User talk:Icactus



Thanks for all your work with IMSLP! If you need more to do, please take a look at the contributor portal. Looks like you know your way around a wiki. Nice work with Sibley! If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page :-) Cheers -- Lndlewis10 01:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Bruno Hinze-Reinhold

Hi Icactus. I had to delete the file you uploaded of one of his arrangements - since he died in 1964, he is under copyright in most of the world (including Canada, where the main IMSLP servers are located). The particular item you submitted is PD in the US, however, making it a candidate for our server located in that country. (See here for details.) You may also wish to read this page for information on copyright law as it applies to IMSLP. Cheers, KGill talk email 02:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sibley Uploads

Hi, For some as yet unknown reason, our automated page counter does not work for items uploaded from this collection. You'll have to put page counts in manually. Also, they often have incorrect dates (or way-off estimated dates) on the things which have been posted a long time. The stuff added since about 2008-09 is much more accurate. There are also things they will mark as an arranger when it's an editor or vice-versa, and they only sporadically make mention of plate numbers, which are helpful to us with all of our publisher pages and plate number listings to help date items. Carolus 06:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC) (IMSLP Copyright Admin) PS: You are duplicating a number of files we already have, and creating pages in the Johann Christoph Bach category that are already in the Johann Christian Bach (the one active in London) category. Please check on what we already have before adding duplicates. If some work has been mis-attributed by Sibley (or by us), let me know. Carolus 06:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

With any of the non-standard Bachs (i.e. anyone other than Sebastian or CPE!) it’s essential to check dates (e.g. VIAF) if the library has been good enough to give an identification of which member of the Bach family composed it. You’ll see if you follow that link, or this one that there are a lot of composers with very similar names and dates, which is why care is needed. Thanks for the new additions – whichever members of the Bach family they’re by! Best regards, Philip @ © talk 07:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sibley Listings

Hello Icactus, Very useful tool for finding the items missing. See my remark on the forums. It might also help to find the items listed in the category Sibley Mirroring Project which are lacking the standard Sibley file-names. That way, we can avoid replacing items which have been improved in some way (like merging segments into a single file) and are already present here. Carolus 20:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be finding quite a few where there was either no link, a non-template link, etc. I wonder how many we're going to end up having to add to complete the mirror as far as possible. Very interesting. Carolus 06:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Work Pages

Unless there are compelling reasons to do otherwise (which are very rare), an opus number gets a single work page. See what I did with Faulkes' Op.113 for an example. This way, we avoid having huge numbers of work pages for a single opus or catalog number. Carolus 02:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Files for deletion template

As promised: {{DelFile|<file number>|<reason for deletion}}. See O Praise the Lord with One Consent, HWV 254 (Handel, George Frideric) for an example. It lists pages containing such files in the category Articles with files to be deleted. Carolus 02:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Titles of Works

Terms such as "Aria", "Arietta", "Canzonetta", etc. are not titles, they genres and do not go in front of a title. Moreover, you need to check and make sure if these are from a larger work like an opera before creating pages that have to be redirected. Thanks, Carolus 03:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

One pedantic thing about life+50…

… a copyright term of life plus 50 years post mortem auctoris expires at the end of the calendar year. So the author who died in 1961 doesn’t have the corresponding copyright expire at some point during 2011; their work enters the public domain on 1 January 2012. With your compilation of the Sibley list with descriptions, perhaps do you want send this in batches of 5,000 say, rather than waiting until you have all 15,000? Cheers, Philip @ © talk 08:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I sometimes think something the same but-

hope I may briefly comment on your offhand comment about the Sibley uploads you were doing without meaning an attack on you or to suggest that I was offended- or anything even related to anything of the sort! to my mind it has to do with the preservation aspect of the site and its service/library/(multi-subjective :) :) - chaff to many of us, but just the right indispensable gem to some user ) component. That's something of the area of what I'm thinking about- and the preservation aspect of a site like this (apologies for grammar unduly horrible in a native English speaker) is particularly important -- or so it seems to me when I consider that - erhrm. While the difference in fragility between a single unscanned last copy of a manuscript, and a digitized published score, is considerable, it still seems to me that helping decrease fragility is positive. (Fragility in this context being my shorthand for e.g. memories of what happened- though I don't remember exactly- to the last copies of the published, but apparently not published enough, parts of Steibelt's last concerto. No idea how good that work was, as it seems to have been lost forever.

