Talk:2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series

Third Eye Blind

Heads up that Third Eye Blind has reported via their Twitter that they've rerecorded six songs for RB. [1] --MASEM (t) 19:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Split

I think this article is growing more and more unwieldly every week. I suggest it be split somehow, perhaps by release date. I know that this can make sorting it by artist and what not annoying, but this beast is over 100K and growing all the time. Aar☢n Bruce^Talk/_Contribs 05:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we can make the current list an article by itself with NO other content for starters. Aar☢n Bruce^Talk/_Contribs 05:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Splitting via date seems like the only logical approach given how this list grows. rockband.com/music's master table does include sorting by other means as well, so the loss of sorting by artist/etc.

If we do split, the articles should share the same lead up to table save for identification of the period (and possibly with a infobox-like navbox to move between them), but only the last, most recent list should have the upcoming songs listed; the other tables should use "seealso" to direct the reader there. --MASEM (t) 06:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If we split, my concern is that the sortability becomes less helpful...as you lose the ability to find songs from similar artists/genres. I'm especially concerned with losing the ability to group songs by the artist...as bands like Grateful Dead and Weezer would be spread across multiple pages (leaving readers unable to accurately assess the table). But then of course the issue becomes how do we record the upcoming content? I guess the two options I see are either split on band/artist name or year released for the game. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 13:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's my initial concern, but then we have to remember why this list is here: it is to document which songs have been added as DLC for the highly popular game Rock Band and, due to the cultural awareness of the game, may often see some correlation with improved sales for that song or group or album. Providing a single sortable list to see all the songs that an artist has provided is great and all, but that is strictly a utility use and not geared towards encyclopedia information. And as rockband.com (and likely other sources) mimic this function, it's not strictly on us to keep it. Thus, splitting the table does have merits.

Now, I do wonder if there's an option here for keeping one long master table and then split tables, funneling uses to use the split smaller tables but making them aware of the large table (which may take a while to load). Yes, that duplicates information but it also helps the reason to split and retains the large sortable table. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I dunno if this will be a good suggestion, but what if you split the page by Year? Example

• List of Rock Band Songs 2007-08
• List of Rock Band Songs 2009+

Please don't yell at me, as this was the first suggestion that came to mind. 81.154.218.180 (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It actually is a nice idea. It would definitely make it easier to locate certain songs. --Nascarfan1964 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That range of dates would seem fine. Based on HMX's production, we're about 10 songs a week (now) so each year would be 500 songs, which, judging on the current size, would put each list at about 80k of text - large, but not terribly. I'm still trying to see if it's reasonable to have a single master list for those that want it. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What if we were to keep this article as a "master list" of sorts, with all info as is. From there, we'd have the 07-08 article with just songs/artists/release date. Then we'd have 2009 with the songs/artists/release date and upcoming content. Promotional information would be kept in the master article with a link to it from the other pages where needed. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 03:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that splitting the list, and thus losing the sorting functionality would be a shame, but can understand that it could soon get very long. However, the list isn't as long as, say the List_of_animated_feature_films. Robsinden (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Scenario: I just bought Rock Band 2. I want to know what songs are available. I wouldn't really care when the songs were released, I just want to sort the table and look for bands that I like. If the page is split, this will be confusing to do since the information won't all be together. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be split up by when the song was released on the RB Music Store, it should be displayed by band. Keep the current format but now every band would have a drop down list. You click on the band's name, drop down list of songs/genre etc (all the categories that are on the list headings now would be there). UltimateSin01 (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly oppose splitting the article up. It would greatly hamper its readability and usefulness. Also note that the list is actually only around 77kB in readable prose.--Remurmur (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This fits more into Wikipedia's readable prose, but will indefinitely be of more use to the reader to have things together in one place. Lots of lists are >150kb and higher when it is necessary, and it seems wisest here. --Teancum (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion: split the table into separate, transcluded tables; split the 07, 08, and 09 content into separate tables, and then on the 07, 08, and 09 articles (or however you want to include them) you just include the template. You could then have a master page that includes all of the separate tables into one; this way, we could still have the sortable content in one place for those that want it, but we could have more manageable tables for editing and reading, and we wouldn't have to duplicate our content everywhere to accomplish both feats. The individual table pages (different from the articles) would just have noinclude tags wrapping the table heads.
  If this is confusing, look at User:Majorly/RfA/Stats for an example; 2004 thru 2009 are all separate pages, but they are transcluded (sans table heads) onto User:Majorly/RfA/Stats/all (warning: crazy-large page). EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• • This seems to be a workable solution. We'd need List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series in 2007, List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series in 2008, and List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series in 2009, and as you say, make sure the heading and trailing info is all noinclude so that this article can just transcribe those. Maybe even List of upcoming downloadable songs for the Rock Band series for the bottom part of this table too. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A split (of some sort) would be incredibly beneficial to those of us that check this page via smartphones (like when new songs are announced or while at a record store trying to purchase more music by the artists). It has, on more than one occasion, killed my phone forcing a hard reboot. It's the "single large table" that causes rendering problems (which doesn't end up rendering as a table in the end), not strictly the amount of data.66.170.96.149 (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

