User talk:Feldmahler/archive6


Stephen Adams (or Michael Maybrick?)

Hello there again :) I have finally finished exams and have lots of spare time to dedicate to IMSLP. I've started uploading scores again, and I've also started transferring scores from mutopia to IMSLP (added it as a "project" under Community Portal ).

Anyway, the reason I am leaving you this note is because I have doubts concerning a composer. There is this one composer who is called Stephen Adams (1841-1913), and although I can't find any sufficient biography (i.e. wikipedia or other source), I suddenly found out that he is also known under the name Michale Maybrick. In fact, that's his real name, and Stephen Adams was just a music nickname (much like Warlock). I am not sure if I should list him as Adams or Maybrick. However, I created an Adams page, and I was thinking if you could create a Michael Maybrick page which would link to the Stephen Adams page, or vice-versa. I don't know how to do this, that's why I am asking you :)

Anyway, take care! I hope your courses are the conservatory are going great :D Buhbye! ~ jujimufu 17:38, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I've created the redirect page. Don't forget to attribute Mutopia! It may be a good idea to put a link directly to the corresponding page in the submission. Also, sorry to pour cold water on your project, but it may be a good idea to temporarily halt the project and check the copyright compatibility between Mutopia and IMSLP before progressing... it is always a good idea to be safe :)
And its summer vacation here so there aren't any courses ;) Thanks for the concern though! --Feldmahler 18:10, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

P.S. Err... I forgot to mention that Creative Commons files are fine, as long as the copyright is tagged correctly :) The others will have to wait for me to review the license...

By the way, I think a clearer distinction between licensing of music on the one hand and licensing of scores of PD music on the other hand would be good. I'm not even sure that it is clear to all users that in the case of PD music, the license terms have no influence at all on their rights to perform the music, etc.
On a related note, why not exclude the NC and ND clauses in the case of PD music? In my opinion, this amounts more to a protection of labour than of creativity (thought I won't deny that there may be some creativity in typesetting, but this is not comparable to composing IMHO). The Mutopia and CPDL licenses do allow commercial use and derivatives... --Leonard Vertighel 18:31, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
To be absolutely truthful, pure re-typesetting of music has no copyright whatsoever, so Creative Commons or whatever other license the file is supposedly licensed under has no effect (the file is public domain). What can be copyrighted are editions; i.e. significant alteration of the original works.
However, to prove the public domain-ness would involve either knowledge of that particular edition (as Carolus most often does in cases of paper publications), or a note-by-note comparison between the re-typeset and the original edition, to prove that no significant alteration took place. Because of the extreme tediousness of this (you have to first find the score, and then compare it note by note), I just assume that non-paper-published re-typesets are new "editions", and contain copyright.
This would mean that the performance of such an edition would also be restricted according to the copyright assigned by the "editor". I don't really see a way around this unfortunately (unless someone is willing to track down the original publication and compare them note by note) :/ --Feldmahler2 18:40, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
And is it good to encourage this practice by admitting NC/ND-licensed scores of PD music on IMSLP? To be quite explicit: I'm not talking about copyrighted music here. --Leonard Vertighel 18:43, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Absolutely not. But the problem is that this has not yet happened insofar that I know, so I haven't had the opportunity of dealing with it (and hence nothing has been done in this regard). But I *will* get around to it :) --Feldmahler 18:52, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Uh, I was under the impression that all material from WIMA was NC, or has everything that was uploaded to IMSLP been relicensed? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding something, I've never been very good at legal stuff... --Leonard Vertighel 18:57, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Wow... I never really noticed this. Their licensing terms are VERY unclear; on one hand they say it is not for commercial usage, and goes on to list a bunch of publication-related forbidden stuff, but concludes at the end with "the right to print the music does not automatically imply the right for public performance; that right is regulated by applicable copyright legislation", which seems to be an (almost) explicit wavier of any performance right. I'm going to think about this more; WIMA already has issues (consent needed for posting in other web archives), so this may be the straw that breaks the camel's back and gets WIMA scores banned from IMSLP. --Feldmahler2 19:11, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
No need to ban them altogether - just make it a requirement to contact the author and get an explicit agreement to relicense the score e.g. under cc-by or cc-sa, prior to uploading to IMSLP. Clean solution, and nobody gets hurt... what do you think? --Leonard Vertighel 19:18, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
That is fine... just that I'm not sure how many contributors will actually do this, even if admins notified the submitter. I'm also rather weary of increasing the load on the copyright review process (which is already pretty heavy), so I may just extend the Speedy Deletion criteria to include all WIMA scores without explicitly written complete set of permissions. But I'm going to think a bit more about this... as IMSLP grows, we will either have to increase the number of adminstrators/copyright reviewers, or shift the burden of proof of copyright to the submitters... or maybe both. I'll have to think more about this... --Feldmahler 19:23, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't want to be a pain in the neck, but I think the question should be dealt with (we can take it to the forums if needed): Not only do we have several items from WIMA with rather unclear license status, but also Carolus appears to be actively encouraging users to put their typesets under NC licenses [1] [2]. From what you said above, it seems to me that there are two possible scenarios: 1) the license is bogus, or 2) usage of the scores for performances etc. is severely restricted. I think that both are bad and should be avoided. While I do have some understanding for allowing NC licensed contemporary music, I strongly disagree with having non-free scores of PD music. --Leonard Vertighel 11:26, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure it wasn't Carolus' intention to specifically promote non-commercial licenses, but rather suggest alternatives to the "public domain" (which does allow commercial usage) default license that the submission form comes with, and which I assume is what the original submissions Carolus was referring to are supposed to be licensed under (upon submission).
Indeed I've since then have had a few thoughts about this issue... but I think it is better to first move this discussion to the forums, since not only is it probably going to get pretty long, but also I want other people to weigh in on this issue too :) --Feldmahler 14:40, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia article

