IMSLP Forums

Just for reference, I think the actual diff was: http://imslp.org/index.php?title=Catego ... cid=773393
As I explained on my own talk page to Philip, I was working from a private suggestion of Nick's to have composer pages so that people could add information (like worklists, etc.) on anyone (PD or not) without being able to upload anything illegal. I think I got distracted and moved to something else, though, before actually finishing anything useful. I really should have reverted the edits; sorry about that. (I was intending to have a separate category for composers for whom there could be no works added, but we still had information on, so they wouldn't get mixed up with the main system [and then asking about it on the forums]. From the standpoint of being a library - which would in theory hold any sort of musical information rather than just scores - I still think it's not a bad idea. I think we could try to reach some sort of middle ground on it, anyway.)

Hi Kenny,

semi-protection might be a good compromise, although we do have a few long-standing contributors who have their idle moments.

I see your diff, and raise you a page deletion: voilà

I uncovered the old thread where LV and I had a good stoush about this topic, and I deliberately used a few logical fallacies to argue my case as weakly as possible. Since neither of you made a comment in it, I thought I would draw it to your attention – you might have forgotten there was a lot of disagreement about the very idea.

I think the upshot was that the non-PD template was to be of strictly limited use, and that is reflected by the proposed justification for its use (that generally it’s reserved for prolonged, multiple copy-violations cases).

Regards, PML

Hm... I know think I notice my previous forum post was a bit terse in nature Sorry PML.

You're right and I agree with 100% of what you said now that I've had dinner. It was actually a bad idea that I shouldn't have brought up at all (and I have no excuse), and I apologize for mentioning it. I see that it has caused nothing but unessesary hassle and trouble Ill stick with sortable lists.

Now Nick,

there’s no need to be quite that contrite! I did read your reply on Kenny’s talk page before it was removed (in fact, I was replying to it “more in sorrow than in anger”, when the edit conflict warning alerted me to its disappearance).

The point is not that I think I am right 100% of the time, and that when I post my usual rubbish on a thread in the forums that you are obligated to jump to attention and salute (though that would be very nice): it’s the fact that these types of pages have in the past been a contentious addition to the site, and it has taken a very long time for the consensus to gradually move to the point where the copyright violations were persistent and annoying enough to bite the bullet. (For example: here is the same idea being posted by yours truly, three years ago: linky.)

Because of that, changes were implemented on a single notorious category page (Shostakovich), and criticism expressly and repeatedly invited on this thread to thrash out any remaining issues before going ahead on any larger scale. As usual, making changes to the template has effects on multiple pages, so the invitation to modify pages is now out and abroad for Kreisler and Piazzolla as well as the two Russians. The Wikipedia maxim used to be “Be bold!” in effecting change, but the two related changes (extra info/unprotecting pages that were protected for good reasons) require a little more thought.

Since the category talk page is unprotected, perhaps the “addinfo” message that now exists could be slightly re-pointed, to suggest any extra info worthy of incorporation in the category page proper should firstly go on the talk page? That gives a means for users (even drive-by contributors) to make suggestions which if they are found to be notable, can then be properly added to the composer’s page by a sysop.

P.

In actuality, the idea was not limited to just these already existing composers. My argument is actually against the notion of not having "empty pages". Even for composers not in the public domain, I still feel it would be incredibly useful to have worklists, recording references, etc.

And yes, for potentially 100's of composers

PS: I added my original message to Kenny's page, and you can feel free to continue your post

Potentially hundreds of composers — maybe, but let’s not rush. In the other thread it was a worry that there might be tens of thousands of such empty pages. (Well, 1.35x10^4 empty pages to be precise. I thought that was hyperbolic, but you can never be too sure.)

Re: replying to your PS. It’s lost now: and was not important in the first place.

Cheers, PML

If I could put two cents in here, I also think it's not a good idea to have hundreds of empty pages, and that just the most frequently illegally uploaded would be the best option.

They aren't empty per se, they have information. What's wrong with having worklists for composers not in the public domain? It doesn't take up too much server space and they are not listed in the list of composers. In fact ,they should be listed separately so people don't unknowingly open pages that have no works in them.

Hi Musicians,
I'd like to add this link to this page.
All the best for 2014 !
Pierre

Done.

Thanks.

I have complete sets of parts (Purchased pre-Gatt) of the following works of Shostakovich:

Symphonies 1, 5, 6-11, 14

Ballet Suites 1, Piano Concerti, Festival Overture.

String parts to the following:

Symphonies 2, 4, 12

I am looking forward to the day that Shostakovich will enter the Public Domain, (unfortunately I may not be around)


Misha

You can always mail them to someone here who might be willing to scan them as well, when that time comes a ways down the road.

They have already been scanned. They are just on a hardrive, flashdrive and cloud awaiting the day they can be uploaded!!

mk.49