hi Claude. I see you have been at work moving information from the Edition: records back to score pages. Has this been discussed among Admins and a decision taken to do this? If so, I have apparently been left in the dark on this matter and would like to know what the reasoning behind this decision has been. Thanks!! – Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 18:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Chuck. There has been no group discussion. My reasoning follows: 1. The informations restored on works pages for not-withdrawn editions stay on their Edition:CPDL nnnn respective page. 2. I remember that more than one admin regret, somewhere in the forums, what we did you and me in 2012: extracting information from work pages to edition pages. You answered there that it was only for withdrawn editions. 3. Recently, someone removed all withdrawn Edward Tambling's editions from works pages after a discussion on the forums. 4. More recently even, I realized that, for modified work titles (adding Purcell's Z number, for example) the Edition:CPDL nnnn pages were *NOT* actualized, breaking so the links between works pages and corresponding extracted editions. 5. Lastly, you could imagine it's difficult to get reliable statistics when more than 20,000 editions stay on their respective works pages but 468 are extracted on individual edition pages, 200 withdrawn and 268 not withdrawn. There are also many withdrawn editions (for copyright reasons or by other editors than Edward Tambling) that were *NOT* extracted to an individual Edition:CPDL page. Do you think this is optimal? Claude (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

LilyPond to {{Ly}} to Lilypond?

Hi Claude. First we had "LilyPond" as the (correct) name for the link to the source code for LilyPond (.ly) files. Then it was changed (by you) to {{Ly}} which provided a LilyPond icon link that anyone could see (by checking the Legend) what the icon means. And now, you've gone and changed these to "Lilypond" (which is wrongly spelled, since it is supposed to be "LilyPond"). I fail to see why you think it is necessary to do this. Granted, I made a mistake changing "Finale 20xx" links to a generic Finale icon link, but we don't have the problem with version numbers being part of the link for LilyPond files. If you want to keep the principle of your latest change, then at least it should be corrected from "Lilypond" to "LilyPond" (which I will do). When I goofed previously with the Finale file links, I believe I was asked to discuss any such changes I was likely to make with other Admins before taking such action, and it seems that perhaps your agenda for making the LilyPond changes should also be discussed first. It is not easy for individual Admins to work on their own projects and have purposes for doing so that other Admins are unaware of. We need more communication and agreement, don't you think? Best wishes for Christmas and the New Year, and thanks for your diligent work. – Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 18:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Chuck, more communication is always better. But in this precise case the reason was difficult to explain in a language that is not my native language: to obtain statistics about links, I need to notice if links are in a group beginning with {{L ({{Llink or {{LinkW groups) or [{{filepath links. You can easily understand on what side will a {{Ly string fall. BTW, are you Ok if I revert the changes concerning MUS files/icon? Do you know that there are other MUS files than from Finale? A happy new year to you and your relatives. Claude (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Claude. Thanks for your speedy reply; already, I have changed "Lilypond" to "LilyPond" to get the correct form of the program name. And now I understand your concern, but I wonder: Wouldn't it have been simpler to change {{Ly}} to {{ly}}, thus preserving the icon as a link? {{ly}} still calls the same template as {{Ly}}. As for changing the icon {{mus}} link for Finale files back to Finale 20xx links, I'm in the process of doing it, being careful to change only those that were associated to Finale source files originally. Many thanks for your explanation. If your statistics gathering can work with "ly" instead of "Ly" then we can go ahead and replace the "LilyPond" links with {{ly}}. Health and happiness in the New Year to you and your relatives. – Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 23:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Chuck, I'll use the lower-case trick. Remember I asked on forums before uncapitalizing English 'incipit' titles ;-) Claude (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

O Sanctissima (Angelina Figus)

Hi Claude, regarding this O Sanctissima (Angelina Figus), on the same day that that page was created, you added a cleanup notice informing that "No 'Music files' section, AddWork form not used->page to be deleted". However, Angelina had filled out the Add Work file correctly, as can be seen in the logs; she probably only made a confusion during the copy/paste process. Anyway, her edition was moved to O Sanctissima (Traditional), where it belongs. :) Best, —Carlos 05:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Carlos. 1. Before deletion, page had no link/file, isn't it? 2. "as can be seen in the logs": I use to see the 'Recent Changes' page and subsequently new pages, but not upload logs. Where are they? Claude (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Claude, I supposed that you also received by email a copy of the submissions made via the Add work form. I created a folder on my Gmail account that stores these emails since Oct 2008; their number has reached 16026 submissions today. :) But the data is also stored on our databases. I'll see with Max if there is an easy way to let you access this information. Regards, —Carlos 16:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no, thanks. I'm not part of the group of admins that manage submissions, and not willing to enter it. ;-)) Claude (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked user?

