Talk:List of songs in Rock Band

Stuff

1. I have an idea, instead of putting them by date you should put them by artist so "Simple Man" and "Gimme Three Steps" are together and also put the songs that are in packs on the table too, they can be bought by themselves, right? So "Message In a Bottle" and "Roxanne" and "Synchronicity II" would all be next to each other, it would just be easier to read.

• We're working on making the DLC sortable. That'll solve this issue. Oren0 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
• Since the new column is called "Pack", is it redundant to put "Metallica Track Pack 01"? To try and keep the columns from being two crowded, why not just have "Single" or an abbreviated pack name? (ex: "Metallica 01", "Oasis", "Punk 01" TRTX (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• If you think it's too crowded and you want to make the change, I wouldn't oppose it. I think it's better to have the full pack title as listed in the game though. Oren0 (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'll preview before saving anything. The other option would be to keep Singles, Artist Packs, and Genre Packs seperate. Also, is the Oasis pack just "Oasis Pack" or is it "Oasis Pack 01" like the other artists? TRTX (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
• Just thinking out loud (and since it's a new comment I'll append after my previous one). Perhaps we should split DLC into three tables: Singles, Packs, and Albums. This allows us to elminate the "Pack" field, and would create a quick and handy set of links in the ToC/Outline of the page. I know DLC is sorta the "messy" part of this tier thing (though I really like how it looks now that we've got it up there), so it'll likely take some tweaking to get it the most efficient. With three seperate tables, it allows users to quickly jump from Album, Single, Pack. And we would keep the current "All pack songs are also available as singles unless noted". This way if the rules change for Albums, they can have their own note in the Albums section instead of footnoting 12 or so songs each time. TRTX (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• It was like that before. The problem is that songs from packs can also be downloaded as singles. That makes separating them annoying if you want to, for example, buy a few songs and you want to look at the list sorted by artist to decide which. That kind of info is the reason we have these tables in the first place. Oren0 (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

why have the seperate packs chart if the same infomation is in the main chart? harlock_jds (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

* Good point. Having all the tracks in one table will make it easier to decide what singles you want from a certain artist, and if it's better to just grab a pack. TRTX (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Instead of putting "currently unannounced" why don't you just put "TBA"?

• Seems reasonable. Oren0 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Wasn't it confirmed that a Metallica album and "One" would be DLC?

• We talked about it and decided that the source for that was no longer likely to be accurate. See WP:CRYSTAL. Oren0 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

4. Instead of putting a little star next to the songs why don't you put a bullet under the setlist that says "these songs were edited for language to mantain the T rating:

• That's what we had before. The issue is that it's original research. It seems likely that the entire "censored" thing is going to be removed from the page entirely. Oren0 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

5. Missing sorting option that should be considered is the Genre sorter in the game. I do not have the resources or skills to do such a task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.100.105 (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Genre information is already available through pages created for the song and artist. TRTX (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

the teir part of the table just causes confusion drop that idea the table needs simplicity not every little bit of info ion the game76.246.53.52 (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally agree. I think the tier information is overkill. Wikipedia is not a game guide. Listing the songs includined in teh game is agreat idea but every detail is overkill. What comes next, the number of notes in each song? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion further up the page regarding why the tier information is being inclued. "Guide" Information would be something like # of Notes, placement of Overdrive/Unison Bonuses, and whether or not the song has a Big Rock Ending. The Tier information is being provided as a resource for those who are trying to make an informed purchasing decision regarding DLC. These aren't user-created tiers such as those seen in fighting game rosters. These tiers are official from RB and require no additional research outside of pulling the Tier from the game/content. Unlike the items I listed above, which would require a player to go through each song and personally tally each note or record the moment an Overdrive/Unison phrase occurs. TRTX (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

How are Bass tier's figured out? As far as i know you can not play Bass in single player. harlock_jds (talk) 17:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Bass Tiers are available through the Leaderboards -> Solo -> Bass. The tracks are listed and sortable just like in Quickplay. I was surprised to find they are in fact different (this is more prevalent in the DLC) TRTX (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is not an arbitrary tier selection, it is concrete as define dby the game. However, being it can be proven does not mean it is encylopedic. I personally enjoy the information I just question the encylopedic value of it. In short, if a professional encylopedia were to cover the game rockband, would they include every tier for every instrument? I disagree. However i have seen the discussions above. I would be interested in trying to get more people involved here to see if there is a consensus one way or the other. This should probably include people outside of the main editors of this article. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for getting rid of the tiers. People don't buy a song because it's easy or hard, they buy it because they like the song. Artist, Title, Pack Name (if applicable), and price (if we start seeing more oddly priced content) is all it really needs. Being able to sort it and everything is fantastic - but having the tiers there is just overkill. --Magus05 ^(talk) 07:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see why the extra info bothers anyone. Is it the clutter? What if we removed the word "tier" and narrowed the columns? Oren0 (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Removing "Tier" is one possible change. This can then be added to the initial page summary or in each section explaining just what the numbers mean. Also, the date could be abbreviated in the release column. ("Feb. 12, 2008") for example. This wouldn't affect sorting since that's handled by the span tags. And I know how to do it in HTML, but in Wiki markup I'm not sure if it's possible to have one cell occupy multiple columns. In that sense you could have "Tier" in one cell across the five columns and then have the five seperate instrument cells for sorting. TRTX (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Truth be told Magus, one of the reasons I was drawn to editing this page was because I wanted to konw the tiering of the DLC songs. The songs I like to listen to and have downloaded thus far haven't always translated into fun to play (early tier songs can be quite boring for more experienced players). Likewise, some of the songs I may never have listened to before have gotten some very long consideration once I had a chance to see how challenging they were. But that's more a conversation for a forum than here. And honestly, would we even need the release date by the line of thinking? If I'm looking at this list, do I care when the song came out? Or just that it's out and available to download? I would argue release dates are only important for annouced/upcoming content so a reader can gauge if they want to hold out on new purchases in favor of future content. TRTX (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I just think that the tiers causes too much clutter. It takes up more than half the page, and the information itself isn't even that useful. The average Rock Band player would probably not even understand what the numbers mean. If it didn't take up so much space, I probably wouldn't care that it was there - but tiers is literally half the page. And if we do decide on keeping the tiers, why do we have the tiers listed for songs included in the game? If you want to know how difficult it is, that information is easily available in game.--Magus05 ^(talk) 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against removing tiers from the on-disc songs, since as you said that information is readily available. I don't have time at the moment, but I'll try tonight to toy around with some markup and include a suggested table format that may help shrink things down for DLC. And I believe that numbers are used for Tiering vs. the actual Tier Names (Warmup, Nightmare, etc) because it takes up less room, makes sorting easier, and is easier to explain (Difficulty on a scale of 1 (easiest) to 9 (hardest)). If it makes more sense, we can drop the word "tier" (since that is more frequently associated with fighting games), and refer to the numbers as "Difficulty" instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRTX (talk • contribs) 14:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support listing the tier information. After purchasing the Metallica pack, I do look at the difficulties of the songs when deciding to buy songs. I also use the tier information when playing the game and deciding which songs to play, sure its easy enough to find the tier info on a particular instrument but in BWT you only see the over all difficulty and not the individual levels. I searched for weeks and was not able to find a good place to obtain the song difficulties for DLC. I greatly appreciate the time people here have put into collecting and creating the tables with the tier info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.169.243 (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(first time ever to add something to wikipedia. hope I don't break anything...) I also support leaving in the tier information AND adding in the decade & genre columns that have been debated back and forth. As TRTX mentions above, the primary difference between encyclopedic information and guide information is how the information is primarily used. Summarizing the categories (which are sourced from the game) does not impact or instruct the way in which one would play the game in question. However, having the information in the tabular format (love the table guys!) is nice because it allows easy sorting of the tracks to make purchasing decisions. Personally, I don't care for heavy metal songs, but do like the older classic rock ones. I don't want to have to click on 60+ different links and read the history of each song/artist to determine what genre the particular song falls under. The added sorting capabilities will become even more valuable as more content is released. Right now I complain about clicking 60 links, but by the end of the year it may be 200 links to sort through! Also, by efficiently organizing all the data, it may help those interested to get a good statistical picture of the types of music included. Being able to quickly see what genres/decades the game favors is highly informational for those trying to decide if the game and/or DLC is worth a purchase. Finally, my $0.02 on the table formatting - drop the word "tier" from all the cells and just leave the number, with a note outside the table to describe what the numbers refer to. Repeating the word "tier" so many times does take a lot of space without adding any value beyond the first instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.83.243 (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Decade and genre columns are redundant information and do not have a direct impact to the game. I would consider removing "Tier" from the columns and just leave the numbers. But genre/decade is way beyond what we need for this game. TRTX (talk) 02:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Devil's advocate here: the game sorts by genre and decade in addition to tier. Oren0 (talk) 06:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

