User talk:Bobnotts/Archive 5

From ChoralWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: 0102030405060708

Saving Scores from Cpdl.org

Hello Bobnotts:

Greetings to you and yours. I have a particular problem regarding downlaoding scores. I downloaded Adobe Reader 9 to my computer, but when I try to open a score (eg. Father in Heav'n-Flemming), my computer keeps refering to Adobe 4, so I cannot see the score. Can i save the score without opening it, Then reopen in Adobe 9, so I can print the score. By the way, my Operating Systen is Windows Vista. Thank you for any information —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Njemdi (talkcontribs) on 18:41, 14 November 2008.

Hi Njemdi, please remember to sign your remarks by adding 4 "tilde" symbols, or pressing the equivalent signature button on the top of the page, otherwise nobody knows who you are. It seems that Rob (a.k.a. Bobnotts) is very busy with thousands of text replacements (he has found a new toy...). To save the score without opening it, right-click on the pdf icon and then select "save as...". I did it, and the file opened in Acrobat Reader 9 without any problems. I guess you have two versions of Adobe Acrobat installed, and this it may be rather tricky, especially if you installed an older version after having installed a newer one. I would suggest to re-install Acrobat 9. Max a.k.a. Choralia 23:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Njemdi, I'd try simply uninstalling all the versions of Acrobat Reader you have installed then reinstall the latest version. --Bobnotts talk 13:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Liturgical music

Hi Rob, I noticed your changes to Audit in evangelio. The concept of 'liturgical music' is of course so very vague it is pretty much asking for a discussion. I've always interpreted 'motet' to be mass repertoire, whereas I've labelled pieces such as this one, for want of the term 'responsory' in the drop-down menu, as 'liturgical music'. Much as I understand the ambiguity of those terms, I'd like to know if there's any kind of consensus as to the use of either term. Cordially, joachim 14:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joachim. Straight after doing that, I wondered whether I should just revert my edit as it occurred to me that I didn't really know what liturgical music is on CPDL. The sacred genres are an area of CPDL that needs some attention IMO. Anyway, I started a thread on the forums which I hope you'll be interested to contribute to. --Bobnotts talk 15:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:MistyMountain

Hi Rob, I noticed that you deleted Dedman's page per request. But what about his talk page? User:MistyMountain will exist "forever" on the system, and who knows, in the future he may decide to collaborate with CPDL in other ways, so I'm of the opinion that talk pages of registered users should always be kept. —Carlos Email.gif 16:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've restored it. --Bobnotts talk 16:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Byrd Mass for 4 in F minor

Rob,
Done the Byrd 4-parter down in the good old Fellowesian key of F minor. Had a young hotshot singer asking about the version down a 4th, so though I would do the 2 together. --DaveF 21:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Dave. I know a lot of performances are at this pitch so I'm sure this transposition will be useful for others too. --Bobnotts talk 11:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ave Maria by S. Gangi

Hi Rob,

just saw that you have added the piece by Gangi to CPDL. The PDF file says that this work is registered with SIAE. Thus it may not be performed in the public without a license form SIAE (or its associates in other countries like PRS, GEMA etc.). In Germany, even religious use is forbidden without a license of the GEMA.

I have corrected the copyright from "CPDL" to "Personal" and added a copyright notice to avoid that visitors are fooled into believing that this piece may be freely performed (which might be a natural assumption when looking for scores on CPDL).

I personally think that this kind of licensing is inappropriate for CPDL, but this might be a minority view point. Nevertheless I hope you agree that we should make the licensing terms clear to visitors. If not, feel free to remove the copyright notice that I have added.