Hi Claude. Why did you block User:Su_Ce and disable the account? I received an email from the person who registered with that username wondering why she cannot log in. She wants to do some helpful editing, and your block also blocked her IP addresses, making it impossible to contribute her efforts to CPDL. Please unblock her and explain to her what happened, okay? – Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 19:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Chuck. I've just unblocked this user. The reason to block was that Su_ce reads and sounds exactly in French as Su_ck in English. Don't know how to explain that outside but if you want to lead her to my talk page... Claude (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Claude. I'll point her to this discussion. – Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 20:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

PostedDate

Hi Claude!

With regard to reintroducing the PostedDate template to editions from which NewWork has been removed, would you mind waiting a bit before you go on with this? I'd like to discuss it more thoroughly, as I don't see the need for this. If the dates are the same, why duplicate it? I envision for the future a single template for editions, that would look more or less like this:

{{Edition|54400
|Submitted=           |Posted=
|Editor=              |Editor2=
|Copyright=
...etc...
}}

The parameter |Submitted= would be a mandatory value (it already is), but not |Posted=, so that if it is empty, we know that the edition was posted on the same day. What do you think? —Carlos 12:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Carlos. It's fine by me, I can wait. But you know Chuck hasn't the same idea. Claude (talk) 12:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, don't we need some EditionNotes text template, the last needed for an entirely templates-made edition? Claude (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Claude, I don't think so... templates should be created for useful purposes; simply replacing a text with a template that will display that very same text is not useful, in my view. By the way, Chuck had suggested in the forums to use just {{Posted}} instead of {{PostedDate}}; I like the shorter name, what about you? I'll make it a redirect; you may use it if you want; in case it is adopted, there's no need to replace PostedDate where it has already been used. Regards, —Carlos 13:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I, too, prefer the shorter one ;-)) Claude (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger of duplicate pages

Hi Claude! You suggested that 3 Drovers (Sarah Lambert) should be merged with 3 Drovers (William G. James), but they are in fact duplicate pages differing just in the composer name. In such cases you can simply delete one of them, or make it a redirect to the other. Regards, —Carlos 14:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes Carlos, but the difficulty is there: "Who is the right one?" Who is the composer, who is just a "little" arranger? ;-) I don't want to be a victim of contemporary "composers" hmm "arrangers". I let you go at it ;-)) Claude (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ohhh I got it. You're a wise man! ;) I went ahead and deleted one of the pages, let's hope it won't cause any strong reactions! —Carlos 15:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Newest form of Text Template

Hi Claude! I noticed you changed the page Creation (Oliver Holden) to conform to "Newest form of Text Template." The problem is that your edits put the title at the top of the first column, rather than above all the columns. I got the title to be above all the columns, but now there are several unwanted blank lines between. Do you know how to get this to work right? Where can I find a full explanation about how to use these templates properly? (Of course, it may be there, and I didn't find it; I am a relative newcomer. It would be easier if I just did it right the first time.) Is it just me, or does it seem that the "newer" form is a bit awkward when columns are involved? Is this "newer" template eventually going to supersede the older one? If so, there would be a lot of changes necessary, such as almost all the Psalms. Thanks for your help. – Barry Johnston, Bcjohnston523 (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Barry. Thank you for your contributions. I do appreciate the music you edit. About the Text template, Chuck recently added a variant to use when text spreads throughout the cells of a table, not each time with a text/Translation template: use {{Text|Simple| at the beginning and }} at the end as usual. That is not yet documented on the template page. For extra blank lines, I'm sure Chuck will find a solution. BTW, could you please generate a MIDI file of your editions? It's as easy as File/Save as.../MIDI. It's useful for choirs willing to separate voices for rehearsal to sing your editions. Thanks in advance, Claude (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Claude. Thanks for the explanation, and for the kind words. I will use the new text format variant as you say, but still a little confused about when to use newer vs. older formatting. About the changes you made yesterday, I used the standard template {{subst:text pages}} to create these pages; I will edit my new text pages to the new format (or is there already a new template?). I will create a MIDI file for all my editions, thanks for asking, and thanks again for your time. – Barry, Bcjohnston523 (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that Carlos reverted Creation_(Oliver_Holden) back to the other text format, then you changed it back to your first edit, to the "newer" text format. I thought about just watching you fight it out to see how it would go, but nothing's happened for a while. So, I worked on it a bit, and finally got it to look something like correct, but it still has an extra line! I think I can live with it now. This must be showing all of us, I hope, the limitations of the "newer" format ({{Text|Language|..}} .. {{Text|Simple|..), especially when dealing with columns. All this for only ten bytes gained! Personally, I think you admins should start composing a user's guide on the use of the various text formats, including the limitations of each, and when each is appropriate -- that would help all of us. -- Barry, Bcjohnston523 (talk)

