Video games List‑class Low‑importance

This 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 List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Who changed the first artist to 'As Made Famous By Creedence Clearwater Revival'? That makes it both a dead link and redundant. Needs to be switched back. Asci

EDIT: That was awfully quick.

I would love to add links to youtube videos. Often I'm not sure whether I know the song or not, so I have to google/youtube it to be sure. I think I'm not alone with that problem. What do you guys think? Bastis123 (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As most youtube videos of this type are copyright violations (not uploaded by the persons holding the IP), we can never link to them. Nor would it be proper to do so even if they were legit. --MASEM (t) 12:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going along the "proper" side of things - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Youtube videos for all songs are more for fan sites like scorehero.com. I agree that having a place to watch the charts in a YT vid would be nice, but it's just not appropriate for here. --Teancum (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] there ya go. MiTfan3 (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a general comment, but the main idea behind this is that while Wikipedia is edited and maintained by anyone that wants to contribute, it does not just become whatever those people want. It is first and foremost an encyclopedia. There have been guidelines set up that aim to direct Wikipedia to that goal. So while it seems natural to be able to do what would be most helpful, those helpful things do not always fit with the site being an encyclopedia. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Just as an outside tip: My site has been including youtube videos forever, and let me assure you it's waaaaay more work than you want to maintain. Lots of videos got wiped by Warner Music a while back, and I'm still finding broken videos, or ones changed to private. Long story short, it's a logistical nightmare. - Chris from rbdlc.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.140.138 (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most useful sections of this article, "Upcoming Songs", is sequestered at the end of an ever-increasing list. As it is the only section I personally visit this article for anymore, I find it rather annoying to have to wait for the list to load (which can sometimes take a while for me for whatever reason) and then scroll for what seems like ages in this era of instant gratification. And as I alluded, the problem will only get worse as the "Available Songs" list grows.

Would there be any merit to moving the "Upcoming Songs" section to the top of the article? A more ambitious but consistent change might be to switch the ordering of the entire page (so that newest available songs are located at the top instead of the bottom).

This is obviously not a crucial (or maybe not even a desirable) change, but I felt that it would be an improvement to the current format.

Cheers! 132.236.7.129 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the table of contents makes the upcoming songs section available in a single click. Not sure if i see the need to move it to the top too. Also the list is sortable by release date so the newest songs can be brought up to the top.harlock_jds (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you have a good point. That should be sufficient, and I just need to take advantage of those tools. 132.236.7.129 (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add to what harlock said, the primary focus of the article is the list itself, not the upcoming songs. For the user, the primary goal of reading this article is to see what's already there vs. what's coming. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 04:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My only qualm, and this is with any article that does this, is that I have to scroll to get to the table of contents. THe intro section seems to be rather long. Maybe a short intro paragraph and then a section after the Table of Contents with most of the information we have there now? I am not familiar with the normal policies with these things. I too have the loading problem, but there is not much we can do about that. More recent things tend to be on the bottom of articles anyway. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 04:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potential fix, suggestions to speed up pageload

I have made a few edits to try and rearrange stuff to make the ToC easier to find when the page loads. No data was removed, just cut/pasted. If there's any objections feel free to revert or reword. Also, it may be time to try and think of ways to make the page load faster. Would trimming the number of wikilinks be helpful? Currently we wikilink EVERY artist/album title even if it shows up multiple times. I don't know if that would speed up loading. Also, would using templates potentially speed things up? Current there are a TON of "span" tags. Switching to "sort" may help. I'm open to ideas. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 13:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like how it was re-arranged just by taking a quick look. As far as loading, I am not so sure that is a big problem. Maybe we can take a poll, but this page loads just as fast as other wikipedia articles for me. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just reading the definition wikipedia gives for TBD and TBA and I'm 99% sure that the songs with no dates or pack names should be marked as TBA instead of TBD. DJKingpin (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The songs have been announced. The release data has not be determined. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's really splitting hairs though. The release date has more than likely been determined internally at Harmonix, it just hasn't been announced. DJKingpin (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's splitting hairs in the other direction. "to be declared" is just as valid a definition of "TBD". EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know. It's just weird seeing TBD. It's not a commonly used acronym. TBA is used for pretty much everything that is announced but doesn't have a date. Movies, music, video games, they are all labeled TBA until a date is announced. It's just weird to see. DJKingpin (talk) 01:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just noticed that Nothing's Shocking is listed as TBA 2009. We at least need some consistency. DJKingpin (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that consistency is more important than the exact term used. I'd be fine switching it up to TBA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you change it to TBD? lol DJKingpin (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's what's currently being used. I ultimately don't care either way, but since TBD seems to be the standard, that's what I changed it to. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the official annoucement it says so. --68.227.251.3 (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bands re-recording their own works as new masters are still masters, not covers. --MASEM (t) 18:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well shouldn't they be marked as "Songs were re-recorded for use in the game" Estemshorn (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? --MPD ^{T / C} 07:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We ended up dropping that footnote since it was turning into a original research problem. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, i see. On the official announcement it says they are "recent" re-records, not that they were re-recorded for the game. Estemshorn (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]