Slowly typesetting- digression, but will get back to subject... a quartet manuscript an Italian library was good enough to scan in at its website awhile back before making its interface much harder to access-- the manuscripts there were of variable musical quality, from very high (the manuscript versions of a Martucci symphony and piano concerto- and what's more, a slightly pre-publication version in manuscript of that same concerto, with a slow introduction and some other things that don't exist in the final score, allowing a person to follow the composer's thoughts- was most pleased by that one ) - to rather lower (long list there unfortunately) - to at least interesting (some chamber music by a Salvatore Pappalardo, one of whose very difficult-to-read manuscripts I'm trying to typeset lately, a string quartet from around 1879. That's not at Sibley- though I've spent a lot of time "trolling" Sibley/UrResearch too because there really are a lot of good things there too (there's a good search feature onsite, or one can - I think - still do a google search by figuring out the right "site:" term to do it at first, then choose terms cleverly of course. but yes, a lot of chaff - but still I say- sorry about the length and especially the mental wandering of this, again- worth preserving that too. up to a point we have the space, and someone will find a use for it. (it's odd, going back to uploads one's made from several months back and seeing how many people have downloaded them. not many here, very surprisingly "does that counter work right? buggy. must be buggy." there. sort of neat that they added that counter, really. thanks for your patience.) Eric 14:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Main Page

Ah, I see you're working on the main page! Good! Hopefully yours is met with a wider fan base than mine :-) Let me know if you need any help with the editing. Cheers, Lndlewis10 23:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I like it. So much cleaner than what we had. Now how do you plan to actually get that onto the main page in Wiki format? Lndlewis10 04:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm really glad you like it! It shouldn't be too hard to do completely within the wiki - even the expand-collapse menus for the featured and recently added. I'm not the best at using the wiki for CSS but i'll fuss around with it for a bit and if i just can't get it even close there seem to be a lot of capable wikicoders around here who i'm sure can guide it into a usable form. --Icactus 04:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind: the "expand-collapse" feature is actually an extension called TreeView, which IMSLP does not currently have. Without the extension it would be impossible to implement the concept so far as I'm aware. Lndlewis10 04:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, you could technically use a collapsible table, but that probably wouldn't be advisable. I have one suggestion: I can't help but feel the main page should have some sort of music logo. Instead of the grey streaks at the top, could you maybe have grey music notes in a similar color? Something artistically musical Lndlewis10 05:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Icactus,

is it possible to make the three boxes at the bottom of the main page (Copyright, News, Associations) the same size? I think that would look better. --TobisNotenarchiv 18:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for filling in the gaps, which were actually there prior to inventing the ((sibley)) template. Maybe you could also upload Sibley files to really partake in the project. It seems like you're interesting! Lndlewis10 17:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I was originally doing that but then the majority were already uploaded so I'm actually using google strings to list all the files without proper tagging to remove them from the sibley link list. Otherwise we have no idea if a sibley link is already uploaded or not. Once that is done I'll be able to focus on uploading.--Icactus 17:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I meant "interested" not "interesting". Different meaning completely. Lndlewis10 17:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi Icactus. Just to let you know he's been moved to Willmers, Rudolf in accordance with IMSLP's naming guidelines. Cheers, KGill talk email 00:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Muffat, Gottlieb