I was thinking about adding the infobox template to our Wikipedia article, like e.g. in the article on Wikipedia. However I'm not sure what to put as "author" and "owner" (required fields). --Leonard Vertighel 18:20, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmm... for "owner", you can put "IMSLP contributors" (if that is allowed?), since there is no official organization set up yet (I'm working on it... problem is that it ironically costs lots of $$$ to register a non-profit organization in Canada, and there is so much paperwork [which I guess is the main problem]... but I'll try to get something done over the next year or so). For "creator", you can put "Feldmahler" (I have a very broken user page on Wikipedia... maybe you can link to it?). I really need to fix up my user page (on Wikipedia I mean)... :) --Feldmahler 18:28, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
"IMSLP contributors" (or "") should be fine. Linking to user pages in Wikipedia articles is not usually accepted. I'll just put the username without link for now, if you agree. --Leonard Vertighel 18:33, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
I do agree :) --Feldmahler2 18:40, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Look how professional we are. (Feldmahler2? I thought there was only one Feldmahler...) --Leonard Vertighel 18:44, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
You see... the volume of my edits were too large for the software to handle on one account, so I had to distribute them across two accounts ;) (just kidding of course) And that looks professional indeed :) --Feldmahler 18:52, 22 May 2007 (EDT)


A very minor issue, but if I'm not mistaken it should also be easy to change: I think it would be better to redirect (301) to Currently each page appears under two separate URLs, one with and one without 'www'. --Leonard Vertighel 12:16, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmm... I'll put that on my todo list and check the Apache docs. Should be easy to do :) --Feldmahler 17:50, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
This could be a solution (section "Canonical Hostnames"). By the way, it would also be very good to either disable the "Printable version" entirely (since it seems pretty useless on IMSLP, and moreover a printable version is generated automatically whenever you print a page), or at least add <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" /> in the head part of the HTML code, so that they are no longer indexed by Google. I have come across those pages on Google several times, and they are very bad entry points to IMSLP (no navigation available). --Leonard Vertighel 04:17, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
Discussion moved to the forums: :) --Feldmahler 13:18, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Schumann Composition List