Well done, Barry! Thanks. Claude (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Barry, sorry if we left you in the expectation of an edit war, lol. Long edit wars as seen on Wikipedia will never happen here (hopefully!), as we're all a bunch of good old friends ;)

With regard to the best way of displaying text on a page, there really isn't a standard yet. It all depends on the layout one expects to see (with or without columns, etc.) It was me who first introduced this "new" template syntax, exactly two years ago, but I planned it to be used for only short texts in pages with very simple layout. It was a surprise to me to see that it had become the de facto standard very recently, since I particularly don't see the <poem> tags as evil things to be avoided at all costs. That's why I think that the new syntax shouldn't be forced on pages the layout of which it cannot replicate in a simple manner. With that in mind, please feel free to choose the format you prefer the most; I'm sure Claude won't mind if you return to the original syntax. Regards, —Carlos 00:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

{Verse} vs {Vs}

Hi Claude, you started mass replacing {{Verse}} with {{Vs}}, but did you notice that the latter one doesn't add a line break as the former? The resulting layout is less than desirable, since text and translation are no longer aligned: [1]. Is there any discussion about the adoption of this new template, that I may have missed? Thanks, —Carlos 16:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't add a line break when it is not inside the curly brackets of your 2013 version of Text template. As all Vs templates will soon be inside a Text template… (Psalm 150 is yet aligned, as a majority of Psalms) Claude (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I see... that's strange! On a different subject, could you please check the texts at Que feu craintif (Jacquet de Berchem)? I find it strange that m'a and n'a are inverted in both texts; was it a typo, maybe? Thanks, —Carlos 17:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Inside a "poem" environment or inside the new {{Text}}, {{Verse}} adds an extra line break (in addition to the new line already created by the environment. That is why I concocted {{Vs}}, to remove the extra line break. Outside a "poem" environment, {{Verse}} adds a line break, while {{Vs}} does not, and this is where the problem is with the mass replacement of {{Verse}} by {{Vs}}, since there are formatting issues that arise until such time as the text is put inside a "poem" environment or inside {{Text}} (or {{Translation}}. Finally, with the Psalm pages, it will be necessary to apply further formatting fixes, mostly because of the two column format, but also because a lot of the original formatting was done "visually" rather than according to Psalm structure of most verses: a typical verse has the form (initial statement): (response statement) ... and starting a new line with the (response statement), suitably indented, is the proper way to format Psalm texts. I've begun doing this, and it is not a simple matter of using ReplaceText en masse. Also note that, {{Vs|}} or {{Vs| }} simply generates a NoBreakSpace, while {{Vs}} generates also a DigitSpace. – Chuck_talk Giffen_♫ 17:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I used "m'a" four times. Claude (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Creating CPDL number categories and CPDL number pages

Posted by: Chucktalk Giffen♫ 15:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Help

Hi Claude. Back near the end of January, I created templates {{CPDLnoCat}} and {{CPDLnoPage}} to handle the problem about manually creating Category:CPDL 351xy and ChoralWiki:CPDL 351xy. And at that time I created the relevant categories & pages through CPDL 350xy. I thought you knew about this, but apparently I failed to let you know that there are templates for the creation of these objects. Nevertheless, had you looked at the history for ChoralWiki:CPDL 350xy, you would have seen that it was created using: {{subst:CPDLnoPage|350}}. Note that the template {{CPDLnoPage}} must be substituted to work properly. On the other hand, Category:CPDL 350xy was created with the simpler {{CPDLnoCat}}. Seeing your summary comment (again) after you created ChoralWiki:CPDL 351xy, I created the corresponding pages through ChoralWiki:CPDL 360xy in just 3 minutes. Then I got a cup of coffee and created the categories Category:CPDL 351xy through Category:CPDL 350xy in less than 3 minutes! I'm sorry that you hadn't known about the templates for creating these categories and pages.