Talk:Index of music articles

message: There is a list on Music theory of music theory topics. This seems to duplicate part of this list unecessarily. Does anyone see the need to have that as a seperate list?  Otherwise I will get rid of it.Hyacinth
: The real problem with the music theory page is that it is just a list of topics.  All of those subjects should probably be mentined on and linked from that page, but they should all be worked into some descriptive prose. I'll work on it within the next few days unless you beat me to it :) -- Merphant 18:41, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music theory topics 

message: *Criticism
*Promotion
*Performance
*Stage
*Audience
*Audio engineer
*Distribution (business)
*Lyrics
**Hyacinth 05:50, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed additions

message: Does anyone maintain this list?  Does anyone find it useful?  Is it time to delete it? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it time to delete this? 

message: There's a discussion on what the reference requirements for lists like this one.  The Transhumanist (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Should there be an exception for indexes?]] 

message: another addition, Music and the brain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_the_brain
Microcosmmm (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music and the brain 

message: Firstly I'd like to congratulate  for the huge amount of work they've done here in the last week or solooks like 1100-1200 editswow!
Secondly I'd like to query whether it matters that Cote d'Azur appears to have repurposed the article somewhat. The discussions above, and the hidden text (HTML comment) at the top of the article, talk about the original intent and ask editors not to add stuff that is in other lists: I only realized this when I went to add piccolo trumpet and flugelhorn. There are other examples, both above and in the HTML comment. Cote d'Azur appears to have ignored this ... but ... maybe it doesn't matter! 
Most of the people above are long gone. I see an earlier manifestation of myself discussing it >15 years ago,  is in there, and they're hardly here at all any more (and much missed) etc etc. And even then there was doubt about its usefulness. So maybe it really doesn't matter at all if you just change it into a different concept. What I do think you should consider, though, Cote d'Azur, is putting something on this Talk page stating your intentions for the list, and editing the HTML comment so that it is no longer contradicted by the list contents! I very much doubt that you will find anyone with the energy or commitment to argue with you over it, but at least it would set your stall out clearly and update the current purpose of the list.  
I certainly won't be arguing with you about your purpose here; I don't really feel that I have a dog in this race any longer. I'd just be happier to see the changes accounted for and, I suppose, in effect agreed to by being mentioned here and not being disputed! 
Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no purpose/intentions for this index. Please edit as you deem appropriate. Best regards, —Cote d'Azur (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm ... OK. I mean, these ~1400 edits, increasing the size from 13K to 39K, do look to me a tiny bit like they could be related to a purpose or an intent, and they do seem to run counter to previous discussions and the HTML comments but, as I say, none of this may matter and I'm dogless here and probably missing the point as usual, so I will just say: enjoy! As for my editing, well, I see you've already added the two instruments I was thinking about so: thanks. With all good wishes, DBaK (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive makeover, August 2019