User talk:Melodia/To May 2008

Hi. --Bloodstained Agar 6 July 2005 12:44 (UTC)

Unusual articles

Hi. If you think that 4'33 and As Slow As Possible should be removed, could you please explain why on the discussion page? Though there are some articles on that list that probably shouldn't be there, these two seem unusual enough. Also, the Britannica rule isn't official. Just because they have an article on the subject doesn't mean its not unusual. Thanks. 71.31.145.41 01:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incubus (demon) rewrite

See what you think. :) Dlohcierekim 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, like night and day. Thumbs way up :) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi, thanks for the note. I'm not sure I entirely understand your request about adding references "all at once". AFAIK editors are not obliged to follow such a policy. For one thing, it's not very practicable. The page in question is a particularly unwieldy one to edit (and is already heavily referenced as it is). On the other hand, I apologise for not leaving a summary of my contributions in the edit history. I'll try to ensure that future contributions I make will contain references to the composers to whom I am adding citations. I added footnotes to Tchaikovksy, Massenet, Charpentier and Monteverdi (if I remember correctly). If you need the sequence in which I added them, I'll try to work it out. Thanks --Folantin 12:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why we shouldn't add the references one at a time. When I added my 30-odd inline cits I cited composer by composer; it clears your brain and (the big reason) minimizes the risk of any edit conflicts. I agree that it's nice to use edit summaries, however. Apologies for shoving my oar in here. Moreschi 15:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll look at the bottom of User_talk:Hjkgk you'll note someone mentioning about refrain ing from clogging up the history. Using the preview feature can help, so you can see the changes -- you can even add an {{inuse}} tag to help prevent edit conflicts. But yeah, at the very least use edit summaries if you're going to insist on adding them seperate. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your remarks

I am very aware of what you are pointing out, and agree that in the sources that you used here, that is the way things look. What I am saying however is that there are other sources which portray this situation in a very different way. These sources were suggested and then dismissed, but they do exist and should be taken into account. Women have been major opera composers and they have had significant influence on the way opera has been created in specific periods (oddly, during the French Revolution--an entire book has been written on this and also, without doubt, today). I'm not saying that the list should be 50/50 or even 70/30, but to not have even one woman on this page is simply wrong and dishonest.

I appreciate your well-balanced comments on the page of List of compositions for harp. I fail to see why this information should not be allowed on wikipedia because of this personal conflict. This is becoming an outright Witchhunt. Jean-Thierry Boisseau 14:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harp composers

Thanks for the Talifferre catch. I'm worried about that article: It may well be that I'm removing composers that shoul d be there, but without ability to know, what can I do but take a best guess, try and fix it at University tomorrow? Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Melodia, You seem to know her works. I stumbled upon this when looking at a link Dybyrd posted. Please tell me the compositions by Tailleferre they sell are also notable? Because they've listed them all. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alas I don't know her much beyong that she was a member of Les Six, and the fact I own her harp concerto (or concertino, or whatever). I'd heard of the harp sonata (and it's been recorded plenty of times -- arkivmusic.com lists 8 CDs), however, so I assumed, perhaps falsely, the others were worth adding being they were written by her, a noted harp composer. If I'm wrong, feel free to remove those two. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username

The other user was blocked indef as our username policy disallows usernames that are too similar to existing ones. pschemp | talk 20:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oboe da caccia

Not everyone edits in the same way. Badagnani 17:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CVG discussion regarding A Link to the Past

Please do not re-add the info on the RFC to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games page as that is not the right forum for that. If ALttP wants to file and RfC, he can do so, but trying to "rally the troops" against someone on a project talk page is not the correct forum for doing anything with RfCs. Again, please do not re-add that to the page. Continuing to do so will be considered disruptive. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For pointing out the problem wiht SmackBot, it's extremely odd, as I haven't even looked at that AfD. I'm woncering if it may even be a server side problem. Rich Farmbrough 00:42 2 December 2006 (UTC).

Seems to have been due to this wikimedia problem. Rich Farmbrough, 22:45 2 December 2006 (GMT).

