User talk:Feldmahler/archive13


US server

Hi Feldmahler,

Would it be possible to create something to designate files that need to be moved to the US server? There seem to be an ever-increasing number of these. I just noticed a few items that had been transcribed by Gustave Samazueilh, who died in 1967 and is therefore protected in Canada. Other cases crop up all the time with librettists, etc. I know you have your hands full here, so I'm willing to do what I can. Thanks, Carolus 19:28, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi Carolus! I've answered on your talk page :) Basically putting the file on the US server upload request page would be the official way to mark a file as a US-only file. --Feldmahler 21:55, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Sorry guys, but I think I may have been the culprit on a couple of these--hope I didn't put you through too much needless work. Must have slipped through during the mass-upload I did a few times over the last weeks. From now on I'll put those that need to go on the US server in a different folder on my hard drive so I don't get them confused. Did I mention how much a pain in the ass it is to deal with that US server? Daphnis 00:00, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
Haha... I believe you did ;) But this is about to change... at least a bit. Very soon I'll be allowing people to upload directly onto the visible portion of the US server, which should make it easier. However, deleting files and creating folders will still have to be done by me.
I'm currently working on other parts of the site (currently the composer/work/file submission pages which have been lagging horribly behind), but when the year comes around (and the files entering public domain in 2008 are moved to the wiki) I'll try to redo the US server like I promised. Can't promise to reach any standard of usability though ;) I'm just such a horrid web designer... --Feldmahler 00:19, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
Well I suppose if you can't promise to reach any standard of usability then you won't have caused any more of an inconvenience than what we presently have to deal with :) If that be the case, then yes, you are such a horrid web designer :) In all seriousness, congratulations and thanks are in order to have the ability--in any capacity--to have files linked/uploaded to the site that are public domain in the US. Although the need will disappear over time, it's a good thing to have those files available. Daphnis 00:43, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
You know, I just can't say no to good music. This is also why I insist on very precise copyright reviewing instead of the "lets not get sued" style of copyright reviewing I see on some other sites. If a work is public domain, it will be on IMSLP, is what I envision :) --Feldmahler 00:50, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Removing Template:Work1923

Hi Feldmahler, I've added birth/death years to both Engelmann and Wachs. Unfortunately I'm not able to remove the template on the work pages. Will the system do this automatically within some days or is it protected in some way? Maybe I'm already half asleep and don't see's rather late here | -) Hobbypianist 18:26, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

The templates are cached for up to a day, and the pages are cached for 3 days, so at the worst there will be a 4 day delay before the pages are up to date. You can shorten the time significantly by manually purging the page by adding &action=purge to the end of the page URL, in which case you only need to wait until the template cache is updated (1 day). :) --Feldmahler 21:54, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
yes, I supposed it would need some time (...minutes) and purged it yesterday after editing...I'm impatient, I know :)) Hobbypianist 09:29, 3 October 2007 (EDT)
I've added a feature that automatically purges composer cache on edit (of the composer page). Should be instant now :) --Feldmahler 22:39, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

Remove unused files from IMSLP (cont.)

I added your new template to a couple files/page. Do you get a notification when such a template has been used? Are you able to tell to which ones the template has been added? Daphnis 00:15, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually you can find them both here and here :) I don't get a notification, but the idea is that when someone gets the urge to do spring cleaning we can find them and wipe them out ;) --Feldmahler 00:32, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
By the way, when you want to reopen a discussion from the archive pages, maybe you can link to the old discussion like this, and post on the actual user talk page? That way your comments won't escape my attention :) --Feldmahler 00:32, 4 October 2007 (EDT)
Understood. Sorry 'bout that. Daphnis 00:36, 4 October 2007 (EDT)