While it does sort by genre and decade in-game, my view on including them is that it's not information exclusive to the game. The article is list of songs in Rock Band: So title is included because that's the song, and artist is included for disambiguation. Tiers are included because it's exclusive info to Rock Band, while Pack/Single status and release date is historical information regarding DLC. But to me, genre and decade are secondary information regarding the songlist. If somebody playing the game decides they want to learn more about the songs in the game, they can then click the song name (or artist) for the wikipedia article and find additional info there. The same can't be said for Tier, Pack, or DLC release date. TRTX (talk) 13:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

On the genre/decade debate, I still strongly feel that at least the genre should be included in the table for several reasons. First, like I mentioned before on 2/28, asking someone visiting this page to click on 60+ (and even more in the future) separate links to learn more about the songs is highly user un-friendly. Second, once a person starts clicking on all the links, they will find that the information for the different songs varies considerably in quality. Some song pages list the genre in an easy to find location. Others don't say a thing about what the genre is. Still others have either multiple genres listed, or list genres which are not part of Rock Band's sorting scheme. I have no clue what some of the genre classifications on these linked pages mean. What I do know is that Rock Band sorts songs in a particular fashion, and most people in my situation that are looking for information on the game have a preference for particular categories as defined within the game. So, from looking at the link destinations, it is clear that the particular genre sorting found in the game is exclusive to the game, and thus deserves to be included in the listing here. Now for the table layout, I would strongly suggest that a column for genre (as defined by the game) be added between the artist and instrument tier, and drop the "tier" words to make room for the new column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.83.230 (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Feb 12. DLC Pack

According to HMX, the three tracks annouced on 02/11 (first available 02/12) will be listed as singles and as a pack. I've yet to confirm the pack name, and none was provided with the original HMX annoucement. I've updated the table to list the pack as Unknown with a footnote pointing to the original annoucement as verification. Feel free to remove this footnote once the official pack name is revealed. It was listed as "(Arguably) Punk 02" prior to this change. I apologize if that was the official pack name, but I checked here and in the history for any notes provided confirmation this is the actual name. I didn't find any, and it didn't look right. TRTX (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• My apology remains on the table. I have since confirmed this is the pack name. I've corrected my mistake. Also, I've set the Span tags to sort the new list as "Punk 02" without the "arguably", since to me it's a good idea to keep the Genre packs and Artist packs sorting together. TRTX (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Teenage Lobotomy is credited to 'Ramones' [1] --Ouzo (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would the new Ramones song be labeled as "arguably" punk if the old Ramones songs are listed under punk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonnieDarko7295 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

the DLC pack they are in is called the (Arguably) Punk 02 pack. the other Ramones song was in the pack called the 'Punk Pack 01'. It's simply the name of the song pack. harlock_jds (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's called "Arguably" because of the Police Track.165.139.32.1 (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's officially called "(Arguably) Punk Pack 02". That was verified when I changed it early this morning. Whether or not the songs are Punk or not is irrelevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magus05 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source for that name? We should keep things in line with verifiability and not put original research on here ;) Bassg☢☢nist T C 05:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

When you go onto the Marketplace to download it, it's called "(Arguably) Punk Pack 02". When you look at the content on your hard drive, it is called "(Arguably) Punk Pack 02". But if for some reason common knowledge doesn't work for you, then it is confirmed here, here and here. --Magus05 ^(talk) 10:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we really going to put {{incomplete table}} on the page every week?

It seems like we don't need that template there when we just need tiers for the new content. Oren0 (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I suppose not, it seems like there's always at least one or two people that will come around each week and add in that information if they have it. Especially now that most of the DLC from way back has been filled in. (Does anybody have Cherry Bomb?) TRTX (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Something that's a similar situaiton: Are we going to footnote the songs each week for the one or two days when they're not on the PS3? The DLC article already addresses the time difference beteween 360 and PS3 releases. TRTX (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Albums

Wasn't "Appetite for Destruction" and "Californication" announced as DLC albums? Search on google and you'll find the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.141 (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Search on google and you'll find the site": no I won't :/ --SeizureDog (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I remembered Californication being leaked and then dismissed as a false rumor. Oren0 (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible "Rumored Songs" section?

Just the more likely ones, such as the songs "announced" here (http://www.rockband.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29482). SgtPepper252(talk) • contribs) 03:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain those would really qualify as verifiable at this point. As more details come out they can be added. Bassg☢☢nist T C 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the page just had it's Protected Status removed as well. Horrible timing considering that there may be an influx of people rushing to add the rumored list of songs. However, we could possibly curtail this by putting "Rumored Songs". If Harmonix has issued an official response that doesn't outright deny it, we reference that in the table and just let it go at that. We also need to get Protected Status back.... TRTX (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If vandalism becomes a problem, we'll get it protected again. I'll add a note to the page as well. As for HMX, they made a statement on the RB forums (page 4 or so) that basically said the list is purely speculative and not to take anything as official until they announce it. I'm inclined to believe it's an accurate list (they did the same trick on the 11/20/07 content and it predicted lots of the releases until now) but it's certainly not verifiable for now. We'll have an interesting dilemma if IGN or similar reports this. Oren0 (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This has started to make it's way around the net. I've seen it on Kotaku, and I believe Joystiq as well. If it makes it to IGN it would be a good idea at that point to perhaps address it directly in a seperate section. You mentioned something similiar happened in Novemeber. If you're able to still locate references we could include that in the section as an example of leaked song lists. We could then directly address the list released today, include the new songs (no artists since there are some that are ambiguous (ex: Still Alive, Hysteria)) and provide a reference to the official response from Harmonix. There are tons of rumors that float around the web when it comes to songs, but I can only think of a couple that have gotten internet wide attention and recieved direct Harmonix response (that being this and the March OXM...provided that IS a far more reliable source than somebody on a forum). Something of this magnitude may be noteworthy enough to log. And if the rumors begin to play out (likely won't know until April) we can keep it around as historical reference, or remove it if it's later proven false. TRTX (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I saw the news regarding the 02-19-08 DLC [2]. Is TeamXbox a legitimate source? I haven't seen anything on the Official RB forums (short of a fan made "Official Topic" that doesn't site anything itself). Also, all three of these tracks were in the "hacked" list released earlier this week. [3]. If these three tracks are confirmed between now and the Tuesday release date, I'm thinking we should give the leaked list a section with references to when it was leaked and the fact that three tracks off of it were released the following week. TRTX (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there's plenty of legitimacy to the leaked list. Like I said above, this same technique accurately predicted lots of DLC. But things can get delayed, changed, whatever. And even if we were sure it was accurate, it can't be added because it's not verifiable. Oren0 (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

i think that list is (at this point) as verifiable as the tier rankings for individual songs. its found on official files from harmonix. teamxbox posted about it, and we know the list is true, and everyone agrees. theres no controversial issue to avoid including the information, at that point its a semantics issue i think. like I said, no less verifiable than half the information already on the page. 70.53.51.183 (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the tier rankings are facts from a finished product. Unless modified in a game patch, the tiers a song falls into is not going to change. This list of songs, while probably reliable, has no way to verify that they will end up in the game until officially announced. The tiers are facts about a finished product. This list of songs is not. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you have not seen it, there is an "official" response from a harmonix employee, found on page 7 of the thread from the forum http://www.rockband.com/forums/showpost.php?p=319266&postcount=69 They confirm that it is DLC, but also state it is not confirmed DLC if that makes sense. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering the issues we have with keeping the official download list rumor and troll free a "Rumored Songs" section would be a train wreck. We know about the 'list' and clearly those will be coming out but i don't see a issue with waiting until they are announces (or at least mentioned in a interview) before adding. harlock_jds (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