EL Question

I was wondering if you know whether or not external links to sites just to download mods, maps, etc. for a game are appropriate? I can't seem to figure it out... Look at Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos for an example. Thanks! Bgold4 03:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sites like that probably aren't a good thing. Again I point to WP:EL which is the guideline (not official policy) -- but also to WP:NOT which IS the policy, that Wikipedia isn't a link farm. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I don't know how I screwed up that revert on Bass Clarinet, thanks for catching it.--Xiahou 01:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's the basis of Wikipedia, really :) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cocky response.

Re your response to my MAME page edit.

Your sarcastic response was uncalled for. Please familiarize yourself with the wikipedia ethics pages.

Thanks. Snowbound 05:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know them well enough. My edit summary was pretty tame, and in fact, not sarcastic at all. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I may not be completely clued in on what constitutes an OS or not (although one could argue that XBMC is one, which in turn can run MAME) but your somewhat snide response was not neccessary. I would direct you towards this link. Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith Unless you're assuming my edit was vandalism? Snowbound 02:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Audio CD

Thank you for taking the time to research and reference the facts in the Super Audio CD article. As long as facts are well-researched, and as long as changes are not being reverted without fruitful discussion on the talk page, we will be able to make this a better, more neutral, better referenced, and all-around more encyclopedic article together. Samboy 05:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

According to WP:REDIRECT, this, sort of edit is inadvisable. You might like to avoid that in the future. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 13:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew that little rule, but it says not to do it unless also updating the page otherwise, it seems, not to not do it at all. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Server load sends my mind into a whirl, so I just go with WP:PERF. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film Music WikiProject

Thanks for your interest in the Film Music WikiProject. I have created the project here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film Music _SUBWAYguy 04:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seiken Densetsu

Hi, just though you'd be interested to know the move debate for Seiken Densetsu is still on going on here. Feel free to come and share your opinion! The Kinslayer 13:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Instruments WikiProject

I noticed your sig on a few of the musical instruments pages, so I wanted to invite you to join the Musical Instruments WikiProject. Please swing by and dig in! We need as many folks helping out as possible! - NDCompuGeek 14:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite ^_^ ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parlour music

The author has published at least two books, as is easily verifiable on Amazon (ISBN-10: 0199214743 and ISBN-13: 978-0199214747). See my reply on the talk page for Parlour music. Hyacinth 02:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help

I appreciate the clarification that you gave me on the ANI discussion. It would seem that all of this is conflict which began a long time ago. I am wondering if you could ask someone to have a look at the La bonne d'enfant article that I created today and see if I need to improve anything. Thank you again. Gretab 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not too big on opera (though I do like Offenbach). The reasons I was on that page at all stem from something that happened three months earlier, and don't have the expertise or whatever to say much. Looks like an ok stub though, from first glance, if you really want my opinion. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 17:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Debate in the WikiProject Dragon Quest

Hello, since you're interested in video games articles, I thought I'd inform you of a debate currently taking place in the WikiProject Dragon Quest. It is about whether we should use the name Slime MoriMori Dragon Quest or Dragon Quest Heroes for the slime spin-off series of the franchise. There are currently not enough people involved to actually reach a clear consensus, so you are invited to read the discussion (or have a look, if it's too long) here and here and give your opinion on the question. Thank you! Kariteh 08:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most random message you've seen in some time

¤@"%#&! The pretty little ♫s around your name make it entirely too difficult to disagree with you when I think that you're wrong! --Kizor 02:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. :P ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Music Categories

Continuing our discussion at WP:CM.

The problem here is that we have two WikiProjects doing classical music - WikiProject Classical music and WikiProject Opera. This led to a re-categorisation of classical compositions that separates Compositions by composer and Operas by composer. This necessarily requires that big composers like Beethoven need to appear in both to make it easy for users to browse through similar articles. But as you and I know, Beethoven only wrote one opera so his category page in opera will be very small, but necessary to standardise the sub-categorisation.

Centy 19:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine that surely a catagory with ONE link would be deleted pretty quickly (and the link put back into the other one), with perfectly good justifacation. I for one don't care /too/ much on this issue, but I'm just saying what would happen more than what 'should' be. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 21:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSINST Newsletter!

Hello. This is just a friendly reminder that the Musical Instruments WikiProject has released their current newsletter. Please spread the word about the newsletter, our project, and the work we are performing.

