Underworld wiki

[stimpee]

what the wiki strives to be is irrelevant. other bands have comprehensive discography sections split off from the main band page and it works well. i dont see why we should be any different. check out the depeche mode main page and then you'll see a link near the top with Depeche Mode Discography

[COLOR=Indigo]ok, i think it was a good idea to join forces and start something like this, but what's the point of puting things up that can be taken down again? why not wait a bit till Scott has set up a wiki kind of thing at the dirty server? (or is it the name wiki that causes the hurry? )
Once it's here, you can put up all that you want in any form you agree upon, whether you know every tiny detail or have to guess about some of it, whether it has been pressed 2 times or thousands of times.
Another thing is, i think a lot of respect is needed for eachother's input, e.g. don't start merging things together without prior consultation. I thought the whole idea was to be able to add.
If any one is very, meticulously, precise here it's Negative1.
I'm willing to help once it's set up here at dirty and there is some understanding about altering eachother's input etc
[/COLOR][COLOR=Indigo]
[/COLOR]

[the real stuff]

Indeed, these are the reasons I'm looking forward to a dirty-hosted wiki. There won't be nearly as many reasons for us to step on eachother's feet.

So why bother dealing with Wikipedia? Well, I personally think Underworld deserves better recognition on Wikipedia. A complete and accurate discography is certainly desired, but it's a matter of what is deemed notable by the Wikipedia community. We've already flagged their attention with the Confusion the Waitress article. Like Matt said, I think we should focus on the more influential releases with concrete evidence (chart status, citable reviews/interviews, etc.).

The two projects will be markedly different. On Wikipedia our goal should be to establish Underworld as a significant influence to electronic music and popular culture. On the dirty.org wiki, we get to dive into all the details and eccentricities of the band, without having to formally introduce each article as "[[blah]] is a track by [[Underworld]], released in [[blah]] and reached [[blah blah]] ......." if you get what I mean.

[stimpee]

Originally Posted by Lou

[COLOR=Indigo]ok, i think it was a good idea to join forces and start something like this, but what's the point of puting things up that can be taken down again? why not wait a bit till Scott has set up a wiki kind of thing at the dirty server?[/COLOR]

because the Wiki is where a lot of people on the internet look for information these days and it deserves to be a good source of Underworld information.[COLOR=Indigo]
[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by Lou

[COLOR=Indigo] Once it's here, you can put up all that you want in any form you agree upon[/COLOR]

yes but we can do it now and very easily move the text over if and when it happens. why wait?

Originally Posted by the real stuff

A complete and accurate discography is certainly desired, but it's a matter of what is deemed notable by the Wikipedia community. Like Matt said, I think we should focus on the more influential releases with concrete evidence (chart status, citable reviews/interviews, etc.).

We should be concentrating on non-promo items for sure. Items that have been released in their 1000s not in handfuls (ME/The Hump excepted).

Originally Posted by the real stuff

The two projects will be markedly different. On Wikipedia our goal should be to establish Underworld as a significant influence to electronic music and popular culture. On the dirty.org wiki, we get to dive into all the details and eccentricities of the band, without having to formally introduce each article as "[[blah]] is a track by [[Underworld]], released in [[blah]] and reached [[blah blah]] ......." if you get what I mean.

I know what you mean. The Wiki should aim to be more informational but it does need a basic discography. What it doesnt really need is such a comprehensive discography as is wanted here.

What I dont get is why we should STOP what we are doing when all the information is so easily transferrable. To tanyone suggesting this you are welcome to stay away from it until a dirty wiki is started, its your choice. I'm sure i'm not the only one who is kind of enjoying creating this and will also enjoy moving it over and helping create a dirty wiki too. The wikipedia isnt going anywhere anytime soon. Maintaining 2 wiki's won't be too much of an effort either, once the main discog and info is created.

[big screen satellite]

I've just been scouring a pile of 100's of articles that i have been sent - way too much Freur & UW info than is possible... and this will go along way into helping my Underworld history when i get round to writing it...

but thats all by the by, as part of the clippings, i have, there is a page load of DJ charts from the time UW started out and one DJ, Kenneth Baker (who?) lists in his chart:

2. 'Spoonman' (White)

now, i wonder if this actually was ever promoed separately, or whether this is one of the 12"'s from the W/L Dubnobass 2xLP set, which certainly does exist (as i have it) and may go someway to resolve the confusion over the existence of the Spoonman Promo...

if anyone does indeed have a one sided promo 12" of Spoonman, i have yet to hear of it, and wouldn't be surprised if this White mentioned was indeed part of the Album and not a seperate release.

[mark3]

Originally Posted by big screen satellite

one DJ, Kenneth Baker (who?)

Kenneth Bager aka Dr. Baker is a Danish Dj. Had a big hit 'Kaos' in the early 90s. Started his own label 'Coma' and released Mental Generation's Cafe del Mar which Underworld liked so much they wanted to remix it.

Would love to find out more about that Spoonman 12" too