Orphan files

Hi Feldmahler, there are several orphan files I found during review. What is to be done with such files generally, should the uploader be notified? Or should they be tagged even if there's no work page? ...well, a few times I've created a workpage and added a piece. Is there a possibility to list all orphan files on IMSLP, for example with an 'OrphanFileFinder'? Also, I can't see the following uploaded files in the list created with the NewTagFinder: [1] and [2], which have to be deleted, they are not PD! I could only recognize them via the file list. Is this the fault of the cache again ;-) ? Regards, Hobbypianist 18:35, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually... everything is working according to plan ;) Files will only show up under tagging when they are submitted to a work page. There is indeed an orphan file finder, and can be found here. However, for some reason unknown to man (or at least me), there are many files listed there that are not actually orphaned (like the first one). This has been a problem since the upgrade, and appears to continue to be a problem. I will certainly investigate why this is when I get a little more time... but this bug is probably going to be pretty hard to find. This is why, before removing a supposedly orphaned file, it is good to check the work page to see if it is really an orphaned file.
Also, because of this problem, the orphaned files are pretty much left as is right now on IMSLP, unless they have copyright issues. Normally (and per guideline), orphaned files are left for up to 1 month before being removed (along with a note to the uploader). I will try to fix this issue as soon as I get some time! --Feldmahler 23:44, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
At first glance it looks as if the problem is limited to old entries using the "File" template, possibly those that were transformed from the even older format with the (no longer existing) special page. Maybe it's time to get rid of that legacy stuff. As usual, I have little time and a backlog of things to do, but one of these days I can use my bot to eliminate the "File" template. I'd roughly estimate that this would concern some 3-4k pages. Running the bot at a slow pace, it could be finished within a few days. I guess that the additional revisions would increase the database by some 10-15MB, which shouldn't be too much. What do you think, better than hunting for some obscure bugs in legacy code? --Leonard Vertighel 09:45, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
Hmm... well, the "File" template is now a rather transparent wrapper around the real function, so if there is a bug, it'd be in the way Mediawiki handles template includes (and image links in template includes). It'd be nice if you can check and see for sure that the problem happens when using the "File" template... that'd save me from a trip to the hell that is Mediawiki's parser (and its not just me... MW devs think so too) ;) That's one of the things Moinmoin is better than Mediawiki at (though of course Mediawiki is better than Moinmoin at other stuff). --Feldmahler 11:35, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
Not easy to check for sure with 700+ entries... will work on it later if I don't forget... maybe I need a to-do list, too. --Leonard Vertighel 15:46, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
Ah... just a small sample should be enough. :) In any case, I think the best thing right now is to not worry about all that needs to be done, especially since this is imo not very urgent (and the to do list for IMSLP is long... haha). The most important thing right now is I think the multi-file template. In the IMSLP HEAD revision I have already made the file submitters use the multi-file template; everything will be fine once I actually put the multi-file template in the code.
I'm planning to release IMSLP v0.5 in the next few days... if you don't think you will have time to finish the template according to the mockup scottorr submitted before Sunday, please tell me and I'll temporarily use the current version of the multi-file template. Thanks! :) --Feldmahler 17:43, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
P.S. It doesn't have to be finished completely before Sunday, I really only need the main framework (polishing can come later) :) --Feldmahler 17:46, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
It's on top of my to-do list (which currently has only 2 items, since I've already forgotten what else a wanted to do). I hope to finish by Sunday, though I can't guarantee 100%; I thought I'd start working on it two days ago, but things went differently... --Leonard Vertighel 05:04, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Re: Copyright Reviewing

Hi Matthieu! Good work on the copyright reviewing! I just wanted to drop by and say that you don't have to put tags on pages if the autotagger already tagged that page with the correct overall tag (like the non-pd-EU tag for the Juon pieces). The file tags are only for when the file in question has a different status from the work itself. In 90+% of the case the work page autotagger should have done all the tagging needed, since it will tag accurately as long as composer dates and date of publication is given :) The use of file tags are usually because of the editor. --Feldmahler 02:27, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh, I'm really sorry for that. Indeed, the information is pretty redundant. I'll do my best to revert it back as soon as possible.Matthieu 04:29, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

What's the Checked US tag for? Does that mean the file is public domain in both Canada and the US? If that's the case, wouldn't something like Checked US/CA be more appropriate? Also, for the copyright reviewing of the Mozart files, does publisher info need to be found for these, or are they safely marked verified? Daphnis 12:59, 4 November 2007 (EST)

It would be best for the publisher info to be found. That should hopefully not be so hard considering they are all from the same edition (maybe Alte Mozart Ausgabe? I haven't checked yet, though I believe that is probably it). Regarding the new tags, the discussion about them are here. --Feldmahler 14:42, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Hi, The Symphonies are definitely from the AMA, and I started the process of adding the publisher info (see Symphonies 1 and 2). A little style trick I use is to place the publisher info in italics if it does not actually appear on the scan itself. That's optional, of course, but it does let us know that this is an educated guess that can be inaccurate on (hopefully) rare occaisions.Carolus 14:49, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Nice :) Tell me what you think about my proposal for the new copyright tagging system on that page linked to above... and I'll fix that up first before working on a publisher template system. :) --Feldmahler 14:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)

