Talk:List of songs in Rock Band/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about List of songs in Rock Band. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

When to include album links?

I've noticed some song's that don't have articles use album links instead (Supernaut, Wrathchild, Electric Version, Pleasure (Pleasure), etc). But then there are some songs (the new DLC song from Serj for example) that don't have a song page but have an avaialable album. For the sake of having a "style" or "constant" for how this is done, what is the current train of thought? I've noticed a few editor's take out the Elect the Dead link and wanted to make sure there wasn't some common Wiki policy or style agreement that I missed earlier. TRTX (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus at the Guitar Hero articles was always to only link to song articles (never albums). I like the same convention here. I deleted that link before and I'd support the deletion of all album links as well. I don't understand why an album link is more useful than the artist link that's already there. Oren0 (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the idea behind linking to the specific album was to get some information about the song. While a full song article provides a history of the track as well as lenght, variations, and other info...linking to the album will at least give an idea of the length of the track and possibly some history (since often the track is was at one point a single). But if that's the consensus for GH, I can live with it here as well. TRTX (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

March OXM Dates

I've seen a couple of users repeatedly removing the dates to the OXM tracks. The dates are footnoted as being subject to change, which is disclaimer enough. To remove the dates printed in a publication such as OXM at this point is still just speculation, as there's no verifiable evidence that a date is incorrect. Yes, if next week the dates are incorrect they can be removed then and we can determine what the course of action should be. But at this point, please use the talk page if you have further issue. To the best of my knowledge, more than one user has edited it to retain these dates. TRTX (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this "OXM is a reliable source", "Forums are not a reliable source" ideology when the forum is always right and OXM is always wrong. If the point of wikipedia is just to reprint information found elsewhere, regardless of whether its correct or not, then Wikipedia's value as a resource declines. When the quality of the article is suffering, ignore all rules. By keeping up the March 25th dates, we are including information in the article which we have cause to believe is not true. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly what we are doing though. The truth is no one, not even HMX, knows the future. All the page has is the fact that OXM printed the dates, and HMX came out and said they are tentative and subject to change. They acknowledged the songs, thus confirming them, just not the dates. Correct me if I am wrong on that. We have nothing to base the invalidity of the dates off of, other than assumptions and guesses. I don't see how the quality of the article is suffering at all. A printed news source printed the dates as a leak, the leak was confirmed but the dates were marked as subject to change. That is what we have on the page. The list is not suggesting the tracks are forthcoming without a single shred of doubt, just that there was a leak with dates, and the dates could change. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's stupid to leave false release dates up, seriously. They have not been right about one week. You're just making people believe dates are true when obviously they aren't. Harmonix NEVER confirmed the songs are coming, and are obviously proving the only source that should be trusted concerning releases are them. But whatever, let's keep fake ass release dates up, it's stuff like this that makes Wikipedia get its bad rep for not always being factual. TeamOverload (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, calm down. There's no problem expressing a differing opinion, but you're going to have a hard time making your case when you come off as abrasively as that. Second, the dates are being removed as they are proven false not before. The dates were released by OXM and recieved the same "Dates are subject to change" response that HMX usually provides. The information is included because it was printed in a reliable publication. The dates were noted as subject to change by HMX and that was noted in the table. To remove the contents because we think it may be wrong seems like speculation. Especially if we do it because we think HMX is intentionally releasing different songs to prove them wrong. TRTX (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll agree I did come off a little strong, so my appoligies for that. The point is why continue to leave dates up which more then likely will not be true? I have no problem leaving the songs themselves up on the list, but I feel that a TBA release date would be better, than listing actual dates for the songs which obviously are not set in stone. TeamOverload (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to thrown in my 2 cents: If you really want to be accurate and objective, you should throw out ALL the information on potential upcoming releases and tentative release dates. Why? Because as we've seen, the only reliable source on what is being released is Harmonix, and even they generally don't have firm release dates until a few days before the songs hit the marketplace. So, whether or not a song's release date is backed by the New England Journal of Medicine or by Joe Shmoe's blog, it really makes no difference as neither of those parties, regardless of their credibility, has any idea of the true release dates. If you really want this page to adhere to WP:CBALL, then all unreleased song info must go. Runch (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Still Alive has at least been verified in video and by a HMX employees blog. The other announced songs/albums that were not in OXM typically have come in the context of an interview with a HMX employee. The OXM article in question lists songs, so obviously there is some confirmation that the songs are coming, I just think all songs should be listed with a TBA release date until HMX confirms the date of release. This way, the songs still get listed so people know they're coming, but we don't go around spreading false information and having people look forward to dates in which the songs they may want to get, likely will not be coming. TeamOverload (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the thrash packs dates should be changed to the 18th of March because Evile's record company has this little ad on it's site (Look at the image loop box 'till you see a Rock Band picture and read the headline (http://www.earache.com/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by I'm Burning Star IV (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes this is correct. It's been confirmed now by Harmonix. TeamOverload (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting note to make is that The Haunting has their song switched from Shadow World to DOA. Just further prove that OXM is NOT reliable. Not sure if we should leave Shadow World up on the Announced songs list. Shadow World was announced to be in the Thrash pack, which obviously it isn't in. I'd say the odds are pretty good that this song will never show up. TeamOverload (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here. The dates are not listed as final, or permanent. We have a footnote that explains the dates are not set in stone. We are reporting information as it comes. If Wikipedia readers are unable to read the footnote and discern that the dates are not 100%, I don't think that is our problem. Again, I am a fairly new editor, so correct me if I am wrong. We cannot assume everyone who reads the page is going to take the dates to heart. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would doubt OXM would go to press with a source they pulled out of thin air. What likely happened is their source for the songs was tentative, just as we have reported it. And just as HMX was quoted as saying. You have to remember it was the March issue coming out in February. So wherever it gots its info would've been early and thus still likely to change. OF course that is just speculation. A week ago there were a few users who felt we could assume DOA was a Foo Fighters song. And look where we are at with that. TRTX (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

VAGIANT

on the Rock Band game the band that does "Seven" is listed as "VAGIANT" not "Vagiant". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.173 (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks): Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official". In other words, Xbox LIVE is changed to Xbox Live and KISS is changed to Kiss. In this case, "VAGIANT" is changed to "Vagiant". Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 22:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

But there's a whole slew of articles which do not follow formatting rules and instead use the trademark owner's formatting. See Apple iPod, iTunes, iTV, etc. I suppose we should change all those articles to follow suit then? 151.112.22.104 (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Lars

PAL Exclusive Songs

Title	Artist
Bettlebum	Blur
Rock 'n' Roll Star	Oasis
Through the Monsoon	Tokio Hotel
Hysteria	Muse
Manu Chao	Les Wampas
L'Aventurier	Indochine
New Wave	Playmo
Hier Kommt Alex	Die Toten Hosen
Perfekte Welle	Juli
Countdown to Insanity	H Block X

Source A Source B

--CoolRaccoon (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This is worth noting here but not good enough for inclusion yet. We don't know: 1. will these songs be on-disc for the PAL-version, or will they be downloadable? 2. Will these songs also be released as DLC in NTSC regions (or perhaps only the English ones will be, which would match up to the "hacked list"). Also, we'd need confirmation in a reliable source before this info can be added here. Oren0 (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This would probably be a good time to start planning the best way to handle something like this. Two options I can think of off the top of my head:

"Two" tables. The first is songs shared between versions, the second is for each set of "exclusives". For example, if Sabotage is not included in PAL RB. This would be done for main, bonus, and DLC. (DLC would be Shared, NTSC, PAL)
"One" table. Footnotes for PAL/NTSC exclusives. This would involve less dramatic changes in layout and be generally easier. The only disadvantage would be a lack of quick reference to NTSC/PAL exclusives, especially when it matters most (DLC).

Personally I favor the first option, primarily for the reason I just mentioned. If the biggest complaint would be the bulk of the work, I could start up a rough draft of the tables prior to any sort of official annoucement. TRTX ^{T / C} 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

First I just want to say that HMX had been saying for a long time that the PAL version would get exclusive localized content on the Disc. I do not know if anything has changed, but I do know that was the original plan. Now my suggestion: I do not know if we have enough room, but on pages like List of Xbox 360 Games there is a column that says whether or not the game is exclusive. They even have an option for "partially exclusive" meaning the game is only on Xbox and PC. Anyway, what I was thinking is there could be something of the sort added to our table that says PAL, NTSC, or Shared. Then again, this might not even be an issue. Once an official announcement is made, it might end up that the PAL version has everything PLUS these titles. If that is the case, they deserve their own section, much like the HMX pack. Maybe the PAL version has everything PLUS these titles, but they are also made available for download on NTSC games as well. In which case I don't think a new section would be needed. I think it all depends on what the complete and final setlist for the PAL version is, how many new songs they have, and whether or not they will be made available at all for the NTSC version. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To me, it depends on how different the lists are. If the lists are substantially different, we might want to split the article into List of songs in Rock Band (NTSC) and List of songs in Rock Band (PAL), or similar. The current indications seem to be that most of the songs will be common, so I'd suggest a section for common songs, a section for PAL-only songs, and a section for NTSC-only songs (if there are any). This will allow us to easily adapt if songs are different in different countries. As for DLC, we can then just add a column that says where the DLC will be available. Oren0 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...we could add two columns to the current table, one for PAL, one for NTSC. We could list beside each song "on disc," "DLC," or "not currently available." (or checkmarks, circles, and X's for a visual representation.) However, this might get crowded due to the "tier listings." I think the best option, for now, would be to add a section (or just list them at the bottom of the "main setlist" section) noting the songs as PAL exclusives, and that NTSC release of the songs is unknown. When we find out a bit more about it, we'll see what the best method is. --Sgtpepper252 (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Right now, I don't think we can verify them enough to add them to the page. I don't think we can come up with a 100% sure thing to do until we know for sure what the officially announced track list is, and how it will differ from PAL to NTSC. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 06:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

5 Wii Exclusive tracks

Press Release on Kotaku: [1]. No specific titles given, but the Wii release of RB will have 5 exclusive songs. I think it says they are "bonus songs", but if I were to add it I'd include it in the main portion of the article with the footnote. Is it worth adding at this point if there are no actual titles? TRTX ^{T / C} 18:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

it says nothing about exclusive songs. only bonus songs. given that the term "Bonus Song" applies to a very specific type of song in Rock band, its far more likely that theyve omitted bonus songs from lesserknown bands in favour of adding songs from 360/ps3 dlc to the ondisc content.142.106.63.213 (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get that songs will be removed/omitted? The quote directly from the press release: "The game will feature 63 songs including five bonus songs for Wii gamers to enjoy." The original RB track list was 58. 58+5 = 63. Hence 5 additional songs. Yes, I misspoke as they're not confirmed to be exclusive at this time. But nowhere is there something that would indicate any tracks from the 360/PS3/PS2 RB have been removed. TRTX ^{T / C} 18:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

i didn't get it from anywhere, it was speculation. just as your exclusivity thing was speculation. im not proposing we add the info to the article. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Boston

Should the recent DLC pack for Boston not be considered an album, seeing as it is their entire first album except for one song that was chosen to be left off? It seems sort of silly to name it just like any other 6 song pack when all of the songs come from the same 8-track album, with one of the remaining two songs already being playable in the game. If they were aiming for a "greatest hits" type pack like what was done with the Grateful Dead, they probably would have chosen songs from other albums, such as "Amanda". 198.7.241.83 (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not our call. The game separates into songs, packs, and albums (you can see this yourself in the new in-game store). They still say that albums are "coming soon" and have this listed under packs. Therefore, it's a pack rather than an album. Oren0 (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh cool, I hadn't noticed the new in-game store, I'll hafta check that out! 198.7.241.83 (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

http://www.rockband.com/blog/entry/264578 calls it an album76.105.209.198 (talk) 05:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what the blog says, "It’s finally time for Rock Band to roll out its first (nearly) complete album as DLC." Secondly, I do not see who writes that blog. For all we know it could just be a PR person or someone. My point is, it is most likely written from their POV and not the games, which brings me to my last point. This article (List of Songs in Rock Band) presents information as it is presented in the game. In the in-game music store, the Boston 01 pack does not fall under albums, it is in the regular song packs section. While it is nearly an album, it is just that, nearly an album. The game does not consider it to be an album. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Three song assertion is no longer valid

In the fourth paragraph under Additional Songs heading, Downloadable Songs subheading, the assertion that "Since the game's release, at least three new songs have been released each week..." is no longer valid, as of April 1 DLC. Recommend removing the entire idea from the sentence. Suggested revised sentence: "Downloadedable songs have typically been released on Tuesdays on Xbox Live and Thursdays on PSN." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.63.172 (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaked List Updated

After much discussion, it seemed pretty well agreed upon that we would include this section and TRTX has done a great job on it, can someone please explain why the edits are being reverted repeatedly without any discussion. --Mm03gt (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No idea, but the references are both reliable and verifiable (Wired, Kotaku, and the ScoreHero.com Rock Band forum as a secondary/tertiary source). I see no reason why this can't be included. As such, I'm adding it back. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 21:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaks are automatically unreliable, by definition. No amount of reporting about them will make them moreso. Will ^(talk) 21:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This leak occured over two weeks ago, and has been under discussion since. The original consensus was that it was just another rumor, but since it's leak 13 songs off of it have been confirmed (it's also noteworthy that there hasn't been DLC yet that isn't on this list). TRTX (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Leaks are unreliable by definition? Says who? Should the fact that Prince Harry was in Afghanistan not be on his page because it was leaked? The wikipedia definition of reliable information is that which is reported by reliable sources. Wired, et al are easily reliable, therefore the information is. We have a strong consensus on this here, but certainly you're welcome to open the issue up for further discussion if you'd like. I ask that you not remove this content again without some sort of consensus to do so. Oren0 (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Because leaks always have some anonymous insider behind them. Besides, comparing it to Prince Harry is apples and oranges. Will ^(talk) 23:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Things are only 'ureliable leaks' if they aren't confirmed by an authoritative source. In this case, Harmonix has commented on the list. Just like the Royal military confirming that leak, when an authoritative source discusses it and confirms it, it becomes reliable. Besides, this isn't really a 'leak' from an anonymous source as you suggest (which I must say highlights your ignorance on the topic). The list is real, I have it on my x-box as well. --Mm03gt (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Checking the sources, Harmonix hasn't confirmed the list by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. They actually say it's unconfirmed and subject to change. And the reliable news sources say that it isn't confirmed either. Will ^(talk) 11:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is the same response they gave the OXM list of songs for March, which has been proven wrong twice in the past two weeks. Yet that source remains posted... TRTX (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Put it this way: The Sun normally leaks plot information for Doctor Who, and quite often they hit the bullseye. This doesn't mean that they should be relied upon for plot details. Will ^(talk) 15:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you have no contention to the list of songs from the March issue of OXM. May I ask why? They have no source, and receieved the same response from HMX. Yet I see no posts from you in the talk page or edits in the article's history indicating you had any issue with its inclusion. This list was confirmed to be in the files of the most recent DLC pack (as HMX's quote on the section indicates). And that is what this article is reporting. TRTX (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Official Xbox Magazine is reliable. Will ^(talk) 16:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on restructuring the section to make it more accurate to what's being reported. As the hack and response are both confirmable. TRTX (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you getting the point? Leaks are unreliable by definition. Unless songs are reported by Harmonix, or OXM, they should not be used in this article. Period. Will ^(talk) 16:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you allowed to dictate the validity of a source? The article sources HMX, Wired, MTV, Kotaku, includes a very direct quote regarding the existence of the list. The fact the list exists is confirmed, the fact that songs from it have been verified is confirmed, the fact that HMX responded is confirmed. The only dispute is that if they're actually going to be released, and the article does not say that anywhere. TRTX (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because a list exists doesn't mean it'll be used. Will ^(talk) 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is why the wording is being carefully chosen to report the leak and its contents. The idea that the DLC file was hacked is interesting in the contest of the song list, as its an attempt to determine to the future of the song list. Something was done back in November with similar results, and I was looking to find some specific references to include. However the list to me is just as credible as the OXM list. Both lists have been confirmed to exist and both are subject to change. One came from OXM, another from a DLC file distributed from HMX. TRTX (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Will here. This sort of thing was not tolerated on the GHIII article, why should it happen here? Dragonscales (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a more specific example of what you're talking about? I know the GH lists get vandalised just as much as RB's, but has GH ever had something such as this occur? TRTX (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You're asserting that leaks are automatically unreliable without any evidence (either logical or Wikipedia policy) stating that fact. Wikipedia's test of reliability is simple: is the matter reported upon in reliable sources? This information is, in abundance. I'd still like your explanation on why this is any different than Prince Harry, something that was originally leaked but then reported by many sources. Harmonix's acknowledgment of the list lends to its credibility as well. For the record, I watch the GH3 list as well and I don't remember any sort of comparable situation there. I'm re-adding it, since two votes opposed don't trump at least 4 votes in favor. Oren0 (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I was just wondering, when/if all the songs in the list come out eventually, would we remove it from the page? I don't see a reason for keeping it after then. I almost suggested removing songs already out (El Scorcho was the first that stuck out to me) but I think it is good to leave them in there, showing that songs from the list have, indeed, been released as DLC. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

At that point I would propose rewriting the section to be about the original event (the hack). I'm still looking for some sources for the November 20th hack so we can write up something about it either here or for the series article. TRTX (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am all for having this section. Of the 22 tracks listed in the leak - nearly half have been confirmed to be coming or are already out. That makes it at least plausible that the rest of the songs are on the way as well. If at some point all of the tracks on the list are confirmed for release - then it can be removed, and the tracks can be moved into the respective 'announced' and 'released' lists. --Magus05 ^(talk) 23:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors for and opposed

This is not a vote, but I'd like to determine where editors stand on the inclusion of the list per WP:CONSENSUS. I'm adding people based on their arguments above. Apologies if I mischaracterize you, and feel free to add yourself below.