You are receiving this notification because you are listed as a member of the Musical Instruments WikiProject. Opt-in and Opt-out delivery notifications are currently undergoing discussions. Please contribute to expand these options.

For the WP:MUSINST newsletter - NDCompuGeek 19:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LoliWikipe-tan

If you read the discussion on the Lolicon talk page, you will see that the image was created specifically for the Lolicon page, and that there was a specific request for the new LoliWikipe-tan to be preadolescent. The previous image (still there) was described as "too old". Other images on the page are linked to the pages they were created for. Why did you characterize my edit as "vandal-esque", remove the link, and add the word "older", claiming this is more neutral? -Jmh123 02:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

quoted from Lolicon talk:

The old image is more of an adolescent.Lolicon is about little girls.In other words,the new image is ,better from a purely editorial point of view.--87.64.23.34 03:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC) The current image does depict a little girl. However, due to the nature of the genre, the character has some features that are more indicative of adolescence (i.e., wide hips). Lolicon appears to cover both realistic and glamorized underage girls, but the "underage" part is common. Choosing one over the other is a matter of personal preference. Including both would demonstrate the variety of styles present in the genre. --Merovingian ※ Talk 04:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

-Jmh123 02:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the discussion, and know what it was created for. That doesn't mean, however, that the caption needs to nessesary reflect it on the Wikipe-tan page. The fact is the image depicts an older version, it's simply obvious just by looking at it. And if you notice my exact edit and summary, what I called vandel-esque was the trivia section inserted by an IP (especially telling was the mention of the 'fanfic' which was really a vandalism of Jimbo's page, and was quite explicit) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I didn't see the intervening edit. I've been called some unflattering things today and I jumped too quickly, thinking "vandalesque" was meant for me. I'm really sorry. My description was intended to be neutral, however. It isn't obvious to me that the image is older. Older than what? Is pre-adolescent old? She looks about 8 in that pic, about the same as the others to me. She has the protruding tummy that little girls often have, and no breasts. Older to me is the one who is a sex service gal. I don't watch anime, so I don't have the same perspective as those who do, so maybe to y'all it is obvious. It just bugs me that folks fought so hard to get that image on the page, and now it seems as if they want to pretend it isn't what it is. It's an older man's fantasy of a little girl seducing him.

I have seen the Jimmy Wales fan fic. I thought it was funny. Earlier today I was going to suggest a Wikipe-tan-Jimmy Wales illustration for the pornography article (not seriously). -Jmh123 03:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Where is this rumored Wikipetan hentai? Any hints to where to find it? --129.241.214.41 14:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: MESS; Final Fantasy character classes; Final Fantasy VII Snowboarding; Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles; List of music video television programs; Noriko Matsueda; Yoshinori Kitase; Enix; Junya Nakano; List of Final Fantasy titles; Uwe Flade; Sabre Dance; Music video director; FWAK; Alpha Mission; Soprano clarinet; Erotic fantasy; CPS-1; Mega Man (series)

Cleanup: Top Gear (video game); Andrea Chénier; List of Final Fantasy VI locations
Merge: Tales of Legendia; Grind (gaming); Lamia (mythology)
Add Sources: Hironobu Sakaguchi; Jason Todd; Aki Ross
Wikify: Réminiscences de Don Juan; Pietro Mascagni; My Summer of Love
Expand: Project64; Suikoden II; Yasuyuki Kase

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 15:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retro-Fitting

Hello, Regarding the FSM page, can the thumbs be given a reduction choice to perhaps make them smaller or can images be adjusted by size in any way? The odd default bookending of the top text actually looks striking and doesn't interfere with the important "formatting", the proceeding catalog grid of releases. Also, how did the image at the bottom interfere with any formatting issues? Those images are genuine logos from the FSM compact discs. Is there anything wrong with using them? And, regarding your statement: and don't seem to support fair use to what I know of it. Support fair use of what? If it comes off as an advertisement, that's not the purpose. A logo is an art design used to represent a company. I'd say posting it is in fair representation of FSM CD achievements and their label name. However, can you figure an alternative artistic arrangement of the images that would be appreciated. And again, I like that dafault happenstance look is rather interesting (not horrid), but I was hoping the image would be small like the FSM logo is. I didn't expect the page to default like that (in must be IBM based code) The pink note requesting that the page be divided is an eyesore though, can that be removed? Anyway nice to know you like film scores.

