Music:Proposed policies/archive

Idea And Cleanup
First:

What if we put policy stuff on the Main (i.e. Non-Talk) Decisions page? Like, for example, the Self-Titled Album Protocol would go on that page. So we could remove it from here, and clean this up a little bit? That might be cool -- if y'all want, I can do that, but I figure asking first would be awesome. (Or perhaps the Policies page as thought about before?

Second:

Paul started it, but then I started helping out with it too -- moving off the early artist-album review pages to sole-album review pages (like breaking up the ...And You Shall Know Us By The Trail of Dead page into review pages and a main Artist page). The thing to remember is to make sure to delete the newly blank artist page, otherwise, the wiki will still think that page has information on it, and it won't show up on the Wanted Page List, and it'll just act as a redirect to that one album, making it more difficult to add other records or artist information or whatever. So, either way, that's somethign to make sure. I know Paul's been working on that, and I just went through the A section of the Category:Artist list. (I am leaving live the artist pages that have the templates without information dumped in. Not sure whether or not we should delete those -- I could go either way, and I figure at least we're not harming anything by leaving those in.)

Anyway, though -- with the new album pages, someone's definitely gonna clean those up; I'm just basically copy pasting them in and then throwing a album template on top, Looks like the reviews are unsigned too -- think they're all michael's though, but yeah. Anyway, though, yeah. They'll need a bit of work, but not too awfully much I don't think. Just a little bit of cleaning up and plunking tracklists in there I think, and that'll be about it.

So, the cool thing is, though, it looks like we're going pretty good. Still doesn't seem that we've got a whole lot of other, outside folks reading here, but it's probably just a matter of time, and once we get things more Ready For Prime Time, I think we'll get more people in to do stuff. And that will be pretty cool. Especially if we get all the review pages put on album/single/ep pages -- those are good reviews, and I think if that content is easy to find/set out, it'll be a great draw.

So, anyway, though. I am hell of tired right now, and I fear I'm rambling. So I shall stop. Anyway, basically check out what I did and that'd be awesome. Um, not sure if there's anything else I was gonna mention. Probably kittens, because kittens are totally awesome. - Rev. Syung Myung Me 08:41, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Rev, thanks for the info about the blank redirect pages. If you ask me, I think we should get rid of the empty templated pages, so we can kind of keep track of where we are(if everything is pretty now and policies are made really clear, it will be easier later)- it would be great to know exactly how much we have right now. As far as policies, my vote would be to put policies on related discussion pages (for example, the self titled album policy would be on the Template:Album discussion page), but perhaps we could make a Policies page to put things first, so we can vote then move the policy to where it should go? This page is really just making due until it matters that we're more organized. And while I'm here- Rev, if you haven't heard Regina Spektor, do yourself a favor and download some! Let's get some things done. Paul Lynch 08:49, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Man, horizontal rules make these easier to follow, too!

But yeah -- I just noticed that a day or two ago about the redirects; I was fixing a capitolization-typo, then was going to go back and fix the source page, then found that it just forwarded it on to the right page. So, yeah -- that's pretty interesting and normally really useful (just not in this application!). But yeah -- I'd probably vote to remove the template-only ones too, just to make that a little bit cleaner and stuff. In fact, here, why not do a vote right here below?

For policies, I think that a two-pronged approach would be good. It'd probably be good to have like a Consolidated Rulebook in one place, as well as rules pasted where they'd apply as well. A policies page (linked from the main page) might be more clear, although I also kind of like the idea of cannibalizing the main Decisions page -- so it's sort of like Decisions Made (Decisions) and Decisions Being Made (Talk:Decisions), but I could go either way on that. There should also probably be an OldTalk:Decisions page where we throw off some of the old comments that aren't really live anymore -- clean this page up a bit. Maybe I'll throw that in as a vote, too.

Also -- saw Regina Spektor on Conan a while ago; that song was cool, so I downloaded some of her stuff. Some of it was _awesome_, but some of it didn't click. I think it was all from the new album though.