For inclusion: Oren0, TRTX, Lightsup55, Mm03gt, Magus05, The Great Pumpkin King of Halloween, Sgtpepper252, pksage, Daytonlowell

Opposed to inclusion: Will, Dragonscales, Harlock_jds, EvilCouch

That's 4 in favor and 2 opposed thus far. Oren0 (talk) 21:15

Block quote

, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

9 in favor, 4 opposed --Magus05 ^(talk) 23:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You can't make a consensus to break WP:ATT. Sorry, you just can't. Will ^(talk) 16:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I say just include them in upcoming releases.. no need for a special list harlock_jds (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

To include them in upcoming releases is to claim they are confirmed for release. They are not. All we have confirmed is that the list was in fact found in a file included with Punk Pack 02. That is why it's given its own section. TRTX (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is called 'List of Songs in Rock Band'. not 'List of songs that may one day show up in Rock Band'. If we do not think the list is sufficiency cited so that the songs on it can be considered to be confirmed for release then what makes this any different than any other rumored song list? harlock_jds (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the same concept as the March OXM tracks which have essentially been "deconfirmed" by the next few weeks of releases. I believe Harmonix issued a similar response when it was published. I believe the idea behind the seperate section was because it requires a bit more history behind the hack, the response, and the contents than a a footnote/reference could provide. TRTX (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
An additional note to harlock, just so I understand. Your view is that if the list is verified enough to be on the article then it should be sufficient verification to be in the upcoming tracks list vs. its own section. (Since they are similiar to the "orphan" Metal and Thrash packs which have no confirmation outside the March OXM magazine?) Is that correct? TRTX (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

that is pretty much correct i would not mind if they were added to the upcoming tracks list (with a link to a good non forum cite talking about the list so we don't need some big footnote). I really do not like this separate section for a lot of reasons (long lasting notability of the list, the encouragement of posting rumored songs etc). Lets just treat them like any song that is 'announced' but not 'confirmed (like the packs you mentioned and the album downloads). I also feel that if we don't think it's confirmed enough to be on the announced list we shouldn't have an 'extra' list just to get around that. This would also kill the debate on 'who do we add to what list'. Like i've said before there is an alfull lot of arguing going on about a list that will likely be useless in 2-3 months (when all the tracks on it have come out which at that point the list isn't really notable enough to be in the article). harlock_jds (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Response below. TRTX (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Will, can you please elaborate on what wiki rule is being broken by the inclusion of this list that is other than just "you just can't do that" or "it's leaked so it's by definition unreliable"? I'm not trying top be smug, perhaps if you lay your case out with the various rules you are referring to, we can judge your argument for its merits--Mm03gt (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

There is plenty of attribution in this section. Your only contest appears to be that this article somehow implies the contents of the list are confirmed for release. This is not the case. The section is reporting on a list who's source and existence are both confirmed (with attribution made to credible sources such as Kotaku, MTV, Wired, and Harmonix). No claims are made that the content will be released (in fact the article specifically notes that songs from the list are not confirmed unless otherwise noted). All speculation (including the songs in the confirmed DLC section) and OR (Possible Artists column and song article links) have been removed. TRTX (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

We haven't broken WP:ATT and I don't even understand the argument that we have. The material is attributable to Wired, et al. Once again, there has so far been no justification, either using Wikipedia rules or logic, to the assertion that leaks are unreliable by definition. The info is reported in reliable sources, so I don't see how the lack of attribution argument flies either. Oren0 (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is: Over half of the songs in this so-called "unreliable" list have been confirmed or released. How unreliable is it? If the list - which came from an official Rock Band file contains a list of tracks - and many of them start coming out, it's noteworthy. --Magus05 ^(talk) 20:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

JFK assassination theories have an entire article. They aren't confirmed, and are specifically stated to be theories. These leaked songs are, in my opinion, the exact same way. There isn't any confirmation, but we aren't claiming there is any. We're just saying that this list does exist. That makes 6 for the list, 3 against. Sgtpepper252 (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The difference between this and JFK assassination theories is that JFK theories were widely discussed for decades after the fact. In a few months, when many of these songs are released, no one's going to care about the leak. Additionally, the nature of the file makes including its contents about on par with including a feature list from a beta version of a game; sure, most of it will probably make the cut, but WP:CRYSTALBALL says we shouldn't speculate about it. EvilCouch (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTALBALL doesn't really apply here because the info is verifiable. It's been reported in reliable sources. This is equivalent to Wired reporting an unconfirmed release date for a game. We'd include that, with the explanation that is was unconfirmed. We're doing the same thing here. How the song list was gleaned is inconsequential, what matters is the reporting in reliable sources. Oren0 (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You're arguing that it should be included in an encyclopedic article because it's verified as being unconfirmed? That makes little sense. The list confirms nothing but a list of songs that they're working on, which may or may not make it to the game. As far as we know, they've been working on Nevermind for over a year. They announced it many moons ago, it's on the list and yet there's been no official word. For all we know, the album's in development hell and will never see the light of day. EvilCouch (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

When an article has a section that cannot be completed because the events are still ongoing, all of the known information is included. These are current events in Rock Band and, though we may not know everything, we have the responsibilty of listing as much as we do know.--Sgtpepper252 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

EvilCouch, that's exactly what I'm arguing. It's verified as being unconfirmed, so we report it as unconfirmed (reporting precisely the information that's verified by reliable sources, nothing more). Oren0 (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

While I realize that personal experience means nothing to Wikipedia, the file in the DLC with this song list is there. I've seen it myself. It's verifiable by anyone with access to their DLC files and a text editor. Does this not make it a little more reputable than other "leaks"? (And as for all of this "how pertinent will it be in the future" talk - it can be removed once all of the songs have been confirmed. Wikipedia's not all about what something WILL be - this information is useful right now.) Pksage (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to harlock from above:

I'm going to make some modifications to the draft in User:TRTX/RB within the next few days so we can take a look at some possible compromises. I like the idea of recording the history behind hacking DLC, but then there's also the question of putting that in a song list or in the series article. (A section on attempts to predict future songs or something of that nature). We could then reference several sources in the section on the hack (and perhaps a brief reference to the fan who jumped unstage during Coulton's performance of Still Alive), and reference that one section should future hacks reveal more possible songs. Thoughts? TRTX (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

i like how the List of Xbox Live Arcade games deals with this problem (by having a seperate column for 'status' which can range from Confirmed, Announced , Unannounced and rumored all of which are defined). Could we have something like that here? harlock_jds (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Something similar to that could work, and is almost what this article has. On-disc, released, confirmed/annouced and then the list from the hack. For "Rumored"/"Unannouced", I'd imagine something like the March OXM tracks or the list from Punk 2 would qualify. OXM because it wouldn't run a list without some credible source (and as we know dates are subject to change). The list I say would qualify since it's existence and source are confirmed from MTV and HMX. But I guess that's just going back into the same discussion. TRTX (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, now that the march release dates have been altered for the other tracks. --Mm03gt (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Misery Business

Just a heads up that there's another song identified in the DLC for March 11. I'm thinking of rewording the article to discuss the "Spas.bin" file (or whatever it's referred to) instead of specifically Punk 2. The discovery is in the same article as the original list, but a number of pages in. I'm going to wait until there's more confirmation...but I thought I'd bring up the idea of rewording the section to describe how the songs are "hacked" TRTX (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the word "hacked" causes confusion. It's just information in a file that comes with the dlc, and someone knows how to view it. The term "hacked" connotes foul play, and is possibly one of the reasons why people have such an issue with this list. I also find it amusing that someone restored the dates on the final week of the OXM announcements. I like how OXM is obviously a reliable/verifiable source, even though every single week has proved wrong so far. And even though so far the list has been 100% accurate, thats still shady. lol 142.106.63.213 (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I was not the one who restored the dates, but OXM is a news publication for gaming. It's informaiton is being reported and footnoted. If next week it's wrong again those dates will be removed, the footnote will remain, and we'll start up discussion on what to do with those tracks. As far as the content of the hacked seciton, that's already on ongoing discussion several places. This is in regards to Misery Buisness. TRTX (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added Misery Business, and slightly edited the wording of the first paragraph of the section. I see no substantial arguments against the inclusion of this data - if we're accepting the DLC list at all, there's no reason not to update it when the list changes. I've seen Misery Business confirmed as in the list by at least two independent sources, but feel free to remove this edit if that ends up not being the case (the delay and confusion surrounding the DLC this week could very well cause some issues). Pksage (talk) 19:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a very interesting subject. One I admit I thought of, but not in regards to a solution. I'm all for including it if there are verifiable/reliable sources to add this specific song. (Much like we'd need a source to add a song to another section. I think I've read the same topics you have that address where and how Misery Business was found. But would that count as verifiable? The only reason we ended up adding the current group was because of the attention it drew from MTV and HMX. I would think once the last week's worth of OXM "predictions" are debunked those tracks will be included along with the list from Punk Pack 02. That's when we'll have to decide how to rephrase the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRTX (talk • contribs) 20:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere on this discussion page, the List of Xbox Live Arcade games handles this kind of information very well. Rock Band's DLC is only going to continue growing in scope and popularity, and we're going to continue to have "leaks" and other advance information. I feel that one section dedicated to all upcoming content, except the obviously unverifiable, would not only be useful but is practically called for. Is there any particular reason we're not doing this? Pksage (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Tiering Information

Harmonix has updated Rock Band to include an in-game store (as opposed to getting songs from the LIVE Marketplace/PSN Store). The store includes the tiering information for all instruments, as well as for a full band. People can now view the information in-game before they even purchase the tracks. Should we keep this information on the page? I would not be against removing it. One thing that came to mind though is that the tiering information for the songs on the disc were included, when that information was available to everyone. I my point is that there were obviously reasons that the tiering for those songs was added. Do those reasons apply to this situation? As I said, I would not be against removing the information, I just wanted to point out the main issue I saw. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I originally supported tiering info because it was not easily available. I believe tiers were added to on-disc tracks for consistency. However, if the Music Store can provide this information, and does so according to the game's existing 9-tier structure I wouldn't have any problem removing it. That would leave Title/Artist for on disc content and Title/Artist/Pack/Date for DLC. TRTX ^{T / C} 13:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that it uses the same 9 level system used here. Should we include a bit mentioning that tiering information is available in-game or should we just do away with it altogether?--Sgtpepper252 (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the tier information, and referencing that this can be found in the in-game store. Ultimately, for this article, it has potential to be a Featured List (based on a peer review I got for the GH1 song list), so we should make sure that there's appropriate information about the songs, the fact they have tiers for each instrument, and that this can be found in the music store in game. The only thing that comes to mind is that the PS2 version lacks the store, so those uses cannot check that out (though they cannot get the DLC to start with). Maybe we keep the tiers for the in-game songs, and drop them for add-on content, since that list is growing to easily surpass the in-game content. --MASEM 15:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like for the tier information to stay included. While the online store displays the difficulty for each instrument when you highlight the song, it only allows sorting based on the overall band difficulty. The tier information on the wiki is useful to me because I am specifically interested in getting songs which are difficult on drums, but easy on everything else. With the wiki, I can simply sort by drum difficulty, whereas this is not possible with the online store. 69.70.71.74 (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that giving the on-disc songs tiers was for consistency, but I was not positive (didn't think to look back through the archive). I say we take them down, and note that it can be found in the in-game store. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I still like including it. Title and artist are available in-game too. What's the harm in keeping it? If anything, the inclusion in the game makes the data more verifiable/encyclopedic. Oren0 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere in the game can you find an exact duplicate of the list that is maintained on this page. If it comes to a "vote", I say keep it.Ckranger11 (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The information doesn't have to be duplicated exactly, but after getting a chance to browse the store and see how it's laid out, I do believe there are some benefits to this list over the Store (as somebody said it only sorts on overall band difficulty). TRTX ^{T / C} 17:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean there. On each individual song, it has the difficulty of each individual part. But I agree with you, there are benefits to this list over the in game one. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

VAGIANT, KISS, Xbox LIVE, and GLaDOS

If wikipedia has "Xbox LIVE" changed to "Xbox Live" and "KISS" changed to "Kiss" and "VAGIANT" changed to "Vagiant" how come "GLaDOS" isn't changed to "Glados"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.141 (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the justification is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) and GLaDOS is a name, not a trademark (as far as I know). Oren0 (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I just went to the article on GLaDOS (which is a redirect to the "Characters" section on the article Portal (video game)). The letters in GLaDOS are prononunced individually (Genetic Lifeform and Disk Operating System). Hope that helps. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 23:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Should Year/Genre be included?

I noticed some editors making changes to include the year and genre of the songs in the game. This however lead to a few revisions regarding such genres as "Grunge" vs. "Rock" and "Emo" vs. "Pop Punk". I reverted the changes for now because I know this is something that's come under discussion since the music store update, but I figure it'd be a good idea to discuss this here prior to making a bunch of updates. So here are the questions:

The game sorts on decade and genre. While the song or band article has the specific genre and year most of the time, the genre at least may differ from the "commericial" definition and it's classification in RB (ex: Thrash Pack listed as Metal). Should both be included, or just the one that's unique to RB?
In my opinion, listing the invidiual year of a song (at least the on-disc songs) is unneccesary in the context of the game. And though the Music Store features the ability to list songs by specific year vs. an entire decade, do we want to list decade for on-disc and a specific year for DLC? Or just use decade across the board? This is provided we even decided to record the decade.
This will add a new column to a rapidly expanding table. So what (if any) modifications could be made to make the table more compact and managable? I've seen suggestions to remove "Tier" from every cell, and instead provide an explanation as to what the different numbers mean in the description prior to the table.

Thoughts? TRTX ^{T / C} 15:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say a good criteria for examining whether or not to add data to the table is "how useful is this information to someone using this article as a list"? While RB (and GH3) likes putting emphasis on year/decade, I don't think that many players would find a "sort by year" function terribly useful to this list. Difficulty is a much more desirable sort method. If there is a big push to include year, I think the removal of the word "Tier" is the best option, especially now that the store represents difficulty with dots. "9" or "T9" seem fine to me. Pksage (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Don't include it. It's fairly indiscriminate and people can find the info either in the game store or by clicking on the song articles. Is anyone going to buy a song because it's from 1987 but wouldn't if it was 1988? As for tiers, tier 9 can become "9" as far as I'm concerned. Oren0 (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I should have checked this before, but I just added all the years, took me about an hour. Someone deleted in in two minutes. Thanks so much, I just wasted 1 hour of my time adding the years of the songs, and the Genres according to the game. I think this would be a great idea so people can see how they are organized in terms of genre/year. To the above person, you can find out the difficulty of the instruments in the game as well, so why is that needed? If you are going to add that, then add the years and genre. Scuzzinator (talk) 16:11 25 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding comment was added at 16:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You cannot find DLC tiers in-game unless you first purchase the DLC. You can now find it via the music store, though difficulty is only searchable/sortable by band. As far as the revisions I made, those were done because years are not included in the different sorts in-game. Nor are genre's such as "Grunge", "Hip hop", and "Emocore". TRTX ^{T / C} 17:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I put the genres as they pertain to it in game. How do people find the tiers of the bass on the songs already in game, or do they just make them match the tiers of the guitar? Scuzzinator {T} 13:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Bass Tiers are found in Leaderboards -> Solo -> Bass. They're also accessible along with the other four tiers via the in-game Music Store. And though many of the on-disc songs have the same Guitar/Bass tier, many songs released via DLC have had differences in Guitar/Bass. TRTX ^{T / C} 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just as something to keep in mind; I am attempting to get List of songs in Guitar Hero (and eventually subsequent lists) to Featured List status, and comments I've gotten for the GH one say that more information that can be verifiable should be added. This means as presented in game, and I would take into account the limitations of the PS2 and (now) Wii versions lacking the DLC, so I'd only present information that is present in the core game, this being "decade". Note that we can likely shrink the tier information and this should be the last column on the table, by replacing the headers with single letters (footnotes to explain meaning), and just the tier number instead of "tier #". --MASEM 16:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So a table format for on-disc would be Title, Artist, Genre, Decade, Tiers (that order?). DLC would add the Pack Name/Single column and a release date. I can support that, though I have concerns for how crowded the DLC table would get. We may have to come up with some abbreviations and perhaps do some clever formatting (split longer titles/names to two lines in a cell). But otherwise I like the idea. TRTX ^{T / C} 17:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether the year is verifiable in-game or not is irrelevant, it's verifiable outside the game. What difference does that make? The debate about whether to include years or not is valid, but if you are going to, it only makes sense to include the specific year, and i dont think its an important distinction to only qualify in-game information. that is an extreme and unuseful viewpoint. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is a list of songs/information specially applied to Rock Band. The exact year of release, album, and commericially designated genre are already available in the song/band/album's article and unneccesary in an article discussing the in-game song list and sort options. TRTX ^{T / C} 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

the sort options of the game are 100% unencyclopaedic. theres no reason to include any of the tier information if its only to duplicate the info in game, that becomes gameguideish dont you think? your rational is insufficient. knowing the specific year of release is simply more useful as information than the decade. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

But as people have been saying, even the year isn't terribly useful. I re-emphasize my above comment that information for this table should be evaluated based on how useful the average user would find it, and I don't see any demand for years. Genre is slightly more arguable. Pksage (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is one vital question here that keeps getting ignored... Who is the "average user" of this article? I would wager that most people searching for in-depth information on Rock Band songs are people who don't yet have the game. If they had the game (and in-game music store) it would be easier to get the information from the primary source, the game. So, from the perspective of someone who does not already have access to the game and store (such as a prospective purchaser of the game) having the year/genre information would be beneficial. Hence, I would support the inclusion of this information in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.160.83.230 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

But why would they find that information useful? If you're evaluating a game's songlist, how does a song's year affect your decision about a song? I doubt many people think that a song being released in a specific year instantly makes it better or worse. And anyone inquisitive enough about it can look the song up elsewhere on Wikipedia. If we didn't already have so many columns in DLC, it would be better, but as it stands it would clutter the page to no great benefit. Pksage (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with the RB defined genre being included, since a song listed as "pop-punk" or "death metal" in Wikipedia may simply be "Pop" or "Metal" in RB. Having both available may help to resolve confusion when it comes to somebody reading the article. But year to me seems unneccesary, as that is information that is the same between RB and the info on Wikipedia. Hopefully that makes sense.TRTX ^{T / C} 12:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Scuzzinator I understand how you can be frustrated, but you should always check a talk page before making big edits to a page. Did we misspell a word? Is there a typo? Is an American Band labeled as British? Go ahead and fix it. Adding something as big as the years and genres to a well established article without consulting the talk page first is short sighted. I hope I am not coming off as mean, I am just trying to give some advice that will prevent you from wasting your time in the future. Personally, I understand both sides of the argument to add the dates/genres and to leave them out. At this point I am not leaning either way. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, regarding TRTX's comment on the "average user", I consider myself an average user in a sense. I have Rock Band, and only check the page for new DLCs. I usually just ignore the other info alltogether. I can see both points on this arguement...but I am leading towards inclusion (I dunno, maybe because I'm an inclusionist). I usually do check the genres of the songs (to see how much MTV is screwing us over) and for other personal interest, but this isn't a forum, so I'll stop there. I am not entirely sure what other people's mindset are going in, but I don't see it is too entirely important, just a nice little egg to check out. Year isn't that important either, as if you have the album of a band, you can usually just go to that to determine the date (except with I think the Police, or maybe the Clash, which has a song from the same CD in different years, at least in the music store). So honestly, I think maybe there should be another vote, just to stop squabbles. It seems trivial, but it was the same case with the above vote on the DLC leak. If so, I am in favor. The one and only:Zanny77 (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

In-game title and artist or in-store title and artist?