With the semi-protection now on, I don't see how a 'rumored' section would be that problematic. Here is a link to the leaked list: http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/51337 and here is a link to a confirmation from an MTV spokesperson stating that the list is "accurate but subject to change": http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/51337 I think these two things make this a valid section. Comparing it to other wiki pages that are subject to change (future UFC events for example) I don't see the harm in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm03gt (talk • contribs) 19:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the MTV link. I didn't see that before. I would say that does give it some better credibility than just a post on a forum. I'll start planning a sample section (will use User:TRTX/RB to put it together) and look back later to see what other people's thoughts are. TRTX (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It now says "unconfirmed and subject to change." I don't know what shacknews.com is but if we believe it to be a reliable source we can add it. We should have it as its own section (separate from announced stuff) and be very careful to explicitly state that it's unconfirmed. Oren0 (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

having simi protection only slows down the issue.. it doesn't get rid of it. I still say the whole concept of a 'Rumored Songs' is bad and i'm not sure just how noteable this 'list' is... esp after all the songs come out that are on the list. 21:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs)

The fact that downloads are supposed to continue on a weekly basis for the rest of 2008, the issue of rumored songs isn't going anywhere. I think the size of this list, and the acknowledgment by Harmonix of its existence is extremely relevant, as these songs could make up the upcoming downloads for several months.Mm03gt (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A google search turns up a number of places reporting MTV's comments. [| Wired being the first name I recognized]. They have the exact statement from the MTV spokesperson. I think this bears mentioning. TRTX (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

we already have a Announced songs section... it would be better to add it these than to create a whole new section harlock_jds (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The song 'Still Alive' now confirmed from the hacked list. More evidence, that it is legitimate (to those who feel the MTV acknowledgment wasn't enough)--Mm03gt (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll put something together with these songs, I just need some time to pull the references together. If anything the leaked list will have it's own "table" of sorts. It'll just be the titles, no artists since there's no guarantee. I'll put it in my user page under User:TRTX/RB before I add it. TRTX (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The NIN pack announced today is even more evidence that this list is legitimate. I think you're proposal makes sense.--Mm03gt (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

THe NIN pack was known about before the list, and i still say add them to the announced list if we are going to consider them announced. harlock_jds (talk) 22:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Good to see this table is finally going to be made. Thanks to everyone for the great response. SgtPepper252(talk)

A rough sample of what the page will look like with the new section is up at User:TRTX/RB. Feel free to comment in the discussion page. I'm very open to suggestions. Especially if somebody knows how to format the LONG list of song titles into a two columns. TRTX (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Formatting changes have been made. Awaiting other opinions prior to including the new section. TRTX (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have several issues with the section in its current form:

1. The timeline is irrelevant as I see it. I think there's too much background, who cares?
2. Most of the songs are unambiguous. I think we know what Smells Like Teen Spirit is. There are only a handful that aren't 100% clear (D.O.A could be a one). It seems pointless for us to have this list if we can't attach artists to the clear ones.
3. There's no reason to have anything that has been confirmed by HMX (Still Alive, NIN stuff, etc) or released already on this list. This should only be the stuff that's rumored/leaked but unconfirmed.
4. Alphabetical sorting shouldn't include "The." Oren0 (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, here's my reasoning behind some of the thigns you observed. I'm willing to look into modifications. But just want you to know where I'm coming from.

1. I don't see the timeline is totally irrelevant. Part of the reason a "rumored" section was contested is because it wouldn't be verifiable. Providing some background gives it more weight than just some random user (such as you or I) adding "I Want Candy" because we feel like it.

An explanation of how these songs were leaked is fine, but what happened on 2/21 and what happened on 2/22 etc seems over the top to me. I think there should be a three sentence or so lead in about the background which should explain the gist: a forum user cracked the list (and be sure you have multiple refs to reliable sources that reported this), several of the songs were subsequently announced, HMX made a statement that the songs are unconfirmed. I think more info than that is overkill. Oren0 (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Though not all the songs are unambiguous, there is no verification of artists available anywhere for this list. Again. a number of artists would be speculation, even if some songs (such as Teen Spirit) aren't. I wouldn't argue with including artists, but only if artists (even in the case of Teen Spirit) are marked as speculated for those which are included.

I buy that. Oren0 (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

1. This I'll look into modifying. My original idea was to keep it as originally presented, incase the source article is lost.
2. I just cut pasted the list from scorehero. I can reorganize the list with "The" less if when I re-working it.

I'll make some modifications to the section. But I feel the scorehero reference should remain somewhere. TRTX (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The current version is much better. It would be nice if we could add a few more reliable sources so that we can successfully argue against the notability/reliability concerns that will certainly pop up when this info is added to the page. Oren0 (talk) 08:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I could try to reword something on how the songs released since the leak have all been on the list. Also, you (or somebody else here) had mentioned that this happened back in November (I see references online to a list leaked on 11/20). If we had references to that list and how it was able to predict releases accurately that would lend more credibility to this one. The lack of this kind of info is why I've hesitated to add it. TRTX (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of this: http://gamecentralnetwork.net/?id=2524 24 February 2008

That was confirmed to be a hoax. Oren0 (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Column widths and merge Other Songs

To make the Main Setlist and Bonus Songs tables have a consistent look (column widths), you could add this to both table headers:

! width="30%" style="background:#ddddee;" | Song title
! width="35%" style="background:#ddddee;" | Artist
! width="7%" style="background:#ddddee;" | Guitar
! width="7%" style="background:#ddddee;" | Bass
! width="7%" style="background:#ddddee;" | Drums
! width="7%" style="background:#ddddee;" | Vocals
! width="7%" style="background:#ddddee;" | Band

Also, I like the merged songs in a single Released Content table. Would you consider incorporating the Other Songs into it? You could simply put a table footnote for the OXM details. The release date was January 15th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.101.179 (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If we include that, they'll need to be two pieces of information included: one indicating it's not available via XBLM/PSN. And another indicating it's 360 exclusive. I would actually suggest renaming "Downloadable Songs" to "XBLM/PSN Downloads" or something like that. While "Other Songs" is changed to "Other Downloads" or again, something like that. TRTX (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Harmonix Pack info needs correcting

The three songs from the Harmonix pack have incorrect tiering (it was correct at one point and must've been missed while vandalism was being corrected). I don't have the info available to me at the moment, but all three are listed as Tier 9 Guitar, which I know is totally incorrect (Rock Rebellion is the only song that has a Tier 9 anything off of that disc). Can somebody with access to the OXM Harmonix Pack tiers correct that please? Update: It appears the mixup occured here [[4]], caused by a pair of reverts following some vandalism. I think the tiers as they're listed with SMC's revisions are the correct ones. I'd make the changes but I have no means of confirming the exact tier (only the knowledge they are not what they're current listed as) TRTX (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC) They're both tier 3. I'm looking at the game from my computer, and on guitar they sit on either side of Go With The Flow. (Sandswipe (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

Sprode needs to have Drums set at a Tier 4 and Band at a Tier 3. I had actually pulled off everything in an excel doc before the vandalism occurred so I still have a record of what everything was. Tuck420 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Shake is a Band Tier 4. Tuck420

Can you also confirm the vocal tier for Sprode? I don't recall it being higher than Shake the last time I looked at the Leaderboards. I'm going to check the DLC I have on my machine tonight to verify the tables. Some of that vandalism has yet to be corrected. TRTX (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

According to my spreadsheet, the vocals are correct. You may still want to check the game itself to be sure though.Tuck420 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Scores and Stars

