User talk:Ylon707

Welcome to Wikipedia Ylon707!

well, I have to confess I might be one of these "blokes" you've mentioned in the discussion (thanx anyway for your civilised phrase). It's true I did make changes on the article. But I remember the discussion 'bout the terminology in 2005 and thought that kind of version (namely "Acoustic Branding") was the right and commonly known term.

Anyway I really can't understand why you are so much in love with the term "sound branding". It is just ONE of several terms used in reality. We as editors should pay attention to all opinions and terms, but it seems that you are trying to not take no for an answer.

I've read the article of John Groves (to whom I really pay tribute to) but it is definitely NOT an article you should mention in Wikipedia, neither in english nor in german. For a scientific and therefore reasonable essay you need bibliographical references. This article instead appears to be a more personal attitude towards that topic... But if you or John Groves can prove that black is white, I will certainly give up...

So before you are not justifying (scientifically) that sound branding is a common term, I won't stop doing my way (which I believe is not a bad one). I am not doing that in favour for a branding agency but for me as a full time student.

-- PommesHH 2006/11/07

Audio/sound branding
According to Google, the phrase "audio branding" is used more than "sound branding," so that should probably be the title of the article. Also, "branding" should not be capitalized (see Naming conventions (capitalization)). &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, your article is not written in a tone suitable for a general encyclopedia; it seems like something more suited to a business or marketing audience. &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tregoweth. As an administrator you should know that Google can't act as an indicator for a general encyclopedia. Moreover, I think you probably don't know enough about Sound Branding/Audio Branding. Otherwise you would not redirect it to an article that explanins the whole thing in one sentence.

So please, read the article that was written before. Every term: Sound Branding, Audio Branding, Acoustic Branding, Sonic Branding, Sound Logo, Audio Logo etc. is named & explained in this one article! That't the reason for redirecting them all to one article.

I will restore the old version again and please don't make that radical changes. If you mean there is something wrong about a term, explain why it is wrong (and please don't use google to prove it) and change it.

By the way: why do you trust someone who writes under his IP and not having the "balls" to write under his user name?

Greetz, --Ylon707 10:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved your article to Sound branding (per Naming conventions, "branding" should begin with a lowercase letter.)

You say, "Moreover, I think you probably don't know enough about Sound Branding/Audio Branding." A Wikipedia article should be written for someone who knows little to nothing about the subject (otherwise, why would they be looking it up?). As it is, the article reads like a guide to audio/sound branding for potential users of it. Readers who just want to know what it is (the expected audience of an encyclopedia) will be lost.

As for "balls," someone using a username is not inherently reliable. "Ylon707" doesn't have any obvious meaning, and searching online doesn't turn up any clues about who you are. An IP user, if nothing else, can be traced to an ISP. &mdash;tregoweth (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)