User talk:Lurchi


Ausserlesener Paduanen und Galliarden, Erster Theil (Various)

Hallo, die Seite wurde verschoben, wie im Forum gewünscht. Ist das so ok? Gruß, Hobbypianist 20:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hallo, das gefällt mir gut. Danke auch für das entsprechende Umbenennen des "Ander Theil"!

Wo ich schon mal grad einen Experten am Wickel habe... ;-) Sehe ich es richtig, daß man |Editor={{LinkED|... nur bei den einzelnen Dateien angeben kann, nicht unter Work info? (Irgendwie nich so praktisch...) Oder irre ich mich da? <hoff>

Auf jeden Fall vielen Dank für die Verschiebung. Grüße von Ulrich Alpers 21:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeder Hochladevorgang (ein File hinzufügen oder mehrere gleichzeitig) erzeugt einen Dateieintrag {{#fte:imslpfile ....}}. Und für jeden dieser Einträge kann man ein "|Editor={{LinkED|.." angeben. Das bewirkt dann eben, daß dann bei jedem Eintrag "Herausgeber: ... erscheint. Einmal angeben für das Werk an sich geht nicht, denn es kann ja sein, daß verschiedene Ausgaben / Partituren auf derselben Werkseite hochgeladen werden und dann sind das ja in der Regel unterschiedliche Herausgeber... Gruß, Hobbypianist 21:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


Hello Ulrich. While we appreciate your contributions to IMSLP, we would ask you to respect our guidelines concerning the layout and content of pages. There are three points in particular that you should note:

  • The headings used on pages are designed to be automatically read by our system cataloguing software, and their levels and wording must not be altered, as you've done on this page, for example.
  • It is not acceptable to put duplicate files with excerpts on pages where complete scores already exist, such as this and this. It is our policy to remove any such duplicated files.
  • For the convenience of our users we cannot have pages with hundreds of files for each part and each movement, for example this page. We will try to help you to combine these fragments into complete scores if you're unable to do so yourself.

Following these guidelines will aid the smooth transfer of your works from WIMA, and ensure that they are properly catalogued by our system. Regards — P.davydov 23:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

1. reply

Hi P.davydov,

  • regarding point 1: I am sorry, but I don't get the point. I presume the levels and wording are not carved in stone just after they have been entered for the first time - so what? When I come to the decision that another ordering, wording or arrangement of levels is more logical or in another way better than the previous, I expect from the system cataloguing software that it will smoothly generate a new system catalog. Maybe then someone will find that decision somehow "suboptimal" and tells me, then I may change the decision and the ordering, wording etc subsequently. Do you really want to tell me that the software has a problem with that?
  • Regarding point 2: Yeah, "not acceptable" is exactly what I love being greeted with ;-)
    But seriously: "Not acceptable" for whom? The policy can be read where? From several years of experience with publishing scores like these I know that there are users who like to download the whole thing and others who like to pick single pieces. Which of them do you prefer to serve? Or are you afraid IMSLP could run out of disk space?
  • Regarding point 3: "For the convenience of our users"... Funny, I have never heard about any complaints from WIMA users that there are too many files and that they are forced to work their way through hundreds of entries. Okay, a large number of entries is in fact unconvenient - for me as a contributor and for anyone who wants to edit the page. But definitely not for the users who are trying to get some music.
    "We will try to help you to combine these fragments..." While I am not really happy with the term "fragments" I appreciate the offer to make them into a complete edition. The Capella sources can be downloaded here... Just kidding ;-) - I am planning to do that myself in the (more or less) near future.
    But as I said above - there are many users who like to pick single pieces. Sorry, this kind of music is a little bit different from the symphonies and concertos of later centuries and has to be treated a bit differently. And newly typeset pieces are a different matter from cover-to-cover scanned editions. And I expect from IMSLP the flexibility to acknowledge that.

BTW - having read all the announcements and forum discussions about the transfer of WIMA contributions it must have evaded my attention that there was any prerequisite like reworking scores to fit into IMSLP. And yes, there were more "multi file" contributions to come.

For the moment I feel impelled to suspend my participation in the transfer of WIMA to IMSLP as well as my further contribution to IMSLP.

