Re: Underworld wiki
 

negative1, if you read your talk page, I think we should consider merging a few of the pages; i.e., one Cowgirl article that includes the 2000 reissue, one Pearl's Girl article, etc. Even a single .NUXX article can include the number of reissues and the 2003 edition.

Speaking of Born Slippy, we should address the confusion that will stem from people thinking Born Slippy == .NUXX

Re: Underworld wiki
 

Wikipedia is based upon Wiki formatting

While there are numerous different Wiki software implementations, they pretty much all share the same syntax, so the content should be pretty portable from one Wiki to another. That is, as Stimpee said, we could just copy/paste the info we're creating in Wikipedia into a Wiki that is set up by Scott here.

The advantage of a Wiki type system is the "open collaborative editing" that allows anyone, with a simple syntax, to make changes or additions to the content, without requiring some type of account or administrative access to the server in order to update pages.

Re: Underworld wiki
 

should we move all this boring wiki
talk over there?

i responded over there too.

thanx for the input.

later
-1

Re: Underworld wiki
 

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.

Re: Underworld wiki
 

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.

Re: Underworld wiki
 

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

Re: Underworld wiki
 

1 what standards? i've seen plenty of speculative information
on there.

2 i'm not worried about deletions, because you can always
put it back

3 i like matts site where you have an article about something
(like the born slippy phenomenon), that links to the discography

4 once again, if it's not going to be correct and linear, for the
discography, whats the point?

5 feel free to edit out all the unconfirmed stuff, i know i don't
have most of them, but i'm sure someone does..

6 we need a lot more writers, (or better writers), i've put
up the skeletons for most of the uwmk2 singles, up to
bruce lee....can someone do the rest?

thanx again for the input..

later
-1

Re: Underworld wiki
 

didn't wanna diss your work Raj, you've done a great job putting all that stuff up there, and now the templates are there, we can all add stuff to them - which is the idea

and i'll add some input it it all soon myself...

Re: Underworld wiki
 

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

Re: Underworld wiki
 

[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]