Seeing as this page is dedicated to the song lists, do you think it would make sense to include a chart, or several charts showing the scores required for each star level? It would be difficult to include all of the instruments, and various combinations of instruments, but I think it would be very helpful for visitors. Odds are if they are looking at this list, they're interested in the game somewhat. --Mm03gt (talk) 06:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not. The tier information is already too WP:GAMEGUIDE-ish for some. We can save face by noting that at least the tier information is readily available in the game. Not only are star cutoffs original research (for some songs they're speculative), but they're not verifiable and way over the top. Add to that the fact that you're talking at least 48 cutoffs per song (4*, 5*, 5G* for each of four difficulties on four instruments) not counting all sorts of band combinations, and it's way too much information. That kind of stuff belongs at Scorehero. Oren0 (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I support Tiering info because I see it as similiar to Guitar Hero's setlist structure (X-number of tracks split into 7-8 difficulty levels). What complicates things for Rock Band is that even though they do the same thing, they've got four additional sets (Bass, Drums, Vocals, Band) on top of Guitar. And all five are for the most part independent of each other. Also unlike GH, RB also has difficulty ratings available for DLC and Bonus songs. So there's more information to process, and thus it feels more clutered than the GH setlist articles...even though they both provide the exact same information. However, scores and star ratings are going way beyond that even. There might be something to a brief summary of how RB and GH differ in mechanics when it comes to scoring, however that's better left ot the Game Article than the setlist. TRTX (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a good external link we could have for that information instead?--SeizureDog (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Still Alive

Could someone add Jonathan Coulton's song, Still Alive? It's been confirmed here: http://www.rockband.com/rockers_blog_entry/hmxsean/216671?redir=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.129.43 (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the table row for "Still Alive" with a reference to the video of Coulton's performance. The song (Though written by Coulton) is credited to "GLaDOS" in-game. This is similar to Timmy & The Lords of the Underworld, another song written by one party but performed by a fictional entity. TRTX (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it confirmed that it is a single, or could it possibly be part of a pack? (Video Game Tracks 01?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.79.5 (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• The only confirmation I've seen (have to go find the source again), is that it'll be 99 cents. But no, there is no verification as to if it'll be a single or part of a pack. I've changed the entry to reflect this. TRTX (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

first full album

I realize that the leaked list referred to in the 'rumors' section of this talk page is not being added, however I wonder if the absence of the who on the list, and the presence of Nirvana might suggest that it will be the first album. Perhaps rather than saying which one will be 'first' as the article says, we should just say that both are forthcoming? --Mm03gt (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the whole last part of that paragraph should be reworded. It talks of the Metallica album, which was later determined to be unverifiable because of an old/vague source. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

march releases still accurate?

Seeing as the original source for the March DLC listed the 18th as the date for the NIN pack (which came out last Tuesday) I wonder if the rest of the list is at all reliable anymore? Clearly the dates are questionable. --Mm03gt (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

OXM is a printed source, which is why they were given precident. I would keep those dates which have yet to be deconfirmed (did I just invent a word there?) with the OXM dates. And while OXM looks worse and worse...that hacked list continues to gain credibility. I'm going to add that section (as drafted in User:TRTX/RB) sometime today, unless anybody has any further objections. TRTX (talk) 18:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. I saw it earlier without the dates, and think it is better to keep them with the footnote. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 19:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a few correction. The Metal pack is tentative for the 25th, not 18th, that's my bad. As far as OXM's credibility: They wouldn't have run a section on the DLC if they hadn't had at least some reliable source that had given them these dates. It's no different than a tentative release date later being changed. HMX themselves said these dates are subject to change. TRTX (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious why you don't want to link to songs in the tentative list. I would say link for songs where we only have one potential artist; it is no more speculative than listing that artist (which we do anyway). Oren0 (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Also, it would help to show that a song is more than likely from a specific artist if there is no need for disambiguation. With the exception of that change, are we in agreement that the section is good to add? TRTX (talk) 19:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I added some more sources. I think it's good to go. Oren0 (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

-I'm so tired of waiting for Simple Man to come out its got a different date everyweek, ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.232.48 (talk) 10:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaked List Updated

After much discussion, it seemed pretty well agreed upon that we would include this section and TRTX has done a great job on it, can someone please explain why the edits are being reverted repeatedly without any discussion. --Mm03gt (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No idea, but the references are both reliable and verifiable (Wired, Kotaku, and the ScoreHero.com Rock Band forum as a secondary/tertiary source). I see no reason why this can't be included. As such, I'm adding it back. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 21:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaks are automatically unreliable, by definition. No amount of reporting about them will make them moreso. Will ^(talk) 21:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This leak occured over two weeks ago, and has been under discussion since. The original consensus was that it was just another rumor, but since it's leak 13 songs off of it have been confirmed (it's also noteworthy that there hasn't been DLC yet that isn't on this list). TRTX (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaks are unreliable by definition? Says who? Should the fact that Prince Harry was in Afghanistan not be on his page because it was leaked? The wikipedia definition of reliable information is that which is reported by reliable sources. Wired, et al are easily reliable, therefore the information is. We have a strong consensus on this here, but certainly you're welcome to open the issue up for further discussion if you'd like. I ask that you not remove this content again without some sort of consensus to do so. Oren0 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Because leaks always have some anonymous insider behind them. Besides, comparing it to Prince Harry is apples and oranges. Will ^(talk) 23:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Things are only 'ureliable leaks' if they aren't confirmed by an authoritative source. In this case, Harmonix has commented on the list. Just like the Royal military confirming that leak, when an authoritative source discusses it and confirms it, it becomes reliable. Besides, this isn't really a 'leak' from an anonymous source as you suggest (which I must say highlights your ignorance on the topic). The list is real, I have it on my x-box as well. --Mm03gt (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Checking the sources, Harmonix hasn't confirmed the list by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. They actually say it's unconfirmed and subject to change. And the reliable news sources say that it isn't confirmed either. Will ^(talk) 11:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is the same response they gave the OXM list of songs for March, which has been proven wrong twice in the past two weeks. Yet that source remains posted... TRTX (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Put it this way: The Sun normally leaks plot information for Doctor Who, and quite often they hit the bullseye. This doesn't mean that they should be relied upon for plot details. Will ^(talk) 15:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you have no contention to the list of songs from the March issue of OXM. May I ask why? They have no source, and receieved the same response from HMX. Yet I see no posts from you in the talk page or edits in the article's history indicating you had any issue with its inclusion. This list was confirmed to be in the files of the most recent DLC pack (as HMX's quote on the section indicates). And that is what this article is reporting. TRTX (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Official Xbox Magazine is reliable. Will ^(talk) 16:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on restructuring the section to make it more accurate to what's being reported. As the hack and response are both confirmable. TRTX (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you getting the point? Leaks are unreliable by definition. Unless songs are reported by Harmonix, or OXM, they should not be used in this article. Period. Will ^(talk) 16:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you allowed to dictate the validity of a source? The article sources HMX, Wired, MTV, Kotaku, includes a very direct quote regarding the existence of the list. The fact the list exists is confirmed, the fact that songs from it have been verified is confirmed, the fact that HMX responded is confirmed. The only dispute is that if they're actually going to be released, and the article does not say that anywhere. TRTX (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because a list exists doesn't mean it'll be used. Will ^(talk) 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is why the wording is being carefully chosen to report the leak and its contents. The idea that the DLC file was hacked is interesting in the contest of the song list, as its an attempt to determine to the future of the song list. Something was done back in November with similar results, and I was looking to find some specific references to include. However the list to me is just as credible as the OXM list. Both lists have been confirmed to exist and both are subject to change. One came from OXM, another from a DLC file distributed from HMX. TRTX (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Will here. This sort of thing was not tolerated on the GHIII article, why should it happen here? Dragonscales (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a more specific example of what you're talking about? I know the GH lists get vandalised just as much as RB's, but has GH ever had something such as this occur? TRTX (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You're asserting that leaks are automatically unreliable without any evidence (either logical or Wikipedia policy) stating that fact. Wikipedia's test of reliability is simple: is the matter reported upon in reliable sources? This information is, in abundance. I'd still like your explanation on why this is any different than Prince Harry, something that was originally leaked but then reported by many sources. Harmonix's acknowledgment of the list lends to its credibility as well. For the record, I watch the GH3 list as well and I don't remember any sort of comparable situation there. I'm re-adding it, since two votes opposed don't trump at least 4 votes in favor. Oren0 (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering, when/if all the songs in the list come out eventually, would we remove it from the page? I don't see a reason for keeping it after then. I almost suggested removing songs already out (El Scorcho was the first that stuck out to me) but I think it is good to leave them in there, showing that songs from the list have, indeed, been released as DLC. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

At that point I would propose rewriting the section to be about the original event (the hack). I'm still looking for some sources for the November 20th hack so we can write up something about it either here or for the series article. TRTX (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am all for having this section. Of the 22 tracks listed in the leak - nearly half have been confirmed to be coming or are already out. That makes it at least plausible that the rest of the songs are on the way as well. If at some point all of the tracks on the list are confirmed for release - then it can be removed, and the tracks can be moved into the respective 'announced' and 'released' lists. --Magus05 ^(talk) 23:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors for and opposed

This is not a vote, but I'd like to determine where editors stand on the inclusion of the list per WP:CONSENSUS. I'm adding people based on their arguments above. Apologies if I mischaracterize you, and feel free to add yourself below.