I know it's nitpicky but we need to have a standard so people don't fight over this. For "Still Alive," the in-game store lists the artist as "GLaDOS and Jonathan Coulton" but once you download the song the artist is just "GLaDOS". Which should we use? I guess a third option would be to go with whatever the DLC site says (though it's not up yet for Still Alive). Thoughts? Oren0 (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say go with in-game. As that's how it'll be listed in leaderboards and setlists. There was a similiar discrepency with Devil Went Down To Georgia in GHIII. It's listed as "Inspired by Charlie Daniels" but credited to Steve Ouimette. I think they went with the in-game listing. TRTX ^{T / C} 01:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And the band on the DLC credits site is listed as "Portal." That makes this much easier. Sigh. I still like leaving "GLaDOS and Jonathan Coulton" as that's who the DLC site says the performer is. Oren0 (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed yesterday that Serj Tankian's "Beethovan's C***" is listed as "Beethovan's C" through the in-game store. We had this conversation (or something similiar) regarding what title to use for this song and settled on the in-game listing even if it's censored. Would that be considered precidence? TRTX ^{T / C} 18:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I just don't see the harm in having Coulton's name. It's in the store and on the site. Why not? Oren0 (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to list Coulton, then why not list Ellen McLain as well as she is the actual singer? It just seems easier to stick with the official in game listing to make things easier for everyone to work out and understand, and much more concise than listing three different artists for the song. TeamOverload (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The link to Portal (video game)#Characters is especially unhelpful. That section gives no information about the song or who actually sings it. There is information about the song in the "Development" section a few sections above, but it is buried after several paragraphs. I think it would be preferable to just link to the game article without a specific section. Mike R (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved. Mike R (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not credit the woman who plays GLaDOS's voice, I read an article that she is a professional singer, and that it is NOT a simulated computer voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonTheDude (talk • contribs) 09:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I look at Still Alive as being in the same boat as Timmy & The Lords of the Underworld. It's a real song performed by a fictional band/character. We aren't going to list Trey Parker and Matt Stone just because they do the voices are we? TRTX ^{T / C} 12:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

DLC for April 8, 2008

Since it is the same as the tracks from OXM magazine, should we just eliminate that section once they are released? I seems redundant to have it twice. Maybe footnote the regular table that they were available ahead of time? Rowdyoctopus (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with that, and suggest the footnote goes on the date saying something along the lines of "These songs are also available through the March OXM bonus disc." with the original reference used for the old table. If future content is released through means other than the online marketplaces then the section can be reintroduced with information on the Bonus disc and whatever other distribution means they have. TRTX ^{T / C} 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It definitely needs to be changed from the way it is now. Seems redudant as we have the songs under both announced songs and other songs. It also has a description about the disk/downloadable release under the other songs section, so the same information is placed in 2/3 other locations. TeamOverload (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It's only a day away from being taken care of. At that point we'll see how it looks. There should be something about Songs released through means other than the online store, with OXM being the only entry at the moment. I have an edit in mind to address this, but it's tough to explain without actually making it, I'll do it tonight if I have time. TRTX ^{T / C} 14:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Metallica Downloads

I know this discussion had come up in the past, but apparently it was never resolved. From the available references, there is never any mention that a full Metallica album will be released, only that multiple "career-spanning tracks" by Metallica will be released. Therefore, I've gone ahead and updated the Downloadable Songs section to accurately reflect the sources of information. Both footnotes that now point to the Who's Next album are accurate for that piece of information. - Runch (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I brought it up in the past, but was not sure how to re-word the article. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

European exclusive songs confirmed

Information found here: [2]. According to the article it's Exclusive to Europe, but all DLC will be released in both regions at the same time. TRTX ^{T / C} 12:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

HMXJohnlok on the Rock Band forums confirmed that IGN was correct. He said "IGN's details are accurate." I know IGN is a reputable source, but they also claimed Online Band World Tour was 100% coming via patch... Just wanted to confirm that HMX was singing the same tune as the sources. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming. If there's a more credible link on the RB forums (like a topic directly from one of the devs) that may be a better reference in the long run. This is probably a good time to reopen the discussion about how to handle our first batch of NA exclusive DLC. (So far I've just got it under Annouced Songs). I'm thinking once it gets released and we see how it's set up, it may be better to just have "European exclusive songs" and include a note in that section that those 9 tracks were made available to NA markets via DLC on Date X. In fact, I'm thinking I might just do that now. Since it seems so far that DLC is not going to be region exclusive otherwise. TRTX ^{T / C} 16:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a problem with that from a usability perspective. An American user looking at the DLC table won't find the songs. I'm not sure about a better solution, but I'll give it some more thought. Oren0 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got a thought, but I think I should sand box it first. It's something similiar to the "Other songs" changes I made earlier today (the section that's since been removed). Basically have the European on-disc exclusives in their own "On-disc" section. Then a brief "NA Exclusive" section that lists the 9 tracks (no tables at this time, just a list). I'll put something together and worst case scenario we can edit it out or make some mods (like what's been done already) TRTX ^{T / C} 19:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no real post by the devs explaining everything. A regular user on the official Rock band forums made a thread about it here. Afterwards, people were questioning whether or not the IGN article that the thread mentioned was right, and HMXJohnlok made a post here. All he did was quote someone and say IGN was right. Not really sure if that is substantial enough. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 07:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Request edit, band name should read H-Blockx (page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-Blockx) and not H-Block X. Thecaptainof (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note. If anyone is considering editing the name of the song "Monsoon," there are two versions. The German version is "Durch den Monsun" which translates to "Through the Monsoon." There is an English version called "Monsoon." it is the same song, just with English lyrics. There is no confirmation of which version will be in the game, BUT all announcements have it listed as "Monsoon." Since that is how it was announced, AND there is and actual version of the song titled "Monsoon," there is no reason it should be switched until the song is released and the in-game title is revealed. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The first reference in the "European exclusives" section has a breakdown of the 9 new songs and what language they were in. [Reposting for convienience. I was originally going to include them, but didn't know how to word it. The version of Monsoon included with Europe's RB is the English one. TRTX ^{T / C} 18:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A few meta issues

I was asked by User:TRTX to take a look at what's been going on with this article recently. For what it's worth, here's my brief review. I won't go in much detail regarding content/editorial decisions, as discussion seems to be ongoing, and I don't really care either way.

Protection of the article: an editor on a dynamic IP has recently complained about being "locked out" of the article. A review of the protection log seems to show this article has a history of edit warring and vandalism from IP's and new accounts, and has been protected on and off since late last year. However, the most recent protection was spurred by a page move vandal that seems attracted to this article.
I am going to leave the full protection against moving, but am going to remove the semi-protection against editing, as that should generally only be used when really warranted. I have a feeling I'm being too optimistic, but this page seems pretty heavily watched, so any vandalism should be quickly reverted. I encourage everyone to not edit war on subjects that are still in dispute; the talk page seems to have been used well during the protection, so I hope that continues.
If edit warring or unmanageable vandalism resumes, please contact me, or any admin, or report to WP:RFPP. I apologize in advance if this disrupts the article for a while, but really want to give IP editors a chance to edit the article in good faith.
WP:OWN: The same editor has complained that User:TRTX and others have been "owning" this page, using the page protection to their advantage. I really see no evidence of this.. I've looked at this page, User talk:TRTX, and the talk pages of a couple of the editor's various IP's, and see pretty reasonable discussion, apart from some name calling by the IP editor. Indeed, it seems TRTX seems to half agree about the IP's point, and everything seems to be being discussed here in good faith.
Just a quick outside opinion, while I'm here. Unlike the two items above, this is just an editor opinion, not an admin opinion. And I haven't looked at of all the details, so ignore me if this has been completely settled by now, or if it doesn't make sense. I tend to agree that editors are allowed to use some common sense for noncontroversial items, even if it doesn't follow the exact letter of the policy; if you have consensus that the song "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" belongs in the article, it's a little silly not to link it to (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction because it can't be cited with absolute certainty that it's this particular song. My own rule of thumb would be, if someone thinks it could reasonably be a different song of the same name, remove the link. If everyone agrees it pretty much has to be that particular song, just link it and move on.

Good luck with the article, folks, and again, let me or another admin or WP:RFPP know if edit warring or heavy vandalism resumes. --barneca (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. TRTX and I are probably the two most regular editors to this page, so here's my two cents:

This page has been protected at least twice (one requested by me) due to simple vandalism. It had nothing to do with the "leaked list" issue. People would change "Dead on Arrival" to "Penis on Arrival," etc. and it was obnoxious to revert 10 times a day. The first time the protection was short, and right when it expired the same thing started again, so we renewed the protection for much longer. It was unrelated to trying to box out IP edits.
I don't see any WP:OWNership of this page. Changes are discussed widely here, usually sandboxed, and many editors with varying opinions comment on them (I can think of at least five regulars off the top of my head). I think that in general this talk page is a great example of Wiki-cooperation.
This one was contentious because some songs on the list were clear-cut as to artists and some weren't. I originally agreed with you on the clear cut songs. Without getting into all of it again, we tried linking to songs and we tried artist columns (even listing multiple potential artists when applicable) but it still seemed like original research. We also had at least one situation where the artist was completely wrong. That's why I'd shy away from artist inclusion, but we don't need to discuss this here. Oren0 (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

the consequences of an artist being wrong are trivial, and as stated above, if theres no clear consensus about which track DOA is (which no one was stating was definitely the Foo Fighters song, i remmeber it being one that couldve gone either way) then leave that one unlinked. As for Beetlebum, satisfaction, etc? those were always clear. this item is only controversial in the lens of wikipedia policy, not in terms of the accuracy of the information. so it doesnt really make sense to hold it to strict verifiability. do you understand what im saying? ie: the INFORMATION isnt really controversial, its just that people are applying policy to it so strictly that it doesnt pass the test. but if the information isnt controversial (ie: EVERYONE of good faith believes that there is good reason to believe these songs will most likely be announced), its not really controversial to state that. so youre misrepresenting the controversy. I wasn't really sure how to get the above point across so im sure its muddled. sorry =/ 76.64.36.43 (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I still feel that the leaked DLC songs don't belong here - This is called "List of songs in Rock Band" not "List of songs that might be in Rock Band". But if the consensus is to leave them in, I think we should leave the section as it is - by which I mean make sure the wording of the section makes it clear that these songs (regardless of the artist) are not guaranteed to end up in the game. - Runch (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Harmonix and MTV's statment refers to the list as a(and i quote, from the article) "LIST OF ROCK BAND DLC". I think the developers referring to it so explicitly is strong reason to include it. I don't see how you can justify including future songs at all by the rational you're proposing, so we should remove all info for a song until it is commercialy available? 142.106.63.213 (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, is there any reason to keep the songs that have been confirmed/released in that list? I personally would like to see it reduced to the 5-6 songs that haven't been released yet, all of which are coincidentally easily pegged to specific artists. I'm on the fence about including them, but not because of the reasons commonly presented. If you look at the actual spa.bin file, it's obvious that (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction (for example) was supposed to be an on-disc song based on where it is in the file, and wasn't for whatever reason. If this song wasn't released on the disc in favor of Gimme Shelter for licensing reasons, it's very possible we'll never get it, so I hesitate to call it "upcoming DLC". Pksage (talk) 12:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

At this point I wouldn't be adverse to removing the confirmed tracks. The article could be reworded to "The following song titles have yet to be confirmed." or something of that nature. I'm still up in the air with artists. TRTX ^{T / C} 12:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"exclusive"

I think we need to stop using the word so liberally, i have removed it from the article where I found it used improperly. the OXM tracks were exclusive prior to being released as DLC because they were only available for a subset, but the european tracks are not exclusive since we know already that they will be released for all platforms currently being supported by DLC. 76.64.36.43 (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong because I did not make the sections, but we used it because that is how all the sources have it listed. They are exclusive game disc content. I understand your reasoning, but no other versions of the game will have these songs included free of charge and without the need for an extra download. I am fine with either wording, but I believe that is why the word exclusive is being used. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 06:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I put the section together, so hopefully I can help explain why it was that way. I originally was going to put "European bonus songs" but felt that "Bonus song" was a very specific term for a song in the Bonus setlist. I can see your reasoning for why they're not really exclusive. Perhaps something like "European version"? TRTX ^{T / C} 12:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated Leaked List

Seeing as the majority of the songs in the "Songs listed in DLC Files" section have now been either released or announced, wouldn't it make more sense to just list the songs that have NOT been announced or released? After all, this is the info that most people would be interested in. Just a thought. - Runch (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two issues here. The first is showing that the "leaked songs" are reliable and have been accurate, which leaving the released songs in does. The second is one of original research. We can only include these songs because this list was widely published on gaming websites. Removing released songs when other sources haven't done so is dicey. Oren0 (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Simply stating the facts of a situation is not original research. I'm in favour of leaving only the unannounced/unreleased songs on the list and stating something along the lines of "A leaked list was published by several gaming sites after someone found something in one of the games files. Originally x number of songs long, so far y number has been released. the as-yet unreleased songs are shown in the table below, and HMX has not confirmed their status either way". its not OR, its just collating the already known information in a helpful way to wikipedias readers. calling it OR i think is being so strict to wikipedias policies that it is missing the spirit/intention of things such as no OR. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The idea of the section is to explain that song titles can, and have been found by looking into files found in DLC packs. The reason it is in the article is because it received so much attention and it has shown to be mostly accurate. It is not in the article to try and predict what DLC will be announced in the future. Removing the songs that have been announced serves no real purpose to the reason it is in the article to begin with. The section was heavily contested when added, and it was determined to give it the most credence all songs should be left in the list. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

that is your opinion and i disagree with it so please dont state it as fact. further, why remove the nevermind songs from the list if what you are saying is consistent? The list is there imo to show that these are songs that (while not being confirmed) hmx is actively working on. that is the use of that information. its a step between "rumour" and "confirmed song". thats why people are interested int he information. 76.64.36.43 (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, if you want the truth, I think this section shouldn't be here at all. Whether or not someone hacked the DLC files and "leaked" the songs listed in those files has nothing to do with what songs are actually in the game. This is supposed to be a list after all - that means a list of songs in the game, nothing else. If your argument is that we should keep it just to prove that someone accurately predicated future official released and announced songs - well, that doesn't really have any encyclopedic value (seeing as we have much better references for currently released/announced songs) and we should toss this section altogether. - Runch (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The article as a whole is a list of existing, annouced, and upcoming songs for Rock Band. The list wans't included initially, but as more sources began to confirm its contents it was later added in. The existence of the list (and it's source) were confirmed by MTV and HMX. To me that makes it just as credible as if it were printed in OXM. You'll note that songs from March OXM have been included as "annouced" with their dates changed to TBA. TRTX ^{T / C} 14:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

these dont "predict" future releases, they ARE future releases, just not officially confirmed and without dates attached. So yes there is as much encyclopaedic value to them as there is to the announced song list. The only argument could be that the list is not accurate, which no longer holds any weight. this article is wikibureaucracy at its worst. process for processes sake, which imo is a complete contravention of the spirit of the site. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

I've been rereading various comments, and have started to sandbox the page over at User:TRTX/RB to toy around with some different ways of organizing data. Proposed changes include:

Shifted "leaked" content to renamed "Future songs" section. (Earlier discussions suggest if it's good enough to include at all it's good enough for the main list)
Removed "Tier" from all columns and included a description of the numbers in the lead.
Rephrased some sections, including pricing descriptions.
Removed references to facts that are no longer in need of verification (Packs available as singles for example)

I'm going to toy with further changes:

Different looks for European on-disc vs. NA exclusive DLC.
Section addressing new content avaiable offline (ex: OXM Disc)

Figured since there's some disputes renewing I'd try and see if I can work out a compromise. TRTX ^{T / C} 01:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

strongly agree with this approach, i think its the most informative while being the least confusing. I think at this point the distinction between the leaked list and the oxm lists etc are semantics as both seem quite accurate at this atage. 76.64.36.43 (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I also strongly disagree with moving the leaked songs in with the confirmed ones. I'd support removing them entirely before I support that. Not only are you now arbitrarily assigning artists to these songs, but nobody (not even the sources we've quoted) claims that these songs will ever be released, only that they might be. You're making a big leap that has no basis in fact. Oren0 (talk) 02:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

you don't "also" disagree. youre the only one so far. the fact that these songs were in the file means that HMX is working on them at the least. theres a pretty heavy implication there that they will eventually be released, or are at least "seriously under consideration" for release with actual work being done on them. Zero is the only song where its potentially the wrong artist i guess but given that smashing pumpkins already have 2 songs and support RB its a fair assumption. verifiability is good yes, but i dont think youd seee anyone attaching a "needs citation" to the statement "George H.W. Bush is the president of the united states" even if unsourced. the information is verifiable in that HMX has acknowledged the list but said (simply to manage their image and expectations) that it shouldnt be considered confirmed. including this information makes the article better. without simply quoting policy, can you provide a reason that this information makes the article worse? 76.64.36.43 (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Oren "also" disagrees because this issue has been previously discussed and other editors have voiced concerns with including the songs at all let alone including them in this manner. And while we could assume various artists, we would've assumed incorrectly in such cases as DOA for the Thrash Pack (which originally even those who discovered the list wrote off as the Foo Fighters song). Verifibility is the key, and I'm a bit hesitant to go from reporting a set of leaked information to assuming not only that it's slated but that it's also by a specific artist. Assuming that "Zero" or "DOA" is by a specific artist is significantly different than stating George W. Bush is our current president. Quite frankly I'd also rather just remove the data than have a truckload of disclaimers. It's been nagging at me since the whole dispute got restarted. Disregarding that dispute, any other comments regarding the sandboxed example? TRTX ^{T / C} 04:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I do "also" disagree (see User:Runch's comment two inches up from mine). The reason that "George H.W. (sic) Bush is the president of the united states" doesn't require a citation is that the statement is uncontroversial. I could easily cite numerous sources for it. Do we have one source that claims that these songs will be released? Not that I've seen. What we do have are sources that say the songs are included in a downloadable file which suggests they're being developed. What we don't know, for example, is whether HMX has finalized securing rights on these songs. Maybe they start development while rights are being negotiated, and maybe some songs are left out when negotiations fall through. Without confirmation from a source, it's somewhat likely that the song will be released, but it might not be for a while and it might be never. This is very different than a song that's been reported with a release date, or even those reported in OXM, which we're pretty confident will be coming out relatively soon. That's why I don't think these sections should be combined. If we had to combine them, we'd need footnotes explaining that these songs aren't confirmed and we're not even sure on the artist (like TRTX said, everyone had DOA ascribed to the wrong artist), etc. It's just a giant pain in the ass that the current setup avoids. It's also worth noting that the fact that the list has been accurate so far doesn't really mean much. If I had a buddy who worked at HMX and I came on this talk page every Monday and told you the next week's DLC, could we add that to the page? What if I was right 4 weeks in a row? Being accurate isn't the same as being verifiable and attributable. Oren0 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I will point out again that right now, List of songs in Guitar Hero has been made a Featured List, and that List of songs in Guitar Hero II is about to, so the considerations made there should be considered here. Not that this is far away from that point, but there's a few things for inclusion, like Year of the song as the fire column, including a column for master tracks, and so forth, so that these lists can all be consistent. --MASEM 17:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've only looked at GHIII's song list. But isn't the bold for master tracks a standard across both games? TRTX ^{T / C} 18:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It was, but the FL reviews suggested that a separate column that can be sorted on would be good for people that are reviewing the list but not playing the game (that is, they are more interested in the music). Mind you, with many more masters than covers, there may be a different way to do this. The key thing is to treat the lists as close as possible to a "discography" list of songs than a list of songs in video game. --MASEM 19:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That actually cycles back around to some other older discussions. What columns would be valuable in a list such as this? The game allows sorting on genre (though it provides it's own classiciations), and decade as well as difficulty. I'll have to look over the GH lists (it would be a good idea to have a similiar strutcure across rhythm games), but those lists have the advantage that the game automatically has only one difficulty and thus no need for those additional columns. Those extra five columns (plus three additional if we expand) start getting rather cluttered. If it comes down to having to decide which information is most neccesary, it'd be nice to get input from people who helped clean up the Guitar Hero lists. TRTX ^{T / C} 14:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've applied a few of the above changes. Nothing that would impact the DLC lists. TRTX ^{T / C} 01:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Limited time"