And as for promoting, I've been kind of plugging it around, too, although not anywhere too big yet, just because I think we should get a bit more artist pages in. I've been kind of emphasizing the Mix CD thing, since that's sort of my baby anyway, but being sure to play up the other aspects, because I do think this has the potential to be a Known Good Source, y'know? - Rev. Syung Myung Me 16:47, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

VOTE: Should we delete artist pages that just have the template pasted in and nothing more?
 * Yes -- Rev. Syung Myung Me 16:47, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes -- Paul Lynch 17:49, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, these are only on artists from the first couple of labels (alphabetically) -- Michael Ardaiolo 17:59, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

VOTE: Should we do an OldTalk:Decisions page for old comments here?
 * Yes - Rev. Syung Myung Me 16:47, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * No - Just erase them! Paul Lynch 17:49, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * No - while it could be useful, would more than likely just take up space Michael Ardaiolo 17:59, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

VOTE: Where should we put decided upon things?
 * Decisions
 * Decisions & Applicable Discussion Pages
 * Policies
 * Policies & Applicable Discussion Pages


 * Decisions/Discussion - Rev. Syung Myung Me 16:47, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Policies for decided policies, Decisions to vote on policy Paul Lynch 17:49, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * what paul said Michael Ardaiolo 17:59, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

repeated names
Should we put up disambiguation pages for repeated names of songs/labels/artists? For example, the band World Leader Pretend, and the song World Leader Pretend: given the current policies I would assume the band would be the link World Leader Pretend and the song would be REM:World Leader Pretend. Let me know your thoughts on issues like this. (Keep in mind that a possibility would be to make all albums Artist:Album and all songs Artist:Album:Song similar to how wikibooks writes their entries). Paul Lynch 19:49, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think I suggested the Artist:Album:Song link idea earlier and it gets my vote hands down... though i do not look forward to going back and fixing the Madlib discography.. does that man ever take a break? User:Mpardaiolo 05:58, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense to me -- what I've been doing is where the first instance gets the raw link (although I'd be more inclined to default to artists, unless an album/song page already exists), and then followups get Artist:Album/Song, like Michael says. Then, in some cases, i've been popping in and adding "Did You Mean: Artist:Item With Same Title?" at the very top; sort of like a disambiguation page, but, well, more compact. I'm not certain if this is the best way, but ti seems to work reasonably well anyway! At least for now, anyway. - Rev. Syung Myung Me 07:31, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Decisions Page
I suggest that the decisions page be used as follows: any questions that could potentially change policy be put on the decisions page, and a vote concerning the content of the question will be put below the question (this section, for example). Votes, once decided, will be implemented on the Policies page, and after 2 weeks they will be deleted from here.

VOTE: Should the Talk:Decisions page be used for policy questions and voting, with old votes deleted 2 weeks after they are decided upon?
 * Yes - Paul Lynch 19:49, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes - User:Mpardaiolo 06:01, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes - Rev. Syung Myung Me 07:32, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Navigating Deletions
I think we should have a vote on what we should write for our reasons for deletion (it seems like if we ever get into heavy editing it will be useful to be able to look at deleted pages and recent changes at a glance and know what is going on)- for example, I just deleted a redirect made from a move of an album review to an album page from an artist page, and on reason for deletion I wrote "inaccurate redirect." Perhaps we should have names for most common situations when we delete things. Here are a couple:

VOTE:When deleting inaccurate redirects, type "inaccurate redirect" as reason for deletion, and write "no content" for deleting pages with no content.
 * Yes - Paul Lynch 23:01, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes - User:Mpardaiolo 06:01, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes - Rev. Syung Myung Me 07:32, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Total Revamp
Ok, so I've been looking at the "This Might Be a Wiki" wikicity, and their album/song pages are pretty impressive. I'd like you guys to take a look at their album and song templates, and pay special attention to the navstub at the bottom of the pages with extra links: they have seperate pages for lyrics, tabs, interpretations, etc with each seperate page being in the format Lyrics:song Tabs:song etc... I have seriously been thinking that we post on their site, let them know who we are and ask if we could borrow some of their stubs. This whole wikicity might be way cleaner if we kept the more factual information on the main Label/Artist/Album/Song pages, and linked to seperate pages for reviews and lyrics and tabs etc... I'm not going to suggest we vote on this right now, but you guys let me know what you think, and I hope we seriously consider this sometime in the future. Paul Lynch 07:42, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Hm, In some parts I'm torn; there's no denying that as wikis go TMBW is pretty damn sexy. The way they have things laid out is really impressive and clean and easy.

On the other hand, though -- I'm not sure if this wiki is aiming to be the same thing as TMBW is; TMBW is sort of trying to be more of a massive living reference book towads all things [{They Might Be Giants]] -- and doing a fine job of it, too. On that side, though, what is this? Is this intended to be a big "reference" book type thing? Or more a collection of cross-referenced reviews? If it's the former -- then going the TMBW side might be useful, particularly with Lyrics and Interps and Tabs and all that fun stuff. If it's the latter, though, I wonder if that type of thing would distract from the reviews.

Of course, there's all sorts of issues with the "distracting from the reviews" thing -- at that point, should we even have artist biographies? (I, though, would vote for a strong "yes" on that one -- even though the biographies are more-or-less neutral, they provide context for the reviews, and provide a bit of a clearing house, and an easy way to hop along threads. Where you might not see in a review of Don't Worry Kyoko, Mummy's Only Looking For Her Hand In The Snow that, I don't know, Eric Clapton was a member of the Plastic Ono Band, if that review piques your interest, you can slide over to the Plastic Ono Band page, and see the members listed, and find out that Eric Clapton was indeed a part of that group, as well as, say, showing up on some Bonzo Dog Band records and side projects.  Or whatever.)  So, basically, I'm admitting here that "distracting from the reviews" is sort of a lousy justification if it's the only justification.

But yeah -- I think we need to think about what it is we want to do, and how we see this here wiki. I do tend to lean towards the "cross-referenced review" model and away from the "music encyclopaedia with an indie bent" model, but that's me personally. I tend to think of the big cross-referenced Bank O' Reviews as the strength of this wiki, but that's also probably because I tend to be more Review Oriented anyway, so it's a bit of Self-Interest there. (Reviews are my thing, therefore I want them to be the center, heh.) But, I think that that's something that needs to be talked about, at least in a sense of the overhaul/revamp. - Rev. Syung Myung Me 08:42, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the TMBW is definitely very well done.. i especially dig the ratings and stuff like that.. very cool. Stuff like that would definitely make this site more attractive, which is probably what we should aim for. Also, I think that that if we make a large 'cross-referenced Bank O' Reviews' it will naturally become a music encyclopedia. I only really added the independent thing because that is what I tend to listen to. Lately though, I have been listening to a lot of jazz and funk from the 70s, and have had the desire to add that stuff too. So if it pleases everyone we can just drop the 'indie tag'.. but I like the site name and don't want to change that. Also, if we decide on an overhaul, we should do it now, b/c the more information the longer and overhaul takes. I think we need to decide on this now. User:Mpardaiolo 17:33, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * 1. the type of links we are going to use (artist/album/song/etc)
 * 2. the addition of those sexy tags
 * 3. anything else that would significantly change what we have already done