While that's probably true, you would still be looking at 100+ entries per year by splitting it, which can still bog a smart phone down. --Teancum (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Just as a reminder: as this list keeps growing, the concept that "song that have been included in RB have seen increased interest" becomes more and more diluted, and at some point (discluding the RBN part) this crosses the line as being as directory as opposed to something of encyclopedic nature. The purpose of this table is not to be useful for you, the RB player, to find what songs you don't have yet by sorting by artist or genre, but instead to identity included songs so that those researching the songs can tie their RB appearance to a boosting of sales or other meta-information. Yes, we can try to keep it useful to the RB player, but that's the secondary goal. Thus, I think considering a split is fine, and the fact we can make the split but still manage to keep a master list will do little harm to that secondary goal while making the first goal (supporting research) easier on the end user. --MASEM (t) 15:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, based on EVula's suggestion above, I've made test pages:

• User:Masem/RB/Master is this master list but it transcludes from:
• User:Masem/RB/0708 , the 07-08 song list and
• User:Masem/RB/09, the 09 song list.

The upcoming songs could be their own list too. Noincludes are used to provide useful headers and footers on the shorter lists, and I would also include navigation aids above and below the table to get to the master or by-year list (and future releases if given). --MASEM (t) 20:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to split everything, we need to be consistent; specifically, we need to break it down by year, regardless of the fact that 07 didn't have nearly as much. Other than that, though, that's pretty much what I had in mind. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to split, I agree that it should be year by year, which would provide the most logical progression as we have to add more and more pages. With the RBN coming soon, I'm picturing two sets of DLC articles, one listing "official" releases (07, 08, 09, etc)...and another listing RBN releaes (09, etc). I'm not too fluent on "transclusion", but if that allows us to only have to update a song entry in one spot then I'm all for it! -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking the RBN pages could have simpler names, but follow the same general naming scheme; specifically, I'm imagining List of Rock Band Network songs (2009), etc. (since all the songs thru the RBN are downloadable, versus the difference between shipped/downloaded songs in Rock Band, we don't need to specify that in the article name). I think this will allow us a greater degree of flexibility as we grow (though it'll be interesting to see just how big the RBN pages will get). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the RBN is that right, only the 360 will see all songs; the PS3 and Wii currently will only see a selection of songs that HMX chooses to be on it. If we stick with "yes/no" columns as the present "Available for Wii" , we'd need two additional columns for all songs to indicate this (one to indicate an RBN track, and one to indicate it's PS3/Wii availability). Becasue the RBN is effectively a low-cost barrier user content, I'd rather keep it as a separate list , and keep the DLC lists here as what HMX has officially put out simply for easy of tracking - based on the amount of feedback that I've seen towards RBN that we're likely going to far exceed the rate of HMX official releases through it. That's not to say the same approach can't work there as well, with multiple and master lists and transclusion, just that official HMX releases should not be mixed with RBN releases.