Thanks,

Chris

Hi Chris. Thanks for your interest and diligence in this matter. The other admins agree that CPDL isn't the place for composers who wish to claim royalties from their works so they have been removed. There is another work by Gangi which he has re-uploaded since I deleted it. Max is in touch with him by email (since his first language is Italian) and I hope at least some of his works will be included at CPDL. I definitely agree that the license of a work or edition should be made abundantly clear to visitors and if you see a similar situation in the future, please take similar action. Many thanks --Bobnotts talk 13:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of this problem and discussing it among the admins. Concerning free licenses for individual works, there is an important point to consider. In general, if composers decide to join a royalty collecting society, they must ransfer all their performance rights to the society. This means that they no longer have the right to define custom licensing terms for performance of their works. AFAIK, the GEMA (the German PRS) contract explicitly demands that the member transfers the performance rights of all of his/her works. Moreover, the GEMA forbids its members to publish under custom licenses (which is understandable, because keeping track of individual licensing terms for each work probably is an organisational nightmare). A choir in which I had sung actually was once bitten by this policy: a composer had given a composition to the choir director for free performance in a concert, but was apparently ignorant that when becoming a GEMA member, he had lost the right to do so; eventually the choir had to pay a hefty penalty fee for copyright infringement to the GEMA. If Max can read Italian, maybe he can have a look at the SIAE membership contract; I would guess that they have similar terms as the GEMA. Chris 19:06, 29 December 2008 (GMT)
Thanks, Chris. I think this has been sorted out now - Mr Gangi's works that are on CPDL now are ones which he hasn't submitted to the SIAE. Apparently this is not in contravention of his contract with them. --Bobnotts talk 17:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

image file

Robert,

I would like to place a jpg image on my composer page, but when I attempt to upload, I get a notice that the file is corrupt or has the wrong extension. File uses .jpg extension, and is not corrupt to my knowledge. Help! Also interested in learning how to add mp3 file to existing work. Add Works form can accommodate mp3, but Upload file does not permit the extension.Tweedfour 04:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Carlos to look into this, Thurlow. I wouldn't have thought that it will take him too long to sort out the problem. --Bobnotts talk 17:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Thurlow, the necessary settings were added, and mp3 extension is now accepted for upload. Please try again and inform me if something goes wrong. Carlos 21:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hymn subcategories

Robert, As my hymn collection grows, there are going to be any number of hymns that are seasonal (Lent, Advent, Easter, etc.) as well as specific for Communion. Would it be appropriate for me to arrange my hymns into subcategories as I did under Shape Notes? I realise the "Category" code will automatically link things to Easter, etc, but for organisational purposes on the page I wondering if it might be helpful to music seekers to subcat. It would be easy enough for me to re-organise the Hymn section of the page.Tweedfour 20:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Permit me to wade in here, since I've been somewhat the arbiter of the way hymns are handled here and also rather active in classifying sacred works by season. If you are concerned about how to group works on your composer page, I think you have considerable latitude to make such groupings. On a slightly different note, if one uses the code
{{#dpl: category=Hymns|categorymatch=Lent%}}
one obtains all works classified in Hymns and also in any of the Lent catetgories (as of the time of this posting, there are only two such hymns so classified - one by Thurlow Weed and one by myself!). But making a ChoralWiki namespace page such as ChoralWiki:Lenten hymns and linking it both to Hymns and to Lent makes good sense (one could do the same with other combinations, much as was done for ChoralWiki:Music for the Advent and Christmas season which appeared on the Main Page. -- Chucktalk Giffen 16:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
What he said :-) --Bobnotts talk 20:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, Chuck. I agree making seasonal categories for hymns would make sense. You might also want to consider the most common "non-season," namely, Communion Hymns. I've just come across a treasure trove of 1,215 annotated hymn texts published in 1893. Even after the five hymns I wrote this w/e, there are currently 12 bookmarks; thus my question about organising hymns!
With regard to the above code, where would that be placed? I presume on the actual work page? As part of "Genre?"Tweedfour 23:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Legend" template

Hi Rob,

Have you noted this? I'm not sure it is OK. Max a.k.a. --Choralia 20:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding keyboard accomp tag to works

Hi,

I'm puzzled that you have added this recently to Brookfield (Billings) and China (Cuzens) (and maybe others!) - although the scores I posted didnot have any keyboard reductions (and I'm not sure that Billings and/or Cuzens would have approved !).