Just a heads up, I read the reference for the Motley Crue song (pardon the lack of Umlauts), and I think the original editor may have misunderstood the posting. I'll scout around some more, but I think it's 99 cents for a limited time (similiar to previous tracks) but will be available from here on out. TRTX ^{T / C} 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

agree. i think the only precedent for a truly limited time release is Dream On on GH3? And that makes sense since it will be available as part of GH:Aerosmith, so it was just promotional. You wouldnt want to it stick around forever since thered be less reason to actually buy the intended product. I don't see why the Motley Crue would be limited release unless Rock Band: Motley Crue is around the corner 70.53.50.58 (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Found what I was looking for here. Limited time references the price, not the actual song. TRTX ^{T / C} 23:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Leaked List

I went ahead and removed songs that have been released per discussion above. I think we should discuss adding artists/building the web with these links. I think the current assumption is:

Satisfaction - Rolling Stones
Brown Sugar - Rolling Stones
Alabama Getaway - Grateful Dead
Misery Business - Paramore
Pinball Wizard - The Who
Received your letter - ??? (I personally have no idea and google brings up nothing)
Zero - Smashing Pumpkins

I think it's important to note that, all these assumptions already have established relationships with the game. In the interest of avoiding controversy, can anyone provide any reasonable alternatives that would bar us from linking one of these songs e.g. any other rock songs that could possibly have these names? 142.106.63.213 (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered another reason why the songs that have not shown up are by bands that already have content in the game? It could be that HMX originally tried to include the songs on this list but due to various reasons (licensing, marketing, etc.) they decided to release different songs by those artists instead. As noted by Pksage above, the actual DLC files in some cases provide as much evidence that a song will not be included as evidence that it will. This is why you can't just assume that these songs WILL end up in the game. If the concensus is to list them, that's OK, but we have to let people know that thse are not songs that WILL be in the game, merely songs that were listed in the DLC files. - Runch (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Now THERE's some OR. You're just speculating. The simplest explanation is that these were being worked on/considered at the time of Punk Pack #2. If it included all the songs that were originally considered, why wasnt Welcome to the Jungle in the list? HMX has referred to the list themselves as a "List of Rock Band DLC", why wont you respond to that? 142.106.63.213 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is more speculative to insist that the songs will appear in the game. All we have, concretely, are song names and a comment from HMX stating that (in a paraphrase) "These are songs we are, or have been, working on but everything is subject to change. Please only rely on our weekly announcements." The reason Welcome to the Jungle is not there is because there was never any indication it would be in the game. The video showing it was a test video that was leaked. It was never meant to be viewed by the public, and was basically to get people working on the game excited about the game and showcase their ideas for how it would work. Why did they use "Welcome to the Jungle"? I don't know. We have to go with what we have, that is a list of song titles with no artist and no indication on whether or not we will ever see them in the actual game. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No indication we will see them in game? That's a dishonest statement. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Except there isn't any verification that these songs will be released. Here's what we know as confirmed: 1) A file was found containing these names. 2) That file had the following "new" song titles listed in it. 3) A number of those songs have since been confirmed.

Unless a song is specifically verified, there is no indication that these are coming out. Just that at some point they were included in the file. Supposedly people were able to hack open the Smash Bros. Brawl disc and found data for a number of characters that had been removed. Does that confirm they are somehow unlockable or will be added through some means? Of course not. And if in a year or so those half those characters are added through some means, does it mean it should no longer be mentioned that code for them was found on the disc?

Another example: Piranhas (baseball). Here you have an article about a group of players that existed at one point for a team. Not all of those players are still a part of that team. And if the remaining players leave, does that mean the article/section discussing this group as it originally existed should be removed? TRTX ^{T / C} 17:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Those analogies are patently false and misleading. We're not talking about an out-of-date on-disc file that was not deleted, this was in regularly released dlc files and was acknowledged by HMX. HMX never confirmed the OMX listing either but you saw that as fine for inclusion, even though it was clearly not reliable. youre propagating a double-standard based on a flawed interpretation of the verifiability policy. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to indicate that this is not an out-of-date file left with the DLC pack. Sure HMX acknowledged it, but it would have looked shady if they came out and said "That list is old and out-of-date" and then a majority of the songs were released. Instead, they acknowledged that they were, or had been, working on those songs but we should only rely on their weekly announcements. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

and as an independant source of information, we should use all available information, not just "official" announcements from HMX, this is not a corporate site to publish their marketing, it's a reference for all available information on a subject. so what HMX says (for obvious self-interest) shouldn't affect what we include or don't on this article. 70.53.50.58 (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to argue? You originally brought up the HMX statement as support for your ideas. Harmonix is the only source for knowing 100% what will be in the game. Being skeptics of other sources prevents us from being a crystal ball. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

you keep changing your rationale, which is why i keep changing my rebuttals. We don't need to know 100% that a song will come out, and no one (for the last fucking time, jesus) is proposing that we say that they are. The list is _ALREADY_ in the article, im just saying we should cut out the out-of-date pieces, since they are already released. HMX has acknowledged the list, while adding the caveat that they may not come out. All I'm proposing is that we do the same, nad look, we already did! its in the damned article! lets just take out the names of songs that have already been released since they dont serve any purpose there anymore. why is this so damned hard to get across with everyone? sorry for being frustrated 70.53.50.58 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not changed my rationale once. If I unintentionally contradicted myself, or something is unclear, please point it out or ask me about it and I would be happy to further explain it. You say, "no one is proposing we say [the songs] are [going to be released]," but I never claimed it was explicitly proposed. All I said was that the idea of putting them into a table with "To be confirmed" implies to the reader that they will be released eventually when we have no sources to back that up. As for this discussion, I think I am going to step out. You seem to be pretty heated about this for some reason and I would prefer you cool off before I continue. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing was decided in the above discussion, so I don't know why you removed the songs from the list. --Ouzo (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

rather then simply reverting. try and add something to the discussion? I'm changing back. Theres no rationale for keeping redundant and useless information in the article. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A Google search ("Recieved your letter" + nirvana) produced this link from Scorehero. Apprently an indie band from Europe is claiming on their mySpace page that it's there song and will be in the Euro version. The band's name is "Schnitzer", but I can't find anything additional at the moment. I'll keep digging.

(If you're wondering why I added "+ nirvana", I really have no idea. I think at one point I thought it was off of one of their albums...like a rare track or something) TRTX ^{T / C} 16:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Where do we stand on this list as a group?

It is SO frustrating that some users are hampering the quality of this article by nitpicking and including useless and redundant information in this article. We either remove the section entirely, or keep it up to date. Can people please at least post their opinion here in one place so that we have the most current opinions, and please don't just post "agree/disagree" but provide rationale? I'll add mine in a few, some real work to be done unfortunately. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 17:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we should either leave the list as is or remove it entirely. I'm opposed to including these songs in the main list or removing released songs. I wouldn't mind including song lists or artists at this point since most of the songs seem fairly clear cut. I've explained my reasoning for all of this in sections above. Oren0 (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I would only be in favor of revising the contents of the list if it were agreed these are "confirmed" enough to be included in the annouced/upcoming section. I've made my reasoning for the list in it's current state in the previous discussions. However, I do agree at this point we can act on good faith and include artists. TRTX ^{T / C} 17:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think leaving the list as it is is an option whatsoever. the information is out of date, redundant and not useful to anyone reading wikipedia. The fact is that these songs are very likely to be released and i think that information is important and desirable to wikipedias readers, so i think they should be incorporated into an "upcoming" section, and under "release date" we should list their release dates as "To Be Confirmed" whereas sonsg that have been announced without release dates will be "To Be Announced" or "To Be Determined". If that approach is rejected, we need to remove the list entirely. I also agree that if we choose to keep these songs in the article, we should reference their artists. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the list should be left as is, or removed. As it is now, it explains that there is a way to possibly preview what songs will be released. Leaving songs already released provides evidence for this. Leaving songs not yet released also shows evidence that it is not 100% correct, or at least not 100% for the time being. In other words just because songs were found on the list, they are not necessarily slated for release immediate future, if at all. I am strongly opposed to putting them in another format that would imply they are imminent (like the one described by 142.106.63.213). I feel as it stands, the section is helpful to readers as it shows what could be up-coming without telling them they are definitely coming. This is one step below listing announced songs. Leaving the already released songs in the list helps that. If we remove the already released songs, I would say we need to add something that indicates there were a large number of songs from the original list that have since been released, though I prefer leaving them in the list. I am neutral on the artist situation. As a reader, I see those titles and think of those bands anyway. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting we phrase it in a way that says they are definitely coming. please do not misrepresent other peoples arguments. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The consensus here seems pretty clear: don't combine these songs with the announced ones and don't remove released/confirmed songs (142.106.63.213 seems to be the only one so far who disagrees). Are we ready to move past this yet? Oren0 (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ready to move past it because you're wrong, and your arguments don't make any sense. The section is sloppy, we shouldn't just leave random unconnected information in and lead it to the reader to assume and make the conncetions themselves, as rowdyoctopus states. Either the information is good enoguh for inclusion, and should be treated and maintained as such, or it's not, and it should be removed. Please address this concern. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think we're wrong. But right and wrong depends on consensus here and the consensus so far is against you. The material is good enough for inclusion because many sources reported on it. We can't say that the list has been accurate so far because that would be original research. But we can let the reader see that many songs on the list were later confirmed or released. I don't understand why it's an either/or thing. We're not presenting the songs as confirmed, but we'd be doing the reader a disservice if we left them out when they've been reported on and are fairly likely to be released eventually. Oren0 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to misrepresent anyone's argument, I am merely presenting my understanding based on your explanation. If I am misunderstanding it, it is your responsibility to make it more clear and correct me, instead of just telling me I am wrong. By putting the songs in a table and giving them a "To be confirmed" release date we imply that the songs are coming out, we just need to confirm the release date. At least that is how I see it. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

as always i say remove it the list is pointless and is becoming even more pointless as more and more of the tracks come out. the list is NOT significant in the least.harlock_jds (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I would support not including the list at all, since the songs have not been officially confirmed by HMX. Coincidentally, I feel the same way about the songs listed in OXM. Just because OXM received word from HMX that they were working on these songs does not mean that they will ultimately be released. If the predicted release dates were wrong (which they were), it's possible that the songs won't be released at all. That said, it looks like the consensus here is to keep these songs in the article. I would be fine including them as long as it's noted that these songs (either from the DLC list or OXM) were not officially announced by HMX. - Runch (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

you have some sort of mental block going on man. no one is saying that these songs are confirmed. the information at this time is "There is strong evidence that suggests the following songs will be released in the near future, but they have not been confirmed officially by HMX at this point". I don't think any rational editor of this page disagrees with that statement. Therefore, it's not controversial, and since the information is useful, it should be included. But Oren0/etc are so focused on what seem to be almost liability issues that they think that even a .0001 risk is too severe for inclusion in wikipedia. its ludicrous and as i've said 5000 times on this article and gone ignored, it is hurting the quality of the article, and is unnecessarily complicating the delivery of information 142.106.63.213 (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent other people's ideas. I do not see how the quality of the article is being hurt. We are presenting what information we have in a clear way while at the same time not implying anything we cannot confirm. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

All I want to do is take the irrelevant and out-of-date information out of the leaked list. Look how much opposition there is to such a minor edit. There's no rationale! Simply reduce the leaked list as songs come out. That's it. Already the 58-on disc songs are taken out, as are all the DLC prior, and all the songs announced at the time. How does it strengthen the article to leave in the european confirmed songs, etc? IT DOESN'T. it's irrelevant information which distracts from relevant information. I'm not misrepresenting anyones points, but i've also never stated (which you seem to argue against, which is a straw man) that they should be listed as confirmed for release. Just take the damned songs out of the table because they don't offer anything. OR be consistent at least and add all the songs back into it, stop picking and choosing. 70.53.50.58 (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am open to any evidence that shows how this section is irrelevant as is. So far I have seen none. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

the entire list isn't, pieces of it it are. "china cat sunflower" being in the list does nothing that a blanked statement such as "Of the x number of unreleased songs orginally on the list, x have since been released, however 7 remain unconfirmed" doesnt. but it DOES add clutter, and i dont think you should need to put 2 and 2 together when reading an encyclopedia, everything should be clear and spelled out. 70.53.50.58 (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And again, the purpose of the section is to record the event/discovery. You wouldn't remove names as people died if you were going to write about Nixon's "Enemies List" would you? And if we remove song titles that were found in this list it wouldn't be clear and spelled out now would it? And just how clear and spelled out is it if you just say "X were confirmed" and don't say what they were? Was it Crushcrushcrush? Was it Message In A Bottle? TRTX ^{T / C} 01:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

what does that matter? plus you have already edited the list so you are a complete hypocrite if you take that position trtx. youre just saying that youre allowed to edit the list, but im not. 70.53.50.58 (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, we have the list as presented and reported on. Before it was reported, the sources took the other songs (songs already in the game and/or announced) out. If we post the entire list, that would be pretty close to OR since I don't believe there are any sources that printed the entire list. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

An article on Kotaku posted the full contents of the list. Aside from those tracks that were included in the section, the remainder of the list contained all tracks from the main and bonus setlist (360/PS3 NA version only, which may need to be included to differentiate between that and the newly revealed "exclusives" included on the Wii and European discs), as well as all of the DLC available up-to and including the 3 songs in (Arguably) Punk Pack 02. The section inclues this fact, and highlights those song titles that made the list worth including. TRTX ^{T / C} 12:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

70.53, etc, are you accusing me of WP:OWN? Because we've been through that already. I did write the section, but it was not included until it had been reviewed by other editors, and even once it had been molded to fit that it was heavily disputed after inclusion, and thus the consensus process whittled it down to its current contents. I believe the original version included songs that had already been named in OXM, or were confirmed due to being part of Who's Next and Nevermind. It's all there in the discussions, I made sure to leave all of them when archiving. TRTX ^{T / C} 12:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"youre just saying that youre allowed to edit the list, but im not" - I don't know where you get the idea that somehow we're trying to keep you from editing this page. There is wide consensus on how to treat the list; that's because we think it's right, not because of any personal issue with you. Any protection (which might happen if vandalism becomes rampant again) is the same thing. Oren0 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would be good to put a quote from Alex Rigopulos up here. It is from the Kotaku page that we are using as a source for the release dates of the next two albums (The Cars and Doolittle). He says

"...a big reason that it's taken us so long to get them to market is that the actual technical delivery of the assets required for any one song - they're actually pretty complicated. You're often dealing with masters for the older stuff that were recorded on analog. Often it takes a long time to even locate those masters. The right takes and the right edits have to be found, and in some cases old gear that's not in use anymore has to be resuscitated to transfer the stuff to digital. And so for any one song, the actual process of finding the right tape, resuscitating it and transferring it to the right digital format that we need and all that is an undertaking...

If you're just going for a handful of tracks by a particular artist and they're slow to locate one of them, well you just pick a different track and go on. Well when you're looking for a dozen tracks ina a particular album, you cant really release the album until you've tracked every one of those assets."

I think this sheds some light on this issue in that it shows Harmonix is always working on many songs, and very easily can and will switch to other songs if one is not working out. We know next to nothing as to how far into development they were with the songs on the list. They could have very easily been pushed aside for various reasons. I understand we seem to be a consensus here for the most part, but I thought that this was insightful. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove released content from "Albums" section?

When an album is released, is there a need to remove it from the albums section? I assume we are treating it like the list above, with singles and packs? Scuzzinator (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is new albums are just like new song packs. Once they are released they are moved to the DLC section and deleted from the future releases tables. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 13:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect again?