Hi Icactus. Where are you getting the 1683 date of birth from? I found at least a couple recent sources (Grove, etc.) that give the current date that appears on the category (i.e., the 1690 baptism). Thanks, KGill talk email 00:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right. The 1683 date was from the Moszkowski 1914 anthology I'm uploading works from and I assumed it was more accurate than the "by" date. That's the only source though. --Icactus 00:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. BNE cites Grove 2001 for the baptism date (it didn't change from 1980), which I think we can assume is more accurate than something from 1914 :-) Cheers, KGill talk email 01:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way you caught that really fast. Some of you folks here don't miss a thing! --Icactus 01:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Page hierarchy divisions

Hi Icactus, I see you're at the Herculean task of splitting up the Ditson Musician's Library anthology from Sibley. For the "Selections" hierarchy division you're helpfully putting in, use four equal-signs instead of three. Thanks, Carolus 05:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi. Just to let you know that I reverted your changes because of the error they caused on the main page. Cheers-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 15:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Other Pages

I love what you're doing with the Main Page. I've been bugging Leonard and others for a while about the Community Portal, Library Portal, and other pages. Do you think that those would be in line for a makeover after the new Main page? Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 21:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was thinking. It just doesn't look so great to go from the main page to the Contributor Portal and then have these giant piles of information. I didn't mind wading through them when I first visited but I imagine there are many people who would like to get involved that are turned off by the information overload on those pages. I'm sure there's some way to reorganize the information for people. Glad you like the design! --Icactus 21:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. Also appreciated is your work on simplifying/streamlining/making more concise the text on several pages.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, now the Contributor portal is ever more prominent...:)-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 19:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

CC License Gateway

Nice work - looks much more immediately readable and understandable! Carolus 04:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I've started to see Feldmahler's tendency to repeat things and extrapolate a bit more than needed. It's endearing, but sometimes unnecessary. I'm trying to be very careful with what I remove. Glad it's still understandable after all my hacking away! --Icactus 04:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Songs and Vocal Works

Hi, It is essential that you add the author of the words and their dates (if known). For example, while Reginald De Koven (d.1920) is easily public domain worldwide, the words of his daughter Ethel Le Roy De Koven (b.1885) might not be free even in Canada if she lived past 1960 - which is certainly not impossible. It can be a real pitfall with respect to copyright. Thanks, Carolus 02:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of RoST too when I tagged those...just btw...-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 02:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a very easy trap to fall into - having caught myself doing it a number of times! Carolus 03:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi Icactus. I'm wondering where you got the dates for George Chapman. Respectfully, Emery 04:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

He was a tough one but i finally tracked him down. The date only shows up in the google search result for "Who Sang on Broadway". If you click the link for the book it no longer shows it: [[1]]
Had a similar experience with a few composers myself, e.g. Percy Hilder Miles. Seemed to take quite some time to find dates and bio, and then slowly closed in from "approximately" to "exactly" (once I found them I found several places I could have found the information much more quickly, but isn't it always so!) Eric 02:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I just spent too much time finding a Rose Fenimore Gaynor, I discovered had changed her name to Rose G. Barrett. The only way to confirm was through her copyright renewal request and her request for renewal on her mother's works (who was also a composer - Jessie Gaynor). My head was about to explode until I found those dates! --Icactus 02:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


Will upload the Spross but have been asked generally when it comes to composers who died in 1961 (e.g. Roffredo Caetani several of whose rather interesting-looking-to-me works, orchestral and chamber, are also at Sibley, and 2 of which I have uploaded to the US server, more to follow next year I say...) to wait until next year because- well, it's a year (now a half-year) away; I see the reasoning. (And as an admin I can undelete pages and then the files can be reuploaded, I think, unless someone has a reason to want the Sibley project done quickly- which is odd since it's ongoing anyway AFAIK?) Eric 02:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC) (btw despite the way this sounds - I am horrible at phrasing... - this is a thought and a what do you think? not a "this is how it must be!"...)

