Talk:Magnetic Rag

message: This is the first article I have ever written on Wikipedia.  (Not surprising that this was the one.)  Please, please, don't delete it!  I've worked hard to make it up to WP standards.  However, since I'm new, please discuss areas for improvement on this talk page and I'll address them ASAP.  Thanks!  Magnetic Rag (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out.  I changed it to read B-flat major.  About the key/mode thing, I thought about that quite a bit before writing it in.  I looked at the articles for scale and Major_and_minor, which indicated that such terms usually denote the scale used (i.e., which notes are used out of the 12 available).  On the other hand, mode indicates not only scale, but also gives reference to the primary, or tonic, note.  I chose "mode" because in the "A" strain, while bars 11-12 use the same scale as the rest of the melody, they are clearly in a different mode.  What do you think?  Magnetic Rag (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Article

message: I have changed the references for cite-book & cite-web templates, and amended a couple of minor things in the Form and Analysis sections. I was going to take a run at the final paragraph (see discussion above, but ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ had deleted it while I was thinking about it. Looking back at the article, I don't think those last lines were needed, so I'll leave it at at that. The sentiments expressed are obvious but better unstated. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: OK, so I've added a picture of Joplin, an infobox, and eliminated some date links.  As to the other things (citing key points, as well as a section on tempo):  I know that the books I used for the article made remarks about the tempo.  It wasn't much, if I recall correctly.  Perhaps they only mentioned that all we know about the tempo of Magnetic Rag is what's written in the score.  That is, it's to be played "Fast, but not too much" (first page), and when you get to the D strain, it's to be played "at the same tempo"; in other words, without slowing down.
Melodia:  I like your point about the piece being written in 4/4, or common time.  It seems like a good idea to create a brief Tempo section, before the Analysis section, that mentions these ideas.  I'd add that stuff now, but I checked those books out from the library when I first wrote the article, so I can't look up the information/references now.  Maybe later... Magnetic Rag (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: If I've followed correctly, that July 21, 1914 date at the beginning of the article is the date on which the copyright was registered.  Is that the same as the publication date?  If not, I think the date on the first line should be the publication date.  Does anyone know the publication date?  If not, I think we should just write "1914". The copyright registration date doesn't seem particularly important or notable (to me), but if we put it in the article somewhere, perhaps it should be part of the infobox. Magnetic Rag (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's the copyright date. Copyright for ragtime pieces was generally registered just before the publisher decided to release them.  For instance, "Reflection Rag" wasn't copyrighted till 1917, even though Joplin wrote it prior to 1909.  Since the copyright date corresponds very closely to the publication date, it can be used to sort works published in the same year, such as "Original Rags" and "Maple Leaf Rag". Stepheng3 (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Date

message: I'm confused, isn't this a single song? If it is, the title needs to be put in quotes. If it's a long enough work to be put into italics then that needs to be explained as well. No information is given to its length: is it five minutes or an hour long?--Remurmur (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's closer to five minutes -- not long enough for italics, IMO. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics? 

message: Many of you have contributed to this article, and it looks great, it my opinion.  As its champion, I'd like to nominate it for FA.  However, I'm not a frequent wikipedian, and certainly have never sought a FA nomination.  What do you all think?  Should we nominate it for peer review first, or go straight to the FA nomination? Magnetic Rag (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My GA review was on the tough side, and it passed. I think the article is ready for FA. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work on this article everybody; I was inspired by this to do an article myself on the concert waltz Bethena, which I welcome any input - I've put it up for WP:GAN. Any help / advice etc would benefit it. Best of luck with the FA! Major Bloodnok (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: FA candidate or peer review?

message: I've removed the section headings from the form section and added an image of the D section; I'd love to add a few bars of another section, but haven't done it yet. I uploaded the file onto the Commons, but managed to screw up the file name, and so I have requested a file move - I'll check back tomorrow and make sure the image is correct or correct it myself. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image