File not found

Hi Feldmahler, would you please have a look at Wagner Tannhauser 3 Acte1 Scene4 piano 4 hands.pdf? I get an error message. Thanks a lot :) Hobbypianist 05:32, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Hi there Hobbypianist! Apparently the space on the mirror servers ran out. I've already ordered another package, and will be activating it hopefully tonight (if I'm not dead tired), and certainly by tomorrow. In the meanwhile there might be a few files that have file not found errors because the mirroring process failed in the middle.
At the same time do expect IMSLP v0.5... it has lots of nice goodies ;) --Feldmahler 09:15, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

(Multi)file template

I hope this will do, at least for a start. Did I ever mention what an amazing piece of software M$IE6 is? --Leonard Vertighel 12:35, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh indeed! I remember something about it being a great shredder? ;)
And thanks for the work on the template! :) --Feldmahler 13:01, 13 October 2007 (EDT)


Hi Feldmahler, I've read the tag at the top of some Niemann scores and noticed that the coyright status for the US is wrong, e.g. here or here. Would it be possible to include also a year given in the field <pulisher information> to determine the tag? The auto-tagger might look for a number in this field, beginnig at the left of the string (in order not to confuse it with a plate number)...hmm, but this could be a bit difficult since there is often no homogenous naming within this field. Shall I manually add the tag NonPD-USandEU to the files concerned? (but in this case the two tags would contradict each other unless I add the noautotag). Probably there are some more files, not only in the Niemann category. Well, nothing to worry about, I just wanted to report it ;-) Regards, Hobbypianist 14:36, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, it will automatically detect the tag (and refrain from autotagging) on work pages already tagged manually :) I will look into the publisher information suggestion, but I'm not sure how accurate it will be (and how often the autotagger will confuse plate/edition numbers for the publication year). I might be tempted just to put the year in the "Year of First Publication" in the work page template (since we have a record of it being published at that time), along with something like "(earliest known)". That way, the autotagger will correctly tag it without having to resort to manual tagging, and people can change the year if an earlier publication is found. --Feldmahler 18:18, 16 October 2007 (EDT)


I changed the text in AddFile/MainText, but this is not appearing in the add file page. Isn't this the correct way?


I changed the text in AddFile/MainText, but this is not appearing in the add file page. Isn't this the correct way?--Peter talk 16:10, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Actually, both pages are now multi-file submitters (even the single file version is just a form of the corresponding multi-file submitter), so the text used is actually the multi-file text, and can be found here. :) --Feldmahler 18:18, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Multifile Template

I tried the template, and discovered it works only with {{#imslpfile: ... and not with {{File...

See you ! --Peter talk 13:10, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, this is intended. The {{File template should be phased out; you can simply replace "{{File" with "{{#imslpfile:", and you don't need to change anything else :) Of course, the add file page will use "{{#imslpfile:", so there won't be problems there. (Actually, it is nearly impossible to make the {{File template use the multifile functions in the first place.) --Feldmahler 13:23, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

By the way, were there any problems with the HTML code for the new template, or why did you not use it? (Not complaining, just asking :)) --Leonard Vertighel 14:12, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Oh, it is just that I coded this before the new template was solidified (just to get the basic structure in place). As I said in the changelog, I will implement the new template in the next update :) --Feldmahler 14:25, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
Ah, that makes sense (I thought you had coded it just now, and was wondering why you'd do that :)) --Leonard Vertighel 14:29, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Add files

Feldmahler, is there some reason I can't upload new files? The upload page just goes to a blank screen with no message, and the file isn't added to the work page. Daphnis 23:26, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

This is a huge bug in the new file submitter. I have no idea how this slipped by my previous testing, since this should break all uses of the file submitter. In any case, I've fixed it just now, and will upload the fix to the server in a few minutes, after I do some basic testing on the test server. --Feldmahler 23:42, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

No prob. Just drop me a line here when it's done and I'll try again. Daphnis 23:44, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Done. :) --Feldmahler 23:54, 2 November 2007 (EDT)

Mille grazie. Can you verify my latest submission and status verification. All correct? Daphnis 00:01, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Yep! :) --Feldmahler 00:15, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Cool. Thanks! Daphnis 00:18, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

Not at all related, but didn't want to further clutter up your talk page with an unnecessary topic. In any case, is there a way users can retrieve sent emails (through the wiki) if they didn't select to copy themselves on the sent email? Daphnis 15:24, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Very unfortunately no :/ --Feldmahler 17:54, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Pierre Gouin, WIMA, Les Editions Outremontaises, Mutopia, etc.