It's a nightmare finding dates for these librettists and songwriters so I just didn't want to have Spross's composer page deleted (since he has no works up yet) and then have someone have to go through the agony all over again to find those dates. I definitely want to get the Sibley project done quick!! Don't remind me about the ongoing part.... --Icactus 02:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Files can't be undeleted but pages, including any hard work to find dates etc., can unless there's a computer glitch or whathave, though it is true one does need to be an admin to do so (still, while others can correct me if I'm mistaken, I don't see how it's an abuse of undeletion abilities to reverse a deletion in the circumstances you describe - being duly careful that there weren't other reasons, among other things, but reasonableness and using one's judgment seem ...erm, rambling, sorry...) .

(It's a good idea to store such things on one's own machine anyway- backup, as I should have when my computer's hard drive(s) went.. .... ... erm.. never mind...) Hrm. Very long ramble on things I really quite enjoy about IMSLP and Sibley and the interaction between the two removed for reasons of babbling and length, again! :) But thanks and cheers and really do appreciate your work. Eric 03:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


Hi Icactus. Are you sure you're not oversimplifying Public domain a bit? That is IMSLP's central reference page for exact information on copyright law - we do have the Copyright Made Simple page for beginners. Here's one example among many of what I mean:

  • Original - "The work of a deceased author that is published, performed or delivered prior to July 25, 1997, will retain copyright from the date of publication (performance or delivery), plus 50 years, to the end of that calendar year. Works that were first published, performed or delivered between January 1, 1961 and July 24, 1997 are therefore protected for 50 years from the date of first publication, performance or delivery."
  • Your edit - "A posthumous work published before July 25, 1997 retains copyright from the date of publication plus 50 years."

The text now has no reference to the highly important inclusion of "performed or delivered" along with "published" - in fact, that can be just as crucial to determining copyright status as publication of a work. I appreciate your efforts to make things a bit clearer, but to be frank I am more than a little unsure about edits such as this which completely remove useful, detailed information from the only page on the site that fully documents these things. (The page is of especial use to the copyright review team.) Would you perhaps consider going a bit easier in the future, and reinstating information of this nature removed in your previous edits to the page? Thanks, KGill talk email 01:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi KGill, I've taken pains to not eliminate any information that isn't redundant or necessary. I think you just missed the large bolded section right above those posthumous statements. It's not necessary to repeat that definition on each line when it is clearly bolded above:

Any work "performed or delivered" during a composer's lifetime counts as being "published" on the date of performance.

  • Posthumous works of composers that died after July 25, 1997 are protected for the author's lifetime plus 50 years.
  • Posthumous works published before July 25, 1997 fall into three categories.
  1. A posthumous work published before July 25, 1997 retains copyright from the date of publication plus 50 years.
  2. The unpublished work of an author who died between July 25, 1947 and July 24, 1997, retains copyright until December 31, 2047.
  3. The unpublished work of an author who died before July 25, 1947 is now public domain.
  4. The unpublished work of an author who died before July 25, 1947 is now public domain.

