User talk:BarryJ
MultiPubList on Pratum musicum (Emanuel Adriaenssen)
Hi Barry, I wonder if you could help me solve a mystery on this page I just added. As I have many times, I used the Volumes template to distinguish between the three editions of the book. Lacking any information about the contents of the third edition, I proceeded to enter the contents of the other two, as normal. I then added Pub templates, using the vol= parameter and NoComp, since there are multiple composers. Long story short, the MultiPubList only displays two works in Edition 1 if I include the 'seq' parameter, and it includes several items in Edition 2 for which I did not add a Pub field indicating such when I don't include the 'seq' parameter. For example, Appariran per me (Orlando di Lasso) shows up in both editions in the 'Works at CPDL' section, but should only appear in Edition 1. What am I missing? I went back and made sure every Pub template on every work page has the no= parameter as well, but other than that I am stumped. - GeoffG (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Geoff, I looked into this a little, and see what you're talking about. I tried some simple tests, but no solutions so far. The two that appear in Ed. 1 are the two for which you have two Pub lines, not sure if that's significant. I will look into this more later, it might take a while. Thanks! — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Barry. As you can see, I added two Pub lines for those two works because the same piece appears in the same edition twice, with two different arrangements. I can't recall ever doing that before. Is there a better way to express that with the current templates? Might it be better to include both items on one Pub line (with a note about the arrangements)? - GeoffG (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- No, please don't change that, you did it the best way. There really isn't a better way, and others have done the same before anyway. The current problem is in a different area, I think, maybe with design of MultiPubList? — Barry Johnston (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- I have a possible solution to the second issue, works being listed in both volumes when only one is intended. I modified MultiPubList to include not only "Category:Edition n" but also "Category:YYYY works". (Because yesterday, works were included in the list if they were in the "Category:Edition n", and some works were in that category but not in Pratum musicum.) My modified code is in Templates:MultiPubList5 (and MPList5). I applied my test code temporarily to Pratum musicum (Emanuel Adriaenssen) – could you please check the lists there to see if they are correct now?
- And further, do you think is this fix going to function correctly in future? In other words, do you foresee a case where a work will have two Pub lines (from different publications) from the same year, both with the same vol word? If so, then I need to do more work.
- I can deal with the first issue, using the seq parameter causes incomplete output, a little later. — Barry Johnston (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Barry. That definitely helped. There are still four works showing up in both lists, however. They are all works by Lasso that appear in the first edition of 'Pratum musicum' (1584) and also appear in a Lasso compilation from 1592. As for other cases, it is already the case that a work such as Ancor che col partire (Cipriano de Rore) appears in two different publications from 1584, both with the vol word 'Edition'. This doesn't seem to cause a problem. It is also the case that a publication such as 'Il terzo libro de madrigali a cinque voci (Cipriano de Rore)' has two editions from the same year. This also appears to be working properly. - GeoffG (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. I made some changes, but there are still 26 works in Edition 2, including several that shouldn't be there. This is going to take some time to resolve. — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Still working on this: there are works in Edition 3 that shouldn't be there either. I will keep going… — Barry Johnston (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Barry. That definitely helped. There are still four works showing up in both lists, however. They are all works by Lasso that appear in the first edition of 'Pratum musicum' (1584) and also appear in a Lasso compilation from 1592. As for other cases, it is already the case that a work such as Ancor che col partire (Cipriano de Rore) appears in two different publications from 1584, both with the vol word 'Edition'. This doesn't seem to cause a problem. It is also the case that a publication such as 'Il terzo libro de madrigali a cinque voci (Cipriano de Rore)' has two editions from the same year. This also appears to be working properly. - GeoffG (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, Barry. As you can see, I added two Pub lines for those two works because the same piece appears in the same edition twice, with two different arrangements. I can't recall ever doing that before. Is there a better way to express that with the current templates? Might it be better to include both items on one Pub line (with a note about the arrangements)? - GeoffG (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Robert Barber (I) and (II)
Hi, Barry. I see that you have tidied up the pages for the two Robert Barbers, but I wonder whether their numbering could be reversed. You have allotted (II) to the Tudor composer and plain 'Robert Barber' to the 18th century man. Normally when there are two composers with the same name, '(I)' is allotted to the elder and '(II)' to the younger (as in Grove's Dictionary, for example). I realise that the plain 'Robert Barber' has more compositions than the Tudor man and also that his page was created first, but surely these should not be the criteria by which composers are categorised? It just seems illogical to me to have (II) coming before (I).