For inclusion: Oren0, TRTX, Lightsup55, Mm03gt, Magus05, The Great Pumpkin King of Halloween, Sgtpepper252, pksage, Daytonlowell

Opposed to inclusion: Will, Dragonscales, Harlock_jds, EvilCouch

That's 4 in favor and 2 opposed thus far. Oren0 (talk) 21:15

Block quote

, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

9 in favor, 4 opposed --Magus05 ^(talk) 23:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't make a consensus to break WP:ATT. Sorry, you just can't. Will ^(talk) 16:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I say just include them in upcoming releases.. no need for a special list harlock_jds (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• To include them in upcoming releases is to claim they are confirmed for release. They are not. All we have confirmed is that the list was in fact found in a file included with Punk Pack 02. That is why it's given its own section. TRTX (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is called 'List of Songs in Rock Band'. not 'List of songs that may one day show up in Rock Band'. If we do not think the list is sufficiency cited so that the songs on it can be considered to be confirmed for release then what makes this any different than any other rumored song list? harlock_jds (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's the same concept as the March OXM tracks which have essentially been "deconfirmed" by the next few weeks of releases. I believe Harmonix issued a similar response when it was published. I believe the idea behind the seperate section was because it requires a bit more history behind the hack, the response, and the contents than a a footnote/reference could provide. TRTX (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• An additional note to harlock, just so I understand. Your view is that if the list is verified enough to be on the article then it should be sufficient verification to be in the upcoming tracks list vs. its own section. (Since they are similiar to the "orphan" Metal and Thrash packs which have no confirmation outside the March OXM magazine?) Is that correct? TRTX (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

that is pretty much correct i would not mind if they were added to the upcoming tracks list (with a link to a good non forum cite talking about the list so we don't need some big footnote). I really do not like this separate section for a lot of reasons (long lasting notability of the list, the encouragement of posting rumored songs etc). Lets just treat them like any song that is 'announced' but not 'confirmed (like the packs you mentioned and the album downloads). I also feel that if we don't think it's confirmed enough to be on the announced list we shouldn't have an 'extra' list just to get around that. This would also kill the debate on 'who do we add to what list'. Like i've said before there is an alfull lot of arguing going on about a list that will likely be useless in 2-3 months (when all the tracks on it have come out which at that point the list isn't really notable enough to be in the article). harlock_jds (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Response below. TRTX (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Will, can you please elaborate on what wiki rule is being broken by the inclusion of this list that is other than just "you just can't do that" or "it's leaked so it's by definition unreliable"? I'm not trying top be smug, perhaps if you lay your case out with the various rules you are referring to, we can judge your argument for its merits--Mm03gt (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is plenty of attribution in this section. Your only contest appears to be that this article somehow implies the contents of the list are confirmed for release. This is not the case. The section is reporting on a list who's source and existence are both confirmed (with attribution made to credible sources such as Kotaku, MTV, Wired, and Harmonix). No claims are made that the content will be released (in fact the article specifically notes that songs from the list are not confirmed unless otherwise noted). All speculation (including the songs in the confirmed DLC section) and OR (Possible Artists column and song article links) have been removed. TRTX (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• We haven't broken WP:ATT and I don't even understand the argument that we have. The material is attributable to Wired, et al. Once again, there has so far been no justification, either using Wikipedia rules or logic, to the assertion that leaks are unreliable by definition. The info is reported in reliable sources, so I don't see how the lack of attribution argument flies either. Oren0 (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

• The fact of the matter is: Over half of the songs in this so-called "unreliable" list have been confirmed or released. How unreliable is it? If the list - which came from an official Rock Band file contains a list of tracks - and many of them start coming out, it's noteworthy. --Magus05 ^(talk) 20:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

JFK assassination theories have an entire article. They aren't confirmed, and are specifically stated to be theories. These leaked songs are, in my opinion, the exact same way. There isn't any confirmation, but we aren't claiming there is any. We're just saying that this list does exist. That makes 6 for the list, 3 against. Sgtpepper252 (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The difference between this and JFK assassination theories is that JFK theories were widely discussed for decades after the fact. In a few months, when many of these songs are released, no one's going to care about the leak. Additionally, the nature of the file makes including its contents about on par with including a feature list from a beta version of a game; sure, most of it will probably make the cut, but WP:CRYSTALBALL says we shouldn't speculate about it. EvilCouch (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't really apply here because the info is verifiable. It's been reported in reliable sources. This is equivalent to Wired reporting an unconfirmed release date for a game. We'd include that, with the explanation that is was unconfirmed. We're doing the same thing here. How the song list was gleaned is inconsequential, what matters is the reporting in reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You're arguing that it should be included in an encyclopedic article because it's verified as being unconfirmed? That makes little sense. The list confirms nothing but a list of songs that they're working on, which may or may not make it to the game. As far as we know, they've been working on Nevermind for over a year. They announced it many moons ago, it's on the list and yet there's been no official word. For all we know, the album's in development hell and will never see the light of day. EvilCouch (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

When an article has a section that cannot be completed because the events are still ongoing, all of the known information is included. These are current events in Rock Band and, though we may not know everything, we have the responsibilty of listing as much as we do know.--Sgtpepper252 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

EvilCouch, that's exactly what I'm arguing. It's verified as being unconfirmed, so we report it as unconfirmed (reporting precisely the information that's verified by reliable sources, nothing more). Oren0 (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

While I realize that personal experience means nothing to Wikipedia, the file in the DLC with this song list is there. I've seen it myself. It's verifiable by anyone with access to their DLC files and a text editor. Does this not make it a little more reputable than other "leaks"? (And as for all of this "how pertinent will it be in the future" talk - it can be removed once all of the songs have been confirmed. Wikipedia's not all about what something WILL be - this information is useful right now.) Pksage (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to harlock from above:

• I'm going to make some modifications to the draft in User:TRTX/RB within the next few days so we can take a look at some possible compromises. I like the idea of recording the history behind hacking DLC, but then there's also the question of putting that in a song list or in the series article. (A section on attempts to predict future songs or something of that nature). We could then reference several sources in the section on the hack (and perhaps a brief reference to the fan who jumped unstage during Coulton's performance of Still Alive), and reference that one section should future hacks reveal more possible songs. Thoughts? TRTX (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• i like how the List of Xbox Live Arcade games deals with this problem (by having a seperate column for 'status' which can range from Confirmed, Announced , Unannounced and rumored all of which are defined). Could we have something like that here? harlock_jds (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Something similar to that could work, and is almost what this article has. On-disc, released, confirmed/annouced and then the list from the hack. For "Rumored"/"Unannouced", I'd imagine something like the March OXM tracks or the list from Punk 2 would qualify. OXM because it wouldn't run a list without some credible source (and as we know dates are subject to change). The list I say would qualify since it's existence and source are confirmed from MTV and HMX. But I guess that's just going back into the same discussion. TRTX (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, now that the march release dates have been altered for the other tracks. --Mm03gt (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Remove Nevermind songs from leaked list?

Seeing as Nevermind was announced officially (albeit without a timetable) would anyone be opposed to removing those songs from the leaked list? Oren0 (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to remove it. It has been announced, thus the fact that it is 'leaked' is pretty irrelevant. Unless, and this is suggestion: we include the entire list highlighting the songs that have already be offered and ones that have yet to show up. --Mm03gt (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We can remove the songs from Nevermind, and include that the list previously included songs released between Feb 19th and present. As well as "Still Alive" which has been confirmed. TRTX (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely artists on leaked list

Why is Lithium listed as possibly being an Evanescence song? It's on Nevermind, which was confirmed. Harmonix wouldn't release all of Nevermind except one song and then release a song with the same name by an unrelated artist at around the same time. On the same note, Behind Blue Eyes is far more likely to be the already confirmed Who's Next track then to be an unpopular cover which no one has ever brought up as a serious possibility. Neither of those should be listed as the possible artist. (Sandswipe (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

The songs from Nevermind will possibly be coming off the list since it's already been confirmed. However the other songs have no confirmation as to who the artist would be aside from what we have listed as possibilities. I'm sure nobody had ever brought up The B-52's or Tokio Hotel... TRTX (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: Artists have been removed from the list from Punk Pack 02. Though we may have a good idea what they are, there is no confirmation. If we are simply including a section on the hack, then we cannot include information not on the list. TRTX (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Behind Blue Eyes & Other Song/Artist debates

Umm...isn't "Behind Blue Eyes" on Who's Next?

