Jump to content

Talk:2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 209.120.244.196 (talk) at 12:22, 13 August 2009 (→‎YES split the article: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games List‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
ListThis article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Rock Band Track Packs

Should songs on track packs be marked, or are there too little songs to be marked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nascarfan1964 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of track packs are already available in the appropriate article, which is linked to in more than one place on this page. -- TRTX T / C 20:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Jam's new album Backspacer coming to Rock Band as DLC

http://www.billboard.com/#/features/pearl-jam-back-to-the-future-1003999243.story?page=3

The article says it's arriving "the same day" as the album in retail stores. Thing is, Backspacer is set to release September 20th, which is a Sunday. September 22nd (which is the nearest Tuesday) as a date for the Rock Band version seems likely.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckRacer1 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to wait and see. It's likely "Release the same day" refers to the Target promotion which will feature the DLC on disc. -- TRTX T / C 20:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 BruceTalk/Contribs 05:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can make the current list an article by itself with NO other content for starters. Aar☢n BruceTalk/Contribs 05:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Summary

So let me see if I can recap accurately:

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_in_downloadable_songs_for_the_Rock_Band_series&oldid=307732803"