Also, the only thing I'd change (besides a 2007 list) is to add in a header or something above the list to help people navigate between the years and the masters. (even though this nav will be available in the navbox at the bottom). --MASEM (t) 21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I made myself clear: I think the Rock Band Network lists should be on a totally different series of pages. The only relationship with the regular "List of downloadable songs" pages is that they follow the same 2007, 2008, etc. naming scheme. I totally agree about the navigation between pages, though I'd expect that to be remedied by hatnotes and the navbox at the bottom. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have another scenario as to why we should not split the page (and this one is true for me): I use this page for research. I maintain a list of songs shared between Guitar Hero and Rock Band (http://ghrb.webs.com/). Whenever a Guitar Hero game (or DLC for one) is announced, I use Ctrl+F on this article to find if the songs are already in Rock Band. So this is an example of how splitting could hurt research. I strongly oppose the split. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read my suggestion; by splitting and transcluding, we could have a single "master page" that still had all of the items listed, which negates your concern by still meeting your needs. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Summary

So let me see if I can recap accurately:

• The table will be split (currently proposed by years):
  • List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series in 2007
  • List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series in 2008
  • List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series in 2009
• These three tables will be created on their seperate pages, and transcluded into one master list
  • List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series
• The "Upcoming songs" section will be included in the most recent year (in this case 2009).

This leaves a few questions (At least in my mind):

• Where does the "Promotions" section go? Is it possible we can create it in one spot (say the master list) and have it carried over into the yearly articles by the same means we carry over the table contents into the master list?
• What do we do with the "Exported setlists" section? Do we stop recording this in the DLC articles and simply include sections on it in the Track Pack and RB1 article?
• What will redirect where? The most common "search" I use to get here is "RB DLC" or "Rock Band DLC". I propose that we set up a disambiguation page that asks people to select a specific year, the master list, as well as offer links to the Track Packs and Exportation.

I like the options we've discussed so far, just hoping to get a feel for where things are at. Since if we don't plan it out we could wind up with a LOT of confusing problems. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this page should be the catch-all for everything; the Upcoming songs (because we've verified that the songs are Upcoming, but not what year they're coming; for example, we shouldn't list Kryptonite on the 2009 page). This would include stuff that we do have verified release dates for; it's better to just have all the unreleased stuff on a single page (and in a single table) than to split it by "date known" and "date unknown."

Promotions and Exported setlists content would still be here, and the various redirects would still come here, but new shortcuts would be used for specific years (I use "rock band dlc" to get here on a regular basis, but I could just as easily use "rock band dlc 2009" to find the most recent releases).

As far as the naming scheme goes, I'd prefer to see List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (2007) instead, but I don't have much of a preference. I also don't think we should have the complete (all years) list here; the whole point of splitting the article is to shrink this one. I'd rather see a List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (complete list)-type article; a somewhat unique naming scheme, yes, but the most manageable way to preserve both the usability of the table and easier/faster loading of this page (which, if we use it the way I just outlined, would still be a viable and important page).

Just my two cents. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This page should then just be the most recent "year", then? That is, righ tnow, it would be the 2009 list, though live at the current title, and then when 2010 comes around, move around the extra sections to that? --MASEM (t) 21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it, but that does make sense. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Side effect is that it makes it the easier to maintain too. While the upcoming songs will be in an noinclude box, the table lines can easily be copied to the table that's outside that block, once those songs are released. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I think when the Rock Band Network comes out, that should get it's own page with it's DLC. It has the potential to explode in size, so maybe this page could be just for the official Harmonix releases, and then another page for the RBN songs.

I don't believe anyone is saying that Rock Band Network songs should be listed on this page, if for no other reason than that it is a much more specialized listing (RBN will only be available on the 360, whereas these songs are available on the PS3 and sometimes Wii as well as the 360). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Split done

Given the last of any complaints that cannot be surmounted by appropriate transclusion, I've gone ahead and splitted this apart.