Please can you explain to me. Tim Henderson 23:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tim. My mistake - I assumed that because these scores have been labelled as hymns, they would usually be performed with some sort of keyboard accompaniment. Please do change these to {{acap}} if that is appropriate. Every score page should have an accompaniment template, even if this is {{acap}} - this is a problem that I've been trying to correct. --Bobnotts talk 13:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for clearing it up. Much of Billings in the "Sacred Harp" tradition is nowadays performed acapella with the four parts belting it out around the "hollow square" containing the leader - although it may well be that in his time the parts were supported by whatever instruments the parish had at its disposal as in the West Gallery tradition that much of my other stuff comes from. I'll chnage them to acap.
Is it possible to include an accompaniment/acapella option that forces a choice to be made in the "automated" works entry form ?Tim Henderson 15:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Enrico Vercesi

Hi Rob, usually I create pages as the one cited above when I need to add some usefull information not found on the composer page, as his contact email. I do it because people downloading his works may want to contact him for some reason. Shouldn't his email be included in his composer page, then? I think the Category:Editors could well stay on the User page, below the redirect. Another thing one must not forget to do in these cases is to create a redirect from the composer talk page back to the user talk page. Carlos 16:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right Carlos. I thought I'd included his email address on his composer page... apparently not. Now that we have more control over the wiki, it might be a good time to change the categorisation of contributors/editors/composers. I remember discussing somewhere that it's wrong to exclude contributors of texts/translations or biographies from getting a user page and labelling it "editor". How about "Category:CPDL contributors"? --Bobnotts talk 16:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Spacing in Editor template