Yeah, I am personally more interested in a 'music encyclopedia' that can be used to reference the relationship between artists and bands and labels and all that- but I didn't start this wiki. I think a good medium would be to make it more of a tmbg wiki style (as far as how they seperate lyrics, interpretations etc from song pages), but the front page could have featured albums complete with reviews (think epitonic.com). Also, for rev's mix tape idea, we could have a seperate 'main page' with featured mix tapes(think epitonic.com except with mix tapes instead of album reviews). I am really thinking on the macro scale, because think of all the possibilities of having the skeleton of a complete band encyclopedia- you could put mix tapes and reviews easily on that(as well as venues with their information, touring information, well thought out genre pages...) but I think with this particular vote it should initially be Michael's call, and he should have 'veto power' over these types of decisions for a little while since this is his baby. There's my two cents. Paul Lynch 02:18, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Also, another HUGE benefit of the TMBG format would be that for each Song page, a lyric, interpretation, review etc. page will be created (or will show up aroudn wanted pages). so if you know the lyrics and you're looking at the song, you can just click on the link on the song page and write the lyrisc in. Paul Lynch 02:33, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ok, when I first envisioned this site, I was definitely going in the direction of a music-oriented wikipedia. Where you can start on your favorite artist's page, see a biography and tons of information on them including discography, related artists, labels, tour info, etc. From there you can just surf through the links and who knows where you will end up. On first thought, I was thinking, Artists, labels, genres, locations and years as the main categories.. but the more I saw the possibilities, the more I think they should be added including mixtapes, tour info, other music sites, venues, anything music related. But I didn't know anything about Wikis and had very little idea of how to set it up. Then you beautiful people came along and gave it some much needed direction and structure. As far as format goes.. I really like how wikipedia is setup along with that TMBG page with the tabs, etc. I am not too particular on how it should look, just as long as it is structured well and including as much information as possible. I think that the more we add, the more people, like yourself, will stumble across it and join forces. I do think we should settle some stuff now before we write too much, like the bulletpoints I added earlier. I think we are all actually basically on the same page with our ideas. I just want as much information as possible on music, where anyone can come and learn about music and openly contribute with no precociousness. I am more than willing to drop the 'indie' tag.. and just be an open music site. I just love to listen, read and write about music and wanted a medium where I could share it with others. And if you have ideas of structure, more power to you my friends. Also, I am going to make an effort to write more, and I am using whatever the highest 'wanted' (empty pages with that are the most linked) page is, that I have interest in. And I think that we should really go with this link system, just because it will be easier in the long run (i think): that way on the category pages for album and song, the name of the album or song will be what it is alphabetized by. Michael Ardaiolo 05:58, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Artist: Artist
 * Album/EP/Single: Album:Artist
 * Song: Song:Album:Artist

Exhausting day at work, so forgive me in advance if I'm a little on the incoherent side!

So, anyway -- first off; I like the title of the wiki, too, so I don't think there's any need to change that (even with a deemphasis on the "indie" part of it, there's always going to be mainstream items in indie culture anyway (I mean, look at the indie-subculture's embracing of, say Pet Sounds, or hip-hop or some of the Spectorian production (though I think Phil Spector records might still be considered uncool -- I don't know, I love the Wall Of Sound, so I don't care if it's cool or uncool, dammit!) But my point is that even if this is an "Indie" music wiki (which I think it always _sorta_ will be, just because the people who are music geeks and inclined to contribute and whatnot, are typically more into indie stuff anyway), there's still a definite place for stuff that came before as well as new, mainstream stuff looked at through Music Geek Indie Guy Eyes.

That'll probably be a pretty good idea about defaulting to the: Artist: Artist and Album: Artist:Album

format, although, I might make a suggestion that perhaps for songs, to save on length, to default to Artist:Song, except in the case of, say, title tracks, where it'd beArtist:SongTitle (song) (sort of the way Wikipedia does differentiations), or in the rare case of where, say (this is probably more purely hypothetical), a band records an album with a song, where we go and put everything in, and then, later, after it's in here, their new album, say, next year, is named after the song from the earlier album, then I would think that we'd keep that as Artist:Song, and then the new album would be Artist:Songtitle (album). But that's just me. I just think it might save on keystrokes and make things a little bit more userfriendly. (Also -- it'd save worry on songs showing up on different ablums, and/or allowing us to consolidate different versions, i.e. remixes, live versions, radio edits, single mixes, whathaveyou) on the same song page. Sort of like how I've got The Guitar (The Lion Sleeps Tonight) for right now. I don't know, though for sure.