The vandalism on this page is pretty rampant once again, though not yet at previous levels. What are the thoughts on semi-protecting again? Oren0 (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I am for it. I do not know what is a "normal" level of vandalism, but this page seems to be getting 5-10 vandal edits a day. Obviously no vandalism would be ideal, but I know that is not possible. I would support it Rowdyoctopus (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I am down for that, but what exactly is a Semi-protect? Is that something that only lets certain people edit the page, and not random people? (Scuzzinator (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

Semi-protect means that only established user accounts can make edits. So no IPs, and no users newer than...3-days I think. It wouldn't hurt to put in a request for it. At least until after the first new album passes and that section settles down. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 13:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

TRTX has it basically right (it's 4 days). See WP:PROT. This page has been semi-protected almost the entire time it's existed due to constant vandalism and misinformation. If the vandals keep up in the next couple of days I'll put in a request again. Oren0 (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have not noticed, it is now protected again. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Original OXM Songs

Recently an editor, in good faith, removed a source on the songs that have not been released but were originally printed in OXM (Metal pack, Shooting Star, Shadow World) and claimed they were unconfirmed by Harmonix. Since we have a source for the songs, and Harmonix has not unverified them, do we really want to move them from TBA to unconfirmed? I reverted the edit for now. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Harmonix verified those songs, but said release dates were subject to change. Can anyone verify this? From there, should we do anything with these songs or leave them as is? Rowdyoctopus (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The Harmonix quote I believe was: "Are tentative and subject to change" (as about the same as their response to the list from the DLC. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 04:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess my only question is were they referring to the dates, the actual songs, or both? Rowdyoctopus (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just my interpretation, but it usually seems like they refer to the overall rumor/report. Like "Yes OXM has reported a possible DLC listing. But nothing's finalized and these listings could change." -- TRTX ^{T / C} 12:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I vote for changing all those songs listed in the OXM as rumored and unconfirmed, since of course no HMX employee has stated those songs will be coming. It is possible those songs were in the pipeline, but they decided not to release them. If we are going to say Nevermind isn't confirmed, we should do the same for these. These songs were never even mentioned by HMX devs, ever. -- Scuzzinator (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind was never listed as upcoming in a documented source. OXM listed a series of tracks that were slated for March. This list was first found in like early Feb. So naturally it's tentative. These dates ended up being just that. We got the somwhat altered Thrash Pack, as well as a few of the singles in the Classic Rock pack...so in that regard I think it's played out just as one would expect. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 19:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"There are X tracks available"

That's not the exact line, but it's the line in the DLC section regarding the number of tracks currently available. I updated it to include the new Judas Priest songs, and left it at the total that it will be on both consoles by the end of the week. My thoughts behind not spliting it between PS3/360 is because elsewhere in the section we specify that the songs come out in the same week, just two days apart. So if the Apr. 22 releases bring the track count up to 94 (somebody can check my math on this one), then it'll essentially be the same for PS3. This is different if we have a situtaion like we had for the last few weeks where DLC was delayed on the PSN. But I think we should just go with the overall total and only differentiate between consoles if there's an actual delay beyond the standard two-days. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 12:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Full Album DLC announced

How are we going handle this? The first album DLC was announced today, with 2 other albums being announced in the works. Link (Scuzzinator (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

I like the way you set up the Album table. Once the album hits, I don't think it'll be any different than a normal song pack. List each track in the DLC table, and put Screaming for Vengeance into the "Pack" column. TRTX ^{T / C} 13:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to add an expandable list below the albums to show what songs are being released and how they are grouped. As you see Hellion and Electric Eye are merged, and I am sure other songs on different albums will be merged, too. (Scuzzinator (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

There's no real way to do that. The best is to rely on using "display: none" hidden parameters in front from the album/pack name to group the ordering correctly. eg "Hellion/Electric Eye" would have "<span style="display:none">Screaming for Vengeance 01</span>Screaming for Vengeance" as the pack/album name. --MASEM 14:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any specific need to have the songs listed in the table in the order they appear on the album. As far as "The Hellion/Electric Eye" is concerned, this is no different than "Foreplay/Long Time" from Boston. TRTX ^{T / C} 14:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not myself, but there are some music purists that album order is very specific. Again, with a hidden span, we can easily put that order in in the table invisible such that when sorted by Pack/Album, it will come out in the right order. But yes, we don't need "track number" as a specific entry in the field. --MASEM 14:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While I can understand the importance of album order when discussing an album specifically, I feel the focus of a table such as this should be ease of use. Currently the default sort is the order of release (viewers can quickly jump to the bottom to see the newest tracks. If it's possible, I think that after release date the table should be sorted on song then artist. This way a curious reader can quickly sort the table by artist/date/pack and check to see which (if any) of their favorite songs are here. TRTX ^{T / C} 14:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not clear, but the point I'm trying to make is that keeping the album track order requires no additional change to the DLC track list table save by added extra text in front of the album name. The user should still be able to sort on song title, artists, tiers, etc. and the order by album track would not longer persist. But when clicking by album/pack name, the order automagically would reappear. There's minimal work that affects what already exists to do this. --MASEM 14:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Now that we have the songs up, I originally added the tags to the pack like MASEM suggested. Then I had another idea. I removed the tags and just re-ordered the songs to be in album order in table to begin with. They now stay in this order unless you sort the table by song or by tier. Artist, pack, and date all leave them in album order. While not extremely important it was easier to do than originally thought. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic here. With or without the invis comments on album order, the songs in the album will sort on all other fields with no influence of the album order. The only time this comes into play is when the user sorts on pack name (album name), auto-sorting the tracks into track order. Without the invis comments, the only time the track order is preserved is on the page load; you can never restore if you sort once unless you reload the page. So I'm not understand why not to include this. --MASEM 03:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What happened to Who's Next and Nevermind being listed on the on the albums page? They are still on there way as far as we know, so why were they removed? (Scuzzinator (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

An editor removed them as speculation, though there are numerous resources which confirm both albums are still slated for release. I've undone the edit. Just because we have confirmed album releases doesn't suddenly make the reports of Who's Next and Nevermind any less valid. TRTX ^{T / C} 14:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is good evidence that we won't see either of these albums as actual full album downloads. The reference that is listed says that HMX got access to Nevermind, not that they would release the whole album, and I give you HMXsean's direct quote about Nevermind: http://www.rockband.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44663&page=3 Seems pretty clear that HMX never announced it specifically, and it looks like we might not get it. I think given this new source, we should remove Nevermind, for now. - Runch (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why i never noticed this before but the cite given for Nevermind doesn't mention Nevermind. Was this the origional cite?harlock_jds (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No that is not the original source, I believe the source is: http://interviews.teamxbox.com/xbox/2088/Rock-Band-Dan-Teasdale-Interview/p1/ If anyone wants to add that back as the source, feel free. (Scuzzinator (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

that source said "we were able to get the whole of “Nevermind”". that's different than saying it's going to be made available as a album download (like the who album). Combined with additional statements made by the devs in the forums i don't think it should be listed. harlock_jds (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This: "Dan Teasdale: No, it’ll be whole albums and also single and some packs of stuff. All of the songs will be available as pack and albums and singles, so you don’t have to buy the whole of “Nevermind” if you just want to play “Smells Like Teen Spirit.” We’re doing full albums, a couple of tracks from a given artist. Basically, we’re doing whatever we need to do to get the best tracks from the history of rock into Rock Band." Poor choice of an example? That is on the second page of that interview (Scuzzinator (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

it still isn't a direct statement of "Nevermind will be released as an album" (like they did with the who and the albums recently revealed). He could have just used teen spirit off the top of his head without thinking. Now if we have media sites interpreting his statement the way you are then we could link that but it's kinda a big leap of faith just from this interview. harlock_jds (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In a bizarre twist, there's a posted response to that Kotaku article where the author apparently states that HMX called Nevermind a "rumor that spun out of control". I don't want to cite it though as it's not tied to the article and doesn't provide a direct quote or anything. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 03:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Question: The "Leaked List" section that we originally added was designed as a collection of tracks that were not confirmed at the time the list was discovered. If we're going to recategorize Nevermind as "Unconfirmed", does that mean it's inclusion in the list back in March should be noted along with the current songs? -- TRTX ^{T / C} 03:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say so, almost all of the songs from Nevermind were listed. I think it was only missing a few. (Scuzzinator (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

Actually taking a second look, all the songs from Nevermind were listed on that leak list. (Scuzzinator (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC))

I would agree with that. It appeared they were set on Nevermind, but it now looks like it was journalistic optimism calling it a sure thing (not on our part, the places that reported it). Rowdyoctopus (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Nevermind should be put again. It has appeared on the Leaked setlist and it hasn't been totally denied. Salchicha (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

the songs may be coming out but that doesn't mean it will be bundled as an album download. Since no source says it is going to be offered as a bundled album download then we can't list it as such. BTW Boston has pretty much every song on it available via download and isn't an bundled album download... they may do the same with nevermind so we can't assume it's going to be a album download without a cite.

We are talking about adding the tracks from Nevermind back to the leaked list. We originally took them out because we thought they were officially announced. It has just recently been explicitly stated that they are not announced, meaning we may never see them for release. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's better like that. I hope someday we'll see that album :( Salchicha (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Album packs in Album order

This was touched on in another section but I wanted to bring it to it's own section. I agree with putting the songs in album order, and I tinkered with it when the songs were first added to the released songs table. I found that if we just add the songs to the table in the album order, they will always stay in that order unless you break them up when sorting by tier or alphabetical by song title. The order in which they are added becomes the "default" order. When you sort by date, pack, or artist, descending or ascending order, the tracks will show up in album order. When you add the inviso-sort option in front of the pack, this is no longer true. If you sort by artist of pack Z-A they will be in reverse order. I do not know if this was the desired effect. I would think it would be better to always see them in album order. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I copied MASEM's comment from an earlier discussion here. It can still be found there. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic here. With or without the invis comments on album order, the songs in the album will sort on all other fields with no influence of the album order. The only time this comes into play is when the user sorts on pack name (album name), auto-sorting the tracks into track order. Without the invis comments, the only time the track order is preserved is on the page load; you can never restore if you sort once unless you reload the page. So I'm not understand why not to include this. --MASEM 03:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying now. As soon as you sort by a column that takes the songs out of order, they stick in that order when sorted with other columns. When I was looking at the table, I was going from page load and then sorting by pack (A-Z and Z-A), date (New-Old and Old-New) and artist (A-Z and Z-A). Since they were in album order on page load, and those sorts did not disrupt this, they stayed in order. I now realize, once you sort by, for example, guitar Tier (1-9) and then go back to pack sorting, the songs will be in order from easiest guitar to hardest. Using the invisi-sort solves this, it just puts the songs in reverse order when sorting from Z-A. I am not sure if that is desirable. I assumed it was not. I would be willing to go back to the invisible tags. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you caught what I was going to comment on : when a new sort is started, it will use the last order to sort any ties, meaning that if you sort twice or more on the table, you can't get back album order. --MASEM 04:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Rumored Songs

"Hacked" means messed with so the songs are more like "rumored".

and someone should put the artist, I know a few of them:

Beetlebum - Blur, I Can't Get No Satisfaction - The Rolling Stones, Brown Sugar - The Rolling Stones, Zero - Smashing Pumpkins, Pinball Wizard - The Who, D.O.A. - The Foo Fighters or The Haunted Rock 'N' Roll Star - Oasis, Hysteria - Either Def Leppard or Muse,

that's about all I know but it's just a suggestion I don't want to start a big feud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.101 (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The section is called "Hacked" because that is exactly how they were found. Someone imported the file for "(Arguably) Punk 02" to a PC and "Hacked" into the data files to find a list of songs. It contained all the songs in the game so far, plus the songs listed in our section. There are no artists in the list, so we cannot include them. The reason they are not rumored is because Harmonix basically came out and said (paraphrase) "These are songs we are working on but they may or may not come out for release. All you can bank on is our weekly announcements." I don't want to sound mean, but there are 2-4 other sections of the talk page talking about why or why not add artists. The section is already disputed and adding speculative information will only aid in getting it removed. I suggest reading some of the other sections in the talk page and responding there if you feel you have anything to add. You are more than welcome to. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 07:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

When I first read "hacked" I to thought it meant the specific song was hacked or somehow changed by end users. I've renamed it to something more suitable of the overall concept of how they're found. I'm open for other possible names. But "hacked" doesn't sound right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TRTX (talk • contribs) 17:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If I can add this to rumored songs, in OXM Feb. edition, there was a rumor that standalone expansion packs are going to be made for the ps2 and wii, since they cant download songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.161.121 (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The References

I am learning how to correctly make references in an article and I started looking at the references here as examples (whether good or bad). I am not calling them out saying they are not reliable, I am just noticing that they are inconsistent. Some times there is a reference to a site that just has the title of the page and says what site it is from. Other times it gives what day it was retrieved on. Even further, some times the person from that site that "published" it is named. I guess I was just wondering if there were reasons it was inconsistent. While not terribly important, I think it would improve the article if we were consistent in our references. Forgive me if I am missing something here, it just seemed there were very similar pages being referenced in different ways and I could not figure out why, or if it was even important. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's just the way people add info to the article; some know how to use citations, some don't and just drop a URL in. That's fine as long as we can still get that info, though making them consistent can't hurt. Ultimately they need to use the citation templates (the {{cite web}} one most likely) if we take this list to Featured. --MASEM 15:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend User:Mr.Z-man/refbuttons. It adds a "cite web" button (and 2 others) to your toolbar. I just always use that when adding refs. Oren0 (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete Songs Already Confirmed

I think that any song that has been confirmed should be removed from the list of leaked DLC songs, as they already appear in another section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.79.17 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this again and again. See the sections "Leaked List" and "Where do we stand on this list as a group?" above. We have a pretty broad consensus to leave this as is. Feel free to add something new if you have it but just beware that we've heard most of the arguments already. Oren0 (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

i stopped watching this talk page for a while because i feel its impossible to get through to these people, but for what it's worth, i agree the the original poster here. beware, you aren't registered and as such your comments don't carry as much weight. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that either you or the other user are anon-editors has nothing to do with it. Your opinion regarding this issue has evolved from an issue with an article into one with the editors themselves, amidst accusations of WP:OWN amoung other things. There are avenues you can take if you feel there's a problem with the editors. I personally sought out outside opinions regarding not only the topic but the behavior inside the talk page and have yet to see any negative feedback regarding the behavior inside this talk page. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 00:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Best Buy Disturbed Pre-Order bonus

Best Buy pre-order bonus apparently listed in next week's (May 4) Best Buy ad. Will contain 2 as yet unknown Disturbed songs. You have to be a member of CAG to see the original post, so I'm hesitant to make any mention (especially since we don't have titles even at this point). But just a heads up if you start seeing people trying to add Distrubed songs. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 03:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really worth mentioning yet. Though I'd be expecting an announcement (tomorrow perhaps) that the whole album will be available for download and that the BB deal will give you a promo code for 2 of the songs free. Oren0 (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Disturbed's Official site says the songs will be "Inside the Fire" and "Indestructible." The album comes out June 3rd and you can start pre-ordering on May 4th. I think we should wait until we know when the songs will be available before we add it to the article. Also, the promo is Xbox 360 exclusive. Again, we are lacking info. This could mean you can only get the on Xbox, or it could mean they cost money on PS3. We don't even know if they will be available to everyone or if it is like the OXM thing where only the people that have the disc (err the code) can get them. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it now, as the link I use as a reference has the following - "...get a code to redeem "Inside The Fire" and "Indestructible" on June 3 for Xbox 360 RockBand for free." It's the official site, so I'd take its word just as well as I'd take HMX's. Perhaps we can have a section for promotions, and include the OXM disc and now the Distrubed songs (at least once we've got more info available...likely coming today. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 12:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"at no cost"

I marked in the footnote that these songs are available at no cost because the songs are a free bonus on top of the pre-order. It's no different than the Companion Pack given out with purchase of the GHIII companion pack. Nor is it any different than the three tracks given away for free with the Feb OXM magazine. You pay to pre-order the album and get the songs as a gift. Why not say that "Still Alive" isn't free because you have to buy Rock Band, and have an internet connection in order to access the store? -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I heartily disagree. The OXM tracks were not free, seeing as you had to have an OXM subscription to get them. The Disturbed songs are not free, because you have to pay for the CD before you can get them. Still Alive is different, because it is free for all Rock Band owners. The other songs are not free to all Rock Band owners. We can only say that a song is available "at no cost" to XBox 360 owners if every Xbox 360 owner with Rock Band can download the song for free.

If you agree with my logic, please revert me edit back to the way it was. Thanks, Runch (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. "Still Alive" is only free for Xbox Live gold members, which isn't even close to every 360 owner with RB. Oren0 (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The footnote makes it very clear the songs are free through a promotion with information about the promotion referenced directly following. This is no different than a GameStop preorder promotion in which a customer is given a free doll, eraser, book, etc with their $5 deposit. However, this is why I'm proposing a "Promotions" section to provide more information regarding events such as this (the GHIII song list currently has a section regarding the Companion CD and the pack that came free with it. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The point is the song is not available "at no cost". You must purchase a Distrubed CD to get the songs, and the CD has a distinct COST. If I don't buy the CD, I don't get the songs "at no cost" (This is all presuming of course that any of this occurs. We have yet to recieve official notice from HMX).

And Oren0, Xbox Live Silver members can still download songs, so yes, Still Alive IS free to every Xbox 360 owner (Silver membership is free). - Runch (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

1) "You must purchase a Distrubed CD to get the songs, and the CD has a distinct COST." - Yes, you have to pre-order the CD. However, the money you spend at BestBuy.com is to pre-order the CD and only to pre-order the CD. See my example above of a GameStop pre-order promotion. Customers are spending their money to purchase the CD, which can be done anywhere. The difference with BestBuy.com is that customer's who purchase the CD are getting a free bonus on top of that. There's no additional costs being incurred by the customer because they are getting the RB songs. Nor does the footnote imply that the songs are free to anybody. The footnote specifically states "...through a BestBuy.com promotion."

2) "(This is all presuming of course that any of this occurs. We have yet to recieve official notice from HMX)." - I would not have included the updated information if all I had was the CAG or RB forum thread. However, I would think an article regarding the band Disturbed published on Disturbed's website would be reliable enough to warrant being posted on Wikipeida. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 19:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Scene" Pack?

I'm not exactly hip or trendy, but what exactly is "Scene" referring to in the title of the May 6th pack? I've seen Scene (fashion) and Music scene articles that may be potential links. Thoughts? -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"Scene" refers to the "emo scene". "This ain't a scene, it's an arms race" is a reference to the emo "Scene". See also "scene kids." (Emos are sooo complicated..) LiveinNightCity (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

course i wouldn't consider the yeah yeah yeah's to be emo in the least. I guess they were just desperate to tie these together somehow.harlock_jds (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider the YYYs to be emo either, but there are other examples of songs not really fitting in packs - Harmonix themselves labelled the "(Arguably) Punk Pack 02" as such. 69.204.132.88 (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

My question was more or less if there's a viable Wikilink available for "Scene" in this situation, or if we should just leave it as is. I would imagine that there are others as curious as to the origins of the name as I am. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

the best guess i could make is Subculture but without any idea of what they mean by scene it's just editor opinion. I'd leave it unlinked. harlock_jds (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A while back, I read the whole emo article. I believe that the origins of the term are mentioned there, but I may be mistaken. - LiveinNightCity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.204.132.88 (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

New Archive

I think it would be good to archive the talk page since this page already appears to be a lot longer than the current archives. Also it would be a good idea to put a box at the top of the new talk page addressing and linking to popular previously discussed issues such as the leaked list. FuzionZero (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm adding automatic bot archiving for threads older than 3 weeks. Oren0 (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional Songs Being Released For Wii & PS2

Just found this out on the announcements at the Rock Band forums. Track Pack coming to Wii and PS2!. Someone should add this to the article somehow. FuzionZero (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added this news in as a new section "Track Pack Vol. 1" under "Additional Songs". The table is very rough, and only has base sorting (no the-less at the moment) and no wiki'd links yet. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 17:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

All these songs are DLC too, right ? (I think they are, spot-checked). Since there is suggestions there are additional packs coming, I suggest an additional table column "Track Pack Vol.", using 1 for those in this one, "--" for those not. I realize this adds another row, but to mimic what I've been doing for the GH lists, if you move the release date out of the table and into a separate table for packs and their release dates, this makes enough room for this. --MASEM 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that unlike the GH series, not every song is in a pack. So you can put pack prices/dates in one place, but what about single dates? -- TRTX ^{T / C} 22:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Still working on this for GHIII, but User:Masem/GHIIIPacks shows how it can be applied to singles. --MASEM 22:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, all those tables seem redundant. Obviously you are still working on it, but it seems like too much for the amount of information it is providing. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I added "the-less" sorting and wikilinks for the whole thing. I was not sure if we were going to bold them since it says before the table they are all masters. I guess it would keep it consistent with the rest of the article though. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

New Leaked List

Some fellow seems to have found a list of songs they used for testing? The link is here: [3]
Songs include:
Black Dog, Sweet Home Alabama, Welcome to the Jungle, Born to be Wild, I Believe in a Thing Called Love, Live and Let Die, Proud Mary, Rock 'n Roll All Nite, She Talks to Angels, Taking Care of Business, Tie Your Mother Down, We Will Rock You, You Shook Me All Night Long.

