Talk:Parsons code

I am not sure why the user Fwv thought that the last change (link to the relatively new Musipedia article) should be removed. To me, it seems like he or she did not spend too much time looking at the Parsons Code article. Does it really make sense to remove the reference to the Wikipedia article about Musipedia, but not the external reference to Musipedia? IMO, both kinds of links make sense since Parsons Code is central to Musipedia, and Musipedia is 'the' main application of Parsons Code. Fwv seems to be a vandal, but one with a lot of Wikipedia experience (unlike me), so I am not going to start correcting his corrections. But I want to point out his or her pointless vandalism.
 * Musipedia uses Parsons code, but I didn't think it helped describe the code per se, so I added it in a "See also" section at the end. Also, remember to assume good faith.

"Limitations" section is needed, with respect to intervals, durations, etc,.

b0Rn2bL8 (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Examples
Does the article really need eight examples? We've just explained exactly how it works - eight examples don't really make it any clearer than one or two, and we don't have room to catalogue every tune in existence ... I'd propose cutting it back to four or fewer. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)