Jump to content

Talk:International Music Score Library Project

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deleted? No!

[edit]

So, why is this page going to be deleted? OK, i found the deletion discussion. gaclbusiness 2007-04-09 12:14

Untitled

[edit]

The following article may be of interest:

--Leonard Vertighel 22:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, agknowledged that in the "External Links" section --Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EU server

[edit]

In this edit, User:SummerWithMorons inserted "by anyone" into the phrase "be downloaded legally by anyone, even if they are under copyright in the US." and then added the Template:Clarifyme. This strikes me as odd, as there was no need for clarification before that insertion. If SummerWithMorons wants it to be clarified how copyright restrictions outside the EU are maintained when accessing the EU server, a look at the disclaimer there will do that. Similar disclaimers are part of the overall operation of IMSLP proper (see Rachmaninoff: The Bells), so there's no surprise there.

I suggest to revert that edit. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I removed it myself without seeing this discussion first. I agree that it is pretty much an unnecessary phrase; I don't really see what wasn't clear about the sentence to begin with. Cheers, KGill talk email 23:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Removing the "official" from this statement since it implies an endorsement from the Institute as a whole (which it has not received) and not an inclusion in the list of great sites for music research. I love IMSLP and recommend it in each of the classes I teach there, but that doesn't constitute an official endorsement from the institute as a whole. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC) (Associate Professor of Music, MIT)[reply]

IMSLP as a reliable source in Wikipedia?

[edit]

Hi editors, do you consider the IMSLP library to be a reliable source for the purpose of citations about published compositions within Wikipedia articles? Tayste (edits) 03:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International Music Score Library Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Lebrecht's excellent article (reference No.3)

[edit]

Who the hell changed it into a nasty commercial page? Coulonnus 10:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coulonnus (talk • contribs)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on International Music Score Library Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent removal of criticism from the lead

[edit]

The following (cited) sentence has been in the lead for more than half a year:

According to Norman Lebrecht, the change was met with a "rising surge of anger amongst composers and musicians".

Norman Lebrecht is a very well-known commentator who runs one of the most popular classical news websites. Somebody, perhaps related to IMSLP, keeps trying to remove this from the lead. He or she has been asked many times to discuss this on the talk page before making these changes, but has refused to do so. His or her reasoning for removing the sentence is that there are some comments in the article that support the IMSLP paywall. Of course, Wikipedia cannot use a few social media comments as a reliable source. Is this editor able to gain consensus for the deletions on the talk page? I suggest he or she attempt to engage in discussion here instead of repeatedly making the edit. 94.119.64.105 (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the facts of the subscription is already laid out in the lead. Why do people need to be told what their opinion is? Why can't they form their own opinion after reading the facts? It sounds like you are the one trying to force your opinion on others by using Lebrecht. Your changes violate WP:NPOV.
I'm not removing Lebrecht's criticism. I'm just not elevating his words to an undeserved importance. And before you start name-calling me a vandal, remember that you are the one who first reverted my move.
You may also want to read the "Criticism" section of Lebrecht's wiki page.
Thank you. --38.122.252.178 (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your comment has a pretty big lie by omission - for more than half a year the lead read:
According to Norman Lebrecht, the change was met with a "rising surge of anger amongst composers and musicians", whereas comments to Lebrecht's article were mostly in favor of the change.
Now that's a much better NPOV statement and I'm fine with it in the lead, but you specifically removed one side of the equation. Frankly your change should have been reverted for violating WP:NPOV. --38.122.252.178 (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining your point of view. Let me be clear, though. Consensus occurs between different people. You need to post on the talk page and gather some kind of feeling between different users. It does not mean you keep on making your changes to the article when there is no wider support from them. I hope you understand this.
Thanks for making my argument for me. You were the one who removed the balancing half of the sentence without any consensus, after it has been around for more than half a year (and then tried to use that argument for your own purposes conveniently ignoring your removal of half the sentence).
Do you know what is meant by 'NPOV'? It means a 'neutral point of view'. It means accurately representing sources. Lebrecht's source was accurately represented: it conveyed the feelings of musicians he had interviewed. It is unrealistic for us to be able to use the comments of readers, even if they happen to favour your point of view. We focus on conveying reliable sources. NPOV does not mean thinking up good arguments for each side, but reliably reflecting sources.
So were the comments to his article which directly contradict his statement in the article. Who did he interview, did he say? No he didn't. It was an entirely unsupported statement. How did he know the anger was "rising" and not "falling" or "flat"? Did he interview them over the course of months? No he didn't, because he wrote it a few days after the thing happened. How you can call him a reliable source is entirely beyond me.
The passage existed as early as last year [1]. Upon inspection, it turns out that it was you who decide to include reader's comments [2]. I hope you know now this is not an acceptable source.
This is a deceptive argument. The subscription model was introduced December 26, 2015, that sentence was added December 30, 2015 and amended January 20, 2016. Hardly the "half year" that you are trying to argue it has existed. In fact, it has existed in its amended form for more than half a year, so I'll send that argument right back at you. Please note that you have a tendency to leave out important things when stating your version of the facts.
As I have already said, keep discussion on this page and seek input from other users. If there is sufficient consensus that changes should be made, we can make them. For the time being, the status quo (having the source in the lead) stays. 94.119.66.43 (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks for making my argument for me. The sentence was just fine as it was for more than half a year, and then you decided, without any consensus, to not only remove half of the sentence but also remove other facts that were useful and positive in describing the subscriptions (e.g. the number of years composer subscriptions lasted). Great work being NPOV. --38.122.252.178 (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about it stays in the lead with more detail, see my edit. 2601:182:C904:998:D86F:1D86:41D8:102 (talk) 00:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, just alerted the editors. They should be here soon to adjudicate. 2601:182:C904:998:D86F:1D86:41D8:102 (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced at all that readers' comments to an online article are appropriate to use as a reliable source. Opinions? 94.119.64.42 (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to include the comments of readers (which does not seem right at all to me), should we also include the heavy criticism found here coming from IMSLP contributors? 94.119.65.142 (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have asked the experts at WP:RSN to review this. A thread is there should you wish to comment. 94.119.64.7 (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

simple solution, not so sure.

24.108.16.137 (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International Music Score Library Project. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

I'm making an edit request to update a piece of info: IMSLP no longer has advertisements on the site. (I am making this request because I am one of the administrators of IMSLP.) D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: Do you have any sourcing for the change? It would make things a bit more convenient! PK650 (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe we have an announcement of this, but perhaps it would be possible to cite a snapshot of the homepage? D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ PK650 - this is now mentioned on the site: https://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Membership_Q%26A . D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The website is dead, the pretruccilibrary.org Myrealnamm (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Music_Score_Library_Project&oldid=1199638249"