So isn't it 100% sure to be a DLC song? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.42.168 (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Right you are. The song was announced before this leak occured, and since the list is only supposed to include tracks that weren't announced at the time of the leak - it should be removed. I've gone ahead and done it. --Magus05 ^(talk) 23:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically some of the Grateful Dead songs qualify too. I don't know if we have the reference still, but when it was announced that there would be 18 Grateful Dead songs in the game (back in last September), 5 songs were listed at the time. I know for a fact the songs announced at that time were "Casey Jones," "Sugar Magnolia," "Truckin," "Touch of Grey," and "Uncle John's Band." 3 of those are on this hacked list. There used to be a section about the Grateful Dead on this page, but it was taken down. If you go back through previous versions I am sure you could find it, along with the sources. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of why the list was contested was because we were speculating who artists would be...which is both OR and unverifiable. While I could see keeping Nevermind off (as it was confirmed previously), Behind Blue Eyes does have two versions...and it's odd to see just one track from an Album listed. So I'd keep it and place a footnote once it's officially confirmed as part of Who's Next (and not released as a single or other pack) TRTX (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This entire debate is a great example of a weakness of wikipedia. An overwrought focus on obeying specific rules. Isn't that counter to wikipedias guidelines or whatever anyway? I'm no expert but I thought this was a place where the Spirit of the law prevailed over the letter. RISK MANAGEMENT people. "(I can't get no) satisfaction" is pretty lowrisk to be associated with the Rolling Stones. Anyone who disagrees is being unnecessarily rigid. The quality of the article is being unfairly reduced by continuing this debate. 60% of the songs on the list are 99%-specific to a single artist. If (GOD FORBID) it turns out that one of them is by another band, who cares? The consequences of a potential mistake here is severely outweighed by the usefulness of the information. My suggestion is to seperate out the unambiguous from the ambiguous. Again, Beetlebum will be the blur song. It's not ambiguous and the consequences of an error are trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.63.213 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason I'm treading carefully regarding artists for the hacked list is because of the current dispute regarding verifibility vs. speculation. Though I can understand your frustration with considering "Satisfaction" is 99% likely to be by the Stones vs. Britney Spears. TRTX (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

verifiability should be the #1 concern in contentious or controversial articles, but while it should always be considered high priority, when you start requiring every detail be specifically verifiable, you are hampering the overall quality of the article. Regardless of whether it is being performed by Britney Spears or the Rolling Stones, it's a Rolling Stones song in my opinion. Same with Beetlebum, and any other handful of others. Isn't their a policy on "Being Bold"? I think that sums up this whole debate. I don't think it was ever anyones intention that people would waste their time squabbling about petty details like this when they thought up the verifiable policy. Let's be strict on matters of importance and a little laxer on downloadable content for a silly video game please. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

D.O.A. Seeing as this is also about a potential song/artist, I thought I'd include this here. According to the reports regarding this leaked list, the list also included songs that are already on the song listing. Dead On Arrival is a song already found on the game. Is it possible that this listing is simply a mistake or double counting?--Mm03gt (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No, look at the original list. "Dead on Arrival" and "D.O.A" are both on it. Oren0 (talk) 00:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

archive

Please help me move old/irrelevant discussions to the archive. This talk page was massive, now it's only really big. Bassg☢☢nist^Talk/_Contribs 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm still learning my wikimarkup, so I'll hold off on any archiving until I've had time to verify I have the proper process down. However, I can suggest the following topics can be archived: "Harmonix Pack info needs correcting", "Scores and stars", "Are we really going to...", and "Column widths and...". They are either older requests for correction/new info that have since been included. Or discussions regarding other possible content that a consesus has already been reached. The rest of the topics appear to be tied to the current discussion regarding the list leaked from Punk Pack 02. Or in the case of "Stuff", have open discussions regarding additions of new columns to the song tables. TRTX (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Added some links.

I added some links to the existing song pages for the "hacked song" section, with a small addition: As we don't know if whichever of an example such as Def Leppard or Muse made the song "Hysteria", I added that fact, too. A Powerful Weakness (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC) A Powerful Weakness

Strongly disagree with whoever reverted this edit, as I said in the thread above this, arguing over whether beetlebum is the blur song or not because of verifiability is ludicrous. It's the only song with that name! I can't get no satisfaction is a rolling stone song. Stop being unnecessarily strict. Wikipedia's policies can be interpreted (and its' my interpretation) that the statements which specifically need to be cited are those whcih are not self-evident and those which are likely to cause controversy or argument about whether they are true/right or not. In this case, the controversy is not over whether the information is correct, everyone agrees that it is. This controversy is actually about whether or not it's following the rules, which is a semantic argument amongst people who all agree on the actual content. It's hampering the quality of the article! Wikipedia is about verifiability, but it also instructs us to ignore those rules when they degrade the quality of the article. STOP the silliness please 142.106.63.213 (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one that reverted your edits, even though I agree with you. Unfortunately, this entire section has been entirely contentious with people crying attribution and verifiability and original research. At one point, we had potential artists listed in the table right next to the song titles. The issue is that it's still original research. And if we're not going to allow listing the artists on the page then we can't link to song titles about those artists either. Agreed that this is a perfect ignore all rules situation. I'd like artists to be listed in the table again, but we need to get consensus before we can do it. Oren0 (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's frustrating, and though I'd like to include who the possible (or in some cases most likely) artists are...there's enough debate over the section itself let alone adding artists. Frankly I like the idea of just putting these and the remaining OXM tracks (the ones who have had their dates deconfirmed by other releases) into a "Future songs" section (since they aren't annouced as much as they are named through pretty reliable sources) and leave it that. I wish this whole debate would've come up while we were originally discussing and finally decided to include the section...at least then we could've made modifications outside of the public article and saved the headache that's come from the random changes and various linking and unlinking. TRTX (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I and others did raise the issue when the section was being talked about before it was added and none of the issues brought up then were really addressed. harlock_jds (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this consensus right here? Three opinions in general agreement on including artists? I've been trying to generate debate on this but i havent seen anyone post here who has a differing opinion. Suggestion: Re-add artists in those circumstances where its clear, and note where its not. If someone has an issue with that, rather than revert it, they can bring their discussion here and we'll discuss it until we reach a consensus. No point in reverting the edit if you agree, then you're misrepresenting the amount of people who are incorrecting holding on to their strict principles (again, to the detriment of the article). I'd do this myself but some equally uptight people have the article protected. By the way, they weren't my edits. I just agree with the person above who made them. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has already been started regarding the section as a whole. Artists are only one part of the issue. Hence the "Disputed" box that starts it out. See portions of "Stuff", "Rumored Songs section" and a few more topics that are active at the moment. TRTX (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Rumored Songs

"Hacked" means messed with so the songs are more like "rumored".

and someone should put the artist, I know a few of them:

Beetlebum - Blur, I Can't Get No Satisfaction - The Rolling Stones, Brown Sugar - The Rolling Stones, Zero - Smashing Pumpkins, Pinball Wizard - The Who, D.O.A. - The Foo Fighters or The Haunted Rock 'N' Roll Star - Oasis, Hysteria - Either Def Leppard or Muse,

that's about all I know but it's just a suggestion I don't want to start a big feud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.101 (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The section is called "Hacked" because that is exactly how they were found. Someone imported the file for "(Arguably) Punk 02" to a PC and "Hacked" into the data files to find a list of songs. It contained all the songs in the game so far, plus the songs listed in our section. There are no artists in the list, so we cannot include them. The reason they are not rumored is because Harmonix basically came out and said (paraphrase) "These are songs we are working on but they may or may not come out for release. All you can bank on is our weekly announcements." I don't want to sound mean, but there are 2-4 other sections of the talk page talking about why or why not add artists. The section is already disputed and adding speculative information will only aid in getting it removed. I suggest reading some of the other sections in the talk page and responding there if you feel you have anything to add. You are more than welcome to. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When I first read "hacked" I to thought it meant the specific song was hacked or somehow changed by end users. I've renamed it to something more suitable of the overall concept of how they're found. I'm open for other possible names. But "hacked" doesn't sound right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRTX (talk • contribs) 17:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

DLC for PS2?