-Cheers DeviantMan

Well ok. Maybe your browser showed it differently, but the images REALLY messed up the table -- I'm using Firefox at full screen, 1024x728. As for fair use, well you might want to read up at WP:FU, as it explains it far better than I, but the basics is that "decoration" isn't allowed for copyrighted images. The one of FSM's logo is fine, but the amount of images should be limited. If they ARE allowed (which they might be, running it by someone more experienced with me might help), I believe you can shrink them using (xxx)pix between the template and file name, look at the help for more details. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Wanting to blank ALL discussion"

Hi, you said here:

You might want to read the objections again -- they are in response to Tony's want to blank ALL inactive discussion, not trim down big pages.

I have never suggested this, although I have several times been misrepresented as saying so. What I said on 25 July was in response to this lunacy from User:Milomedes:

A week or so back, someone said the page was too long and reset the archiving bot from 8 to 6 days. I noticed the page soon got too short.

"There would be no harm adding it back" There is a problem. If the discussion really is winding down then auto-archiving could eventually result in a blank page, unless the archiving time is made progressively longer to match the wind-down, ultimately returning to manual archiving.

My response, verbatim, written the same day, was:

If there's no more ongoing discussion, a blank page is the desired state, The archives are perfectly accessible for someone who wants to read the old discussions.

The term no ongoing discussion seems to have been utterly ignored, and Nydas has succeeded in falsely representing me as wishing to remove all discussion prematurely from the page. This despite my never archiving any ongoing discussion, never setting a bot to archive an ongoing discussion, never supporting the archiving of an ongoing discussion by another editor, and never objecting to the restoration with the the clear intention of continuing an archived discussion.

This very serious misrepresentation and denigration is the reason why I have left the discussion.

I have correctly pointed out that the only case of a person complaining about archiving an ongoing discussion was when someone (not I) carried out manual archiving after Nydas stopped the automatic archiver. Nevertheless this complaint has repeatedly been abused as an excuse to stop any archiving, even automatic archiving.

I object strongly to the discussion page being abused as a battlefield in this way. We who use the page have a reasonable expectation that older discussions will be archived so that the page will not become ridiculously large, I have made reasonable provisions for this. In addition, I have instituted an indexing bot that makes all archived pages easily available to all. Even that has been removed. This is pure thuggery on Nydas' part. I will not be subjected to that and I'm shocked that others stand by and let him do this. --Tony Sidaway 04:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a postscript, the effects of the war on archiving are clear. See here. The page size has grown from 85kb to a ridiculous 179,382 bytes in less than two weeks. That is absolute lunacy when we're actually seeing editors unarchiving discussions that have been dead for over nine days, with no intention of continuing them, on a page that has grown quite ridiculously large. --Tony Sidaway 04:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

I don't know why you bothered to post all that here, because I agree that Nydas's actions were inexcusable, and between his actions there and on a couple other places I've seen, I've been tempted to put an arbcon request myself.

But a blank page is not "the desired state" for most people, which is what I was saying. Most of us like to have the discussion 'right there', which is what I was talking about in my post. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 10:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Debussy copyright

True, but if the pianist has released a recording onto CD then someone else uploads that recording onto Youtube, it's a copyright violation. I don't think that's the case with the Youtube recording I removed though. The playing is technically very good and it sounds like the pianist has a lot of potential. However the recording quality is poor and the piano sounds as if the hammers are worn - it has a very harsh tone particularly on the higher notes. Also 83.131.192.241 has been promoting that pianist to a number of articles on the composer which is linkspam. Graham87 11:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I'm just posting a comment to say hi, mostly because we share a big common interest: video game soundtracks. Video game music is one of my all-time favorite genres, mostly the music from the Super Smash Brothers series. So, yeah. Telemachus Claudius Rhade 20:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Sonata

I don't see where it is confirmed. Those references do not say it is for the PS3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.212.204 (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look toward the end of the article - there are Famitsu scans (links to http://www.jeux-france.com/images0_4_21765.html), and many game sites are reporting it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over the Hedge

Hello,

ALTTP has informed me that you were previously discussing the article Over the Hedge (Nintendo DS). A merge discussion is currently on-going for this article. If you would like to add this this discussion, please see Talk:Over the Hedge (Nintendo DS). - RedWordSmith 04:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Anderson

"Baroque era?" He wasn't that old.

