Talk:Melee

message: The problem with this article is that it does not include the BY FAR most common usage of melee, which is a noun for a disorganized struggle where there never was any idea of discipline, like a barroom brawl or shoppers christmas shopping.
The article focuses on a "can-be-a-verb" form such as a military usage where troops go from being disciplined to undisciplined, or online gaming where players melee. OK, these are fine usages. But usually you will see in an ordinary newspaper that a melee broke out in ordinary life.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.107.130 (talk) 13:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  modern usages of melee 

message: :First, melee combat is not always "disorganized". Whoever wrote that is biased to some degree. Sometimes orginization can be used to create efficiency.
:
:Two, how do you pronouce it? I've always heard it 
:
:May-lay
:
:but the title suggest's it's
:
:Me-lé
:
:
:
:Shadow Blade 05:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always heard it as "May-lay," and alternatively spelled simply melee without accented marks. And I agree, saying that melee is "disorganized" or "confused" is biased. IronCrow 02:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two things

message: at editing the first part of this article.  While an excellent effort, it appeared that the author was writing it more from a gaming perspective.  I left the 2nd half - on mêlée in gaming terms - alone as I have little experience with it.
To my thinking, the key in defining a mêlée is that any kind of plan to fight as a unit has gone out the window and the fighting has degenerated into a mass of single combats.  I've attempted to say that a little better in the article.  Anyone who can neaten it up is welcome to.
I removed the 'weapons used in a mêlée' as, again, they appeared to refer to gaming terms only as a group of tanks fighting in a mêlée aren't going to be using swords.
Removed Mano-a-mano reference as the phrase means more like 'one on on.'  While the direct translation is 'hand to hand', it is a colloquialism in Spanish that is closer to the English phrase 'one-on-one' or 'single combat'.  As a mêlée involves a group, it doesn't really apply.
--63.89.65.98 13:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I took a stab

message: The article implies the term w/o accents is used to refer to specific (copyrighted) games and companies.  The actual reality is that, like most accented works, "melee" is commonly used in English with no accents at all, and that the use of the term w/ accents is at all usual and certain not unusual enough to distinguish it for specific meanings.  While is it right and proper for an encyclopedic entity like Wikipedia to use the proper accented form, it should be noted that that general society is not nearly so observant in the use of accents. Pimlottc 16:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this is so right and proper.  As an English word, "melee" has no accent marks.  See this.  --Doradus 03:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree also, this should be under the English word.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Are saying the article is supposed to reflect laziness-caused misspellings, rather than getting things right? -- Stormwatch (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they're saying that this is English-wikipedia and there are no accents in English words, so why should the article reflect otherwise. --Novaprospekt (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melee (with no accents) 

message: Actually it is, the gaming isn't real life - it's a game.  I've made a minor adjustment to the article to reflect that.
--Lepeu1999 16:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This isn't real life melee! ... 

message: I know only about gaming, and this teached me a lot about a real melee, BUT... Dunno if it is only in gaming...
divided into two sides, fighting in a free-for-all
Everytime I see (in games) free-for-all it is translated as 'everyone for himself', meaning there are no teams, each one trying to kill everyone else to survive, having no friends nor enemies... Divided by two sides is obviously teaming... Unless they start up at two sides but not as teams thus making the two groups melee in themselves and then engaging the survivors of the other group or something like that or that it is not free-for-all as I understand (seeking the last man standing)... So I got really confused... Or maybe it's jsut missing an OR... I have no idea... 201.72.158.157 00:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that quote was from the part of the article dealing with the Melee in a midieval tournament and its use in that context differs slightly from its current use as well as its current 'gaming' use.  Midieval tournament melee might have been a free-for-all last man standing wins event or it may have been a team event - it depended on who was organizing the tournament.--Lepeu1999 19:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two sides - Free-for-all 