We know have:

• List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (complete list) - the sortable master list - which transludes:
  • List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (2007)
  • List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (2008)
  • and List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series - this article - (which I note List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (2009) redirects to). All upcoming and promotion info should be left in this article; when 2010 comes around, we move the 2009 songs to the redirect that is waiting, and fill this on 2010 songs.
• {{Rock Band DLC Nav}} is the template box that precedes each table that should make it clear how to get from the year to full lists. When RBN starts off, we can include it there.
• The normal RB navbox has been updated as well to include these links.

I've basically copied the heading and footing text to each article, with the only addition of identifying, prior to the table, the number of years. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

My only beef with the way you did things is that I think that List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series should lead you to the complete list, while the songs released in 2009 should be in an article similar to 2007 and 2008. Doing things this way would be more technically accurate, I think, while providing the same functionality. Maybe others could chime in? - Runch (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of the split is because the page was getting too long. This way we're giving the average reader the most recent listing, but not overwhelming them with lots of data unless they specifically want it. (the reason they're included on a single page at all was because people complained about not being able to search a complete table if it was split up) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a completely valid point, but I'm thinking about the balance of

• What the user may expect to be on the page - a factor that those more interested in the game will expect
• What the user may not expect the size of the page to be - a factor gears more towards the non-gamer

Given that we should try to aim to serve the more general audience - not those that come here each week for RB details, but those that may be doing research on a band or song to learn more about it - I think we should go with the second approach, thus having the "default" DLC page be just the latest year with clear (or at least, I hope it's completely clear) that there's other pages for other years - which of course helps to serve both groups equally. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent job. :) I've gone ahead and created rock band dlc 2007, rock band dlc 2008, and rock band dlc 2009 shortcuts. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

There are a few formatting issues with the split articles as they are now. Three points:
1. More conventional article titles
The more standardized titling scheme would be:

• 2007 in Rock Band downloadable songs
• 2008 in Rock Band downloadable songs
• 2009 in Rock Band downloadable songs

Per similar articles such as the general 2008 in music, 2008 in film, 2008 in literature, etc. to the more specific 2008 in Australian literature, 2008 in LGBT rights, 2008 in Estonian football, etc.

2. More direct title-to-content organization
I agree with the point above that, with the current split configuration, List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series should contain the complete list and a new page should be created specifically for 2009 on the basis that then the article titles would be accurately describing their contents. It's not called "List of recent and upcoming downloadable songs for the Rock Band series". The fact that it currently has the most general/all-encompassing title logically means it should contain the most general/all-encompassing content. Masem, you say that we should aim to serve a more general audience instead of the hardcore fans who may be checking the page to see what's new every week. But only including the most recent songs seems to be a move that only appeals to those latter fans who check for new songs, where "those that may be doing research on a band or song to learn more about it" are inconvenienced by being directed to a page with a general title but specific content, only to have to redirect themselves to a page with a more specific title that has more general content. It's simply poor organization.

3. Rewrite "year" articles with year-specific content
As they are now, the "year" lists are basically carbon copies of the original, with the same leads and sections, etc. This is understandable, as the move was very recent. But they should be re-written to contain information specific to what songs were released that year (how many songs were released, how many albums, what notable albums or artists appeared, notable artists that debuted in the series during that year, etc.). I think the "pricing" section should be eliminated from all but the general article, as the pricing is standard and doesn't change across years.

Mmmyep. T. H. McAllister (talk) 23:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and move List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (2007) and List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (2008) to 2007 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series and 2008 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series, respectively. I'll wait for discussion on point #2 before doing one for 2009. T. H. McAllister (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also taken the liberty of removing the navbox and including a less intrusive infobox ({{Infobox Rock Band DLC}}). T. H. McAllister (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The "default" article, the whole reasons for splitting, need to be short; we should not be surprising unsuspected readers with excessively long pages. Those that are going to use the master list will know that it's a large list and can expect it. The infobox and other text clues will make it obvious that a full list exists if that's needed. --MASEM (t) 02:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, then how about we split this article into two: 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series and Downloadable songs for the Rock Band series. The latter would be a general article covering DLC pricing and availability without any lists, and that would be where most people are directed to learn about Rock Band DLC. Then the year articles still exist, including one for 2009 that is updated with new songs and one that includes the complete list. That way, nobody heading to the general DLC article will expect a huge list of any kind, there's still an avenue for Rock Band fans to be aware of new releases, and the full list is still up for reference purposes. T. H. McAllister (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It could be possible to take all the "extra" stuff and move it to the current Rock Band article, expanding a section on downloadable content there, including possibly the navigation box to all the years. Save for those that know how to get to this page readily, most will likely discover it through the Rock Band article, so there's no problem with moving the non-list stuff there and then present them with the links that give the expectation of lists (and clearly, because there's ~700 songs of DLC out there, it would be fairly obvious the master list is still a problem).