Q: Why was Leroy Anderson forced to do that gig with the Boston Pops?

A: Because the rent was due and he was baroque. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ave Maria disambiguating

Hi, I just noticed you undid edit I'd done on the Saint-Saëns page. (I redid it before I noticed that you had undone it, so I wasn't trying to be difficult!) I was wondering what your reasoning is. I've been disambiguating "Ave Maria", and my thinking was that it doesn't help to go to a disambig page if there's no direct link there for the thing in question. What do you think? Auntof6 18:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a useful link to point to what it refers to, IMO, since it's a pretty common thing in music. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Sibelius

Thanks for your advice:) (Addaick 12:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Milomedes

I note that you have experienced issues with serial incivility, tendentious editing, trolling and other abuses from the owner of the above account. Please note my recent comments on the subject here. It is my intention to seek the application of an indefinite block on the account in the near future. Would you be willing to support such a request? --Gene_poole 00:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think my comments on ANI that he was so kind to link to (and apparently responded to there far after it was archived) shows how I feel. I will grant I've made a couple PAs at him, and even admitted such, but, as I said, it just makes my head spin, and I cannot be the only one. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The account has been used to actively troll and attack me almost continuously since March. This same pattern of behaviour seems to be common to all other "disagreements" the account has been used to propagate. I think it's time we all stopped the Mr Nice-guy routine and simply have the account blocked by an admin. --Gene_poole 03:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current fiction

Is it disruptive to tag articles with the {{current fiction}} tag after an administrator says there is a consensus in favor of it? I'm confused. --Pixelface 13:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMSLP

Links removed in good faith - feel free to revert. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Good faith - have done TWINKLE roolback in respect of the links I am able to. The remainder

will need cearful manual reinstatment by someone experienced. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Prodigal Son (Sullivan)

You changed the article's name, but you did not move the links. Please click on "what links here" and correct the links. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ave Maria

Hey there. I did check the edit history, but it still doesn't really make sense. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to help users find articles, not to explain the topic. The lines I removed link to articles which do not mention the Ave Maria compositions at all. This is a standard rule of thumb for inclusion on a dab page. If we need an article such as Ave Maria (musical composition), or something like that, in order to list all the composers who have written settings, then so be it, but the dab page shouldn't contain links to articles which do not address the topic. What do you think? SlackerMom (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not a disambig page by name, so I think it works fine as all in one shot. But if you think that strongly, whatever. I don't care too much. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you knew it was a disambiguation page before you started editing it (according to your comments at Talk:Ave Maria). Naming conventions encourage dab pages not to carry the (disambiguation) qualifier if no main article exists. That doesn't mean they should be treated as hybrid article/dab pages. I've reverted your reversion (since you don't care too much), but would love to see you develop an article addressing the musical interpretations of the Ave Maria. That would keep all that content from being lost. SlackerMom (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't these links be in quotation marks? I'm trying to follow MOS:TITLE, and am considering "Ave Maria" to be the title of the song, or shorter work. Is that incorrect? SlackerMom (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tell me. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like you have a lot more knowledge than I do about music, so when I noticed that you edited out the quotation marks, I though maybe you knew something I don't (quite likely) about the way these works are normally referred to. I think they should be in quotation marks, according to the guidelines at MOS:TITLE#Quotation marks. Would you mind reading that section to see if I'm right? It seems that longer works or orchestral works need to be in italics, and shorter works or songs should be in quotation marks. Do you know enough about these pieces to classify them one way or the other? SlackerMom (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, they seemed unnessesary, as the article titles work fine. If they are /alone/, without the disambig part attached to it, I could see using the quote marks (though this might not quite be true for something like Ave Maria anyway), but the piping just to add quote marks is silly, IMO. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MOSDAB#Piping, exception #3. It's not a question of whether the article titles "work fine". It's a question of proper style, and also of consistency on this page, since there are several other works listed here as well. Adding quotes to some and not others may be appropriate depending on the nature/classification of the work, but every entry here needs to be either in italics or quotations, since they are all musical works. "Piping just to add quote marks" is not "silly", but is considered proper if the title itself deems quotation marks. Piping just to italicize is also proper, if that's what the title requires. I'm not asking whether you think there should be piping. I'm asking you (based on your music knowledge) whether you know if these works should be in italics OR quotation marks, because they need to be one or the other. If you don't know, or don't care, that's fine. I'll proceed to classify them to the best of my knowledge. SlackerMom (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a Canon addition that is actually verifiable