Hi Feldmahler, I dimly recall some discussion of this stuff previously. Are they OK with IMSLP hosting these as long as they are given a suitable CC license and a link to WIMA or Mutopia? There are a fair number of these on IMSLP. BTW, as far as the legal definition of "publication" is concerned, both Mutopia and WIMA would be considered publishers absent another claim on the file itself. So would IMSLP, for that matter. Whether the organization is non-profit or for-profit makes zero difference. The reason I mention this is because I've put a Mutopia link in the publisher field for several titles, so I was wondering if this is OK and in keeping with our style, or if you think that this field should be reserved exclusively for traditional publishers like our firends in Vienna. Carolus 16:35, 4 November 2007 (EST)

If I may chime in, with WIMA there is this issue with the copyright terms on their site implying that redistribution is not allowed without explicit permission. Maybe it should be noted somewhere when the author has given permission to redistribute a score under a given license (as opposed to the case when the uploader has randomly picked a license without asking, in which case it might be better to remove the score?). --Leonard Vertighel 17:21, 4 November 2007 (EST)
As Leonard said, WIMA scores are only allowed on IMSLP with owner permission; otherwise they can be speedily deleted (as per speedy deletion guidelines). Scores with permission should have a note saying to this effect in the misc notes section. Also, putting Mutopia (or another project) as publisher should be perfectly fine :) --Feldmahler 17:54, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Re: New Copyright Tagger

Hi Feldmahler. Currently I'm really short on time, so maybe I'll look more into it later on. It looks very good, and actually see no shortcomings at the moment. It promises a lot of work for the copyright reviewers :) The copyright review tag will still be included, right? I think all current or future reviewers need a good structure for receiving help and feedback, and the copyright review tag was excellent for that. Most problems or questions will probably arise with the possible RosT rules (I still am confused!). So maybe for that reason, I'd keep the Rost tag something manual, after consideration by the sapientiae (Carolus), so that it is not too tempting to click it? But maybe you think it is better for the file/database system to include it in an automatic tag.--Peter talk 15:58, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Hi, I just uploaded the first of the two Schoenberg Op. 12 songs, which is probably OK in Canada. For some reason, the system is not tagging it as "new" but gives an error message instead. The file # is 15804. Another thing I noticed (not really an error, just a suggestion) is that when I put in a year after 2000, it just gives one or two digits, instead of the full four-digit year. I think it would be helpful to make it the four digit years for everything. For example, I put in 2022 in the tagger's year field for Schoenberg in the EU and only the red "22" appears. I could see this confusing someone about whether the date is 2022 or it is 22 years from now. I love the new tagging system, BTW. Thanks, Carolus 15:24, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Darnit... I forgot to make the system insert a default tag on submit. Regarding the date, that was actually intentional, though I think what you say is true; I just did it when I was trying to shorten tags (by the way, all years under 100 are invalid, and will be automatically marked Unknown if chosen). But what you say gave me an idea: would it be more useful to have relative dates? For example, instead of saying 2022, what about +15 meaning that there are still 15 years till it enters the public domain? Would that be easier?
About the errors with the tagging, I will try to fix them tonight. :) --Feldmahler 16:22, 23 November 2007 (EST)
P.S. By the way, I'm going to autotag files based on copyright tagging soon :) Should not affect already tagged file templates. --Feldmahler 16:27, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Hi again, Would it be possible to generate a page of all composers who died between 1938 and 1957? This would allow me to concentrate on such composers (like Bartok and Schoenberg) who are most likely to generate unhappiness with European publishers. It's always good to thoroughly document the original publication date, etc., for cases like these.That way UE and friends can't easily come back and say - this piece wasn't published until 2004 or some such nonsense. Carolus 23:47, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Actually, there already is :) See Category:ComposerNonPD-USandEU. --Feldmahler 23:50, 23 November 2007 (EST)