So the 2009 list would have 2009 songs and future songs (as they could be 2009 or beyond), but little else beyond what's needed to lead off the article. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the impression I'm getting. Regardless, once this is done...it may be beneficial to have some kind of RB DLC article map included in each talk page so that new editors don't get confused trying to figure out where their edits should go. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 15:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Q: Where do which articles do we update as new songs come out?

With DLC Tuesday coming up, I have some questions that I felt would be good to have archived:

• Which article needs to be updated as new songs come out each week for 360/PS3?
• Which articles should be updated as older songs (2007/2008) are added to the Wii back catalog?

Hopefully answering these will avoid having situations where two editors make the same changes in seperate articles. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 15:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• The upcoming songs should always be on the most recent year page, simply to make it easy to cut and paste when they are live.
• We're about.. a month? or so from HMX completing all existing tracks on the wii, most being some 2008 albums. When that is done, the Wii column goes away with the presumption that new DLC for 360 and PS3 are also Wii'd that week. To note, all 2007 songs have been Wii'd. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As Masem said, as stuff is released, this page gets updated (as it contains the current year's songs). As for the Wii songs being added, the appropriate year subpage gets updated. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. I am not too familiar with the use of transclusion. So my confusion was in regards to ensuring that updates made to tables are reflected in other spots where they are referenced. Of course, should I screw up at some point feel free to rap me on the hand with the ruler before pointing me to the proper location. ;) -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For you as one of the major contributors to the table when new songs are announced or added, the only change is that you need to make sure that the "noinclude" tag that is just before the table closing markup stays right where it is and to add stuff before that tag. (Stuff inside "noinclude" is, well, obviously, not included when transcluded into a different location :) ). The transclusion only really happens on the master table, and that's only going to be done effectively once a year. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wii Availability

The July 28, 2009 song list is not available for the Wii. There was no release of songs on this date for the Wii. Whether or not this will be fixed with the next upgrade I'm not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.14.8 (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do people keep checking wii songs as available when they are not? Gorilla Z is not available on wii yet. Not the first time it happened. 189.136.38.205 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

They are listed as available when they are announced for Wii, which is usually on a Friday. They become available on Tuesday. So the Gorillaz songs will come out tomorrow for Wii. - Runch (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Do not split this article

Seriously, it's fine the way it is. Don't split it by upcoming songs (an article for that would periodically useless if there are no new songs announced), and don't split it by 2007-2008, etc (that's just stupid and means more clicking to get where you want to go)

The one thing I DO recommend is making an article for Track Packs.Doshindude (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There is one , List of Rock Band track packs. --MASEM (t) 23:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the article the way it is. Even for those on dial up, it may take longer to load for those guys. But, it will still save time because they are not clicking to find the related articles that this has already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.113.130 (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Its fine the way it is...for now. In six months to a year from now though, the list is going to be a lot bigger than the long list it is already. MiTfan3 (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

LEave it alone. There is no reason to split this up other than it is a long page. If you are looking for a certain song search for it in the text of the article. If you want to see if a song is available for download, odoes't it make more sense to look on one page as opposed to looking on multiple pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.203.23 (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The splitting of the article has already been discussed. Please read that section. It's clear from some of your reactions that you don't even realize how it will be split. DJKingpin (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's fine this way. The only thing I would think to add is a link to just the upcoming songs that include the newest releases from only that previous Tuesday so people on their smart phones can use it. Otherwise, leave it as it is. I think it's better that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerch4k (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be kept as is as it is much easier to navigate in its entirety. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I Agree, leave it the way it is. but i would suggest that the default order be reversed. the most recent to the earliest. the page is small (75-100kb ??) and anyone who is on dial-up isn't going to be looking at this page... because if you are reading this the you are probably on XBL or PSN and those require broadband access. -- Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.139.0.53 (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