Hi boss, I build Schumann's opus list. It's based on wikipedia and completed with information of other pages. Check it out to see if you are ok. I started linking all the works. Will continue later. Take care. nachoBA

Great! :) --Feldmahler 12:05, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Well boss, it's done. Could you please add to the main page where it says 'List of Compositions by Robert Schumann by Opus Number'? So it's clear that it's ordered by opus number. There some uploaded works which no opus number. Cheers. nachoBA

Done :) --Feldmahler 17:52, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Portuguese (BR) Translation

Hi, thanks for your help. I already began the translation, i'll contact you for further help. I already finished the main page and the goals page.

--R. Prins 11:44, 26 May 2007 (EDT)


Why have you removed the #ifeqs? --Leonard Vertighel 15:57, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Mainly for simplicity and the preservation of the same format across different pages (makes it feel like it is tabbed, which I thought was nice). I also didn't think having the current language in it is too bad... you can re-add the #ifeq's if you don't agree :) --Feldmahler 16:01, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
Hmm... I'll leave it to you, but who is ever going to tab through the different languages? And what's the use of having the current language in it? IMHO it's just visual clutter... --Leonard Vertighel 16:09, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
You do have a point. If you want you can try readding #ifeq's, though it is not going to be easy; you may have to do #ifeq on even the <br> tag to accommodate different languages (hope you don't have to but I don't know since I haven't tried)... I would do it myself except I'm working on another feature of IMSLP (integration of upload into the submission form).
Btw, be sure to use <!-- --> to format the template to a slightly human-readable format ;) --Feldmahler 16:22, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
Bah, who cares about humans... just kidding, I have left the <!-- --> in place. No need to #ifeq the <br /> (though that would certainly be fun ;)) since with the centered alignment it is visually more pleasing if the two lines do not have the same length (second line shorter is better). I have also fixed the distances in the CSS to better accomodate the second line. Before starting a third line we'll probably have to find a completely different solution, but I think we still have some time to think about it... --Leonard Vertighel 17:09, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Submission errors

Feldmahler, yes I have had several of these file not exist errors. I noticed it usually happens when I upload several files in a row and create pages for them. Uploading isn't a problem, only when it comes to posting the page with the file name do I get the error. I haven't been able to trace it to a file name length or certain character combination, but in any case, I would have to navigate away from the page (not just refresh or wait it out) and start again to get it to accept the file name. And I'm using Firefox v2.0.0.3 as my browser...the only browser one should use imho :) Daphnis 13:37, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Merge 2 works together

Feldmahler, can you merge the two Debussy pages: and: They're the same work as you may see. thanks. Daphnis 19:38, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Will do so right now. Thanks for notifying me! --Feldmahler 14:40, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

File1923 Template

Hi, I noticed that scores aren't directly linked in this template. The user has to browse through a directory to find the score, which is not as effective as it could be. --Funper 14:42, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