I have heard that you are able to somehow get DLC for the PS2. Is that true? and if you can, how? Sweetchild01 (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

DLC is currently only for 360 and PS3 versions. I haven't seen any news of DLC somehow coming to PS2. TRTX (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The PS2 lacks sufficient data storage to support DLC. There was a hard drive attachment for FFXI, but those are few and far between. As such, the PS2 hasn't gotten DLC and likely never will. --Magus05 ^(talk) 23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

When to include album links?

I've noticed some song's that don't have articles use album links instead (Supernaut, Wrathchild, Electric Version, Pleasure (Pleasure), etc). But then there are some songs (the new DLC song from Serj for example) that don't have a song page but have an avaialable album. For the sake of having a "style" or "constant" for how this is done, what is the current train of thought? I've noticed a few editor's take out the Elect the Dead link and wanted to make sure there wasn't some common Wiki policy or style agreement that I missed earlier. TRTX (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus at the Guitar Hero articles was always to only link to song articles (never albums). I like the same convention here. I deleted that link before and I'd support the deletion of all album links as well. I don't understand why an album link is more useful than the artist link that's already there. Oren0 (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the idea behind linking to the specific album was to get some information about the song. While a full song article provides a history of the track as well as lenght, variations, and other info...linking to the album will at least give an idea of the length of the track and possibly some history (since often the track is was at one point a single). But if that's the consensus for GH, I can live with it here as well. TRTX (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

SXSW "Pack"?

The press release refers to it as the "SXSW DLC Pack". Though from what I've gathered there is no actual pack. Is this true? Also, I've seen reports that Shockwave has yet to be added to the marketplace. Though this may be the case, the relesae said "March 11". I would say leave Shockwave in the list of songs and move it to "Annouced" with "TBA" if by tomorrow it has not been included. That's just my opinion. I've referenced the three tracks as "SXSW" and linked to the press release. I don't have the marketplace in front of me, just the release. It could be that a true "pack" download is on the way and that whatever's keeping Black Tide out is holding back the final pack download. I would say go with the press release until the day passes or we get news otherwise. TRTX (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Beethoven's what?

What exactly is "Beethoven's C***" (by Serj Tankian)? Is that the title of the song or is it just censored? Please note that Wikipedia is not censored. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 16:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Presumably from Serj's page, it is a censored word; however, given that Rock Band content is going to be censored, we have to report the titles as given by HMX or MTV, and so from the official literature I've seen, it is exactly as they say, (sic). In other words, HMX/MTV ha censored for us, we are not doing the censoring ourselves. --MASEM 17:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is why I was asking about album links. If you go to the Elect the Dead album article, this song is listed as "Beethovan's C***" there as well. That would lead me to believe that it is in fact the title. Google searches also don't turn up anything. (And yes, there is more than one four-lettered C-word) TRTX (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note. Somebody updated the album page with the supposed actual word (it was not the one I was expecting). I'm currently on a public computer so I'm unable to start googling for confirmation. TRTX (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• The word of the day is "cunt." However, the name of the song in game is censored, so we should have it censored the same way here. Oren0 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming. That's what I saw as well. TRTX (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just confirming that the title is listed as "C***" in game. --Magus05 ^(talk) 21:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Misery Business

Just a heads up that there's another song identified in the DLC for March 11. I'm thinking of rewording the article to discuss the "Spas.bin" file (or whatever it's referred to) instead of specifically Punk 2. The discovery is in the same article as the original list, but a number of pages in. I'm going to wait until there's more confirmation...but I thought I'd bring up the idea of rewording the section to describe how the songs are "hacked" TRTX (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the word "hacked" causes confusion. It's just information in a file that comes with the dlc, and someone knows how to view it. The term "hacked" connotes foul play, and is possibly one of the reasons why people have such an issue with this list. I also find it amusing that someone restored the dates on the final week of the OXM announcements. I like how OXM is obviously a reliable/verifiable source, even though every single week has proved wrong so far. And even though so far the list has been 100% accurate, thats still shady. lol 142.106.63.213 (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not the one who restored the dates, but OXM is a news publication for gaming. It's informaiton is being reported and footnoted. If next week it's wrong again those dates will be removed, the footnote will remain, and we'll start up discussion on what to do with those tracks. As far as the content of the hacked seciton, that's already on ongoing discussion several places. This is in regards to Misery Buisness. TRTX (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added Misery Business, and slightly edited the wording of the first paragraph of the section. I see no substantial arguments against the inclusion of this data - if we're accepting the DLC list at all, there's no reason not to update it when the list changes. I've seen Misery Business confirmed as in the list by at least two independent sources, but feel free to remove this edit if that ends up not being the case (the delay and confusion surrounding the DLC this week could very well cause some issues). Pksage (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a very interesting subject. One I admit I thought of, but not in regards to a solution. I'm all for including it if there are verifiable/reliable sources to add this specific song. (Much like we'd need a source to add a song to another section. I think I've read the same topics you have that address where and how Misery Business was found. But would that count as verifiable? The only reason we ended up adding the current group was because of the attention it drew from MTV and HMX. I would think once the last week's worth of OXM "predictions" are debunked those tracks will be included along with the list from Punk Pack 02. That's when we'll have to decide how to rephrase the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRTX (talk • contribs) 20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere on this discussion page, the List of Xbox Live Arcade games handles this kind of information very well. Rock Band's DLC is only going to continue growing in scope and popularity, and we're going to continue to have "leaks" and other advance information. I feel that one section dedicated to all upcoming content, except the obviously unverifiable, would not only be useful but is practically called for. Is there any particular reason we're not doing this? Pksage (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