Scuzzinator (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Since they were found on the PS2 version, it looks like songs they used as test songs when they were making the game. The PS2 doesn't get DLC, and I would think it is hardly likely that we see any of those songs, especially when they are from artists like Led Zeppelin and AC/DC who are very hard to license. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe "Jungle" was seen in an early RB trailer, giving creedence to the theory. LiveinNightCity (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Jungle was a test song HMX used to get MTV/EA/HMX excited about the game. It was intended to showcase ideas, and propose a way the game could work. It was never meant to be shown to the public. But yes, that does make the scenario I suggested more likely. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a "Promotions" section

There's the OXM disc, there's the Disturbed pack...and now: this. South Park 3-pack (no songs given, so no clue what they could be yet). I'm thinking this is something we need to start documenting. Otherwise this article could start drowning in footnotes. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 23:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But how would we go about doing that? Maybe a table with the columns going "Promotion / Artist / Song" perhaps? FuzionZero (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Once we get more information on the Best Buy and South park promotion, I would say we should add it. Right now we have very incomplete information on both of them. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Once we know more about the two newest, I would recommend just a "Promotional releases" section or something like that. It would have a section for each promotion (OXM, Disturbed, South Park). It would simply give info on how the promotion worked and what songs were released. If they're new to the list (not existing DLC) then it would include all the neccesary information. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 02:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

And the confusion continues: promotional pricing from now til June 1. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 03:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish these damned things would come with more info like maybe what songs they are or if they are 360 exclusive or not. I think we should be including these things in the article now and letting people know full details aren't available yet. FuzionZero (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He updated with the songs.

5/6/08-5/12/08 :

Crushcrushcrush - Paramore

Rock 'n Roll Band - Boston

5/13/08-5/19/08 :

Shockwave - Black Tide

Sugar Magnolia - Grateful Dead

5/20/08-5/26/08:

We Care A Lot - Faith No More

All the Small Things - Blink 182

5/27/08-6/2/08:

Gimme Three Steps - Lynyrd Skynyrd

Dirty Little Secret - All-American Rejects
Rowdyoctopus (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yah no I caught those songs. I was talking about the Disturbed and South Park songs. FuzionZero (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody confirm if "Saints of Los Angeles" is still available for 80MSP/$1? Usually when they release some discounted prices it comes at the expense of the previous batch. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 16:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Harmonix posted the official details of the McDonalds promotion. here. Pretty much exactly what we know, it is just all cleared up here. The discount is for both the PS3 and Xbox 360, and this confirms the tracks and dates. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything we can do about the McDonalds promotion right now? It is currently going on and our page does not reflect that. If nothing else, I will add footnotes in few hours. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

TBA Gone

Just a heads up. The article for "To Be Announced" was officially deleted. So you guys might want to find a way to resolve the red links in the article. No big deal really just letting you guys know. FuzionZero (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Testament" Addition

Someone on the Rock Band forums brought up a very good point. Read the article again carefully.

"TESTAMENT frontman Chuck Billy revealed during an interview with the nationally syndicated rock radio show "The Tour Bus" (web site) that two of the band's songs — "Electric Crown" and "Souls of Black" — will be featured in next Rock Band video game. No further details are currently available."

And I'm pretty sure it's not a typo either as it is in the page title as well.

"TESTAMENT Music To Be Featured In Next 'Rock Band' Video Game - May 7, 2008"

So I thought we should hold off including it into the article. FuzionZero (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Dude, think about it. Def Leppard said the SAME exact thing about their songs on GH but they were released about 2 weeks later. And do you think HMX is gonna put TWO songs from one band on the same game. It is probably going to be DLC, and Chuck Billy just doesn't understand how it works. Scuzzinator (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to say that we have no word if there will be Rock Band 2, while at the time, there was a word that there is a GHIV coming ou in the future. I still think these songs should be added on the list for DLC until there is a conformation that there is a Rock Band 2 coming out. Scuzzinator (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In terms of future DLC in general, it feels weird that all of these things are coming out without a comment from Harmonix. While I know there are other reliable sources, Harmonix has proven more than a few times that their announcements are the only ones that end up 100% accurate. For all we know, Testament just signed the licensing agreement and Harmonix just started working on the songs. They could end up not working out. We may never see them at all. I guess I am just torn. I want to use sources we have, but I also want to make sure we have the most accurate information. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To depend solely on HMX seems irresponsible, as we've gotten confirmation (at least through word of mouth) regarding the Disturbed pack. In the case of something like this, or the South Park DVD promo, it wouldn't be wise for a group to say "We're going to have Rock Band content" if that were not going to be the case. I see it as the group with the bonus content makes the annoucement as soon as they know they'll have SOMETHING in Rock Band. HMX doesn't make the announcement until it's completely finalized. Though I wonder why we still haven't heard anything about the Distrubed songs. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

They just made an announcement about the Disturbed songs [4] They said they don't know what songs will be available, so I removed the songs from the section for now. I know this has nothing to do with Testament. Scuzzinator (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand about relying solely on them. That was just how I feel on the topic. While I want to rely on other sources, I am apprehensive. I guess I was just voicing my own frustration. Not everything will be perfect and clear, just have to go with what we have. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

So... Where do we stand on adding Testament to the list of Upcoming songs? Should we add it til there is confirmation of Rock Band 2, or should we just not worry about it? Scuzzinator (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

just not worry about it for now. While Chuck Billy is a reliable source about his music being licensed he isn't a reliable source about Rock Band 2 Ad since he did say 'the next rock band' we can't assume he's a idiot and is talking about DLC for Rock Band.harlock_jds (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Update on South Park songs

Looks like it won't be happening afterall - Link FuzionZero (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Disturbed Songs mislabeled

Accoding to Best Buy's sunday ad (5/4/08) the 2 Disturbed DLC songs "Inside The Fire" and "Perfect Insanity" are Xbox 360 exclusive and are availalbe NOW not in June via a download code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.183.161 (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree the date should be changed. The reason we have the songs we do is because Disturbed's official site named those songs. My guess is HMX will make an official announcement on Monday. Until then, unless you have the songs I do not believe there is a way to 100% confirm which source is right (Disturbed's site, or Best Buy). I believe the date was an interpretation on behalf of an editor. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a WP "guideline" for this type of situation? Either place is fairly reliable (Distrubed for it's music and BB for it's own promotions)...curious as to why there hasn't been more news about this. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure. I still have not seen an official word from Harmonix either, which leads me to believe the songs are not yet available. Can anyone confirm this? Rowdyoctopus (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have the songs, they are available now through a code. Not sure if they are available on the store to buy, can someone clarify that? 195.195.0.77 (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't seen any of the Disturbed songs in the stores, nor have I seen official word from HMX as to what's going on. Are the two songs in fact the two listed in the article? Also, if you could get tiering information that'd be helpful as well. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure he is lying, or is being misunderstood. Harmonix made an official announcement today that the songs will be available at a later date. In-fact, they do not even know what 2 songs it will be. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i wrote the wrong thing, i meant that bestbuy has confirmed to me that the code i have (the code, not the tracks) are for the two Disturbed tracks, "Indestructible", and "Inside The Fire". It's not redeemable until the album comes out or the tracks are released on Rock Band's Music Store. Sorry for misleading you. 195.195.0.77 (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Sorry if I sounded harsh. I tend to make things to the point, and come off more intense then I generally intend to. I wasn't calling you a liar, just putting out the different scenarios. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's alright, it was a mistake on my part :) The tracks are pretty awesome, and the music vid for 'Inside The Fire' is now on youtube. 195.195.0.77 (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and the useless boys at BestBuy told me earlier it's the whole album. Phoned back later and someone said it was probably 'Indestructible', 'Perfect Insanity', 'Inside The Fire', and 'Midlife Crisis'. Godammit, cant we get a straight answer or something? For now i think 'Indestructible' is the most likely as it's the premiere track for the album, and 'Inside The Fire' is another big one. Not saying to put them up, i'm just getting that out there (Being an avid Disturbed fan). Tr1ckydr1v3r (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana

Seems the whole album "Nevermind" is in the leaked list, now let's wait for an announcement. 85.145.25.54 (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

HMX has come out and said, more or less, not to expect it as full album DLC. They got the rights, but not everything on that list is bound to come out. I wouldn't be surprised if we never see the rest of those songs. They have released quite a large number of songs not on that list since it was released. Not much that we can do except wait though. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like a link to them saying this, because they have said nothing of this on the website forums. Also, they announced way back that it would definetly be a full album so until proven otherwise, i'm putting it back up. 195.195.0.77 (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

actually there isn't a good reference to Nevermind being released a packaged album in DLC. THe closest we've had was a off hand mention of songs being available in packs and individually using Teen spirit as an example but that hardly makes up an announcement. Since HMX has basically said the whole Nevermind album DLC thing was a out of control rumor started by people taking things out of context we shouldn't add it to the list until you can provide a reference that states 'Nevermind will be available as an album DLC'. Note that just about every song from Boston's first album is available as DLC (and as a pack even) but it's not bundled as an album DLC (pack and album DLC is different) which means that even if all the songs are on the 'leaked list' doesn't mean it's going to be an album bundle. harlock_jds (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And to add there IS reference to them stating they never announced Nevermind - Link FuzionZero (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Metal 01 Pack

It's been in TBA for nearly three months or so. Until there is further word, Supernaut, Wraithchild, and Fuel need to be removed (or suspended) from future songs until there is any word if these songs are going to be released.

While on this subject, I think we need a timer on how long something can be in TBA without release date before it is removed. I understand it takes work, but two months is too long to have info like that up there. Ledgo (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's Next has been up there since day 1. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 20:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

but they have said more infomation about the Who is upcoming. I don't see the point in having a timer as long as we have a good reference for the 'announcement'. So far the only bad listing we've had up for any length of time was Nevermind. harlock_jds (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Cars and The Pixies

The reference stating they are coming out in May and June has been edited. It now gives no kind of date whatsoever. FuzionZero (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This story provides a reference for May and June album releases. Update: I see that reference was already included in the article. Why was it removed? -- TRTX ^{T / C} 02:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I Thought they reference we used was the one from the RB forums. I could have sworn that originally the RB thread about Judas Priest by HMXSean included a statement about The Cares and The Pixies coming out in May and June was then edited removing the months. My bad. FuzionZero (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. There was something changed on the 18th by the looks of the edit. No idea what it is though. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 15:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"See Also"

I'll include my reasoning here, since there's been a few edit/reverts regarding it. There's no specific connection between the song lists of RB and GuitarFreaks or DrumMania. There's already a category for "Lists of songs" and "Video game soundtracks" which is the only common thread between these two.

It's not like Rock Revolution/GHIV/RB having See Also's for each other in their respective main articles. There you have a series of games all linked together as "Music/Rhythm games" but more specifically are each full-band games. But the specific soundtracks to various music games aren't neccesarilly related.

Likewise, we wouldn't need a "See Also" for a sequel or multiple titles within the same series, as we've seen (in situations such as Guitar Hero) that they have a template for easy access to the song lists of all games in the series). -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The game is a comparable game. In the aspect that it is a rhtyhm game with fake instruments. I see no reasonw hy a see also to that games song list is a bad idea? Does it hurt anything by having it here? I actually followed it when I first saw it because it was interesting. See also section is for related or similar content. A list of songs in a similar game counts as similar content. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

leave the see also's on the main articles, not hereharlock_jds (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that GuitarFreaks/DrumMania isn't the only game of this nature. There's also Frequency, Amplitude, Guitar Hero, Rock Revolution, Samba de Amigo, etc. And since most of those games have multiple sequels and spin-offs, where do we draw the limit on when to see also? If anything, a better approach would be to create a "Music/Rhythym game soundtrack" category, since currently there's only "List of songs" (which covers things outside gaming) and "Video game soundtracks" (which includes many genres). Then you could pull all of the various lists into the category and provide a quick reference with one link (the category) vs. subjective and potentially overwhelming amounts of See Also links. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 15:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I created Category:Music video game soundtracks and moved pages into it, hopefully solving this issue. Most of the pages (including this one) were double-categorized anyway because Category:Video game soundtracks is a subcategory of Category:Lists of songs anyway. Oren0 (talk) 17:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"Shooting Star" and "Shadow World"

Both of these were supposed to be released in packs that have already been released, replaced by "Call Me" and "D.O.A." respectively. The source that we're using can't be completely believed - only seven of the 12 tracks that were listed have been released, and none of them on the correct date. Does anybody have any objections to those tracks being removed? --fuzzy510 (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and in all fairness i think the "Metal" pack should also be taken down. the source wasn't reliable, and the information isn't relevant, and certainly shouldn't be listed in the "Future Releases" section being that it's essentially misleading and wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.188.142 (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The only situation that I think would warrant them being removed is an official denouncement from Harmonix. As it is, we've only ever seen the "Tentative and subject to change" response. And as in the previous discussion regarding this, I pointed out that The Who has been TBA since Rock Band was announced (or at least since it was released). -- TRTX ^{T / C} 12:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Why should we wait for an official "denouncement"? The source for the releases isn't from Harmonix; there's no reason to believe that Harmonix will ever make any comment on whether they'll be released. Who's Next, on the other hand, has been commented on by Harmonix as still being in the pipeline. They're two completely different animals. --fuzzy510 (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fuzzy. Harmonix has never made any statement about the "Metal Pack" or other songs listed in the OXM publication. There's really no credible reason to believe that these songs will be released. The responsible thing would be to remove them from the list. - Runch (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Where do you think OXM got the initial reports that they based the section on? The dates on the source are no longer accurate, and the article reflects that. There's nothing that states the songs are never going to be released. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 20:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to have to invoke Wikipolicy, but here it is: According to Wikipedia's core verifiability policy (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), a source must be reliable for it to be used. Although OXM magazine would generally be considered a reliable source, we must look at the specific article/reference in question. If you look at the reference, it's obvious that it is not reliable - all the release dates were incorrect, and 5 of the 12 listed songs have not been released. The fact that the reference was clearly incorrect shows that this particular reference is unreliable, and therefore it cannot be used to prove a point in the article.

If a reliable source is found that shows that these songs may be released in the future, we should certainly include them. In the meantime however, they must be removed. - Runch (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So OXM is reliable...but it's not reliable? I guess I don't see which part of "tentative and subject to change" is being lost here. This article isn't reporting the dates as fact, since those have been "deconfirmed" by the passage of time. But you can't declare the source unreliable as a hole because an old article now has outdated information. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 02:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what a reliable source entails. Reliability is akin to accuracy, dependability, and infallibility. If a source reports factually incorrect data, it cannot be reliable. As I pointed out, the OXM reference is factually incorrect concerning 12 of 12 release dates and 5 of 12 released songs. It cannot be used as a reliable reference. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Thanks, Runch (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Runch don't be a shit. While the dates changed, those songs were being worked on and it was an HMX source as reported by OXM, which you claim is reliable. So really, reliability here hinges on whether you believe OXM taht it was an HMX source or whether you think they're lying NOT the accuracy of the information. I agree that maybe it's best to remove shadow world / shooting star, but the metal pack is in all likelihood going to come out eventually. The classic rock pack came out, despite missing its date? The popular line of thinking is that the metal pack and those other two songs were held back because they have covers, and that HMX was trying not to release covers for a while (which has stopped with beetlebum now). So you might find these coming out in the very near future. in any case, i think youre misinterpreting/selectively interpreting the verifiability policy here. 76.64.37.10 (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for name calling. The fact is, everything you said might be true, but there is no evidence that supports what you said. That makes it original research, and Wikipedia has a strict policy against that. Until there is a new source, the data remains factually incorrect and cannot be included. - Runch (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The WP article does not site the specific dates anywhere in the tables. The source is being used a means of validating where the names came from. And really, which is more of a stretch: OXM posted a tentative schedule which was later proven to be just that, tentative? Or OXM magically pulled 12 songs out of the sky and just happened to hit 5 of them? The fact you're trying to argue OXM as an unreliable source is riddiculous. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 16:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

First, OXM predicted 5 of 12 correct period. Being off a week or two is the nature of "tentative and subject to change", which is exactly how HMX referred to this specific article. And if we're going to start creating an arbitraty "grading system" for a source, we're going to run into some trouble.

Let me provide an example that maybe helps you see how I'm viewing this. A magazine runs a story in Feb of 2008 announcing a new game. The release date is listed as March 2008, but is also listed as tentative. On April 1st, a new article is released stating that the game is not being released in March, no new date is given, but the game is not declared dead in the water.

To me, this is the same situation. A magazine (OXM) provides a tentative release date (March DLC calendar). The dates are later rendered null (subsequent releases), but the content is not specifically cancelled.

At this point I think an outside opinion would be useful. We had almost this exact debate for two/three months regarding the content listed inside of the Punk Pack, and the opposite result ended up being the decision. That's why I find it funny that this content would suddenly become so controversial. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 16:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me show how I view this. I think we can all agree that at this point in time, we don't have any credible reference saying that these songs will be released, period, end of story. We do have evidence (ie. OXM) that shows they might be released. But let's always remember that Wikipedia is an encycopedia. Wikipedia is not intended for things that might be, only what is and what was. That's the idea behind Wikipedia's "no crystal balling" guideline.

I'm not saying that there's no way that these songs aren't going to be released, I'm saying that we just don't know. And though rumors, possibilities, and might have beens are great for blogs and forums, they don't belong in Wikipedia. - Runch (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree with Runch here and that he hit the hammer on the nail. OMX PREDICTED the songs. Which is of course going into crystal balling. So, until word from HMX comes through, Metal 01 Pack and the others need to be taken down. It is not a debate over the reliability of OMX, they PREDICTED something, and as stated, Wikipedia is what IS and what WILL be, not MIGHT be. Since predictions are not 100% correct, like OMX did, they can't be included. It doesn't matter how reliable or unreliable a source is, it is listed in No Crystal Balling. Ledgo (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OXM Reliability

Okay, I'm creating this subsection because I brought the content back and marked it as disputed. I'm going to try and get a request for an outside opinion, as that seemed to help things out during the "Leak" dispute earlier this year. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 16:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Quoted as the source of the leak in the post we're citing is this link, which contains a statement from Harmonix that it is a tentative schedule and subject to change. If you want your refutation of the list from the big boys, you've got it.

The other issue, TRTX, is that this is not the same as a game missing a release date and then being rescheduled. The release date was missed, two of the packs that were to feature songs that haven't been released have already been released with other songs, and there's been no word, leaked or otherwise, that this DLC will ever come to exist. --fuzzy510 (talk) 00:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Tentative and subject to change" is the phrase I was looking for. Which I saw as an indication that this report isn't refuted, just coming with the disclaimer that things may change (as with any release date). But at this point I think we might as well just remove it. I'll make the edit. At this point the worst case scenario is that it pops back up at some point and we include it again. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Songs for 20th May

These don't exist in the PS3 shop at least, I'm not sure they should actually be in the article, or if they're available for XBOX360, then that should be noted, surely?

