Talk:Scrapple from the Apple

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Songs because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{Songs}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{Album}} template, removing {{Songs}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, set up to organize and expand entries on jazz and related subgenres, as well as other related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

[edit] Miles Davis/Charlie Parker composition

Rather than use the article page for openly debating the original idea behind the composition (something which in jazz, especially, is almost irrelevant, as band members continuously play around with sounds and give each other ideas, riffs, etc.) such debate should take place on this discussion page - which is what Wikipedia wisely includes it for - and any sourced or referenced item included on the article page. I have date-tagged the debateable item and would be interested to know what sources are forthcoming - either way. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you do not agree with the content of the article, there are at least two civilised ways of sorting it out. One is to delete it, and preferably leave an explanation here, and the other is to leave the item in the article and to debate it here. Crossing out the text and leaving it in the article is not the best way of editing. Personally, I'm all for taking out the reference as I think it is irrelevant, but the fact that someone has bothered to include it makes me want to give them at least the chance of defending its inclusion. --Technopat (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Not even that its irrelevant, but that its incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.10.179 (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)