YES split the article

Really, the only reason myself and I'm sure many other people come to this page is to see the upcoming songs on Friday. It's really becoming annoying having to wait for the page to load on my slow connection just to see one thing. One may say that "What if there are no new songs announced", however, there have been new tracks announced every Friday for years! It would be much more efficient to have two separate pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.120.244.196 (talk) 12:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm ok with creating subarticles by year and having a master list that is produced automatically through transclusion of the sublists. My main concern with any split proposal is that the ability to search the master list by artist and song name be preserved. Having to visit multiple subarticles divided by year in order to search for all songs by a paritcular artist or to search for a particular song would defeat a major purpose of the list in the first place. 63.111.163.13 (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The method for splitting up the table by year would allow us to still have an entire list on a separate page for those that want to access the entire list. Don't worry. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You are better off going straight to the Rock Band website to find out what songs are coming. They announce it every Friday around 9 AM EST on their official forums. The only advantage this site has is that it will list songs revealed through other sources, but those only happen once every several weeks. I really don't see how splitting the article improves it other than "making it smaller" Rowdyoctopus (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it neccesary to have a new thread of discussion for this? It makes it diffcult to track the conversation and form a consensus when there's 3 different threads going regarding the split. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 02:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Updates

Since I'm not allowed to make updates to this page, I'd like to point out a couple updates that need be made.

1. Three Beatles albums can be added to the full album section.

   a.  Abbey Road - October 20, 2009
   b.  Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band - November 2009
   c.  Rubber Soul - December 2009
 -Baptiste, Sean (2009-08-19). "Harmonix and MTV Games Make Major Music Announcements at Gamescom 2009". Harmonix Music Systems

2. The Rock Band Country Track Pack has been released already.

 -"Rock Band Country Track Pack - Full Set List and Details". Harmonix. 2009-06-15.

Thanks Michael.Ciampi (talk) 22:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Michael.Ciampi

As the Bealtes DLC is not compatible with the rest of the series, it is not being included there but you can see it at the game's article. Also, the tracks from the country pack that have not been out as DLC are listed in the upcoming song section - they can't be added until they're actually out as DLC. --MASEM (t) 22:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

DLC To Watch For

http://www.destructoid.com/gc-09-beatles-album-dlc-details-nirvana-more-to-rock-band-144981.phtml

Mentioned in the article are Queen, Nirvana, Tom Petty, Iggy Pop, The White Stripes, Pantera, Talking Heads, Korn, and The Rancontuers. UltimateSin01 (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

These are already listed. --MASEM (t) 13:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This New Format is Not Good

We need to revert back to the old page, or create a new page that lists ALL RB DLC in one place. The new format is confusing, and it now takes 3+clicks to find the information needed, instead of the 1 click before. Very confusing. Very dissappointing. I will probably no longer use this page, as it no longer makes any sense. Way to go, team! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shkdwnstrt (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The general consensus was that this is needed, and is easier to use. All you have to do is click the Full list link in the infobox on the right when the page loads to see everything. It's one extra click, not three. We can't please everyone, but that's only one click to get the full list, so it isn't an imposition. --Teancum (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone had changed the shortcut link of "Rock Band DLC" to point at the banner on the main article page. Can we get this reverted back to show the most recent list/upcoming songs please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.68.254.226 (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea -- doneY --Teancum (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

--Thank you, but unfortunately it still points at the banner :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.101.241 (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If the Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series has all the DLC for the RB series should it include the Upcoming list aswell? UltimateSin01 (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree -- it probably should. I dunno how easy that is to implement as I haven't looked into it, but if it's not cumbersome it should be done. --Teancum (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rock Band Network DLC?