I'm not sure if I'm quite understanding Paul's talking about the MixTapes -- if I'm getthing him right, is it sort of a thing where he's proposing spinning the MixTape Section off into a sort of Sub-Wiki where it sort of operates separately from the bulk, but they're interconnected (i.e., artist links would bring up the same exact artist page as the artist link in, say, the RIYL section of the main wiki? Am I getting that right? (Like I said, I'm reeeeaal tired here so y'all'll have to speak real slow for me, heh.)  If I'm reading that right, that could be cool; I'm not sure though.  But yeah --  Anyway, though, it sounds like I was a little bit turned around on what I thought this wiki was, which is totally cool, now that we're on the same page, and I'm thinking that going the TMBW route may actually be a Good Plan.    I'll have to poke around TMBW some more when I'm more awake to see more logistical stuff. Right now, off the top of my head, I can say that I think the way they do songs (at least non-mix CD songs or something) would be good. I don't remember right now how they do --- actually strike all that, I'm looking at TMBW right now, so I might as well talk about it.

Albums: I like the way they do albums. It's actually pretty similar to the way we're doing it now, really, where it's got the basically the straight Informational Stuff (artist/title/tracklist/producer/label). The only thing I'd probably change is where the TMBW has "Trivia/Info", I would suggest putting in a Review Slot. (So, basically, as far as I can tell, very little would change with teh Artist Template. Perhaps a bit of prettying up?  But either way, though, I think information/structurally, it's probably fine as is.  Like, looking at tmbw, this is how I'd modify the TMBW format for us, for albums (bolded:  Stuff I've added to the TMBW layout, strikethrough, stuff I've removed):

Artist: artist_and_linked Released: release_year Tracks: # of tracks Label: link title ASIN insert amazon.com ASIN (do we need this? Buy this album at amazon.com ASIN/ amazon.com (I suppose if we don't need the ASIN...) Track Listing Review: Category:Album

And then from the song format:

Song Name: SongName Artist: ArtistName Album: AlbumName Year: year Sung By: More needed for a single artist WIki, I think; I think that if there's something notable about the vocalist, it'll be mentioned in a review Trivia: Song Review(s) ... Song Themes: Videos: Listen: (I think Song Themes isn't really somewhere we necessarily want to go; videos/listen links -- that might be good, although I'm not sure how many of the songs we'll be adding that'll have legal video and/or music links.)

(this here's the box at the bottom) Other Links For "Song"

Lyrics Interpretations I think this is a sort of TMBG fan thing anyway, having actually done a bunch of these back in the day to tmbg.org, heh, but more to the point, I think this is filled in by the Review Section on the Main Page anyway. Guitar Tab Bass Tab Chronology Might be too much work, keeping track of different versions of the same song by the same artist -- think it might be a headache we don't want to do.

(The rating box didn't come over, but I think it'd be cool; I'm one of those geeks who likes to play with ratings and whatnot anyway, so it'd be interesting. I'd actually even recommend, if we can, having two sets of ratingses, one for albums, one for songs.  Or maybe just for albums.  Whatever.  Alls I'm saying is that ratings boxes?  I'm a fan.)