I understand your concern and I'm not looking to cut at the cost of information. --Icactus 01:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I understand the copyright review team likes this page but it is also the landing page anytime any vistor clicks on "public domain" (even from the main page!), so it needs to be more user friendly and there is a lot of rambling writing that can be said more concisely. That's my only objective. --Icactus 01:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I did indeed miss that - sorry. Page is more disorganized than I remembered - it actually took me several minutes to locate it on the current diff for some reason ;-) I would say that the fact that this is the default linked-to page for copyright law is an issue in and of itself that needs to be fixed. The page does have serious problems of its own, but I guess we should also think about delinking it from various places of prominence if we really want to provide a usable reference for people who've never heard of this stuff before. Other than that, I'm wondering (sincere question) if you have given thought to just completely reorganizing it (as in the order and makeup of each larger section)? To be honest, my head usually ends up spinning whenever I try to find something on it, though others might not agree with me. (Especially since I'm known to have issues with visual organization...) Cheers, KGill talk email 01:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly what i was thinking when I started going through this, but I thought it would be better to have one page for the copyright team (especially the list of templates that are of no use to the average user) that you are used to and then something separate for users. The worst part for users is the giant Navigation BOX Monster that eats up the entire screen when you load the page. When I first saw that I said to myself, "forget it. this is too complicated - i don't want to break any laws and this looks complicated" - even though most of those categories have only 1 or 2 sentences under them. That's an easy fix I can do now that doesn't change content, but i think some solid restructuring of the "Simple guide" page and relinking from the main page would benefit everyone. I was just trying to familiarize myself with the substance of the page and cut through all the ramble :) to see what is actually there. --Icactus 02:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I see now what happened - Carolus edited the page after I had done so and she removed the bold line and made it a footnote, which is probably when you were looking at it. Either way it's clear now. --Icactus 02:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
That's "he," BTW...only female admins are Steltz and Aldona (well, former admin in Aldona's case), if I remember correctly...probably forgetting someone now that I've written that...-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 23:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
It's possible that the section on US copyright law could be tweaked. I'm not sure it's as specific or clear as it could be in certain spots. The US copyright office website has a good resource here if anyone is interested, although I'm sure everyone has read it judging from the incredible knowledge of the copyright team. I like what you're doing with everything, Icactus! Respectfully, Emery 01:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the current Public domain page should not be the first a contributor lands on when looking for basic information whether he can upload or download a certain score. On the new (wonderful) home page, it's even the most prominently linked page. Indeed, the public domain page has historically accumulated to a reference page containing all relevant legislation for the copyright review team - information which we would not like to loose.
I would also propose to split it up - one page with really the basics (and only links to exotics like RoST, editio princeps or urtext), and another page containing everything we know that could be of relevance. The latter could be merged with IMSLP:Copyright Reviewers and possibly also Historical publication info. But please discuss with Carolus and others first. It can be said I'm not really involved anymore. --Peter talk 21:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
It's been done already, and the link is fixed as per the old main page.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 23:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Good move - looks much better now! --Icactus 23:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


I tend to keep full names for editors (look in past entries), because they're generally less well-known, and there's more overlap with last names.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 17:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

oh, sorry i forgot to change that back. I was trying to see if it was the length of text that was affecting the formatting for the new page design or if it was the spacing of my tables. So i wanted to delete part of the featured text that wouldn't mess it up for people who happened to come by the website while i was tinkering. sorry about that!! --Icactus 17:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Cheers-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 17:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

by the way, what's your take on the fancy letter "A"? --Icactus 17:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's from Odhecaton, and I like odhecaton...
Truth be told, I'm a sucker for fancy engraving and thus the wrong person to ask. Also, I still prefer sandbox3 (something about the collapsible tables, I think) :P-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 17:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean about sandbox 3 but it wasn't well received. I'd like to move from the collapsible tables to a tabbed front page but i figured the collapsibles are easier for now. As for the A I was referring to my fancied up version (maybe you haven't seen it): [2]. It might be too much for some people but i think it makes a nice logo if people don't like the simple silver border I had before. --Icactus 17:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah...a bit much...We don't want to distract the viewer from the actual content of the page...-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 17:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Feldmahler#Buttons-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 20:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 03:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


As per Feldmahler's remark on the forums, do you want to keep your admin rights permanently and join the team? Congratulations-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be honored. Does that mean I can upload sibley files to the US server on my own? --Icactus 04:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That's something thing at a time! Ask jdeperi about that-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

sigh. some day... :) Well so what all does this mean then? Aside from being able to really mess things up badly? --Icactus 04:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Besides being able to mess things up, it means you're a representative of the site. Take that to mean what you want since there isn't a definitive definition ;) You're probably the head designer at this point :-) I honestly love your work and might want you to do something on my future Wiki -- more details later, Lndlewis10 04:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool - I guess I'll stick with "messes things up". --Icactus 04:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You can also ban users -- Lndlewis10 04:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

that's better. Hmm who should I bad today..... Don't disagree with my design or I'll ban you! Ah, but then you can probably ban me too... Tricky. I guess I'll have to promise to only use this for good. Is there a special oath or handshake or special badges? --Icactus 04:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