Hi Rob. I see you put back in three nbsp's in Editor - after I had reduced the number to two. I disasgree with your changing it back to three on a couple of grounds: (1) "Style" manuals I'm familiar with recommend (or prescribe) only two spaces; (2) making all the spaces (especially the last one) nbsp's means that any other space that appears after the template and before the next item will be piled upon the three already there - at very least, the last space should NOT be an nbsp. If you insist on three (which I seriously object to), then at least make the three spaces be one nbsp followed by two ordinary spaces (wiki treats more than three ordinary spaces as a double space). Of course, I'd much prefer it to be just one nbsp and one ordinary space. -- Chucktalk Giffen 23:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chuck. I wasn't aware of a new style manual for CPDL. The style which has been in place as long as I can remember is to have 3 spaces after the date in edition info. I understand your second point, though I don't understand why anyone would put a space in between the editor template and the "ScoreInfo" or "Copy" templates. In any case, I have altered the editor template to include a normal space, followed by a forced space, followed by another normal space. There should now be a maximum of 3 spaces after the date in any circumstance. I'm not entirely sure why you're so keen to implement a change to the style which has a minimal effect but I am sure that any such change should only be implemented when it can be done universally. There are many score pages which don't use the editor template so these would be inconsistent. I think we should only start discussing style when we have complete control over it. --Bobnotts talk 13:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
HI Rob. I appreciate where you are coming from. In case you hadn't noticed, I've begun putting the Editor template on all score pages which have scores with submission dates since 2005 (2005, 2007, 2008 are essentially complete - next is 2006). Once these are done, I'll begin working backwards until all the score pages have Editor templates on them. In the course of doing this I've made some modifications (extensions) to the template, such as one that allows for alternate wording, such as "Contributor" for "Editor".
As for not seeing why "anyone" would put a space after the Editor template ... well, I have put one space after it and before "Score information" or the ScoreInfo template - on the grounds that it makes the code more legible (cramming one template after another with no space between them does not lend itself to legibility). One nbsp followed by two ordinary spaces will not cause the extra (ordinary) space that I have inserted to be converted to a fourth space in the output - but one nbsp between two ordinary spaces in the template will cause the extra (ordinary) space I've added to be converted in the output - so, I'm changing it to one nbsp followed by two ordinary ones.
As for uniformity across CPDL on such things - this does indeed vary widely, especially for those (mostly in the past, but some in the present) who do their own posting (rather than using the output from the addworks mechanism) ... how many times have we removed extra blank lines, which the wiki inserts after the first one (the first blank line functions more like a line break with a little more vertical space).
I guess I wonder when and where you think we should start with putting some style decisions into place, especially for those which require considerable hands-on editing (such as the Editor template which cannot be put in with a simple ReplaceText). My own opinion is that we should start sometime sooon(rather than never or very much later), and in the case of the Editor template, my current efforts will soon cover rather more than half the number of editions.
My work on inserting the editor template has also been aimied at making some sense out of the New scores archive, which generates info with DPL (via the categorization provided by the Editor template). Ah, well, things for ruminating and discussing further!! -- Chuck
Hi Rob and Chuck, let me step in here too, because this subject also preoccupies me. I've seen both of you doing a lot of repetitive edits lately, and I didn't know how to say it, but if you could wait a bit more, we may find a tool that will do this kind of job for us. It will be basically the same as ReplaceText, but with the ability to use Regular Expressions for advanced search/replace, as I already do in UltraEdit when editing works pages. I found one such tool by chance, while testing the Extension:Multi-Category Search. The tool is called DotNetWikiBot Framework and seems to be easy to use yet a powerful editor. It just happens that I don't have right now the time to test it; I intend to do it after (1) I finish the Add Work/Add Edition forms; and (2) finish the development of a couple of "encapsulation" templates for edition and work input data, in order to isolate the data from the page style. I saw that Chuck and others before him have made experiments with similar templates, I don't know why it hasn't evolved into something practical. After we have such templates ready, it would be time to put this dotnetwikibot to work, editing virtually all CPDL works pages to introduce the new templates in them. If any of you has the time and will, I invite you to begin studying this bot: how to install, run and customize it. Carlos 16:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi folks. Carlos, I think the work of mine you are referring to is that dealing with "data structures" and with "variable templates" - ie. templates as actual parameters, not quite the same thing as "template variables". This work is still going on (just not online at the moment, since I'm trying to get the CPDL organizational document done). Indeed, I've been wishing for an extension that does "replacetext" with regular expressions, so that large scale changes could be done. My work with the Editor template was spurred on by the need to have the Archive (NewScoresLog) fulfill its purpose. I'm hoping we can wait on some of the other things until I can roll out my proposed changes for CPDL data structures (different ones for composers, editors, scores, translations, etc.) that can interact through templates passed to these data structures that make it poossible to produce, say, both the entry on a composer page and the entry on a works page for an edition from just one data structure. -- Chucktalk Giffen 20:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Chuck: going back to the original point, take a look at this page. It's not formatted correctly because the templates don't have any spaces between them in the code. I believe new score pages are created in this way too. The score pages that you've edited have the right spacing after the date because of the changes made to the editor template, but other pages are now not formatted correctly. Is there a solution that we can implement into the editor template so that no matter what follows the template on a score page, the spacing will be correct?
By the way, the NewScoresLog will be a very useful tally when it's complete. --Bobnotts talk 12:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the wiki converts any number of normal spaces into a single one for viewing (never as a double space). The way to accomplish what Rob suggests would be then to have in the template either "space + nbsp + space" or "nbsp + nbsp + space". Carlos 13:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Carlos is right, I was wrong in believing that two or more (ordinary) spaces are treated as a double space - they are interpreted as a single space. I still think that double spacing (as opposed to triple spacing which, at least to me, has always looked bad) is more than adequate between the Editor info and the Score info (or Copyright info when the latter is missing) - but I guess we'll have to postpone that discussion until later. I've changed the Editor template back to sp nbsp sp. But with this change, if the template is followed by a space, that space is inserted, too - I'm not sure why (although I have my suspicions), but I'll experiment a bit to see if that can be remedied. -- Chucktalk Giffen 14:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I found and fixed the problem: don't put an includeonly at the very end (after the spacing information), since that will break any spacing information; also, it's better with the spacing information moved entirely outside the switch statement. Now the question of aesthetics is: which of the following looks the best?
  1. Editor: Brian Russell (added 2006-02-09). Score information: Letter, 2 pages, 30 kbytes Copyright: CPDL
  2. Editor: Brian Russell (added 2006-02-09)Score information: Letter, 2 pages, 30 kbytes  Copyright: CPDL
  3. Editor: Brian Russell (added 2006-02-09).   Score information: Letter, 2 pages, 30 kbytes   Copyright: CPDL
  4. Editor: Brian Russell (added 2006-02-09). Score information: Letter, 2 pages, 30 kbytes. Copyright: CPDL
  5. Editor: Brian Russell (added 2006-02-09)Score information: Letter, 2 pages, 30 kbytes.  Copyright: CPDL
  6. Editor: Brian Russell (added 2006-02-09).   Score information: Letter, 2 pages, 30 kbytes.   Copyright: CPDL
In the last three, I added a period after kbytes (which has always been strangely missing and really should be there, since the Copyright info follows immediately inline). -- Chucktalk Giffen 15:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I genuinely prefer the sixth option but if you insist, Chuck, I could be persuaded to go along with the fifth. I agree that a period after the kbytes makes sense. However, I do think that we should only introduce these changes when we have control over all score pages with use of the templates. --Bobnotts talk 22:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Singing different texts simultaneously