Anyway, though, so, uh, yeah. That's my long, rambling and incoherent 2 cents from readin' what other people have written. Sorry it's all over the place and if I've ignored points for forgotten to reply to stuff, heh. Anyway, though, I'm gonna stop writin' here, just because this is probably too long by half already. -- Rev. Syung Myung Me 08:00, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Ok, so the next step is for one of us to go post on the tmbg wiki and lift their stubs at the bottom. Then, we can change the album, artist and song templates like we like them(and label should look similar) and add that stub to the bottom of all the templates. Then we can move stuff where it needs to be. P.S. I think it would be a good idea to have the Review on a seperate page from the album and song pages- that way, we could say that all the info on the album and song pages are NPOV, and review pages are not. Artist and label pages should have the Biography on the same page, however. So, let's do this 141.225.56.157 18:00, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts on putting the review on the main page is just mainly so they get read -- I'm worried that if the reviews are on a separate page, people won't click through, where they'd be more inclined to read it if it was just there for them. (I know that I tend to browse this way.) And it just seems like it might be a little bit of a waste if the reviews are off-focus. I think that if all of the reviews are signed (which they should be anyway), it takes care of the NPOV problem. But that's just me. - Rev. Syung Myung Me 18:16, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I can dig it. Now, I'll go forcibly take tmbg wiki's templates, and start to work on that stub at the bottom. Shall we do this? Paul Lynch 18:47, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I'm down. Michael Ardaiolo 19:45, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. So we're all on the same page -- are the Artist/Label templates OK, and it's just Album/Songs we're changing? I'm wanting to add some more stuff, although I don't want to contribue to the "to be fixed again later" pile, heh. - Rev. Syung Myung Me 07:37, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I just want to make sure this is clear.. new links: that way on the category pages for album and song, the name of the album or song will be what it is alphabetized by. Michael Ardaiolo 15:36, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Artist: Artist
 * Album/EP/Single: Album:Artist
 * Song: Song:Album:Artist

OK -- I"m still not sure about song links including the album listing -- what about songs that appear on multiple albums in the same version, though I guess that's what re-directs are for -- but otherwise, that makes sense. Cool, then! - Rev. Syung Myung Me 17:18, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Would Song: Song:Album not be as good? I can't think of a time where the song and album would be the same, but the artist would be different. Paul (not logged in) 17:48, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

ok, i meant, sorry. Michael Ardaiolo 19:36, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Artist: Artist
 * Album/EP/Single: Album:Artist
 * Song: Song:Artist

Alright, everything is in order as far as I'm concerned. The templates are complete, we should delete any comments on the talk pages of templates that we've addressed and make sure each template's talk page explains how to use it, then let's get everything we have in the system in order before adding any more info. Also, after yuo guys give the go ahead, let's delete this talk thread- it's huge. AND, Rev has started alphabetically with artists checking for good form, I'll start categorizing uncategorized pages.Paul Lynch 02:05, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Okey-dokey, then! That sounds good! I'll work on going through the artist list; probably a first pass of just deleting template-only entries, and then maybe a second pass (or if someone wants to follow me, hitting the ones that are album-review-onlys). And, yeah -- once we get this stuff on the policy page, I think this'd be ripe for deletion, since it's like 20 miles long! -- Rev. Syung Myung Me 04:52, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

just being picky, but i think it would look better on artist pages, etc if album/songs be written as Album, so you only see the album name. that would keep Album:Artist still on the category page, right? Michael Ardaiolo

I agree, actually -- and, yeah, no worries, it'd still file correctly. - Rev. Syung Myung Me 06:12, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Compilations
How should we link compilations? My vote Michael Ardaiolo I'd probably go with this one; similarly, if we did this, Soundtracks would be Title:Soundtrack. Although you're probably right about the subcategory thing -- I"ll pop in and fix that in the soundtrack/comp. templates! - Rev. Syung Myung Me 19:12, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Compilation Title:Label
 * Compilation Title:Various Artists
 * Compilation Title:Compilation

Also, there should be a subcategory under albums for compilations.

What we are working on
I am working on: Michael Ardaiolo
 * 1) updating all my reviews; cleaning pages, rewriting reviews, fixing links
 * 2) going back to artist pages I wrote and fixing the links
 * 3) adding discography to labels (probably should be a link, Label:Discography (possible category?)

I'm working on:
 * 1) Updating Artist Pages as well/Moving them to albums where applicable EDIT This is also done.
 * 2) Dealing with uncategorized pages EDIT: Got through all of them!  Now to go back through the artist list, and then that will be done!  At least for the time being!