IMSLP:Administrators—don't forget deleting stuff, editing and moving protected pages, protecting pages, etc.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

ok so a bunch of real stuff too. that's good. --Icactus 04:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

And things on the forums.-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Handshake Image.png I hereby promise not to ban you if you don't ban me. Truce! Lndlewis10 04:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Haha, i like how you uploaded that image just for the purpose of this post. I hope that pic is public domain... --Icactus 04:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair use. I'll make sure to find a place for it :P-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This whole site is really just one guy with 5 different admin accounts isn't it... --Icactus 04:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

lol, that would be one efficient admin! Lndlewis10 04:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You makes 2 guys with 19 different admin accounts...perhaps-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
This has become a nice talk page party. Thanks for the warm welcome, but I was expecting open bar. --Icactus 04:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
You're talking to two minors...or is it one minor? Now I'm confused-- Snailey (_@/) Talk to Me Email me 04:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Confused.jpg It's very confusing! Lndlewis10 04:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe... But then who's who Question-mark.jpg Lndlewis10 04:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

See this is what happens - someone writes one or two simple things and then everyone else jumps in a adds 10000 characters and now we have this giant mess. And i'm going to have to be the one to go back through and edit it... --Icactus 04:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's probably only two people jumped in. I'd just keep it as it, all in good fun :-) Lndlewis10 04:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Main Page screenshot

Hi Icactus. Would you be willing to grant permission for a screenshot of your new design to be used as an illustration to the Wikipedia article on IMSLP? The old screenshot that was on their page was from May 2007 and it would be great to have it updated. Thanks, KGill talk email 02:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

of course, but I'll only allow it under a non-performance license :P --Icactus 02:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Haha, I'll make sure their license tags account for that ;-) Thanks! KGill talk email 02:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Please use the four-equals for this instead of the three. Thanks, Carolus 03:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't it make sense to have a tab at the top for selections? --Icactus 03:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but then you wouldn't know if the selections came from the full score, vocal score, or arrangements. Believe me, we've tried all sorts of methods before coming up with the current system, which seems to cope with most situations  :-) — P.davydov 09:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Page width/line breaks

Hi Icactus. Just wanted to alert you to this discussion in case you had any thoughts. Thanks! — P.davydov 09:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Composer categories

If you have a biography (e.g. Wikipedia link) that mentions it, please try to remember to put in the Nationality and other transferrable information before adding a work page if possible- thanks! Eric 03:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Noticed at least 5 category pages you created just recently with Wikipedia pages attached but without nationality, etc. and sometimes even without the birthdate, deathdate etc. from Wikipedia, MusicSack and other sources. Spend time. Slow down. Eric 17:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ernst Roters

Hi Icactus. Although the Library of Congress gives Roters' death year as 1961 (making him PD in Canada from 1 January next year), the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek gives 1963, which pushes this back by 2 years. His Op.12 would still be eligible for upload to the US server, as it was published in 1921, but unfortunately it will have to be deleted from the Canadian server I'm afraid. Sorry — P.davydov 18:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Percy Rideout

Hello Icactus. From his obituary in The Times, it appears that Percy Rideout died on 18 December 1956, aged 88. So Forest Studies (published 1921) can still be hosted on IMSLP, but it won't be PD in Europe for quite a while — P.davydov 19:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


Dear lcactus: I am having issues with my page:,_Op.4_%28Ferreri,_Ernesto%29

What seems to be happening is this: my revised score and parts do not consistently load; one time your site will load the new, another the old versions. I am hoping that the older version will be discarded completely, & that I have contacted the proper person to correct this problem. Thanks! User:EFerreri

RaNdOm FaCt

Jean-Philippe Rameau.jpg This excellent composer...Died of a foot infection.
Hope you enjoy this totally random fact!