My mistake, seen where it has differing dates for PSN and XBOX network, however, the European section's reference for North American content is not about what it's linked to.

Fix'd the reference, thanks! -- TRTX ^{T / C} 12:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

3 Exclusive Devo Tracks

G4 announced today that there are going to be 3 songs from Devo in RB. I added the one they announced. Here is hoping for "Whip It" | Exclusive: Devo Coming To 'Rock Band' Scuzzinator (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Master recording

Should we change the master recording classification from the names of the band and song from bold to a check to the right of the song title? This will allow viewers to order the songs by master recordings and also makes it easier to visualize. --Gjuny (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been suggested a few times, and is a good idea. I shouldn't have been so quick to revert. But with the DLC table growing containing as much info as it is I was thinking it may be a good idea to edit some of the fields to try and make it more concise before we add a new column. I should've explained that here. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 12:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's OK to add another column. At the resolution of 1024*768 we can still see the additional column without any major distortion. --Gjuny (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There have been some suggestion's on what could be done to trim the size of tables (dropping the word "tier" in every cell was one). As a suggestion, why don't you copy a portion of the DLC table to a sandbox page. That way we can play around with the formatting of the table without disrupting the current content. UPDATE: Try User:TRTX/RB, I've been using it for sandboxing, but it's not being used for anything now. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 12:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll sandbox a little bit. Let's see what comes out of it. --Gjuny (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Annoucement for June 3rd here then gone.

RB Forums had an annoucement for next week then quickly took it down.

3 Disturbed masters for 80MSP each (2 of which will be part of the Best Buy promotion): Inside the Fire, Indestructible, Perfect Insanity
3 Jimmy Buffet masters (which I guess are new recordings) at regular price: Margaritaville, Volcano, and one other...

So if you start seeing those that's where it's coming from. I'll keep an eye out if it pops up again. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 17:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Shinedown on Rock Band?

On Shinedown's wiki page for their new CD, is says in the notes that Devour will appear on Rock Band. Should it be added to the announced song list? 19:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source other than the wiki page? -- TRTX ^{T / C} 00:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible reason that Who's Next may not be coming out on Rock Band

Apparently Pete Townshend has said in an interview (which i have not found a link too yet) that the master tracks for the first side (first five tracks) of "Who's Next" were stolen which would explain the delay of (and lack of news about) the announced 'first album' for DLC (without the master copy of the recording they can not make the song for rock band). Given this should we remove Who's Next from the list of albums?

more info here http://kotaku.com/5014229/boo+hoos-for-the-who. harlock_jds (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

While the content of the interview is true, I read the thread on the RB forums that is reference and the post drawing the conclusion about DLC is purely speculative. Nevermind has been "deconfirmed", but we have reports as recent as May that Who's Next is still slated for release. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 05:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Links taken out

Why were the links on the songs that have been rumoured taken out. I spent like 5 minutes doing that to each song and was now going to fix them all up. Im going to do it again so screw you guys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.150.159 (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

June 10th DLC

The songs have no tiers listed for them. I was the one who put in last week's, and now that the page cannot be edited by me, I felt it my duty to put them here. They'll go guitar, bass, drums, vocals, band:

Girls Who Play Guitars: Tier 4 || Tier 4 || Tier 5 || Tier 3 || Tier 4

Moving to Seattle: Tier 3 || Tier 3 || Tier 5 || Tier 3 || Tier 4

A Clean Shot: Tier 2 || Tier 2 || Tier 4 || Tier 2 || Tier 3

Bullets & Guns: Tier 2 || Tier 2 || Tier 4 || Tier 4 || Tier 4

Somebody who can edit it, please fill in the blank spaces. Thanks. John64824 (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)John64824

I have unprotected it so that you can add it in. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I put them in and updated the DLC song total and total song total. You may protect it again. John64824 (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)John64824

I'll leave it unprotected for now. If vandalism or anon uncited additions get really bad, drop me a line on my talk page and I will re-protect it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

"Arguably" Punk

A few of the songs have (arguably) Punk as a link to what pack they came out in. Is this necessary? Seems like more of an opinion than a fact. Null537 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the official name of the pack. --Ouzo (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes blame them for the trollish name not us :) harlock_jds (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that just seemed like a ridiculous (and unexpected) name, humorous though. Null537 (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's because The Police track isn't really defined as "Punk". 99.232.230.220 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The "Earache" Thrash Pack is in an equally awkward naming situation. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

in that case it's a logical name since all 3 bands are or have been signed to Earache records (who likely put up money to get the pack together). The Arguably Punk name really pisses me off but it's just because some smartass at HM did it.

Possible upcoming dlc!?!?

User Pengwyns on the ScoreHero forums found some possible upcoming dlc. Here is what he said:

"I was just watching some Jackass on MTV with a friend and there was a commercial for the MTV2 pack. I noticed some songs in the scroll list that we don't know about. The pictures are a bit crappy, but the info is there none the less.

Afterlife - Avenged Sevenfold
Breed - Nirvana
Burn - Nine Inch Nails
Aesthetics of Hate - Machine Head "

he provided 3 images for proof: [5] [6] [7]

Full ScoreHero post: [8]

Perhaps this should be added somewhere since we currently list "possible" dlc.

--daytonlowell
daytonlowell at gmail d0t c0m —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daytonlowell (talk • contribs) 05:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, this reminds me of the "List" that was in the 2nd Punk Pack. There was a lot of heat regarding including that info. It'd definately be helpful to actually have the video as primary evidence, as screens can easily be 'shopped. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 12:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I scoured the official RB boards as well as SH. I can't find anybody who's seen this commericial aside from the original poster on SH. Not only that, but there's actually a statement buried in SH that there is no such commericial. I don't have MTV2...or at least, I haven't looked for it. It's starting to look awefully fishy. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 17:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

no opinion on its inclusion in the article yet, but as HMX people have commented on it already without saying "thats a photoshop" or discrediting it, its unlikely that its doctored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.106.63.213 (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Still no sign of the original ad anywhere. The story has now "broke" in the gaming blog circle: Joystiq. Should this be included similiar to the OXM info or treated like the DLC list? -- TRTX ^{T / C} 01:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this merits inclusion yet. Quoting a blog that's quoting forums doesn't exactly seem like reliable info. But if more sites pick up on it we won't have a choice. Oren0 (talk) 02:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We do not really list possible DLC. The article currently contains all released material, upcoming material as found in reliable sources, and the list of songs found in the file, which are labeled as a list of songs found in a file, many of which were later released. For now, I do not see how this is reliable enough to be included. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Are we in agreement that if somebody could find the video this would be a lot easier? I STILL haven't seen anybody but the original poster who saw it. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 03:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

the video is now on youtube: [9] --daytonlowell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daytonlowell (talk • contribs) 03:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

High quality verision. Having seen this, I'm comfortable including this in the full-out "Confirmed" category (as opposed to something like "the list". This is mostly because the commericial came directly from MTV and includes in-game footage, which means it had to come from a direct source. TV shows are considered sources (since we have entire articles based on episodes with no references neccesary). I now support inclusion with a reference to the Joystiq article posted above. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 12:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The commercial is obviously legit, but this doesn't mean that the songs are confirmed. There's a lot of songs that people thought were going to come out (Welcome to the Jungle, the entirety of Who's Next, etc.) that we still haven't seen and may never see. Pretty much, until HMX confirms it with a release date, we can't be sure we'll ever see these. So, if this material is included in the article (and I would argue it shouldn't be), then we at least need to put it in a section similar to the DLC files stuff. - Runch (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with inclusion. As a software developer, if something exists in the development environment in no way means it will be moved to production (in lay terms, the programmers have there own little world, they can create stuff, screw around etc but the company decides what gets released.) I again state that this is in no way a reliable source. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

While it's true we never saw "Welcome to the Jungle", reporting on that song was retained and noted that it was "used in the demo" or something of that nature. It can still be included in the main article as "developement" related, but it will never be included in the soundtrack article. This is similar to how the current soundtrack section for GH:World Tour includes references to songs as being used during demos and previews, but states nothing about definate inclusion in the game. Who's Next remains in the article because of continued confirmation from HMX that it is coming (unlike Nevermind which was removed once HMX confirmed that it was a rumor that spun out of control). But in this situation we have actual game footage showing song titles. How would this be any different than game footage found prior to release that included previously unknown content?

I think the important point is that there hasn't been any actual announcement saying that these songs will be released. Even though the commercial is legit, until we hear an announcement, it's purely speculation as to whether or not the songs will actally be released. - Runch (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In that regard, I propose we reorganize the "Songs listed in DLC" section and implement a "Announced songs" and "Future songs" split. "Announced songs" would be any song or album specifically named by HMX, while the "Future songs" would include information from reliable sources not associated with HMX. This would include band members (ex: Devo), ads (ex: MTV2), and magazine articles (ex: OXM). I'm open for suggestions on the naming, but if we're going to include the Devo song (don't believe it's been confirmed by HMX yet) then these would be in the same boat. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 16:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a software developer as well and I agree with what User:Chrislk02 said above. I can say personally that I've developed prototypes and proofs of concept that would seem like news if seen by someone but will never be released. The fact that someone may have partially developed a "not ready for test" version of a song doesn't indicate to me in any way that the song will ever be released. Oren0 (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm also a software developer. And yes, I've worked on prototypes. I'm also very aware of the release cycle and the idea that projects get suggested, worked on, and sometimes abandoned even after nearing completion. However, we've included songs in the past simply because we've been told they're "In progress" or "on the way". This includes the Devo track, which has yet to receive official HMX confirmation. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 16:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Most importantly, this isn't a "leak" by any means. This is a commericial broadcast on national television where anybody could see it without having to dig up anything. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 15:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

←I actually completley disagree with the inclusion of the leaked material anyways. We have seen how relaible previous leaked material information has been. Wikipedia is not a place to collect all rumors and semi rumors for a game type. Even though they did confirm the lists existence, I disagree that it is encylopedic. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to make that point before, but generally I've been shouted down. Nonetheless, I feel the same way now as I did before. Wikipedia is only for what has happened and what will happen, not what might happen. I realize that the article doesn't explicitly state that the songs will be released, but simply by inclusion, we're giving the impression that the songs very likely will be released. As User:Chrislk02 said, it's just really not encyclopedic information. - Runch (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

By "seen how reliable leaked information is before" do you mean extremely reliable? That's how I would qualify the leaked list and even to a similar degree the OXM list. I take offense to your continued self-qualification as a software developer, its irrelevant and insulting. 70.53.51.125 (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In my mind, it would be different if the song did not say "NOT READY FOR TEST" next to the title. For all we know that is exactly how far all of the songs in the leaked list got and I think it is fairly obvious that if they are not already out, we probably will not be seeing those songs. The only reason I say that is because other than the Euro tracks, once we started getting songs that were not on that list, I don't think another song from that list was released. I am open to the Announced/Future proposal. Or maybe we can just indicate when a song has not been officially announced by Harmonix. I hate to only rely on them as a source, but they seem to be the only one that turns up reliable. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 04:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say you're mistaken about the list songs not being released after non-list songs were, as Zero was on the list and released after a few weeks of non-list tracks (and Still Alive before that too). I do think that not every song on the list will ever be released, but I also think it's not dismissable. But my idea and Wikipedia's probably differ on that significantly.76.182.10.100 (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a dumb point on my part. I also forgot about the other Grateful Dead songs. HMX originally promised 18. Unless something changes I wouldn't doubt we see those other few from that list. Anyway, my main point still stands. The commercial was obviously filmed using a devs version of the game, and at least two of the songs say, in all caps, "NOT READY FOR TEST." If this type of thing is becoming significant (unconfirmed, but likely future DLC) maybe we need something to address it. Something like "While there have been numerous leaks of possible future downloadable songs, the announcements made by Harmonix each week are the only source that has proven to be reliable." I don't know. I am just trying to brainstorm how to add significant findings into the article with out giving the impression they will, imminently, be available for download. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Although they haven't been confirmed, there is still proof that they may exist. Also, I'm not really deep into custom Rock Band, but I know that there are custom Guitar Hero setlists that look like real ones. Maybe a dev decided to put in some of their own songs just for the hell of it. I am usually in for inclusion, but there is too much proof to dismiss this, but too little to forget it. I would say we do the best thing: vote. That's what we did with the previous leak, so this would work here too.The one and only:Zanny77 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

IN FAVOR

Zanny77
TRTX: I was on the fence until I saw the commericial with my own eyes. Also, "Afterlife" has now been confirmed. This deserves recording for the same reasons as the DLC list.

70.53.51.125 (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC) i'm in favour of inclusion

OPPOSED

ON THE FENCE

Not sure it's received enough coverage. Oren0 (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
If possible, can Aesthetics of Hate and Burn be added to the DLC file list section? Because Breed is already in there, and Afterlife was confirmed for next week. Afterlife could have that little note next to it saying "confirmed for release" or whatever. I'm thinking that, for the future DLC songs, there should be two sections: Announced (as in officially confirmed by Harmonix with a date) and Unannounced (discovered or deduced by other methods, with only the possibility of a release on an unknown date). John64824 (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits made

Based on uncontested edits to Guitar Hero: World Tour based on a leaked survey, I will be adding the contents of the video to the Future downloads category. Further explanation of my reasoning can be found here. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 12:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how anyone can justify putting these songs into the Future Downloads section, seeing as that section is for songs that have been specifically announced. If anything, these songs could be put into a separate category with the DLC leaked list - something along the lines of "Leaked Content" or "Possible Songs"?

I'd still contend that this stuff doesn't belong, but at least don't list it as being "announced". - Runch (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My justification for the inclusion is the recent uncontested edits made to other edits made regarding a leaked survey. My main example Guitar Hero: World Tour. The problem I have at this point is that there seems to be a "per article" consensus vs. a project wide discussion of what constitutes reliable/notable. Especially when it comes to announcements...as we've had an annoucement from Devo that they have a song thta will be included, but no confirmation from HMX as to if this is the case and if so, when. As I have said before, this is also more reliable as a source because it's not a leak/hack/unofficial report. This is from an official commericial made by HMX. That is why I contest this is just as reliable as the Devo annoucement. We know a song is in the works. We just don't know when it's coming. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 16:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Songs listed in DLC Files

I disagree with this sections inclusion in the article. It is, albeit confirmed as being in the DLC, a list of un-reliable information. Even quantifying it by stating what it really is, does not make it encylopedic. I think this section should be removed. In the future, I think there should be some semi-stricr standards on what DLC gets officially listed on this page, and at what point it gets listed. (where it was reported, who reported it, has it been released yet? are all questions that may need to be asked). Also, what counts as the authoritative source for DLC? My opinion is it should be listed there before it ever gets listed here, that is what the point of reliable sources are. As of now, a large portion of the information listed in this section is un-reliable and therefore a detriment to this project. ANybody else have any input on this? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick note, I started a thread at WikiProject Video Games asking for input on this issue. I believe this issue expands beyond this article as DLC is a very common thing in modern video games. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with you. You can't limit it to the "most" authoritative source of information, that would be HMX and the official website. But this article is not here to simply list HMX's official announcements. This would be like only including information on Sony's article that had been sanctioned by Sony itself. I think you are overzealously interpreting policy to the detriment of the article, not the benefit. My opinion. 70.53.51.125 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

While you're obviously welcome to bring this up again, we've had this discussion over and over in the archives and the consensus was pretty broad for inclusion: here, here, here, here, and here. It really seems like beating a dead horse at this point. Oren0 (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that there's a series of edits made to Guitar Hero: World Tour based on a leaked survey. I see these have been uncontested thus far (and I won't be contesting them), and I would like to see some discussion on these types of inconsistencies. I've addressed my concern in the above mentioned thread. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 13:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Odd Comment related to Doolittle

Here. And HMX employee posted in response to the IGN article. Don't know what to make of it, but it's almost discrediting the IGN story. But I suppose its a non-issue since in a few hours it'll be confirmed one way or another. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is just HMX covering their backs. I honestly think the process of releasing DLC for Rock Band goes all the way up the day it comes out. I have talked to someone that has access to partnernet, the test version of Xbox LIVE that is used by devs and Microsoft. It allows them to put content up and make sure it downloads correctly and so forth. My friend left out any specifics, since he could lose his job, but said that there have been times where future Rock Band songs were put up and then the next week came out to the public, while other times they were never released. My best educated guess is that Harmonix always has multiple options for what they want to release. I am also guessing that they need to get permission from the artists concerning the specific day. In other words, they finish a pack of songs. They want to release them next week. They send out a notice to the bands alerting them, asking them to give the OK by Friday. Bands say OK and they announce the songs. Going along with my theory, this is why some announcements get delayed until Monday. If the band misses the Friday deadline, they are given until Monday to respond. In the end, it is possible HMX doesn't know what will be released until hours before the announcement. I dunno, just my theory. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

why is doolittle nowhere to be found in the article? 142.106.63.213 (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What article do you mean? If you mean the link he just posted, it essentially said don't take to heart outside sources that claim release dates. Recently an article claimed Doolittle would be released on the 17th. IGN now claims the 24th. If you are talking about something else, I do not know what. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

hey retard, obviously im talking about the article "list of songs in rock band", and at the time of my posting, it was not listed in the "future/upcoming" section. without trying to resort to a personal attack, i think you are always wrong. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but calling another editor a "retard" is a personal attack. Pretty sure you've been warned about those before. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 21:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what I may have done to solicit name calling. I have been nothing but civil on this talk page my entire time here. I may be straight forward and/or blunt, but that is how I am as an individual. I know it can some times come off as angry or attacking, but I never mean harm. Regardless, your comment was very vague and rather out of place. My best advice is to learn how to use the history tab. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. If a user wants to resort to personal attacks and name-calling, it's best just not to respond at all. Oren0 (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Metallica? They said that they have sold the rights for their first single on their upcoming album, "Death Magnetic", to Rock Band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.130.25 (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Why has Doolittle been removed? It has been confirmed for 24th June and as far as im aware, breed, burn and aesthetics of hate have not been confirmed. --82.39.219.19 (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding link allowance

Is it kosher to link to two fan sites from this wikipedia article? One of them is a site set up to help people find others with the same DLC as they have, and the other is basically IMDB for Rock Band songs. Both seem relevant, but as they're both run by friends of mine I don't want to have an issue of me putting in things that are not allowed. - Chris