[1] - I can confirm this is true, by Windowsmedia.com listing him there.Will ^(talk) 01:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the TSO has many tracks based on classical, so if there's any canon one that is ok to be there, that one is. :P ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the way I checked was scrolling to "J" on my iPod. Weirdly, Christmas Canon was listed there, but not CCR :/. I don't think I can forgive them for Wish Liszt though - it's worse than my Liszterine joke... sheesh. Will ^(talk) 02:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual articles

I removed fox tossing, because once you get past the juxtaposition, it really isn't funny any more (unlike, say, dwarf tossing). Same deal as soap made from human corpses. Feezo (Talk) 14:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not about only things are are humorous, just that many of them are. I would actually put the soap thing back, if it were only up to me, but I'm not about to start an issue over THAT particular article because of the potential issues about it. In this case, well I just figured it fit, but leaving it on or off serves me no problem. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slowdown

I was harassed by two IPs in my talk page for removing their input about the slowdown in the FFT: War of the Lions article. I ask: is there a way to address this? — Bl ue 。 13:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, yeah, definetly some bad faith assuming and potential person attacks there. He/they don't seem to understand that the basic rule is not "if it's true, it can go" but rather "if it's something that could be challenged, it must be sourced". I'm trying to avoid most conflict, especially silly stuff like this, I alas have no opinions on where to go from here. Not quite sure this is something to take to WP:ANI or not, but finding an admin and asking to help might work... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted an admin to see if he can help. At least two IPs attacked me, calling me an elitist, hypocrite, downgrading my comments and edits and insisted on "truth" than verifiability. I would like to see the Youtube link removed, too. We haven't the need for any in other Final Fantasy articles, why should there be one now? Can you help out regarding the issue? — Bl ue 。 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piano society forums

Yes, it's a great idea. Raul654 (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haydn Symphonies

Hi Melodia, how are things? In answer to this query, I assert that every symphony of Haydn's is notable on two grounds: 1) H.C. Robbins Landon has authored various works that provides sources and material for every symphony. 2) A JSTOR (or google scholar) search will return scholarly material on every symphony by Joseph Haydn. If you have access to JSTOR, you can link directly to the articles in question and see what I mean. Inherited notability is completely out of the question. If, as it happens, there were no independent scholarly discussion of Symphony 52, then I would argue it certainly does not merit an individual article. However, a quick Google Scholar session will quickly disabuse one of any notion one might have that musicologists have left the field of Haydn symphonic endeavour unexplored. Indeed, if there is a problem with our coverage of the Haydn symphonies it is not one of notability but rather that the rich German material that exists on the corpus is unlikely anytime soon to be referenced in the article series. This lacuna is sorely to be regretted for a project with encyclopedic aspirations.