Russian Translator for IMSLP

Feldmahler, I need someone who can translate some Russian for me as I'm trying to pick apart this amalgam of Sibelius songs published in Moscow by the state publishers so I can separate it out to their proper work pages (rather than filing it under an ambiguous heading of "Songs" which I'd rather not do). Do you know who I might call on for this? Do we perhaps have someone affiliated with IMSLP that is our Russian liaison? Mille grazie. Daphnis 13:13, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Nevermind on this. Using some basic on-line Russian translators I was able to get enough of the gist to identify the songs and their respective collections. But that brings me to another question on my mind: Should I break apart this song album to separate all the songs into their own works pages/opus collections if I'm planning on uploading the definitive edition anyway? Or should I just trash the Russian song collection and go with the planned complete collection for the intended song set? Do you think there's any merit in keeping the Russian collection around? Daphnis 14:02, 25 November 2007 (EST)
I'll be a buttinsky here and stick my two kopecks in..... I am minimally functional in Russian and can likely handle the basic type of thing you mention fairly easily. As for the collection, I tend to think it might be a good idea to both break out the individual songs to go onto their respective opus pages along with offering the complete collection as a single download. The Muzika ed. is most likely a re-engraving of the songs as issued by Breitkopf, Hansen and other western publishers with Russian text added beneath the original (usually German or Finnish). Muzika issued hundreds of such collections for the entire vocal repertoire. Carolus 15:47, 25 November 2007 (EST)
I very much appreciate any of your helpful comments, Carolus, as always! I don't think I really made myself clear above so I shall attempt to do so now. My question deals with this Muzika collection being a scattering of about 5 different opera and not only the separation of them but the existence of them side-by-side with the more definitive editions or reprints thereof. For example, if after all the untangling of this Muzika edition is completed I have two songs out of six from a given opus, but I also have uploaded the complete opus from the standard edition, is there really any point at all in having unnecessary redundancy, even it the Muzika is essentially a reprint with Russian translations added? I can speak from my vantage point in saying that I most likely wouldn't consult an obscure and questionable Russian edition when I have access to the complete and established set anyway. On the other hand, I could argue that having two (possibly) different versions (if not editions, per se) of the same work would be interesting to look at to note any differences should they occur. It certainly wouldn't hurt to keep them, however for me to do so would take time, not a lot, but still could otherwise be spent elsewhere on my completion of the Sibelius project. As for the other point, even if no action was taken regarding separation of these songs, I really don't like the idea of having a work page as is presently that says 'Songs'. That is not an accurate work title and would be difficult for anyone to locate a given song in an unmarked collection. I suppose the best way to salvage that situation if it must remain would be to rename the work page in question 'Various Songs' and include in the miscellaneous comments field an opus-accurate list of the contents with the song title in its original language (some were published officially under Swedish, German, and Finnish titles) and the English translation. Daphnis 16:41, 25 November 2007 (EST)
My advice regarding scanning multiple editions is, if you have other scores to scan that do not have any edition (or a very bad quality scan/edition) on IMSLP, that you scan the other scores first before scanning multiple editions of a piece already on IMSLP. :) I don't know the status of the Muzika scores you have (are they borrowed? when are they due? etc.), but from your description I would suggest just scanning other scores instead. --Feldmahler 16:45, 25 November 2007 (EST)
One solution might be to name the Muzika collection "Selected Songs" or "Songs - Selections" and make it available as a single volume instead of breaking out the individual numbers - which sounds like it might be more trouble than its worth. It also seems that this might be something that could be added later - after all the standard editions were up. Muzika issued thousands of such publications because the standard editions of nearly everything were simply unavailable in the USSR. They usually re-engraved titles from the standard western editions and issued them with Russian texts. The number of the various 'albums', selected works', etc. is huge - often anonymously edited. Of course, there's still all the work involved in listing the contents even without splitting the file into multiple pieces. Maybe we could have a special project-page for such items where volunteers could download the whole thing and then proceed to add the information over time to the page - only moving it to the Sibelius category when it's finished. The same concept would likely work for files to be cleaned-up, stripped of logos, etc. Carolus 17:16, 25 November 2007 (EST)
I've already done the leg-work on that end--determining all the songs titles and their locations with their specified opera, so I think what I'll do with this one collected Muzika file is to move it to a work page called "Songs - Selections" and list the table of contents with full information regarding each song. That way a user could simply go back to the works page and find the exact work for the opus mentioned in contents. I did find one song in this collection that couldn't be found elsewhere, and in that case I have extracted it as a unique song and will create a dedicated work page for it also leaving it among the Muzika collection. Thanks for the input, guy. Daphnis 17:23, 25 November 2007 (EST)

See here: except for some reason it doesn't appear as a page under the Sibelius main page. Not sure what I did. Daphnis 18:54, 25 November 2007 (EST)

Fixed :) --Feldmahler 08:02, 26 November 2007 (EST)

