Forum:Collapse music

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Collapse music
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 24 January 2012 by Urbancowgurl777.

Hi everyone.

As a regular user of this fansite I've come across some niggles which I feel should be ironed out. This thread is about one in particular; 700-odd music pages.

It would be much easier to find the track you're looking for if the pages were collapsed into 27 pages. A-Z and numbers. At this point you're most likely thinking that it would be hell to navigate but no, thanks to a possible header up the top;

Press Control-F to quick-find the track you're looking for

Collapsing these pages would make it much easier for those of whom are trying to fill their jukebox, and less clicking for those just trawling the fansite for information.

Please tell me what you think.

Aliddell 22:46, December 12, 2011 (UTC)


I don't see the point. I don't see how it would make easier to find the track you're looking for, you can just find the track by typing it in the searchbox anyways, nothing difficult. bad_fetustalk 16:46, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Our music articles are really useless, and they don't contain anything more useful than a neat and tidy table would. It's not like we need space to discuss the music track. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 16:51, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

You do realise some music articles actually have some information on them that you can't simply fit into a table. Moreover, even if that was not a problem, I still don't see why mashing each of those into a few tables improves anything. bad_fetustalk 17:36, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
I agree, Chess. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 17:50, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the information they have is good enough to keep them all as separate articles. If anything, there could be another column on this supposed list to add additional information. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 22:56, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Not really useful, per Chess. Unless you can convince me. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 17:50, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support - most of the pages are just stubs. The tracks that actually have a lot of info (such as Valerio's Song) can be kept on their own pages as well. I've also made an example page, just of the 1-7 and A tables, of what this could look like, at User:AnselaJonla/Test.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnselaJonla (talk) on 18:45, December 13, 2011 (UTC).

Keeping some at their own pages while keeping most on a single page will serve only to confuse the readers. Either keep all the pages, or delete them all. Also, what about creating that page while still keeping the original articles. That way, if anyone's interested in the details of the track, they can go to the article, whereas they can look at the tables if they wanted to see what music they can unlock at a certain area or a quest. bad_fetustalk 19:14, December 13, 2011 (UTC)
We could possibly make the page with {{main}} for tracks that have fuller information. --Henneyj 22:37, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support Chess's idea - That could work. We have something like that for quests I think What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 22:54, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Support keeping articles + table - If we use the same idea we have at List_of_quests then this could work well. Not many people will want to go to every music page when basic information can be put in the table, but I'm sure some people would still be interested in them, so there is no reason to delete the pages. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 03:10, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Support separate articles and table - That's a great idea. Per Chess and Glenn. Matt (t) 04:41, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Just because information on some music articles can't fit into a table doesn't mean we need articles for every single track. What if we just had a big list-table article, and the most notable music tracks, or the ones with the most information, could have their own separate articles? White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 23:17, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

How would that work, in practice? What would signify a notable music track? ʞooɔ 02:12, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
Well, per above, anything with enough unique, significant information on it. It's not perfect, as there's no definite line between "notable" and "non-notable", but it's better than either of the alternatives, I think (having 700 stubs or no track articles at all). White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 21:46, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
So it's pretty much that we only have articles with enough information on them? Do you see the Catch-22 here? ʞooɔ 22:04, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
..Okay what am I missing? White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 17:10, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
It's a bad idea to only allow articles with enough information to exist. The notability of the page should be based on what happens in-game, not our coverage of the subject. Besides, wouldn't that mean that new music articles would be deleted before they had the chance to be considered "complete"? ʞooɔ 22:35, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. That's what I meant when I was talking about notability, actually. If a music article is as full as it can get, and all of its info can fit on a table, then it doesn't get its own article. If a music track is "notable" (based on what happens in-game, or if there is significant information available about the track elsewhere), then it gets an article. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 02:45, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
It would be very difficult to verify what music articles are notable and which ones are not...can you name 10 music tracks you'd consider to be worth keeping? ʞooɔ 03:42, December 21, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, true enough. It's only like 700 articles anyway; it would only be a real problem if it were something like 7,000 I guess. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 18:57, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - We could use DPL to generate a list of music tracks with the information pulled from their respective infoboxes. See Equipment tables/Neckwear for an example of how it might work (although it's slow-loading). ʞooɔ 02:12, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Support, but with a slight change- I see this as almost a must and easily could be done. I would rather have a 27 page thing made, and each link goes to pages describing the music itself. The idea is great, and I would be glad to help. MattTheCat 02:18, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

?- Music/track_list has a alphabetical list of all the music tracks. Doesn't that serve the purpose already? Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 04:48, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

It only shows the names though, the proposal is to make it show basic details as well (while deleting the actual articles). bad_fetustalk 18:06, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose deleting existing articles - Sure, by all means create a truncated list of the music articles with some basic information in them. While a lot of the articles have very little content, that doesn't justify deleting them. ʞooɔ 03:42, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Support, oppose deletion of articles - Per all. --クールネシトーク 15:33, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Support, oppose deletion of articles - What Cook Me Plox said. --Void Knight 14:57, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Notice of Intent - I'd request someone please go ahead and create the table that has been proposed. The basic infobox fields should be good enough for the table. I don't think there is much support to delete all the music pages, so I believe everyone can be happy by just having both. This can be closed once it's done. Cheers, Chicken7 >talk 14:57, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