I'm just wondering how this will be handled. Hopefully it gets it's own page with a dated listing of when the song was added to the "Network". I ask because apparently (according to some members on SA) that the beta testers for RBN are seeing content as of today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.23.31 (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

RBN will be treated as separate content. Exactly how it will break down, we don't know yet, but it will be included. --MASEM (t) 22:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the new format/article splits

Consensus was reached a while ago that the DLC article needed to be split for easier access. As a result, there's no "main" DLC article anymore -- there are three "year" articles (2007, 2008, 2009) and a "full" article. Because of the nature of the split, nobody thought it was wise for shortcuts with general titles ("RB DLC", "Rock Band DLC") to redirect to the "full" article. But I didn't think it was any smarter for these redirects to go to the 2009 page (as most of them did by default after the split). Someone mentioned that the "downloadable songs" section in the Rock Band article could be the new anchor for the DLC articles, so I edited several of the redirects to head there. Needless to say, this setup isn't perfect and things are still kind of a mess (up above, some have already requested for the redirects to head back here, to the 2009 article).

I don't know about everyone else, but I'd like to see a new "Downloadable songs for the Rock Band series" article that could serve as an anchor/disambiguation page for all of the new DLC articles with clear direction towards the three year articles and the full list so there's no confusion as to what leads where and what the main, or most general RB DLC article is. But several opinions are factoring into this and we haven't sorted it all out yet. It all adds up to a lot of work for solving a couple of small, but important issues, so the best you can do is chime in if you have any ideas and be patient with the process.

Please don't freak out and run around in circles. Such actions have proven to be counterproductive in the past. T. H. McAllister (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wii column

With today's announcement, I think we're down to 6 or 7 songs that aren't yet for the Wii (As of next week additions). All are in 2008

• Three are covers that have seen been "superceded" by master version (two Rush, one Iron Maiden)
• Three are songs that were made available for free ("Charlene", for example).
• The only odd one is "Real World" by AAR.

We can either wait one more week (next Friday), which should, barring anything weird, put the Wii on parity with 360 and PS3 for next week's songs (Talking Heads,etc) and the upcoming songs, or we could remove the Wii column now and mark the 7 songs as "Not yet available for Wii". The only thing that's stopping me from doing the last is some RS that confirms on the Wii's parity with DLC. The announcement for today's songs *does* say there's 600+ songs for the Wii, so certainly that's one sign that they're close. --MASEM (t) 15:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC) i think its time to remove the "Available For Wii" Row, since we are down to 7 songs (Charlene, Real World, Limelight (Cover Version) , Number Of The Beast (Cover) , Working Man (Cover)) i think its time for it to go Chickenator You could remove the column and footnote the songs that are not released on Wii yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.60.88 (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree here, the Wii column is now unnecessary. Wii tracks seem to be coming out at the same time as 360/PS3, and it looks like the back-cataloging of songs for Wii has stopped. We can just footnote the few songs that are not available. I'll try and do this when I get a chance. - Runch (talk) 14:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Spock's Beard To be added to Rock Band. All ten albums

http://www.musicgameauthors.com/da-bands/spocks-beard.html

Songs we will be initially charting:

   * Onomatopoeia
   * Surfing Down the Avalanche
   * All Thats Left
   * As Long As We Ride

FROM news@spocksbeard.com There is a lot of work involved in charting songs for RockBand, so they have chosen four songs to start off with and will add more later. So if you don't see the songs that you'd really like to play to on RockBand, don't worry, they will be there eventually.

Sorry I am new here, how can I get these added and should they be?

Musicinwidescreen (talk) 16:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)musicinwidescreen

--No mention of it has been made by Harmonix, which is the end all be all to new DLC news. If nothing is stated by them, then it is only rumor and speculation. Also, MGA is an independent charting promotion, using the Rock Band Creator that allows everybody to chart their own songs. So technically, this would not be considered official DLC in the first place.131.156.176.74 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is definitely content on the Rock BAnd Network, so would not be included in this list. I think because of how much user-generated content can be made from this, we're going to only be able to put up songs when they actually appear on the network instead of when they are reported as such. --MASEM (t) 17:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Songs on upcoming list already released

Quite a few songs on the Upcoming list were already released as part of the "Country Pack" on disc. Seeing as I know of no other song released to a track back disc THEN to dlc, these songs should be removed from the "Upcoming List".

