Identifing editions; new template

[Funper]

I thought it would be good if we created a template for identifying the edition of individual scores.. like requests.

[Peter]

I thought it would be good if we created a template for identifying the edition of individual scores.. like requests.

can you give more information about what you mean? it seems a bit cryptic to me.

[Funper]

Forget the template... Something else that would work better with the tag-system that we use now: Now we have a lot of scores (ca. 4600) that are "Checked", but they are still not identified. Probably the only thing we know from those scores are that the engraving is old, hence they must be public domain. Although those scores could remain just "Checked" (since judging from their engraving, they are obviously PD) but then, we do not endeavor ourselves to actually identify the edition and fill out missing information. We have over 4600 small "holes" in IMSLP, a huge number that is actually kind of worrying. Therefore, I suggest that we keep our "Checked" tag, maybe for "low priority" scores, but that we then also should introduce a new one, "Pending [for identification]" or "Needs identification" (the latter would be of choice then, for non-admins). This way, we could fill out the missing info and we would also encurage other non-admin users to do so (since now they can't possibly care less when unidentified scores are tagged "Checked").

Unencrypted.

[Carolus]

I definitely see your point, Funper. One of the problems is that IMSLP has grown so rapidly that it's very difficult to keep up with the identification process. I almost wish there were a way to make the publisher info required, but the downside is that it would prevent lots of things being posted that were from CDSM and similar sources - who are absolutely terrible about not identifying things. I've run into a few files where it's an actual pastiche of different editions.

Broude, Kalmus, Lucks and other reprint houses are also bad about not identifying their sources. Dover is considerably better, but at times even they elect to be vague to avoid being pestered by lawyers. Part of this is a USA thing because you can sue anyone here for any reason whatever without having to pay the court costs and attorney fees for the person you elect to sue should you lose. Thus, even though there is no doubt that the Gutheil edition of Rachmaninov's Symphony No. 2 is public domain in the US, it would not prevent Rachmaninov's grandson Alexander from making a ridiculous claim against a Kalmus or Dover, wich would cost them many thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend themselves against.

Hopefully, as more and more info is added about publishers, plate numbers, collected editions, and the like, this issue will gradually subside and the vast majority of works here will be verified. BTW, when I identify a particular file that lacks any publication information by checking it with various references, I enter the publisher info in italics to desginate that this citation is an educated guess and maybe 98% certain. C.G. Röder engraved many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pages of music from the 1860s through the 1940s, often multiple editions of the same works. Identifying the works of different German publishers can be well-nigh impossible by examining engraving style alone.

[imslp]

I also see Funper's point, but I'm not sure how to coordinate non-admins identifying the publisher and admins tagging it reviewed (or else the tag would not be so useful since admins do not know when a score has been identified, unless the recent changes list is always followed). I'll put this on my to-do list. Currently I have very little time left for programming (after doing other IMSLP maintenance stuff)... but will try to clean up what I can from the to-do list in August...