Regards, lurchi 08:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

2. reply

Hi all,

Christian has informed me about some discussion going on among admins about the issues I raised in my remarks above. The bigger part of the discussions (at least as Christian has forwarded them to me) dealt with the header issue. While I have to confess I don't understand all problems presented, I do not see a need for more discussion, especially after having read the helpful Score submission guide. No more questions, Your Honor :-)

Unfortunately I didn't get very much information on any discussion about my other points ("redundance" and number of files), which are far more important for me and had led to my decision to suspend my participation temporarily (what else should I have done, given that what I contributed was "not acceptable", at least for P. Davydov?). May I guess that the problem of multi-file contributions is mainly a procedural problem and that P. Davydov meant "administrative user convenience"? While it is essential for me to be able to contribute works with a large number of files (and with "redundance"), and while it would be simply impossible to rework the existent WIMA scores before transferring them, I would like to ease the administrative task of copyright review etc as much as possible. Would it be useful to e.g. restrict the number of files uploaded/transferred at once? At WIMA we had such a policy.

I would like to continue the transfer of my WIMA stuff (and my contribution of new scores) as soon as possible, but as there are more multi-file and "redundant"-content files to come, I want to be sure the issue is settled, before I waste your (and my) time.

Kind regards, lurchi 19:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Ulrich. Thanks for your reply, and I hope we can come to a solution that will suit everyone. Having a large number of small PDF files causes us (the administrators) a lot of problems, not least because they each have to be individually checked and approved for copyright. At an average of 30 seconds to check and approve each file, it took more than two hours to copyright review the page where you had 288 small files, and the fact that 280 of these were extracts from the other 8 was a cause of no little frustration to myself and others :-) I apologise if that tone came through in my earlier message.
If there is a way of consolidating numerous PDF files into a smaller number of larger files, then the issue would be resolved. While there are times with very large files where it's helpful to break them down into smaller sections to download, with typset scores the PDF files are normally so small that this is rarely an issue. If you need any technical assistance in merging the files then we have lots of contributors who can help with that task. Would this proposal be acceptable to you? — P.davydov 21:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry to have created frustration to anybody by uploading my scores. My apologies for that! Fortunately I now know how to avoid similar problems and will in the future confine myself to uploading not more than max. 10 or 20 files at once. lurchi 19:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the multi-file and "redundance" issue there is one more thing to consider: As I recently have learnt from Christian, it is technically required that the files are transfered without subsequent alteration, because on successful transfer a redirect will be created on the WIMA page automagically that leads the WIMA users to the corresponding IMSLP page, and I hope you'll agree that these links should not be broken... lurchi 07:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Treble part in vocal tenor clef

.... Is somewhat misleading. There are a number of clefs used for tenor parts, though today the octave treble clef is most common. I therefore changed it to (Treble in octave treble clef). BTW, the house style here is not use a space after abbreviations like "No." I'm leaving it as is (since I actually like the space myself). Don't be surprised if an admin changes them all someday. Hopefully, we'll eventually come up with a cataloging system for all those works! Best Wishes, Carolus 23:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC) (IMSLP Admin)

Rest von polnischen und andern Täntzen

Dear Ulrich, Since there are so many pieces on this page, I am thinking about doing a re-organization of the files on it. The option I am considering (I will be discussing with p.davydov) would involve two large columns of files - one for the scores where the treble part uses the regular treble clef and the other for those where the octave treble clef is used. Once you are finished with today's uploads, please do not upload any additional files to this page until I have discussed this issue and posted an update here about which course of action should be taken. Thanks, Carolus 23:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Carolus, thank you very much for all your efforts. Have you already come to a solution with P.Davydov? I would like to upload the remaining 11 pieces to get the collection completed. Greetings, Ulrich. lurchi 17:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the recent server problems prevented us from doing anything. But having looked again, I'd recommend that you upload the remaining files, and then we'll look at re-organising the layout afterwards — P.davydov 17:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Ulrich, Yes, our server issues have prevented me from taking the time to deal with this. At any rate, now that things seem to be stable again, I agree with P.davydov that you can go ahead and finish your upload. We'll work out the organization afterwards. Thanks, Carolus 05:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)