Underworld wiki

stimpee · #1 06-18-2006, 04:15 AM

I think the talk should be over here. Casual dirts who are not contributing to directly to the wiki are not going to be visiting a wiki talk page. As for anyone being able to edit it, thats the beauty of it. Raj, if youre worried about vandalism then that can also be taken care of if the UW wiki is created over here. A moderator can give access to people to allow only trusted people to edit the articles if need be. Right now, as it stands we should just get on with making it. Its all we can do.

For individual pages based on releases that have been re-released such as Cowgirl, Born Slippy (.NUXX), and Pearl's Girl then I believe you need the links in chronological order on the main discography page but that you can make them point to the same PG/CG/BS page. On those pages the discography can make it obvious which releases are which and not just give a big list of Born Slippy 12s and CDs. Thats what the formatting is for.

the real stuff · #2 06-18-2006, 10:24 AM

The only reason I bring it up is because Wikipedia has standards. I'm afraid of getting yelled at and going through the AfD (Article for Deletion) motions because we have three seperate Born Slippy .NUXX pages. This is because Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, not a discography database.

Obviously we won't face this sort of problem on a dirty.org server-side wiki, where we can do whatever the hell we want. But as far as wikipedia is concerned, well, we already have Confusion the Waitress up for deletion.

big screen satellite · #3 06-18-2006, 11:23 AM

one thing i have noticed, and think we should avoid, is listing items with '???' following them

and also the 'unconfirmed' elements...

i believe that we should not post any singles or formats or releases that we have no proof of existence, including the 'Spoonman' promo, which no one has seen, the Cowgirl UK White vinyl etc,. and there are a few more.

We should only be listing stuff on the Wiki that do actually exist and can be verified by the person editing the page.

I know my own website has some areas with speculative releases, but thats not an open source for editing, this is and as such it should contain 'true' release, and not speculation, otherwise we will see more 'releases' up for deletion...

and also we perhaps need to be a little more accurate in our notetaions, rather than speculating where releases came from who has them how they got there, etc. after all we want this to be an accurate encyclopdia - speculation and conjecture should be posted elsewhere...

Mattval1