March OXM Dates

I've seen a couple of users repeatedly removing the dates to the OXM tracks. The dates are footnoted as being subject to change, which is disclaimer enough. To remove the dates printed in a publication such as OXM at this point is still just speculation, as there's no verifiable evidence that a date is incorrect. Yes, if next week the dates are incorrect they can be removed then and we can determine what the course of action should be. But at this point, please use the talk page if you have further issue. To the best of my knowledge, more than one user has edited it to retain these dates. TRTX (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this "OXM is a reliable source", "Forums are not a reliable source" ideology when the forum is always right and OXM is always wrong. If the point of wikipedia is just to reprint information found elsewhere, regardless of whether its correct or not, then Wikipedia's value as a resource declines. When the quality of the article is suffering, ignore all rules. By keeping up the March 25th dates, we are including information in the article which we have cause to believe is not true. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what we are doing though. The truth is no one, not even HMX, knows the future. All the page has is the fact that OXM printed the dates, and HMX came out and said they are tentative and subject to change. They acknowledged the songs, thus confirming them, just not the dates. Correct me if I am wrong on that. We have nothing to base the invalidity of the dates off of, other than assumptions and guesses. I don't see how the quality of the article is suffering at all. A printed news source printed the dates as a leak, the leak was confirmed but the dates were marked as subject to change. That is what we have on the page. The list is not suggesting the tracks are forthcoming without a single shred of doubt, just that there was a leak with dates, and the dates could change. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's stupid to leave false release dates up, seriously. They have not been right about one week. You're just making people believe dates are true when obviously they aren't. Harmonix NEVER confirmed the songs are coming, and are obviously proving the only source that should be trusted concerning releases are them. But whatever, let's keep fake ass release dates up, it's stuff like this that makes Wikipedia get its bad rep for not always being factual. TeamOverload (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, calm down. There's no problem expressing a differing opinion, but you're going to have a hard time making your case when you come off as abrasively as that. Second, the dates are being removed as they are proven false not before. The dates were released by OXM and recieved the same "Dates are subject to change" response that HMX usually provides. The information is included because it was printed in a reliable publication. The dates were noted as subject to change by HMX and that was noted in the table. To remove the contents because we think it may be wrong seems like speculation. Especially if we do it because we think HMX is intentionally releasing different songs to prove them wrong. TRTX (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll agree I did come off a little strong, so my appoligies for that. The point is why continue to leave dates up which more then likely will not be true? I have no problem leaving the songs themselves up on the list, but I feel that a TBA release date would be better, than listing actual dates for the songs which obviously are not set in stone. TeamOverload (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to thrown in my 2 cents: If you really want to be accurate and objective, you should throw out ALL the information on potential upcoming releases and tentative release dates. Why? Because as we've seen, the only reliable source on what is being released is Harmonix, and even they generally don't have firm release dates until a few days before the songs hit the marketplace. So, whether or not a song's release date is backed by the New England Journal of Medicine or by Joe Shmoe's blog, it really makes no difference as neither of those parties, regardless of their credibility, has any idea of the true release dates. If you really want this page to adhere to WP:CBALL, then all unreleased song info must go. Runch (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Still Alive has at least been verified in video and by a HMX employees blog. The other announced songs/albums that were not in OXM typically have come in the context of an interview with a HMX employee. The OXM article in question lists songs, so obviously there is some confirmation that the songs are coming, I just think all songs should be listed with a TBA release date until HMX confirms the date of release. This way, the songs still get listed so people know they're coming, but we don't go around spreading false information and having people look forward to dates in which the songs they may want to get, likely will not be coming. TeamOverload (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the thrash packs dates should be changed to the 18th of March because Evile's record company has this little ad on it's site (Look at the image loop box 'till you see a Rock Band picture and read the headline (http://www.earache.com/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm Burning Star IV (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is correct. It's been confirmed now by Harmonix. TeamOverload (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting note to make is that The Haunting has their song switched from Shadow World to DOA. Just further prove that OXM is NOT reliable. Not sure if we should leave Shadow World up on the Announced songs list. Shadow World was announced to be in the Thrash pack, which obviously it isn't in. I'd say the odds are pretty good that this song will never show up. TeamOverload (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here. The dates are not listed as final, or permanent. We have a footnote that explains the dates are not set in stone. We are reporting information as it comes. If Wikipedia readers are unable to read the footnote and discern that the dates are not 100%, I don't think that is our problem. Again, I am a fairly new editor, so correct me if I am wrong. We cannot assume everyone who reads the page is going to take the dates to heart. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would doubt OXM would go to press with a source they pulled out of thin air. What likely happened is their source for the songs was tentative, just as we have reported it. And just as HMX was quoted as saying. You have to remember it was the March issue coming out in February. So wherever it gots its info would've been early and thus still likely to change. OF course that is just speculation. A week ago there were a few users who felt we could assume DOA was a Foo Fighters song. And look where we are at with that. TRTX (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Message In a Bottle TBA now??

I thought the release date was confirmed for March 22nd or something, it said that for a while...Doshindude (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The original posted date was March 11th, as seen in the March OXM issue. It was changed to TBA when a different set of DLC was annouced for that day. The reference to OXM remains since it is a fairly reliable source. And the final week (Metal Pack) keeps its date until another source can deconfirm it more than "it's tentative". TRTX (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

VAGIANT

on the Rock Band game the band that does "Seven" is listed as "VAGIANT" not "Vagiant". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.173 (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks): Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official". In other words, Xbox LIVE is changed to Xbox Live and KISS is changed to Kiss. In this case, "VAGIANT" is changed to "Vagiant". Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 22:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

PAL Exclusive Songs

Title	Artist
Bettlebum	Blur
Rock 'n' Roll Star	Oasis
Through the Monsoon	Tokio Hotel
Hysteria	Muse
Manu Chao	Les Wampas
L'Aventurier	Indochine
New Wave	Playmo
Hier Kommt Alex	Die Toten Hosen
Perfekte Welle	Juli
Countdown to Insanity	H Block X

Source A Source B

--CoolRaccoon (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is worth noting here but not good enough for inclusion yet. We don't know: 1. will these songs be on-disc for the PAL-version, or will they be downloadable? 2. Will these songs also be released as DLC in NTSC regions (or perhaps only the English ones will be, which would match up to the "hacked list"). Also, we'd need confirmation in a reliable source before this info can be added here. Oren0 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This would probably be a good time to start planning the best way to handle something like this. Two options I can think of off the top of my head:

• "Two" tables. The first is songs shared between versions, the second is for each set of "exclusives". For example, if Sabotage is not included in PAL RB. This would be done for main, bonus, and DLC. (DLC would be Shared, NTSC, PAL)
• "One" table. Footnotes for PAL/NTSC exclusives. This would involve less dramatic changes in layout and be generally easier. The only disadvantage would be a lack of quick reference to NTSC/PAL exclusives, especially when it matters most (DLC).

Personally I favor the first option, primarily for the reason I just mentioned. If the biggest complaint would be the bulk of the work, I could start up a rough draft of the tables prior to any sort of official annoucement. TRTX ^{T / C} 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

First I just want to say that HMX had been saying for a long time that the PAL version would get exclusive localized content on the Disc. I do not know if anything has changed, but I do know that was the original plan. Now my suggestion: I do not know if we have enough room, but on pages like List of Xbox 360 Games there is a column that says whether or not the game is exclusive. They even have an option for "partially exclusive" meaning the game is only on Xbox and PC. Anyway, what I was thinking is there could be something of the sort added to our table that says PAL, NTSC, or Shared. Then again, this might not even be an issue. Once an official announcement is made, it might end up that the PAL version has everything PLUS these titles. If that is the case, they deserve their own section, much like the HMX pack. Maybe the PAL version has everything PLUS these titles, but they are also made available for download on NTSC games as well. In which case I don't think a new section would be needed. I think it all depends on what the complete and final setlist for the PAL version is, how many new songs they have, and whether or not they will be made available at all for the NTSC version. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To me, it depends on how different the lists are. If the lists are substantially different, we might want to split the article into List of songs in Rock Band (NTSC) and List of songs in Rock Band (PAL), or similar. The current indications seem to be that most of the songs will be common, so I'd suggest a section for common songs, a section for PAL-only songs, and a section for NTSC-only songs (if there are any). This will allow us to easily adapt if songs are different in different countries. As for DLC, we can then just add a column that says where the DLC will be available. Oren0 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...we could add two columns to the current table, one for PAL, one for NTSC. We could list beside each song "on disc," "DLC," or "not currently available." (or checkmarks, circles, and X's for a visual representation.) However, this might get crowded due to the "tier listings." I think the best option, for now, would be to add a section (or just list them at the bottom of the "main setlist" section) noting the songs as PAL exclusives, and that NTSC release of the songs is unknown. When we find out a bit more about it, we'll see what the best method is. --Sgtpepper252 (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Right now, I don't think we can verify them enough to add them to the page. I don't think we can come up with a 100% sure thing to do until we know for sure what the officially announced track list is, and how it will differ from PAL to NTSC. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Earache Thrash Pack

I moved it from the announced section to the released section. I know it is on the Marketplace. I have not purchased the tracks so I cannot check the tiering. If you need to fix anything, please do. This was my first major edit. I could not remember if we used a footnote or not for songs on the Xbox Marketplace but not on the PSN yet. If so, you can let me know and I will add it, or you can do it for me. I also moved the reference for the announcement down to the end of the "Songs Listed in DLC Files" section because it was being used on the footnote there. Please let me know if I did anything wrong. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks! As a side note, I've updated the page with a comment to help future editors locate Bass information (I don't know if people know where it's at in-game) TRTX ^{T / C} 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding the tiers as found at Rockbandcontent.com. They tend to update pretty quickly and I'll just assume their stuff is accurate until we find out otherwise. Oren0 (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Just comparred a few weeks worth to the table's we've got. Appear to match up. I'd consider it a viable source for the info. TRTX ^{T / C} 23:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I couldn't download the songs, so I couldn't confirm the tiering myself. I only added the vocals once multiple people mentioned it in separate threads on the official rock band forums. Had I downloaded the songs I would have known where to get the bass tiering. Not saying your addition was worthless, it is good the have the info there. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as PS3 goes, anyone know what the delay is? its 3pm central already and still no Thrash pack. Is the 20th of March the correct release date?

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.111.2 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)