Best wishes, Jason Smart (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Jason, you are correct; it was laziness on my part. I would like to lose the parenthesis, though, for two reasons. First, it looks odd in CPDL's syntax:
- The night is come (Robert Barber (II)) versus The night is come (Robert Barber II)
- Second, there are several CPDL programs that might have to be rewritten, that search on the final parenthesis in a page name.
- I will make the changes that you asked for. Thanks for the input. — Barry Johnston (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Barry,
- Many thanks for that. Much appreciated! Yes, there would be no harm in losing the parentheses.
- Best wishes,
- Jason Smart (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Funeral (Samuel Wakefield)
Hi Barry. First of all Season's Greetings and Happy New Year! There is a slight (but glaring, to me) underlay error in your edition of Funeral by Samuel Wakefield. The 1837 edition of Christian's Harp ( https://archive.org/details/christiansharpco00wake/page/12/mode/1up ) which you cite as a source, has first line of text "Stoop down, my tho'ts, that used to rise," -- where you (and several other editors through the ages) have the grammatically incorrect "use". Even the text page at CPDL has it wrong! I'm not sure what we should do about this, at least eventually. My preference would be to change all instances of "use" to "used" (perhaps leaving alone the sometimes abbreviated "us'd"). What do you think we should do? -- Best wishes for a truly great and happy 2024! -- Charlestalk Giffen♫ 23:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Chuck, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you!
- I noticed this also, but I didn't think it was incorrect. Back in 2015, I got the text for this page from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, which was transcribed from an eighteenth-century book. The oldest book I have access to at the moment is a 1735 edition of Watts' hymns, printed in London, and it clearly says "Stoop down, my thoughts, that use to rise." So, I thought, maybe "use to" is archaic, and should be changed? Or maybe it's a British-ism? I regularly change old texts to more modern spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, but this seems to be a different case.
- Then (after your post) I noticed this web page. It appears that currently both are correct, though I'm not sure I fully understand the discussion there. And here's another page from Merriam-Webster.
- Now I'm inclined to leave it the way Watts wrote it. But I'm not very sure, since I don't use "use to" in speech or writing.
- — And best wishes to you and your family! Thanks for all you do for CPDL. — Barry Johnston (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
ChoralWiki:Seasonal music
Hi Barry, Could you take a look at where these edits went wrong? I'm assuming the week ending Feb 18 is no. 7 and am working with ChoralWiki:Seasonal music/Test for now, which dosen't seem to be breaking the main page so far. Richard Mix (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Mathurin Forestier
I am trying to post a work to this composer's page which you created a couple of years ago, without success. The composer page will not allow me the option to add a new work. I removed Forestier from the unhosted composers category, but that doesn't seem to do the trick. Is therre a glitch preventing full utilisation. Incidentally, you had credited him with specific dates. Grove, RISM, etc. do not know who he is definitively, let alone stating any biographical details other than periods when he was published, gleaned from anthology frontispieces. You seem to be assigning dates to quite a few Renaissance composers (especially French). Why? Inexactitude is no disgrace and is standard across all reference works; your implied claim of superior knowledge (I have already spent a fair amount of time double-checking that CPDL composer pages are reliable) puts all dates in jeopardy, and compromises this site's ambition as an authoratitve source. What is the problem with c. and fl. that an entirely new replacement chronology must be created?Cjshawcj (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- The problem with the Mathurin Forestier page was the page was not included in Category:Composers; if you wish to remove a composer from unhosted status, just remove " (unhosted)" from the Category line. I have fixed this, so works can be added now.
- You are right, I have been inserting approximate birth and death dates to composers who didn't have them. The reason for this is to facilitate studies of music history, especially in light of several interesting articles, Horizontal History by Tim Urban, 2016 (as reported in The Washington Post that year), and On Horizontal and Vertical Approaches to Intellectual History by Lawrence Glickman, 2020. This has led me to construct CPDL pages such as Publications listed in chronological order and English composers in chronological order, French composers in chronological order, etc. (list here). Unfortunately, at present the only way the composer lists can be automated is through the Category:n births; I wish there were a template for this - but that would be a larger effort than I am willing to undertake. Cheers. — Barry Johnston (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)