While we're talking about music, I'd just like to point out that there's quite a lot of music theory-related stuff that is missing from these articles. Even the basics, like the key the track is in, could add a lot. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 18:57, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was planned for that sort of content to be added. Other things like the instruments were also to be included. But the info isn't freely available, so it'd have to be done manually on a case-to-case basis. But it seems none of us are excellent musicians, so it never happened. An alternative is to use the MIDIs ripped borrowed from the *cough* RS Model Viewer to collect that sort of theoretical information. Chicken7 >talk 05:39, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
Since when does RSMV show muscic? O_o bad_fetustalk 06:24, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
Lol, wait, I don't know where the music is from. But here it is: [1] Chicken7 >talk 14:16, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Support - The music articles are all stubs, and most simply tell you how to unlock the track. Sounds like a job best handled by a table on a few pages vs. 700 individual pages. Delete 'em. --Aburnett(Talk) 01:13, January 12, 2012 (UTC)

Support, Oppose Deletion of Articles - I think a central hub might be a good idea, but I see no reason to delete all of the articles. ɳex undique 00:28, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Support merged table and deletion of individual pages oppose deletion - I must agree with Fergie. I believe that the music pages are largely useless, and the majority of information on them can easily be merged into one table. Some of our music pages wouldn't lose any information in a conversion to a table, and let's be honest here, nobody really wants to expand the music file pages (I doubt most editors could even tell apart most of the instruments). Granted, I could live with just having a table, and keeping the music pages (which seems largely in favour), I simply don't see the point. Hofmic Talk 01:49, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how they could be easily merged. It would seem horribly messy to me. ɳex undique 01:04, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
Merging would be a daunting task, yes. Would be easiest to build a script to grab information from the infoboxes for the most part, then manually check it over and add any additional information, if needed... Hofmic Talk 01:09, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
It's not the task that deters me, a table with all of the info collected from the infoboxes and all additional information would look pretty bad. Much worse than our collection of stubs. ɳex undique 01:12, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
Good point, but I guess we won't really be able to say for sure until such a table is created, in full. I thus change my support of deleting the individual pages into an oppose, as we should wait and see how a table works. Who knows, maybe the individual music pages will one day hold more information than just what's on the infobox. Hofmic Talk 01:29, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Support with an idea - The idea of merging the music articles into a few articles is an interesting one. The fact is that the majority of the music track articles are stubs. From what i've read on this discussion, it seems that people think that there is information on some music articles that simply cannot go onto a table, but I dissagree. It would be very easy to do keep all this information with their articles by adding a part onto a table giving additional information. The simple inclution of this would allow for the easy transition of 700+ pages into 27 or so, and It would make it much easier to find information on music tracks. Scaper12123 15:11, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

What's so hard about using the search button? If anything, it would be harder if they were all consolidated. Not only would you need to go to the certain page, you would need to navigate it to find what you're looking for. A quick search seems a lot easier. ɳex undique 01:04, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
Tables are cool! They compare stuff like nothing else. And the table could be given an anchor for each track for easier navigation. Hofmic Talk 01:09, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
There is no need for music tracks to be compared. It will make navigation extremely confusing and complex, when the search box is so much simpler. The page will also be extremely huge in size and length. There is so much information that can be added to the music articles; it is just that no one has done it yet. Take a look at original music article proposal (that passed unanimously) to see all the potential info that could be added. I urge anyone who hates the music article stubs to make a valuable contribution and expand them with that info. Chicken7 >talk 04:20, January 14, 2012 (UTC)
Hah wow we're lazy. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 03:36, January 15, 2012 (UTC)
It's not just that we're lazy, but we don't care about it much. I doubt most people have the skill to identify the types of instruments, and getting the length of the song is actually very difficult (find a download of questionable legality (and I could only find the outdated one someone posted recently) and inspect that file). The composer? Largely unknown for many tracks. Tempo? Most editors likely don't know what that means and don't have the tools to find out. Theme of the track? Also very difficult to determine, particularly for most editors. Me? I don't even play with the music on, but mute it in favour of real music. To sum that up, it's very difficult to find out beyond the basic information and (in my opinion) there's other articles in need of greater help (how many quest guides are bulleted?). Hofmic Talk 21:08, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

This is redundant To clarify, I say a page which lists all music tracks is okay. But hang on, don't we already have one of those? It fulfills the requirements of Cook and Chess's suggestions above, which were well supported, all it really needs is being put into table format - which is not much work and can even be done by a bot, I should think. I notice this was pointed out before by Lil cloud 9, but the existing page can be easily extended to contain more info. Why create a new page? And anyway, most people looking for info on music tracks just want the unlock area.

In short, I - like many - oppose deleting any pages, and since the prevalent suggestion is to create a page listing all the other pages with links to them, this proposal is unnecessary. Or at least, opposed. -- Cycloneblaze (user - talk - contribs) 17:22, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - The consensus was to keep the separate articles, but create a table. The table has replaced the list we already had here. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 18:24, January 24, 2012 (UTC)