Here's a random fact with a picture to go along with it! Enjoy! Benedict 07:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Publisher name, Dates

Dear Icactus, Please don't use the category brackets unless there is a publisher category already in existence (or unless you plan on adding one). We don't add these very often, usually due to the fact they it takes some research to make a halfway useful page. Information on some is quite hard to come by. Also, the French publisher Noël was actually an independent publisher who was merely Jurgenson's agent in France for a time. It's therefore not a good idea to link a French work issued by them - quite independent of Jurgenson - to Jurgenson's category page. The only case where we link to a differently-named category page is when there is a chain of succession - as with S.A. Steiner / Tobias Haslinger / Carl Haslinger, etc. Thanks, Carolus 05:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC) A reminder, unless a date is actually printed on the score (only a few publishers other than US firms did this before 1891), the indication "n.d." should appear, followed by the estimated date preceded by "ca." in parens, or the known date in square brackets (as with the HMB template for the Hofmeister Monatsbericht). Sibley has gotten much better the last couple of years about their estimated dates, but the earlier scans (like those you've been kindly adding of late) are often wildly off-date and have to be checked. Carolus 04:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The abbreviation for circa is "ca.", not "c.a." You must have an autofill feature active :) Carolus 05:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Meurerer, Concerto

Dear Icactus, I am wondering why thi clarinet clarinet work is called "Concerto", when the title page says "Concertstück". Thanks, Steltz 05:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

fixed. Thanks for catching that. Icactus 06:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Ha. I missed it too! Guess it would help if I actually looked at more scores - but I'm getting square-eyes now as it is. Carolus 06:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


Is "Schwencke" in Johann Friedrich Schwencke a typo? Sibley has Schwenke, VIAF and MusicSack have Schwenke- I can't access the arrangement score itself to see if it has the extra "c" which might explain things :)... Thanks! Eric 16:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Erm, never mind, I stand corrected. 30 hits for one, 5710 for the other (Schwencke) on Google- I will go with the majority :) :) :) (and yes, viaf does have Schwencke- I misread my screen. Eep.)

date of first publication

Taking for example I Will Magnify Thee, O God (Mosenthal, Joseph), the score says published 1864, copyright renewed 1892 - the date of first publication would be 1864 if not earlier. Eric 04:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(Also, if there is no date of publication on the score, then even if Sibley says 1912, don't write 1912- maybe write n.d.(1912) or something- preferably look into the date first - but always write the n.d. - thanks! :) Eric 16:59, 7 March 2012 (EST)

Summer's Eve

The score (by John David Davis) has opus 50 on it - moved it accordingly Eric 15:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


N.d. means no (copyright) date- in the case of the de Koven Indian Love Song, there was a date you may have missed at the bottom of the first page ("copyright 1891"), so n.d. was not necessary. Also, baritone and tenor are not "high voice", so the instrumentation should be voice, piano , since instrumentation always includes all authorized alternatives. Always look over a score carefully when possible- there's no rush. Eric 11:02, 18 March 2012 (EDT) (there can be a stamp date, as with Library of Congress and French National Library scores, that establishes that the score arrived at the National Library for registration or something else (depending on the laws of the period, etc.) probably soon after publication- but sometimes the stamp is early the next year, as with HMB dates :) In any case, it's pretty standard to not use that in place of a copyright date, I think, but to use n.d.(...) if that's the only date available and no copyright date or equivalent can be found. Some dates on the score are more probably composition dates, though, so it can get complicated... and on some scores one sees the birthdate of the composer, even, next to the composer's name, instead of either. :D )