I see. I guess I shouldn't have removed the General Information section. I did so because since it would be mostly blank anyways I thought it better to leave it out all together. Mea culpa. Daphnis 10:31, 26 November 2007 (EST)

The General information template actually identifies the page as a work page, so it can really never be removed as long as the page is supposed to be a work page. On the other hand, when Leonard comes back from his hiatus perhaps he can redesign the template :) Incidentally, I'm already working on the implementation of the newly designed file template, which I hope to make online within the next month, along with file-level autotagging based on the copyright tags. Just have to iron out a few problems first. --Feldmahler 13:51, 26 November 2007 (EST)
I was thinking about that. (By the way, has it changed recently? I didn't pay much attention, but I believe it used to look slightly different not so long ago.) I think a clearer structure would be useful. For example, a separate "external links" section might be good. In fact, one thing that is missing is a place for a link to Wikipedia (which has several articles on individual compositions). I hope to have some time in December to work on it. --Leonard Vertighel (away and offline, posting telepathically) 16:20, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Suggestion to add Category: Ballet

Feldmahler, I really think this is an essential addition to the genre of pieces currently present on IMSLP. Ballet is a must-have genre and otherwise I'm not sure what would be the next best descriptive format. Am I in error, or does this currently exist? Daphnis 00:42, 9 December 2007 (EST)

The genre categories would need some cleaning up. There is a Category:Ballet with 2 elements, but it's completely orphaned, i.e. it has neither a parent category, nor any links pointing to the category page. --Leonard Vertighel 03:26, 9 December 2007 (EST)
The reason I have been so far rather resistant to adding genres is because the genre system as it is is already very broken; it is clumsy, inextensible, and wastes a lot of processing power. This is also the reason I've been pushing for the implementation of the LoC system, but unfortunately that is, of course, currently the least of our worries.
I would suggest right now to put the ballets under "symphonic dance pieces"... I am assuming here that there are not many ballets on IMSLP (and so relocating would be easy). :) --Feldmahler 10:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)

Early access for scanners

Hello. As I read in the forum, a lot of IMSLP regular scanners can't wait until the site reopens and have been scanning in the meantime. I think it would be nice if they receive early access to IMSLP before the reopening. This way they can upload their scanned pool in easy circumstances, as I expect IMSLP will be crowded in the first weeks! On the other hand, the collection of unverified files still has not been cleaned up completely. They could help in that copyright reviewing too.

You know, I was thinking the same thing. Would you mind notifying Aldona of the admin access URL? She seems to be the most interested insofar as uploading is concerned. Feel free to tell me if you find other people on the forums who would be interested in uploading, and I will consider giving them access :)

Btw, I have totally no idea any more of what's happening with IMSLP. Could you give me a concise update? Best wishes, Peter talk 13:28, 20 December 2007 (EST)

The situation is thus:
  1. Canadian front - the CIPPIC (my retainer) is currently working on the incorporation of an IMSLP foundation. Once the foundation is properly incorporated, and server transferred, IMSLP will be back online. However, CIPPIC is somewhat overloaded with work; they said that results before Christmas are likely, but that is of course not certain (and Christmas approaching).
  2. US front - Michael Hart (PG founder) has shown support for IMSLP, and a willingness to start an US branch of IMSLP (an evolution of the original US server) in a telephone conversation. In addition, Carolus will be contacting Paul Fleury to see if he would be willing to help in IMSLP incorporation in Canada, among other things (see the note I left on his talk page).
  3. International front - I just received a forwarded e-mail this morning from Richard Stallman that the Brazilian Ministry of Culture is interested in IMSLP. However Brazil's copyright length is life+70, but I have replied to them that I would be willing to host a subsection of IMSLP in Brazil if the Brazilian Ministry of Culture is willing to support IMSLP legally. This is perhaps the most uncertain of the three, but if it goes through it'd be extremely helpful (even for IMSLP in Canada). --Feldmahler 14:03, 20 December 2007 (EST)

Templates not updating

Best wishes for 2008, Feldmahler. I don't think I have to tell you what I wish you this year :))

You probably won't have time for this, but I'll just let you know so you can put it on a to-do list somewhere: the copyright autotemplates are not adapting to 2008 (e.g. Ravel work pages still get a +70 warning).

Peter talk 10:10, 3 January 2008 (EST)

I'm sorry, but I have to take my words back. The pages I was talking about used a manually entered template, not the autotemplate.--Peter talk 10:33, 3 January 2008 (EST)