They were there well before the Country Pack disc was announced, meaning the original thought (here anyway) was that they would be DLC. It is obvious now they will not be DLC. 216.99.65.63 (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if you read the reference:

"Thirteen of the on disc tracks are brand new to the Rock Band platform and will be exclusive to the Rock Band Country Track Pack disc for a limited time before joining the Rock Band® Music Store as downloadable content."

You'll find they're going to be released as DLC later on--Teancum (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Wired goes nuts with DLC news...

[url=http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/08/rock-band-queen/ Look at all of these!] How do we want to do this? -- TRTX ^{T / C} 03:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What we can add has been added or already exists. The yet unknonw Queen and Racotures songs will just have to be denoted like they are already. --MASEM (t) 06:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

DLC Hacker leaking upcoming songs

Somebody apparently has gained access to Nintendo's servers...and each week leaks the content that he finds. This week, he apparently identified next week's DLC. This sounds like something that will be a weekly occurance unless Nintendo either changes its update policy or HMX beings moving up their announcements. Just a heads up to keep ALL of this info off the table since hacks/leaks are NOT confirmation. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 04:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

this isn't a hack at all, he just looks for a pattern, since each song is given a number based on when it was released, so he looks for a pattern, then posts in on the gamesurge forums User:Chickenator

could one of you post the link here in the discussion?Recycledmaterial —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs) 13:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 13:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously...we're in the discussion. You can't discuss things if you aren't willing to let people be aware of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recycledmaterials (talk • contribs) 23:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I refer you to the top of the page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series article. What TRTX is saying is that the URL doesn't matter - it doesn't have to do with improving the article. --Teancum (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The "hack" is unofficial and has no connection to any reliable source. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 03:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wired.com isn't an official source either but the songs they've mentioned are up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recycledmaterials (talk • contribs) 14:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wired is a reliable source and identified their source as someone in HMX. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Not only does the article not state who their source is it also says that the source is close to HMX not in HMX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recycledmaterials (talk • contribs) 15:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are attempting to argue that a random forum poster is a more reliable source than Wired Magazine, I would ask that you reconsider your current stance. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Also per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources the source has not been deemed unreliable, yet forums have. --Teancum (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If YOU were to say that forum posters bare no truth then I'd ask YOU to reconsider. Wired.com is no better than a random forum poster as they'll try to get any news over the competition that they can just as a forum poster would. And at this point, the Wired.com article is purely rumor at this point as well. I'm not asking you to automatically put any speculation found on a forum, I'm asking that when there is a source that is this consistent that you get off your high horse and at least make it available as you are other speculations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recycledmaterials (talk • contribs) 21:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a "high horse" thing. It's "that's the rules of Wikipedia" thing. I'm sorry, but you'll have to get over it. --Teancum (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is because like I said I am not telling you to put it in the article I am asking that you let people discuss it here by letting them see it before you completely throw it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Recycledmaterials (talk • contribs) 00:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be further discussed because it is not a reliable source. And Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss thinks which are not related to the article itself. This source is not reliable, it won't be used, and we are not going to use the talk page to talk about upcoming DLC unless it relates to the article. There is no arrogance. There is you not being familiar with WP policy, but that's about it. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 02:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

He is reportedly no longer going to leak the upcoming DLC, so this discussion is now null and void. Wildonrio (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Anvil - Thumb Hang

I removed this one from the confirmed for release category. If you read the Billboard source, you can see that this song was confirmed by one of the band members. Seeing as an Anvil pack came out and the song was not there, seems like a case of an artist giving the source/rights to HMX - but this doesn't mean the song will be released. Plus, this goes against our policy of only listing songs confirmed for release by HMX. - Runch (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)