User talk:Starcity ai

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] VGMusic.com article

Out of curiosity, but what information on said page do you consider to be inaccurate or out of date? --Powerlord (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Some rules don't seem true or valid, mainly the "submission process". One of the sentences the pop out at me was how it was possible to upload non-MIDI formats into the New Files. Also, the part where direct rips where disallowed to prevent copyright infringment seems inaccurate because based on VGMusic Announcements, the reason was to be fair over people who work hard transcribe every single note in the song compared to making a brand-new MIDI File within a couple of minutes.

Aside from that, the article isn't very encyclopedic to me. Listing rules and the strictness of the VGMusic staff is bare minimum for the article. Having "lists" of things in article is not considered encyclopedic. Starcity ai (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize in advance if this sounds a bit rambly.

Part of the reason I originally posted this is because people tagging articles, but not stopping by the same article's discussion page to discuss possible changes or making some changes themselves, is one of my pet peeves.

"Some rules don't seem true or valid, mainly the 'submission process'. One of the sentences the pop out at me was how it was possible to upload non-MIDI formats into the New Files. Also, the part where direct rips where disallowed to prevent copyright infringment seems inaccurate because based on VGMusic Announcements, the reason was to be fair over people who work hard transcribe every single note in the song compared to making a brand-new MIDI File within a couple of minutes."

The staff should have been rejecting direct rips ever since Bobby Prince threatened to sue the site in the late 1990s. However, it didn't work out that way; hence the crackdown in 2004. I'm not sure why it's mentioned in the article, or why the reason given is to be fair to people who work hard on submissions. While that sounds nice as a reason, the legal issue alone was reason enough to remove them.

"One of the sentences that pop out at me was how it was possible to upload non-MIDI formats into the New Files."

I don't actually see this in the article. The closest I see to it is "Unfortunately, since it is public, it can be used to display non-compliant MIDI files, until the staff catches and removes them."

"Aside from that, the article isn't very encyclopedic to me. Listing rules and the strictness of the VGMusic staff is bare minimum for the article. Having "lists" of things in article is not considered encyclopedic."

I agree that some parts should be removed and the article as a whole needs a rewrite. The boards list should instantly get the ax. It only really exists because the article's current design was heavily influenced by how OCRemix's article looked in 2005.

The In the Media section establishes notability for the site itself. The Papers section could probably go, but they tend to be linked to from other sites. The Controversy and reform section could probably get the ax as well (see the note above about OCRemix for why it's even there).

However, there's only so much you can put on a website about video game music MIDI files. I could assert that VGMusic.com has heavily affected the popularity of video game music in North America, to the point where we're getting concerts here now, but that would be unverifiable original research.

I'm also avoiding doing major edits to the page, because they could be seen as a conflict of interest since I rejoined the site's staff in 2006.

--Powerlord (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)