That said, I am not an involved figure in this quasi-project. I suggested a basic template form but I personally have bothered to provide individual articles only for a handful of those Haydn's symphonies that I personally feel warrant articles. This, however, is because I personally believe in a higher - much higher - encyclopedic standard than that established at WP:MUSIC. Indeed, I authored or revised those that I thought notable, e.g. 6 for the unusual patronage of the early set (and 7 and 8 deserve articles as well, not sure if they have been written, although a 6-7-8 article would be as good), 22 for the innovative scoring and variance of the da chiesa style, as with 26 fothe painsong allusion and unusual context, and 59 (musically much less notable) for the unusual provenance and association with the Feuer-play; not one of those articles would fail an AfD I suspect. Similarly, if a television episode has demonstrable real-world impact, backed up by reliable sources and the article can aspire to more than simply a lengthy plot summary, then I have no problem with it. That, however, is rarely the case and certainly not the basis for the disputatious attitudinising of the tedious Pixieface, who has, I suspect, not bothered exploring the source material & scholarly depth for individual Haydn symphonies but instead made a tenuous assumption (perhaps understandably) that such a long string of works was unlikely to have received extensive individual attention. I have to admit, it never even occurred to me to justify individual Symphony articles based on the # of recordings. Sorry for such a wordy reply. Eusebeus (talk) 19:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you may be right about 52. I am going to take a minute or two and see if I can dig up anything of note on the symphony. Eusebeus (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My main point in my comment was simply that Haydn's symphonies aren't inherently notable individually simply because they are by Haydn. The basic issue is that so much is being culled in the name of "it's popular culture, so it's bad" where as something like Haydn's 52nd (which as I said was really the first number that popped into my head) isn't particularly notable EITHER, outside the fact Haydn wrote it -- but consider the hundreds of compositions he wrote, and you'll see the larger issue here. I for one, really DON'T see an issue with having them...hell I'd love to see more articles on individual pieces myself. But I think things should at least be applied fairly all around. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, notability is absolutely not inherited. Considered individually, a symphony by Haydn is not necessarily more notable than one composed by Vanhal, if there is nothing distinguishing the work outside its authorship. However, my point is that notability for each of his symphonies (considered individually) has already been asserted in the secondary literature. Your choice of #52, however, was a challenge. I own it is only marginally notable. I have done a total rewrite and welcome any thoughts you may have: Symphony No. 52 (Haydn). Eusebeus (talk) 21:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of popular songs based on classical music

No hard feelings - it is full of OR... Will ^(talk) 16:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contact me if you need help getting it back into a good form. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am so glad that this article has been 'userfied' to you. I have found it useful in the past and it would have been a shame if it disappeared completely. If I find any sources for songs on the list I will let you know. Ozzieboy (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, please do. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of popular songs based on classical music (2nd nomination)

I left a rather confusing note for you as the closing administrator of this recent debate. To clarify: You mentioned that you had a userfied "copy" of the contents of this now deleted article. That's perfectly fine, but we need to arrive at that differently. Your "copy" only contains one edit, yours. The article however, contained contributions (in small edits) of several editors, aka the history. Per our GFDL license, that history needs to be kept if this is going to become an article again sometime in the future. So, long story short, here's what I need from you: What is the name of your usersubpage that contains the article's contents? I need to delete it (as "housekeeping"), and then immediately replace it with the "userfied" version of the existing article. Please reply here or on my talkpage. Thanks! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just to muddy the waters even more :) I just found your subpage and replaced it with the exact same subpage, only with the history intact. I hope this isn't too confusing. Please ask if you have any questions about this. Verdict? There's nothing you hafta do (except improve the referencing of the article :). Let me know when you want me to review it. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I kinda messed up and forgot to take away the AFD template, and I totally forgot about the fact of the GFDL. It's kinda confusing sometimes, I've never done the userfy thing before, so...yeah. Thank you for it. As I said, I might when I'm inclined to care more (heh) go through and try to find stuff. I know I can find some stuff, but there's a lot. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. I noticed that there are 676 distinct edits to the page, a large portion of them garbage and then removal of said garbage. But someone built that page, so I would say go through the history, and find the editors that actually contributed useful information. Hit em up on their respective talkpages to see where they got their info, maybe they have a source? (besides "I just know it", of course). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Hi Melodia, I noticed that you haven't yet edited User:Melodia/List of popular songs based on classical music, which I userfied for you 2 months ago after closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of popular songs based on classical music. Are you still planning on revisiting that particular list, or shall I delete it? If I haven't heard back from you in 3-5 days, I will likely delete the userfied copy of the list. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, go ahead and delete it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Audiosurf Page

Thanks for moving and improving my mention of Audiosurf Radio. I wasn't sure of the best place for it, but I like it in the Gameplay section ^^ --Brainninja (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I had to think about a good place for it, but I think what I wrote fits, especially since it didn't seem to include what is one of the main draws of the game anywhere else on the page. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]