Underworld wiki

[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.

[negative1]

i checked out the depeche mode, and the new order entries,
both are very simple, and missing a lot of items..although
i like the table format..

i'd rather go to : depmod.com and the niagara new order
discography for more information....but that's just me..

once again, whats wrong with trying to be complete?
especially if the information 'can' be moved somewhere
else later on..

i haven't seen what the rest of the underworld entries
are going to be like, so i can't really comment on what
are going to be complete/accurate/etc....and i don't
know about the earlier/latter releases anyways, so
i won't be touching those...

like i mentioned, we really need a lot of writers, and
even a picture for the group.....where's all the people
that write so much here? all i wanted to do was to make
one section of it accurate, which i think is minor to all
the rest of the work that needs to be done...

i know matt's up for adding to it, but why not start now,
and see how it goes?

later
-1

[negative1]

i updated the page for '8 ball'...
and fixed the links forward/back..
need to add some other promo's in there..

can someone do the write-up for the
anthology? and for the uw MK3 releases?

good to see they kept 'confusion the waitress',
good work matt, and ethan.

thanx

later
-1

[negative1]

i've partitioned the main page by album
-removed uk hits section
-started the discography page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underworld_discography

this is probably more basic for regular people,
and it needs uw MK1 , MK3 stuff added,
along with all the videos, compilations, etc..

i wonder if we should remove all the discography
from the main page?

later
-1

[stimpee]

Having just come back from the UK on holiday and checked the status of the wiki, i'd like to thank all those involved for the input as I see it has come a good distance.

[negative1]

i've added thumbnails for most of the singles,
some scans taken from:

http://www.kompaktkiste.de/underworld.htm

later
-1

[negative1]

finished the last couple
of stubs for the singles..

that should do it for now..

later
-1

[stimpee]

Life has been put on hold for the World Cup but normal service (kinda) will be resumed soon so I should go thru the pages and see what I can add.

[big screen satellite]

Originally Posted by stimpee

Life has been put on hold for the World Cup but normal service (kinda) will be resumed soon so I should go thru the pages and see what I can add.

me too...

First off, i think we need to make the text on the discography uniform, so basic things like below are standard:

Push Upstairs

NOT

push upstairs (lower case)

NOT

PUSH UPSTAIRS (all upper case)

both versions, of which, appear in some form or other on the discography pages - it looks shoddy...

If these haven't been changed by anyone i'll do it when i get the chance, and in the meantime if anyone is adding things please can we use standard English grammar, and not variations like those above, i suspect some chunks of text have just been copied and pasted from various sources, including my website, where its all capitalised, but my site is uniform in this, and i think the wiki should be too...

i know Raj has basically set this up so everything is there in some format from the start - which is great, now it needs tidying up in the detail and final (fine detailed) presentation. Raj has done a brilliant job in getting it all on there now we need to fill it out.

I've changed a couple of things in a few places already:

for example its: Why, Why, Why and NOT Why? Why? Why?

also in any descriptions i think we should move away from simple opinions and just put in facts, for example i changed part of the description for Rez:

It became one of their best club/live anthems despite the fact it could not be found on an album, to:

It became one of their biggest club/live anthems despite the fact it could not be found on an album.

i felt that read better...

and finally for now, i think we should take down anything that has no verification whatsoever, such as question marked releases '??' and things like the Spoonman promo - which, i suspect, never came out ever.

We can add these things back in, as and when they do surface (if ever) but i'd rather not see them on somewhere like this, i feel that these things are ok on fan sites, which like to speculate about releases and such, but as part of a discography on an official encyclopedia type site, i think they should be removed.