Afterwards, I'll probably fix my Mix CD stuff that hasn't been fixed yet. That might be in a little while; there's a lot of uncategorized pages.

I've also (with Paul's help/advice) tweaked the templates -- I think those might be good for final ones?

Also, right now, there are no artist-template-only artists, but there are still some album review ones, and loads of ones in the Uncategorized section. So, uh, yeah. - Rev. Syung Myung Me 19:15, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)

ALSO: I was thinking -- with the Song and Album re-directs -- for the time being, do you want to just leave those as Re-Directs, fixing the source-links as you come across them? Perhaps only nuking a Redirect if you know there's a band with the same title (i.e. People Like Us versus People Like Us:Talking Heads -- which'd probably be more impressive if I put a People Like Us page in, but whatever.) I think that might save us a bit of worry and stuff, and we can always use the "what links here" thing if we need to to see which we need to fix, if any. What say y'all? - Rev. Syung Myung Me 22:14, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Rips
While cleaning up uncategorized page, i came across, Sananda Maitreya, which looks like it was a straight copy-past from Wikipedia. I threw an artist template on top of it, just so it's categorized and will be ready to be kicked into shape, but I think we need to think about: a) Whether Or Not This Sort Of Thing Is OK b) If It Is OK, Should We Make Up A Slug/Template Box/Somethin' For Stuff Based Off Wikipedia Articles.

I've seen B occasionally before (I think the Comixpedia Wiki has one of those; I think their official stance is "It's better to have wholly original stuff, but if you're gonna rip from Wikipedia, at least credit it." I think the Achewiki might have that, too, not sure off the top of my head, though.

So, yeah -- I think we need to figure out something in regards to that.

On one hand, that'd be kind of cool to have a bunch of that work already done for us, particularly on larger artists, but, on the other hand, do we really want to do that -- be a Wikipedia Mirror in places? (Though, on the other, other hand, some of the label and genre articles are stone-cold bitches to write, and a lot of times Wikipedia already has good stuff on genres/labels, so....)

Anyway, though, yeah -- somethin' we should think about. I'm leaving the Sananda Maitreya article live for the time being -- we can always nuke it later, or clean it up or whatever. - Rev. Syung Myung Me 18:54, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd rather stay completely seperate from Wikipedia. But, without a doubt, if it is copied over, it has to be cited. That really should be a given. That page popped up on here shortly after I started the site, and I forgot about it. At the time, I didn't realize that it was taken from wikipedia, I just thought that the person who wrote it was just a huge Maitreya fan. I kinda just ignored it, b/c at the time, I considered this an independent-minded site. But I also understand that if someone wrote something like that for wikipedia, and wanted it posted here as well. But again, it needs to be cited, with preferably a link. Michael Ardaiolo 23:50, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Possible Problem
Well, I really hate to say it, particularly since the three of us have spent the last week on this, but there might be a minor problem with our format for albums/songs -- it turns out that the way to link across WikiCities is Nameofwikicity:Article ; I came across this with Alaska (Album):WeSafari -- it probably won't matter at all (particularly since we're doing Title:Artist, rather than the other way around, but it might be a little weird. So, I guess, for the time being, if we hit examples like that, should we just put (Album)/(Song)/(EP)/(whatever) after the title if it's also the name of another WikiCity?  Didn't really realize this was going to happen, but I guess at least now we know how to link across stuff!

So yeah -- probably nothing, but it might be something to think about. - Rev. Syung Myung Me 22:09, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I think that is a good solution. Michael Ardaiolo 23:51, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Template Vote
I just did what I think might be Final Tweaks to the Templates, so, as per the Community Portal why not take us a vote? Should we go with these as the finals:

Template:Artist

Template:Label

Template:Album

Template:EP

Template:Single Template:Genre

Template:Song

Template:Mix CD

Template:Compilation

Template:Soundtrack

VOTE:


 * Yes. -- Rev. Syung Myung Me 01:03, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)