Dear Bob, I achieved a long cycle of transcriptions of latin (even multilingual) texts from scores to score pages, with the help of Joachim. I left two groups of scores without text: 1. Broken links (nothing to do), 2. Scores that have different texts below the staves in each system, like that (from that page) for example, or that one. Do musicologists agree that different texts were sung simultaneously or is it a mistake (text sung successively or coming from different works)? I don’t know how to manage that. If someone may help. Feel free to correct these lines if necessary.- Claude 11:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Claude. From my limited knowledge of early music, I'd say that the text should indeed be sung simultaneously. In terms of how to present texts like this on a score page, it's probably a good idea to transcribe the soprano text completely (labelling it "Soprano") then the alto's text after it, labelled appropriately as well, etc. I can only think of one other situation when it looks like each part is singing a different text at the same time - in some editions of hymns in particular, verse 1 is printed under the soprano line, verse 2 under the alto line, verse 3 under the tenor, etc. In this case, all the music should be repeated for each verse in order. I hope this helps. --Bobnotts talk 15:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Claude & Bob: Many pieces esp. 14th C. and earlier manuscripts have multiple sets of words. It is especially true in contrapuncti. There is varying opinion as to just exactly how they are to be (or were) performed. Depending on the individual piece, it is usually pretty clear if it is a case of multiple verses to be sung, repeating the piece. Often different texts are sung at the same time, with the long melismas making the text unclear or indistinct anyway. Sometimes a line of text is sung and the other parts were originally instrumental (or words were adapted to a completely instrumental piece). In the examples you cite, there is a typical appearance where no text appears for certain voices or certain sections of the piece. Either borrowing the words from another voice in similar rhythmic pattern or was play on continuo etc. It may not be necessary to delineate which voice has the words, but you could list the soprano set first, then other lyrics, or do it line by line with additional voices indented underneath the lead voice (soprano/cantus). No hard and fast rule here. Hope this helps. -Paul Marchesano.(Marchesa 05:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC))

Opera tutelata da diritti SIAE

Hi Rob,

sorry for being a nuisance WRT licensing issues, but I have just seen that the piece "O nata lux" (C. Gentilini) added recently by you carries the notice "Opera tutelata da diritti SIAE" in the footer. This means that public performance of this piece is not allowed, unless a performance license is purchased from SIAE. I have corrected the copyright type from "CPDL" to "Personal".

Maybe it is time for those of us who actually want to contribute to a "creative commons" to move to a different plaform than CPDL? Unfortunately Mutopia only accepts submissions in Lilypond format, which I had tried to avoid so far. Do you know of other platforms that only collect music that may be used freely?

