Difference between revisions of "Talk:Trouble Every Day"
(New section: Any agreement?) |
m |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
--[[User:Emdebe|Emdebe]] 10:29, 14 Aug 2005 (PDT) | --[[User:Emdebe|Emdebe]] 10:29, 14 Aug 2005 (PDT) | ||
| − | + | ---- | |
| − | Have we come to any agreement | + | Have we come to any agreement in this? Basically, I think, we have four options how to treat songs with several versions: |
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
===1. One song, one article=== | ===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 | + | 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=== | ===2. One version, one article=== | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
===3. One version, one article + disambiguation page=== | ===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 | + | 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=== | ===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 | + | 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). |
Revision as of 06:30, 4 December 2007
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
etc. etc.
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)