message: Melee is a surname originating from Britain.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.207 (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surname "Melee" 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: No move. No consensus that other uses challenge this one as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Cúchullain t/c 13:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: * Two of the subjects on the disambiguation page which could be referred to simply as "melee" have either equal or more views than the currently-established primary topic. The disambiguation page only gets 1/10 the views of the current primary topic, but Melee weapon gets about the same amount as the current primary topic, and Super Smash Bros. Melee gets about 5-6 times the amount of views as the currently-established primary topic. (With that reasoning, I could argue that the the term should redirect to the aforementioned video game subject's article, but since video games aren't famous worldwide, I wouldn't even support it being the primary, but the fact that it gets so many views essentially invalidates the current primary.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Page views are irrelevant. Only historical significance and origin matter. This is the primary and original topic. The others are fripperies. Would the video be called just "melee"? No, it would not. Would a "melee weapon" be called just "melee"? No, it would not. The primary topic of the word is this meaning. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, the word should have precedence over other terms. However, the word seems to now have multiple accepted meanings, more meanings than covered by the current primary topic. Steel1943 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I would not call the game a flash in the pan since it is still popular over a decade after its release. I think the better argument here would be the fact that the game is called Super Smash Bros. Melee not Melee on its own.--64.229.166.35 (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ten years compared to centuries? That's a flash in the pan! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

text: But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Red Slash 22:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what your point might be. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
===No consensus?===
Cúchullain, per WP:NOTMOVED, would you please clarify if you meant "consensus not to move" or "no consensus to move"? Thanks! Red Slash 20:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Probably on the line, but either way, the result is that the article doesn't move to a new title.--Cúchullain t/c 20:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Had I participated in the above discussion, I would also have opposed the move. I have proposed below to merge Melee weapon into this page. bd2412 T 17:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 9 March 2015 

message: Cúchullain, per WP:NOTMOVED, would you please clarify if you meant "consensus not to move" or "no consensus to move"? Thanks! Red Slash 20:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably on the line, but either way, the result is that the article doesn't move to a new title.--Cúchullain t/c 20:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Had I participated in the above discussion, I would also have opposed the move. I have proposed below to merge Melee weapon into this page. bd2412 T 17:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: No consensus?

message: I propose to merge the long-time stub Melee weapon here; a melee weapon is merely a weapon suited for melee fighting. Merging the pages will keep closely related topics together and enhance the quality of both. bd2412 T 17:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A Melee can be fought with whatever weapons are appropriate. For example during the Battle of Trafalgar ships of the line were melee weapons, at the battle of Kursk it was a tanks. -- PBS (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then it seems all the more appropriate to point "melee weapon" to this page, where this can be explained. bd2412 T 19:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *I disagree. A melee is a concept, a melee weapon is an object and a neologism to boot. This article, if it's about anything, is about the concept of melee. Andyjsmith (talk) 22:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

text: ** The object is only significant in the context of the concept. bd2412 T 22:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *I strongly disagree. I've been holding off on changes while there were discussions still ongoing, but since they all, including this one, seem to have dead ended one way or another, I'll have another crack at it sometime tomorrow. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: * Very well, proposal withdrawn. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

text: *Thanks, got held up, but should be able to get started on it tomorrow morning. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge. 

message: I've heard lots of complaints about this article here on this page. I think this article is simply a WP:STUB, and should be expanded. Also, the lead article is a bit incoherent, but if these two issues were fixed, I think it would be a good article. Compassionate727 (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm almost certain I didn't do that, and if I did, I didn't mean to. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussions 

message: I guess I'm late to the party. Came here from the Military History Project. But wow. This article is a mess. This might actually be better suited for a Wiktionary entry. It seems to be about three totally unrelated subjects, but they all just happen to be called a "melee" at some point by someone. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @Timothyjosephwood please have a look at the edit history of the article and see WP:ANI#Peter Isotalo's edit warring, WP:HOUNDING and WP:OWN-behavior -- PBS (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple issues

message: ... that the link to "Pell mell" redirects back to this, the very same page?
T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It will just be a mistake.Charles (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't speak for the original intention, but it seems that the redirect is still in place. Upon further research, it seems that "pell-mell" is a related term with the same root and practically the same meaning. Expanded upon that in this article. References to "pell-mell" should be at home on this page now. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it a joke ...