We're using cookies to make this site more secure, featureful and efficient.

Issue 1328: Too high Priority for Pillings 9

Object
Scottish Country Dances in Diagrams. Ed. 9 (Publication)
Submitter
Heiko Schmidt (castle_ghost)
Assigned to
Christine Parker-Jones
Priority
Normal
Disposition
Fixed
Description

Hi there,

I re-post the following from Iain, because that’s where the issue is caused:

Greetings all, It seems that someone is fiddling (probably / hopefully inadvertantly) with the settings that specify the primary source of a dance. I just happened to notice that in Dance List 14817 (GASP - March 2 2018 - George Taillefer) the source for “The Australiain Ladies” (Bob Campbell) and “The Meeting Of The Waters” (Iain Boyd) are given as ‘Pilling 9’. This is NOT the primary source for either dance! Regards, Iain Boyd

The reason is that Christine who is currently entering Pillings 9 (thanks a lot for that!) forgot to update the default source priority from 30 (=Publications by individual authors/groups) to a proper Pillings level.

I have done that for the dances already added.

@Christine: please remember doing this, because otherwise often Pillings 9 will be stated as the primary Dance source, especially for non-RSCDS dances. And thank for undertaking the task of entering that one!

@Iain: thanks a lot for letting us know!

Best wishes and Happy New Year, Heiko

Previous Actions

  • Date  Jan. 9, 2018, 10:40 a.m.
  • User  Heiko Schmidt (castle_ghost)

New issue submitted

  • Date  Jan. 9, 2018, 10:42 a.m.
  • User  Heiko Schmidt (castle_ghost)

Assigned changed to »ChrisPJ« (previously »None«)
Disposition changed to »Needs help« (previously »New«)

  • Date  Jan. 9, 2018, 11:53 a.m.
  • User  Meinhard Reiser (meinhard)

Hello all, sorry,

I’ve changed the priority for Pilling ed9 from 30 into 101.

I don’t have Pilling ed.9, I cannot complete the dance list at the moment - the last entry is “Miss Isabella McLeod”. I’ll ask my group if someone has ed9, then I’ll add the missing ones.

Meinhard reiser

  • Date  Jan. 9, 2018, 12:02 p.m.
  • User  Heiko Schmidt (castle_ghost)

Hi Meinhard,

strange!

The task of re-prioritizing I had already finished by the time I have re-posted Iain’s remarks!!!

…and yes, as pointed out in the posted issue, the publication is not completed yet. Christine is doing that at the moment (last additions on Jan 4th - thus, the issue was already assigned to her right after posting ;)

Cheers, Heiko

  • Date  Jan. 9, 2018, 6:34 p.m.
  • User  Anselm Lingnau (anselm)

101 is the correct priority because we want newer editions of the Pilling book to have precedence over older ones (the 8th edition uses priority 102, and so on). If the Pilling people ever get around to producing a 10th edition, there will be some database magic that causes the previous 9 editions to move over one step, such that the newest Pilling book is always at priority level 101.

Just to remind you, priority levels of 100 and more are defined to be used for “graphical” publications. There aren’t too many of those around; the other one I can think of offhand is Angus Henry’s The MacNab Dances in Diagrams, which uses the generic priority value 100.

  • Date  Dec. 21, 2018, 11:36 a.m.
  • User  Christine Parker-Jones (ChrisPJ)

Disposition changed to »Fixed« (previously »Needs help«)