Forum:The Order of the Music: Reordered Edition

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > The Order of the Music: Reordered Edition
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 30 April 2019 by Salix of Prifddinas.

Once upon a time I wanted to cleanup list of music release dates so the order of numbers of the music tracks would be correct, so I first standardised that page by using the feedback from Forum:Music History 101. So following on from that and a recent question on Talk:List of music release dates, I decided to start that up again by using a prototype on User:Salix of Prifddinas/Music Maestro. However I ran into the problem that Jagex deleted two music tracks resulting in the number of Still Night being reused for Busy Night although chronologically being released years later then that number would suggest. So my suggestion would be to include the 2 deleted music tracks (Still Night and Spiritual) in the numbering however not listing them or listing them with a note saying that they were removed. This would result in Busy Night getting a number appropriate for its release date, but this would also cause music tracks to move up by up to 2 numbers, resulting in Book of A Thousand Songs becoming #1002 instead of #1000 for instance.

So my proposals are:

  1. Ignore the deleted music tracks and once a music track gets deleted (Guthix forbid) all other tracks just move up a number, every time that may happen, which only has been twice so far.
  2. Do not ignore the deleted music tracks and let them keep their number and do not assign it to other tracks. Meaning Book of a Thousand Songs would move to 1002 instead of being 1000.

Either way, Busy Night will be moved to its appropriate number according to its release date and all tracks should be chronologically numbered. Tracks released with the same update doesn't really matter what order, although preferably either alphabetically or in order of unlocking during a quest or some other type of sequenced content.

Discussion

Proposal 2 - Less work in the end. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 14:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Questions - 👋 I had a little look at your Music Maestro page and noticed that several of the early music tracks share numbers - e.g. Newbie Melody and Narnode's Theme are both numbered 7 - is that due to the tracks sharing an update or for some other reason? Also, am I correct in thinking that there isn't an official numbering scheme or some ordering/system that we could derive from the cache (etc.)? Presumably this would still require waiting for the auto-cache-clearing or a bunch of null-edits, but, could the infobox be made to assign numbers automatically somehow (based on release date/name)? ^^ - Rawny (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Newbie Melody and Narnode's Theme having the same number is due to the reordering not being done yet due to the deleted songs issue, as I started from last to first and then stopped to clean up the first ones a little and then stopped again. As for official numbering scheme I'm not aware if there is one and I don't think cache has one either, I've never personally examined the cache, that's what other people like Gaz and Jayden usually do. And as for the infobox, if done right then you will only have to change the infobox on the music track pages once if not already correctly numbered. So it might be little overkill to automate the numbering process which in itself also would be a technical challenge plus there are also unlisted music tracks which aren't numbered because they're not listed so those would still need a manual edit to get a parameter so they wouldn't get the automatic numbering. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 22:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah righto, I read "20-1 are now correctly numbered" and assumed they were 😉 Sure, it might be interesting if someone could confirm one way or the other, but it sounds like it's unlikely. No worries. Thanks! ^^ - Rawny (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Support 2 - Makes the most sense to me, I don't believe there'd be much trouble caused by including since removed tracks. Significant "milestone" tracks (like Book of A Thousand Songs as you pointed out) can simply have the discrepancy explained in the article itself. On a related, the trivia for Book of thousand songs says its actually the 1001st track whereas you say its the 1002nd - probs need to check one of those. Superiosity the WikianQuick chat button.png : Hey 22:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Trivia should say 1002nd, will need to fix that. :P Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 22:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Fixed it. :) Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 22:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Support #2 - Seems sensible to me too, I think that preserving the numbers on deleted tracks makes the most sense as it reflects the order they were added. (Also, what Superiosity said is a good suggestions re. milestone tracks.) ^^ - Rawny (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Support proposal #2 - As you've said it's less work in the end, and as Superiosity pointed out the discrepancy is easy to explain in the articles themselves. Sinister clown face chathead (male).png Tzar Talk 12:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

THANK YOU - for paying attention to Forum:Forum titles are too f---ing boring! I'll support 2. --LiquidTalk 22:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Closed - This consensus seems to be to use proposal #2: Do not ignore the deleted music tracks and let them keep their number and do not assign it to other tracks. Meaning Book of a Thousand Songs will move to 1002 instead of being 1000. The tracks will be renumbered to adhere to this new standard. Farming-icon.png Salix of Prifddinas (Talk) Prifddinas lodestone icon.png 09:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)