Talk:Trouble Every Day
Given the range of lyrics here should we change the headings too...
Players On These Songs
Albums In Which These Songs Have Appeared
Notes About These Songs
Duncan 05:57, 11 May 2005 (PDT)
I'm beginning to think we'll need disambiguation pages for almost every song/track...
- KillUglyRadio 07:23, 11 May 2005 (PDT)
There is no track called Trouble Every Day on Roxy. The track that is on Roxy is not about the Watts riots. How are people going to know any of this from this discography?
Duncan 23:03, 13 Aug 2005 (PDT)
Maybe you could explain it to them, nice and easy.
And make the appropriate changes accordingly.
Just a suggestion.
--Emdebe 10:29, 14 Aug 2005 (PDT)
Have we come to any agreement in this? Basically, I think, we have four options how to treat songs with several versions:
1. One song, one article
Group all versions of a song (e.g. Trouble Every Day, More Trouble Every Day, More Trouble Every Day (Swaggart Version)) together to one article, with lyrics, players, records, notes and ccc all on one page. Since I personally have been discouraged to do this, I guess this is not the way we want it.
2. One version, one article
Have three separate articles (in above example), each with individual lyrics, players, notes and ccc sections. If we do this, I suggest we link the articles through their records sections. "Records On Which This Song Has Appeared" would then have to look (almost) the same in every article, meaning that each version (and a link to it) is listed in each article (e.g. "Roxy & Elsewhere as More Trouble Every Day", "The Best Band You Never Heard In Your Life as More Trouble Every Day (Swaggart Version)").
3. One version, one article + disambiguation page
Have three separate articles (in above example), each with individual lyrics, players, records, notes and ccc sections. The difference to (2.) is that each records section would only refer to records on which this version of the song has appeared. The articles themselves would then have to be linked through the disambiguation page (e.g. in notes: "For other versions of the song, see: Trouble Every Day (Disambiguation)).
4. One version, one article + main article for the song
Have three separate articles (in above example), each with individual sections for everything that is unique in this version. And have one main article with all general information about the song and information that all versions have in common. The difference to (3.) is that we probably wouldn't have individual notes and ccc sections for each article because they will most likely be largely the same for each version of the song. The emphasis here lies on avoiding redundancy, while with (3.) we would probably have quite a lot of duplicate data (especially with songs that have several different versions, but each time with the same lyrics).
I think it is not really important which option we choose as long as we have a consistent system for all the articles. Do you agree?
--Fishbrain 05:23, 4 December 2007 (PST)
I think I lean towards option three. I did try something like this with You Didn't Try To Call Me. How does that look to you?
Duncan 05:42, 4 December 2007 (PST)
I concur, this is what I was tryin' to do for The Grand Wazoo (The Track) too ;-)
Maroual 08:33, 4 December 2007 (PST)
Yes, I also thought that option 3 is perhaps the best solution. What you did with You Didn't Try To Call Me, Duncan, looks good, but it's more what I meant by option 4. If we choose to have disambiguation pages, I think we should keep those pages as short and concise as possible.
- move "Notes about this song" section to the articles about the versions (each one? only the original one?),
- tag You Didn't Try To Call Me as a diambiguation page,
- structure each of the song version pages exactly like all the other song pages (e.g. Plastic People)
And then it's perfect.
One more question though: what exactly qualifies as a "version"? For example, I tried to do something like this for RDNZL#Versions of This Song. I divided recordings into two versions: the "Lost Episodes version" (and live recordings thereof) and the "Läther version" (and live recordings thereof). In this case I didn't regard live recordings as separate versions if they followed the same formal structure as another version. What do you think? RDNZL on Läther and RDNZL on YCDTOSA2: different versions, or different takes of the same version?
--Fishbrain 11:07, 4 December 2007 (PST)
Regarding the disambiguation tag, I hesitated many times but finally I only partly agree with the systemic use of it there. Because for instance in the vast Zappa universe You Didn't Try To Call Me generally peaking is mainly a song (or a work or a composition whatever...) which has been declined into several versions. But no other object shares the same title.
One more question though: what exactly qualifies as a "version"?
My stupid useless answer is: anything that is sufficiently different to have its own page.
If somebody has enough time on his hands to complete one page with detailed wording for each alternate live version an so on, it is ok but really far from urgent. By the time the material on the actual records is not flooded as it has almost became the case with the tributes. I guess Duncan should also agree on this.
I guess the most important is to focus first on the material which is on the records, keeping in mind there may be other interesting live versions to document in a second time.
Maroual 15:06, 4 December 2007 (PST)