And it is this way for legal purposes :) --Feldmahler 14:51, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't get it. Would it be illegal for international users to download US files through a Canadian server? --Funper 15:53, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes it would. The very existence of the file on the Canadian server is theoretically illegal. Also, directly linking to the file (even if on the US server) *may* have legal issues; I know of some similar cases in the US. So there is really no point in risking this. Of course, linking to a site on the US server which then links to the file should be fine (or else the internet would break down). --Feldmahler 15:55, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
In that case, it wouldn't make any difference to atleast link to the composer folder in the US server (e.g. Directory Listing of /files/Liszt, Franz/). or am I wrong? :) --Funper 18:56, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
The answer to that question is: it is too much trouble, and rather inflexible :) I'm planning to rework the US server so that you can enter the IMSLP number, and it will give you the file. Which will fit much better into the grand scheme of things :) --Feldmahler 21:06, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
Now THAT is inflexible since nobody remembers IMSLP#. We are not amused. If it is to much work (linking to directories) maybe the links should be added manually. --Funper 14:49, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
They'll learn soon enough to remember the IMSLP # ;) What's a library without call numbers... hehe. But seriously, they could just hit the back button in their browser and find the IMSLP #. --Feldmahler 15:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Or when redirected to the US server, the IMSLP# search has already been made and you can choose the file. A search box (or whatever you planning it to be) could be placed above the page. But this would be so much easier if the link would directlt go to the directory, directory, directory. --Funper 15:08, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Directory is also not ideal because once the new image storage system hits (in a few months), all the file names will be MD5 hashes of the file. Which means that you can know nothing just by looking at the file name. So give up, you know you can't change my mind now that my mind is set ;) --Feldmahler 15:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Directory, directory, directory... hypnosis haha! But could it be like this, when pressing the link, the file is already on the page, i.e. search already made and the result is already on the page? --Funper 15:15, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Probably not, but we'll see. Compared to the rewrite of the entire IMSLP indexing system this is just a drop in the ocean, so we can worry about it later. If you want to discuss this further, open a forum thread... we are wasting way too much space discussing this on this talk page :) --Feldmahler 15:22, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
This is no waste! This is about flexibility issues, which is very important since it's YOUR site and your users (which are here to share/download scores, not to hackle with search bars and directories). I won't take this further in the forum, I think we'll leave it here, maybe till your new file system comes to work. --Funper 15:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
By "waste of space", I mean server space. This is the same reason I asked you to split the Liszt list; wikis are very ill suited for thread-like discussion, which is why I always encourage people to use the forums whenever possible. It was not a commentary on the importance of the topic at hand. In fact, I always wondered why the talk pages in a wiki can't just be a forum thread... guess the MediaWiki devs are too busy doing other things.
Anyway, since I'm already editing this, I'll add that there is one real reason why I have made downloading from the US server slightly hard. And that would be that nobody can say that users could be tricked into downloading from the US server without their explicit knowledge that the files are on the US server. If the link took the user directly to the file, one can argue that the some users won't think twice about downloading it; but if the link didn't take the user directly to the file but rather forced the user to input something, the user is forced to think twice, and thus is far less likely to accidentally download the file without knowing the conditions (especially since that server looks so different from the wiki). This is as a safeguard for possible issues that may rise in a court case, should one come to happen (which I hope will not). Yes it is a minor inconvenience for the users, but I believe the advantages outweigh this disadvantage; there is no point in catering for the users if in doing so IMSLP would be sued to oblivion... especially over such a small inconvenience.
If you want to reply to this, just start a thread in the forums, so that we can minimize the amount of edits to this page (which will get big soon again I'm sure). --Feldmahler 01:18, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Cui: Preludes - consolidate pages

Feldmahler, could you also have a look at the Cui page and combine all those preludes into one record. They naturally represent the same composition and there should be no need for separate pages for half of the preludes. Thanks. Daphnis 13:56, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the heads up... I'll look into it. Funny thing is that I don't even remember breaking up Goldberg's submission... in any case, its going to be rather hard, just because putting them all on one page is way too many (the limit for work pages is 15 entries, anything more and it gets extremely hard to navigate and edit), whereas I cannot put Goldberg's submission of the entire set on any of the lesser pages. Splitting up a set of preludes/fugues is not unheard of if there are too many pieces (for example, the Bach preludes/fugues), because they do get quite long, and putting them on one page will make the page too long and be hard to navigate, especially when there are multiple editions. I do agree with you that it would be nice if they could be on the same page, but for practical reasons that may not be possible :/
One way out of this is if you would be willing to help me split Goldberg's submission into 4 sections (6 preludes each) and submit them to the main prelude page, in which case I can simply delete the other two pages that I created. The original reason I split up the file is because it is rather large, but splitting it on 4 should be fine. :) In fact, this may be done for others as well (ex. Bach Preludes/Fugues), but I currently rather busy with IMSLP coding (notice the speedup in page loading? :D), so I cannot do it myself. --Feldmahler 14:43, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Would there be a problem if we simply deleted the work pages that didn't contain the complete set? It is cumbersome to have individual files for each prelude, plus I myself prefer to have all in a single PDF. I could, depending on how the PDF was authored and how the images themselves were created, take the single PDF comprising all the preludes and reduce its size by making compatible with acrobat 7 or even 6. Daphnis 21:10, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