My initial reaction would be no and no. The relevant policy on this would be WP:EL#What should be linked. I don't think that these websites apply to any of those criteria. You're also right that you probably shouldn't be the one adding these links, per WP:COI. Those do seem like useful sites to have and I'd recommend putting them up on forums, maybe try to get linked from Rockbandcontent.com, but I don't think the links go here. Oren0 (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving Pictures Rumor in Game Informer

so the most recent Game Informer has a bit about Rush's Moving Pictures being the next album download. I've seen it pop in the article but it was removed as 'speculation' (the same can be said for all the unannounced tracks) Should we include it? if not then why not? Print mags are just as good as online sources and the magazine is available enough where it can be confirmed. harlock_jds (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the piece in question. But I think it's WAY too limited. It's not like Who's Next or even Nevermind (which was later proven false) where the title came out of the mouth of either HMX or the band itself. Or in the case of March OXM, where there was a full on schedule with no sort of "disclaimer" or "rumor" tag. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the inherent problem is that Moving Pictures already has two songs in the game (Tom Sawyer on the disc, Limelight being the larger problem due to already being DLC) and one that can't be because it's an instrumental so no vocals (YYZ). That leaves it as a four-song album (five song if they reinclude Limelight) and not even the full album then. It just seems flawed. As merely speculation to the alternative, they might do like they did with Boston where they release almost a full album via a pack, and The Camera Eye might even be the first song that costs $2.99 due to its length. But those are just mights, whereas I think Moving Pictures is a probably not due to previousy described logistics.76.182.10.100 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference would be that neither Tom Sawyer or Limelight are master recordings so they could sell the new master versions of the songs. I doubt Game Informer just 'made up' the information but i don't mind not including it (i tend to favor not including stuff if there is any reasonable doubt) harlock_jds (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A fair counterpoint. If Harmonix sticks to their schedule, I suppose we'll only have to wait a month to see if the source was indeed accurate.76.182.10.100 (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Offspring DLC

I'm not sure this should be included. Bands in the past have announced their material would be in RB and nothing happened (e.g. Senses Fail). We should, like always, wait for an official announcement from Harmonix before adding it to the confirmed list. --Ouzo (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is part of the reason why I changed it from "Annouced songs" to "Future songs". If a band can't be considered a reliable source of news for its own music than who can? That just seems to go against good faith. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 14:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I just don't like the fact it's not verifiable. If they had included a source like they did for Hammerhead on the page, it'd be fine. Just being cautious about new DLC announcements. --Ouzo (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It is verifiable, as its The Offspring telling us their music is going to be included in Rock Band. If HMX tells us a song is coming down the pipes do they need to have a source proving that it is in fact submitted to MS and Sony for distribution? Part of verifibility is the credibility of the source. And if you're going to start questioning The Offspring's credibility regarding their own music...well then that's a problem. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 15:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to jump down my throat, just pointing out it happened before (I'll try to find a link). --Ouzo (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I read about Senses Fail was in regards to Guitar Hero III and not Rock Band, so nix that. --Ouzo (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

←Bands do not count as reliable sources. The reason is, rockband can have a large amount of songs that they have avaiable and never release. The band != harmonix and therefore do not know what they are going to do or if they will ever actually release them. All they know is that harmoniz purchased the rights to there songs or what not. Whether they do anything with it is up to harmonix. Being this is the case, the band cannot know what harmonix will do and is therefore not a reliable source. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Also we know that Harmonix is working on Rock Band 2 and some of these songs may be for that instead of Rock Band. The band wouldn't have any idea if that was the case or not. Since this is a songs in Rock Band page (and doesn't include Rock Band 2 info) we shouldn't include the songs. harlock_jds (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your aboslutely right, Chris. A band has no clue as to if Harmonix actually will use the song or not. Just like they could record a number of songs, put an album together...but then the label won't put it out there. Or heck, HMX could annouce they're working on RB2, code it up, but then EA for whatever reason decides not to release it. I feel that we as editors making these assumptions is going against good faith. This is especially if we start to say "Well they don't know if it's RB or RB2. To redudce verifibility to only that which HMX themselves annouce turns this article into nothing more than a glorified press release, which is not Wikipedia's goal. Look at last week...where a COMMERICIAL for Rock Band was knocked as not being a reliable enough source. It's starting to get downright riddiculous. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 15:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF applies to interactions between editors on this project. AGF does not apply to our assuming good faith of external sources. And the fact is, I am not assuming bad faith, I am quesitoning the reliability of certain sources. I believe this is important to do so, especially in situations where the validity of a source may be unclear. I disagree with the inclusion of the commercial as well for reasons I stated at the time. I believe for the reliability of this project, it is more important that we omit questionable sources until they have been officially release in efforts to maintain maximum accuracy. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's one that may be good to look at.

the material used is relevant to their notability: They are the authority on their music and where it's licensed.
it is not contentious: They are not saying anything other than what they know. They're songs have been licensed for Rock Band.
it is not unduly self-serving: See above.
it does not involve claims about third parties: See 2 up.
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject: See 3 up.
there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it: Official site
the article is not based primarily on such sources: The article is based around a composite of articles including HMX itself, and supplmental stories from credible gaming publications including Kotaku, Joystiq, IGN, Gamespot, and 1up.

Furthermore, HMX itself has not confirmed RB2. They have confirmed they're working on a way to make DLC compatible between RB. So we can't knock an article or source as unreliable simply because we the editors are working on our own WP:Crystal Ball that they are mistaken and RB2 will be where they're music is at. If COULD be, but our sources say RB (with no mention of RB2 anywhere that Chris claims is reliable).—Preceding unsigned comment added by TRTX (talk • contribs)

←The band offspring making a claim about what the third party, harmonix, is going to release clearly fails criteria #2. I am not questionging the reliablety of the band. They are saying what they know. I am qusetioning what they know. IF the band made a statement about there upcoming album, that is a completley different story (at least in relation to criteria #2 you listed above). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

but they are making a claim about third party, they are claiming it will be in the game Rock Band which is something the band has no control over after they let Harmonix license the song. We know the song has been licensed and that it could appear in Rock Band but we don't know it will appear in Rock Band. If this was an article about songs licensed by Harmonix for the Rock Band franchise it wouldn't be a problem but this is about songs that will appear in rock band and the band thinking it's going to appear isn't good enough. harlock_jds (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I wish I were as lucky as you two. What with being able to sit in in licensing talks to hear exactly what went down. I mean, why else would we be able to assume that The Offspring are making a baseless claim? It's obvious that we as editors of Wikipedia have a far better understanding of this than The Offspring ever could. I find it seriously amusing that there you both are writing this off as "assumption" on the part of The Offspring using no base but your own assumptions.

PS: Apparently I'm not the only person who feels that this is reliable. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 17:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

So you don't think the 1'st party source is making a claim about a 3'rd party? Because if they are it can't be included (and i consider Kotaku a blog and not very reliable). BTW We know (and can reference) that Harmonix has licensed Nevermind. However we don't list the album or the individual songs as forthcoming (outside a few that have other verification) because we don't have a good source that it is coming out, just licensed. This is the same situation. But then I've long advocated being conservative in including songs as 'forthcoming' and the article owners have never listened beforeharlock_jds (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Offspring (1st party) are making a claim that their music (1st party) has been approved for use in Rock Band (3rd party). In regards to Nevermind, it was included on this article for the longest time due to a reference in a source. However, its removal from the article had nothing to do with who had licensing rights and if Nirvana had confirmed anything, but rather because HMX specifically announced that Nevermind was never confirmed and had been an out of control rumor. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind was included because of a bad reference that no one really looked into or debated. It should have been removed long before Harmonix said it was an out of control rumor (and it largely got to be an an out of control rumor thanks to it being in this article with a crappy reference). That's why a careful approach is best in adding this stuff harlock_jds (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

←I kindly ask that you make every attempt to keep the discussion about the topic at hand, not the editors. Your above comment added little value to this discussion. However, along the lines of your argument above if you want to take it there, you have not been in on the talks either and do not know any more details than I do. In fact, I expect these songs to be release and actually look forward to them as they are songs I know and expect will be fun to play. However, that does not affect my stance on wikipedias policies. Sources similar to this have been used in the past and have been un-reliable. I will state it once again. I am not discrediting the offspring, I am merely saying, they cannot with certainty, based on the sources stated, know what, or when if ever harmonix will release there songs. They are the offspring, and the people releasing the songs are Harmonix.Chris lk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

My post was in no way an attack an any editor, but rather a criticism of what I feel is a inconsistency in logic. You claim The Offspring cannot say with certainty if their songs will be in Rock Band, and I am simply stating that neither you, nor I, nor anybody else not a part of those negotiations know more about this situation than they do. If all other elements are equal, who in all of this knows the most? That would be The Offspring. HMX could outright crush this if they wanted to (since you have an official source making an apparently official claim), but they have thus far remained mute on the subject. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 18:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We are going over and over on the same thing here. I will restate it and drop if. If it becomes a bigger deal, I will attempt to get more editors in here to reach a consensus. To re itterate my point of view. Offspring know there song has been licensed. That is all we know. We do not know if they know anything else or not. Based on that, we do not know when and or if the songs will be released. A company can hold the license and do nothing with it as far as I know, but that is beside the point. In this situation, Harmonix is the only reliable source because THEY are the ones publishing the content. Not the offspring. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris, if you applied the level of strictness regarding verifiability, wikipedia would be abuot 1/10th of its current size if even. Harmonix are perhaps the "MOST" reliable source, but not the only reliable source. If a band says that their songs have been licensed for Rock Band, this information should be included in this article. There is no reason to believe that there is an epidemic of unreliable information on the internet regarding bands announcing things that turn out to not be true. Stop focusing on maximum "accuracy" and start focusing on maximum QUALITY. If maximum accuracy (by never being wrong) were truly a desirable goal, every page on wikipedia would simply be blank. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Per TRTX above, WP:SELFQUEST has criteria #2 that states, "it does not involve claims about third parties." According to this, the offspring can state they have licensed the song to Harmonix, they however cannot state it will be released as DLC. This is the same issue as the Nirvana nevermind album. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do would be to raise this at WT:WPVG since this argument seems to be going in circles. xenocidic (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- It has been asked there with little input from the community. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  - Oops, I see now. xenocidic (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that a band is definitely a reliable source for its own songs. I don't see any reason why this info shouldn't be included, especially given that it was picked up by Kotaku. As for the RB/RB2 discussion, I think that assuming songs are for RB2 is a WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL problem and it's not something we should be worried about now. Remember, Wikipedia is about attributability before accuracy; if sources are reporting that these songs will be in RB we have no reason to exclude them. Oren0 (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

To Span or Not To Span

I know the consensus has been to use span tags to create "The"-less sorting on bands. However, are we going to follow the same guidelines for song titles? I've noticed a few discrepencies on this page ("...And Justice for All" sorts on the "..." while "The Hellion"/"Electric Eye" sorts on "Hellion" Also, "The Hand That Feeds" sorts on "The"). There's also "(Take These) Chains" which currently is sorting on "(". I've noticed this inconsistency is across several articles (including the GH songlists). I'm not sure what the in-game sorting does for titles such as these, but I feel that we should follow that whatever it may be, though my first instinct would be to maintain sorting on "The" and other articles, but use span tags when a song begins with something other than an alphanumeric ("...And Justice for All", "(Take These) Chains", etc). -- TRTX ^{T / C} 15:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we should not be sorting on "The" or punctuation in any songs. Oren0 (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

Per the advice of a very wise editor on this project, I have a proposed solution. A new section be created for "Unconfirmed" or "Unofficial" announcements. This section would have a minor intro section stating something along the lines of, "The following songs have been announced by bands or other first party sources but have not been confirmed officialy through harmonix." An alternative to this solution is to add a letter note to the end of such songs which states something similar in a footnote (this song has not been officially announced by harmonix, or something along those lines). Any feedback here? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 21:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

i'd be ok with that (in fact i think I've advocated it in the past). This would also include things like songs for 'the file' list that haven't come out yet and Rush's Moving Pictures (and possibly songs from Nevermind). the x box arcade page has something like this and it's a great solution.harlock_jds (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This is something I have suggested a number of times, but never could puzzle out how to implement. It was part of the motivation for using "Future songs" vs. "Announced songs". I like the idea, and it could be used to incorporate the DLC list, the commericials, and other outside HMX sources. Provided the sourcing is credible and verifiable. (The difference between a magazine publishing content and a random poster to a board saying they heard something. If we include Nevermind however, that'd have to be as part of the Punk Pack list, as HMX has gone on record saying that it was never confirmed. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 21:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me.......... Sorry, that's all I got :) --Ouzo (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine, isn't that what TRTX basically has done with future songs though? It doesn't really sound far off what hes said before but whatever, it works. I don't think we should be including rumours in magazines tho (ie: moving pictures). The DLC list, the commercial stuff, band announcements, they all hold a lot more weight to me then something that even the publisher admits is rumour. 76.64.39.15 (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Mock-up

←One take on this solution: User:TRTX/RB. Wording could probably be better, and I can see some contention by wrapping the Punk Pack list into this. (Though it's shrunk significantly). As always, more than open to suggetsions. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 13:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I really think your sandbox solution is the great. It fixes almost every problem I have with the current article. For critics who claim this is crystal balling, all of these are sourced. Crystal balling is about making shit up, this is all sourced.142.106.63.213 (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Crystal balling is about seeing into the future based on rumors or unrelaible sources, not making stuff up. I do like this solution and endorse its implementation. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I like this as well (but I would include Rush's moving pictures on the list but i don't feel strongly enough about it to really yell a lot). harlock_jds (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind this sandboxed solution. I changed some titles on it. I'm not sure what to do about bolded/unbolded songs for the "unconfirmed" ones though, because the fact that we bold the Offspring ones implies that the rest will be covers, information we have no basis for. Oren0 (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

We can mention that in the lead-in to the section. Something about how un-bolded unsongs are either covers or unconfirmed. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 19:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this solution is perfect, and something I will heavily support. I am opposed to including Moving Pictures, as the only source we have explicitly states that it is a rumor. If we're going to keep an "Announced but Unconfirmed" section, we need to make VERY sure that only sources claiming the songs are "confirmed for RB" are included. Pksage (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

←I think this covers the more credible unconfirmed songs. Would the songs from back in March be appopriate in the new section ("Shooting Star", Metal Pack 01, etc)...? -- TRTX ^{T / C} 13:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont think so. To do it, we would only have to take half the information (the songs, and skip the scheduled release dates). The fact that the dates for wrong leaves the relaibility of the other in question. This is just my stance though. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 13:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would make sense to put those songs up. At LEAST metal pack 01. Sure the dates were wrong, but they must've had good information because at least 60% of their picks did come out right after. It's impossible that this was not based on inside information. After all, the section would already have a heavy caveat about the reliability of the information found within. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If wikipedia were only 60% accurate, it would be a joke. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 20:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not been to this talk page in awhile. I noticed there was a large amount of discussion. I got the gist of it, but didn't read all of it. Anyway, this mock up would be exactly what I was thinking. I feel it solves many of the issues. Most sources outside Harmonix tend to be nearly right or close. Very few are way off but they are not always perfect. It made it difficult to include things along side official announces from Harmonix because of that. This mock up solves that issue. I also feel it fits the article nicely. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a point after which we'll consider removing "the list" or reseparating it? I'm just concerned that the list overwhelms the legit entries in the table and I think it's unlikely that any more of these will be released. It just seems a tad disingenuous to say these songs might be future releases without explaining what they are and where they come from. Oren0 (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Proposed Solution

I have a feeling nobody here will like this solution but me, but here it is: Only include songs that have been released to date, period. This would avoid all problems of WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. As I mentioned once before, this article is a List of Songs in Rock Band. It's not a list of songs that will be in Rock Band, nor a list of songs that might be in Rock Band.

I realize that this is an unsatisfactory solution to a lot of people, because many people view Wikipedia as a sort of news site where they can get the latest news and rumors on whatever it is they're looking for, but really that's not what Wikipedia is about. That's what things like the Rock Band Forums are for.

So honestly I think that's the best way to avoid problems. Somehow, though, I have a feeling nobody else will share my viewpoint... Oh well. Give it a thought. -Runch (talk) 23:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, this is the ideal solution. However in the light of fierce opposition am willing to compromise. If we can reach a consensus that this is how it should be, I by all means recommend going this route. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 23:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this solution is awful. If we have verifiable information about future releases, why wouldn't it go in this article? Oren0 (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I figured that. I take a really hard stance on verifiability, crystal ballery etc. This is really not a cut and dry case (it is kind of gray area) so I am willing to compromise. If I had it my way, we would only had what was released but I doubt it will head in that direction. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 00:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I had thought about this, but then you're getting to a point where you're deviating from "normal" video game article practice. Video games are generally "set" once the game is released, but in this regard the game is evolving with DLC releases. I've actually tought about suggesting splits to have DLC seperate from the main game. This would be more viable if the rumors that RB DLC will work with RB2 (when it comes) are confirmed. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 01:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That is part of the reason that I posted the thread at wikiproject Video Games about this. DLC is a change in the way video games are made, and is almost a standard for most modern video games. I think more and more problems like this will occur until a standard emerges. This is especially difficult because gaming circles are high tech, and rumors spread fast through them through modern blogging/forum technology. I believe it will be harder and harder to sort out the reliable sources from the rumors until a standard emerges. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 01:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is anything wrong with the way it is currently organized. I come on here and check this page daily, and have also made the occasional edit, and this is perfect as far as I'm concerned. For those who just want to see the DLC to date, there is a chart for them. For those who want to see songs confirmed (with the convenience of a single page rather than hunting for information on the RockBand.com forums or IGN), there is a chart for them. For those, like me, who are obsessed enough to want to keep track of songs that are rumored for the game, there is even an organized, separate chart of Unconfirmed songs. My only concern is the posts of rumored songs by The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, etc. that are appearing without any sources. A rumor is a rumor, but without a somewhat respectable source (band homepage, gaming magazine, press release, etc.) then they should not appear in the unconfirmed charts, and I feel like that is not too much to ask for this Wiki page, especially with the suspected number of viewers who use this as a primary source. If any editors of this page want to clean up the Unconfirmed chart by adding sources or removing songs with no rumor source, I would really appreciate it. I'll probably come back and check tomorrow night and if no one else has done it (and if no one has a serious, reasonable objection to it) I'll take care if it myself. Sperin4 (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I think that most users can figure out the information from the way the article is currently set up, I believe that there is some reason to eliminate a barrage of songs, just because we won't see 90% of them anytime soon. It just gives unacquainted users false hope about songs (Metal Pack 01, Nevermind, for instance). So, if a majority of users really deem it necessary to eliminate that section, I will agree with it. But leave the announced songs by Harmonix for the following week, those have never been wrong. John64824 (talk) 18:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in that Rock Band users probably will not see these songs in the near future (or possibly ever), but it would be detrimental to the page if the rumors are removed because this is the most concentrated, organized location for Rock Band DLC rumors on the internet and I believe many users, like myself, appreciate this being a part of the page. It is not unorganized, and as long as it is made clear that these songs are just rumored by various sources it is not misleading either. However, I would not be opposed to someone creating a page dedicated to Rock Band DLC rumors. Then all rumors, even ones without specific song names, can be placed there. That being said, I'm not going to volunteer myself to try and take on such a task. Sperin4 (talk) 05:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Page Protection???

With the adding of the new (awesome) unconfirmed section, I think this article is organized perfectly and won't require any real format changes in the concievable future. Though I was a strong opponent of page protection on this page previously, I think it's probably best to go back to at least semi-protected so that we can reduce vandalism. The unconfirmed section invites it too much 142.106.63.213 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I will semi protect it for a while. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)