--Cdalitz 11:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Chris. This is a bit of a sticky situation at the moment since we (the transition committee) are still trying to establish policy for CPDL for the future. However, until I hear back from the gang, I've deleted the file in question and marked the score links as broken. I agree with what I think is your viewpoint, that CPDL shouldn't host works by composers who want to make some money out of them. Registering works with the SIAE seems like a clear indication of this and in any case it puts CPDL in a difficult position since it seems that hosting this composer's works violates his agreement with the SIAE.
I suggest that you need look no further than CPDL to host and/or index your works - this is the no.1 source of free vocal sheet music on the web and it will continue to be both the best source and a free source. --Bobnotts talk 22:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A tip and a suggestion

Hi Rob! I'll begin with the tip: when creating redirects, if you leave the summary field empty, the wiki will automatically fill it in for you with a nice summary like "Redirecting to Main Page". :)
The suggestion is related to what I have commented on the forum in the DotNetWikiBot topic: the ReplaceText tool was very usefull when whe had almost no other options, but it also has its limitations. To introduce the Genre template in pages, the ideal would be that we simultaneously removed the [Category:Madrigals] from the page, and RemoveText can't do it properly. Now we have two alternatives that can do it properly: SQL queries (the first query logs in a temporary table all pages that need to be changed; the second replaces the old text by the template; then a third query removes the category entry from the pages logged in the temporary table). The other alternative, DotNetWikiBot, is somewhat simpler and less "technical" but creates a new revision of each page edited. Later today I'm planning to give more details in the forum on how it can be accomplished, taking the Genre template as example, ok? I know that you're not exactly a "programmer guy" but I believe you'll like to use the bot after you learn its (few) secrets. ;) —Carlos Email.gif 17:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rob, I take back what I said: I found it's quite easy to remove categories via SQL queries from pages that received a new template, and have already removed [Category:Madrigals] from the pages you edited. So, please go ahead with the ReplaceTexts if you want! Just let me know later which replaces have been done so that I may remove the related categories. —Carlos Email.gif 19:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Carlos. Thanks for the redirect tip. I guess that's one of the many improvements we got with a software update! As for the DotNet box thing vs. the extension, I don't mind if you want to go down the minimal edits route - it makes sense if the bot can do lots of things at once to a score page. I'll hang fire on the ReplaceText unless it's for something other than adding templates. I'll be glad to hear what we can do with the bot. One very useful thing would be if it could fix score icons (eg. when there should be a Network.png when we've got a combination of Icon_pdf.gif Icon_snd.gif and the source file name). I've no idea if that's doable or not but I'm sure you'll be able to investigate! --Bobnotts talk 00:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Rob! I have some good news for you: the bot has just implemented your suggestion above and replaced the local icons with the globe in 332 work pages and in 192 composer pages. Here are some examples: [1] [2] [3]Carlos Email.gif 06:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Mery Yt Ys

Greetings Bob.

Thanks for alerting me to the problems with my submission. I apologize for taking so long to catch up again. Can you advise what I need to do to make the submission acceptable? Thanks.

Kittybriton aka Lil Miss Picky 00:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kitty. Thanks for getting back to me. Basically, the code (ABC notation?) which is currently on Mery yt ys (Anonymous) needs to be in an ABC file rather than on the wiki page. I assume that the ABC software works in a similar way to LilyPond whereby the notation file is effectively a text file with the right file extension. I can create a score page for the work, but I don't know anything about ABC so it would be great if you could make an ABC source file and a MIDI file from the code currently on the page. There's already a PDF linked from the Anonymous page. Thanks --Bobnotts talk 23:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor vs. contributor

Hi Bob. I'm about to contribute a few scores edited by a friend of mine. How do I go about this if I want *his* name to appear as a hyperlink to a list of *his* scores, rather than to my contributor page? Cordially, joachim 14:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Joachim, I think Rob won't mind if I reply for him; you may go ahead and add the new editions, just put your friend's name in the editor field (with the Editor template it will look something like {{Editor|friend's name|2008-02-01}}). After you save the work's page, click on your friend's name red link and you'll be directed to his user page. Paste the following code in that page and save: {{subst:ChoralWiki:User template}}. Now edit the user page again, add any relevant information about him and that's all! —Carlos Email.gif 15:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Archives: 0102030405060708