Actually, there's an extremely easy way to split files: see here :) I'd say it may be even easier and faster than Acrobat itself. About just deleting the files... there are two reasons why the file is split up into chunks as of currently (even though a little too many):
  1. Even though you won't mind downloading the 13MB file, it may be a big chore for other people on lesser connections (for example, dialup), especially since the image server is quite slow anyway (even with a fast connection the download is not very fast). The ideal file size on IMSLP is between 1MB and 6MB. Even though that is not always possible, it is a good measure of when a file is too large or small (small files are also not ideal because they clutter up the interface and make finding stuff difficult).
  2. There is also the server-side consideration in that as of current IMSLP already sucks up 50GB of bandwidth per day (and rising fast); most of this bandwidth is in large files. Therefore, I'd like to have files of a size that is not too big, so that people don't end up downloading stuff that they don't actually want along with the stuff that they are looking for. :) This is why I'm fine with having both unsplit and split files on IMSLP of the same scan (if the scan is large enough to warrant it); it gives the user a choice, and makes things easier for the server too.
  3. There are, however, a few things that should be avoided at any cost:
    1. Purely page-number-based splitting is bad under all circumstances.
    2. Decreasing the image quality to save space is greatly discouraged, unless the original file is huge and non-monochrome (monochrome images should be allowed at any size).
I hope I've cleared things up? :) --Feldmahler 06:09, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Scores by time period.

O.K., it's nice that you announced me of your revert. Yet, why should works last more or even be first published after the composer's death? Are we talking of posthumously published works here or is it the feedback the opera (opus-es) receive even after the composer has passed away? I'm sure that IMSLP can work just fine with or without my edit, but still 20th century can't be early in 2000, for Christ's sake! Don't you think I also thought of it when I decided to replace them timeline? Even with posthumous works (but I'm afraid this is one of my rather foolish euphemisms), there should be research in order to find out the year manuscripts date from and that would be the year of the work. How about writing of some Cage or Berio work that any of them wrote in the sixties? You say that's an innocent work from the begining of the 20th century? I say you think it twice or maybe it was me who missed your arguments. Impy4ever 15:19, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Actually, I didn't notice you changed anything other than the links. Though I'd agree with you about the 2000 issue, and have changed that part back :) --Feldmahler 15:35, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

So, we were talking of different things - now I see your point. And sorry that I hasted to change without caring too much for the links. You are right, so we both are fine now. I just thought that the 2000 issue was on your mind, because the links were not visible at that level, hrmpf. Sorry again but at least we are both content at this moment. :) Impy4ever 15:41, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

"Index lookup failure, please contact Feldmahler."

Verifying IMSLP #01135 (Toccatas for Organ, BWV 564-566 (Bach, Johann Sebastian)) gave this error. Cheers Peter talk 04:59, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

Fixed :) It was due to the ampersand. --Feldmahler 05:37, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
Now I can click on "edit" but on the tagging page the same error is back after clicking on "submit"... --Peter talk 06:17, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
Same with #2465, 3368.
Should be fixed now. Did I ever tell you how much I hate Apache and ampersands? ;) --Feldmahler 07:07, 2 June 2007 (EDT)