Talk:List of songs in Rock Band/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

June 24th DLC

Is there a reason the Gun N Roses tracks are listed as confirmed for June 24th? All official releases have it as Doolittle and a Weezer pack?Drunkpudge (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Song downloads have reached 12 million.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/features/20080623_I_m_with_the_band.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djlang (talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

OXM songs missing?

I was wondering why the other three songs confirmed in March's OXM were removed (That being "Supernaut" by Black Sabbath, "Wrathchild" by Iron Maiden and "Fuel" by Metallica). Most of the posts in this discussion include OXM as a 'reliable outside source' from Harmonix, but the info isn't listed anymore. Shouldn't it be, even though the pack still hasn't come out?

Whatishopie (talk) 13:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Recieved Your Letter" artist

Apparently the European RB manual lists Schnitzer as the group/artist behind "Recieved Your Letter". I haven't been able to confirm this elsewhere, but a Google search confirms that this band and artist name exist. I'd like to be able to get a scan somewhere...or if somebody from Europe can look at the manual and confirm it... -- TRTX T / C 17:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I just checked it, and this is what it says:

"Recieved Your Letter" as performed by Schnitzer courtesy of Schnitzer
Mathias Vetter, Micha Lang, Dominik Huber

I don't think the rest is necessary, but either way, yes, the EU manual lists the guys with the confusing name as the artists. If for some reason you want the rest of the text, i'll put it up. Tr1ckydr1v3r (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec, this track isn't on the disc and isnt even out as DLC, so why the hell is it in the manual? Tr1ckydr1v3r (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

They could've planned on including it earlier (which is why it was in the file), then replaced it with something else. -- TRTX T / C 12:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stones vs. Devo for Satisfaction track

Devo seems to be the more likely artist for this track as they have stated they rerecorded songs for Rock Band(rockband.com/life) and they do have a published cover of the song (as per their EP). The leaked files only listed the track name, not the artist. 207.236.24.133 (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But even if they use the Devo version the question is whether it will be listed "as performed by Devo" or "originally performed by The Rolling Stones" (like was done in GH3 with Devil Went Down to Georgia). I wouldn't oppose putting the artist as "Rolling Stones or Devo" at this point. Oren0 (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
While there is a small chance it could be the Devo version, there is no evidence to lead us to believe that it is not the Rolling Stones version. I know that three Devo songs are supposed to be coming out for the game, but in the rumored songs that were in the DLC files, "Brown Sugar," another Rolling Stones song, is also listed. Plus, "Gimme Shelter" is also in the game, which is seemingly more likely to make it the original rather than the Devo cover. Sperin4 (talk) 05:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I cannot remember where it was said (it has been mentioned somewhere in the archives of the talk pages) but I believe the "DLC File" had one of the Rolling Stones songs in with the main setlist songs. Essentially the list was in order, with on disc songs first, then DLC after. It implied that the song was considered for on-disc release and then later pushed aside. I think it was even listed right next to Gimme Shelter. I could have some details wrong, and it may have even been the other Stones song, but if what I think is true, that would imply it isn't Devo. Either way, we have no way of actually knowing. Plus it would be weird to put a cover version of a song in the game, unless that cover is significantly different and/or popular. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 05:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Statement Regarding Fuel, Shooting Star, etc.

As it says, "The songs listed in the following section have been revealed by sources outside Harmonix, but have yet to receive official confirmation." These songs were revealed by two sources outside of Harmonix and have not been confirmed, and should at least be included in that section. Just because they have not been confirmed yet, doesn't mean they should be removed. In that case, they should all be removed from the list. They were in the leaked list of songs found in the file of the DLC pack along with all of the other songs on that list, so why they have been removed while the rest are still there I do not understand. I find it more credible that they were also leaked from another source, so the chances of them coming out over the rest are greater, and they should be included in the Unconfirmed Songs section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.184.49 (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Who's Next

Does anyone else think that the Confirmed songs section should just be for songs with a release date attached to them? Personally, I think Who's Next should be moved down to the Unconfirmed section, whether it is technically confirmed or not, just because we don't have a date for it yet. Anyone agree or disagree? Sperin4 (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That is quite the spectacular contradiction. "Well, it's been confirmed, and I admit it's been confirmed, but since it doesn't have a release date, we should say it's unconfirmed." That's not what "confirmation" is. HMX has stated that it's coming, so it's confirmed. Otherwise, why don't we note on the Duke Nukem Forever article that the game is unconfirmed? -- 71.234.92.249 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the 71.234. The idea behind the split was to list those songs/albums/packs specifically named by HMX, while still keeping note of other reliable sources that report upcoming songs. It was modeled after the Xbox Live Arcade games article, which was suggested by at least one other editor. -- TRTX T / C 18:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Yea, HMX stated on multiple occasions that Who's Next would be released. Admittedly, they have wavered on that statement a fair amount over the last couple months, but they have not come out and explicitly stated that Who's Next will not be released. So for now the most reliable sources we have indicate that we will see the album, even if there are a lot of rumors that it won't ever be released. - Runch (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The only rumor against Who's Next is the missing masters. This doesn't affect RB, as they've released a mix of covers/masters for an artist before (see Coheed & Cambria as well as David Bowie)
Who's Next has been deconfirmed with the announcement of the 12 pack earlier today, so it should be removed. http://www.rockband.com/forums/showthread.php?p=795273#post795273 (67.64.41.226 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC))
it's gone from List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series harlock_jds (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Collapse Track List

Does anyone else feel that the page is getting a bit cluttered? Or perhaps has been for a bit now? I'm not sure this is possible, but maybe it would be best if everything older than three months was collapsed into a separate list. I realize this would cause complications with sorting if there were two different lists, though the worst case scenario would merely be a minor inconvenience for those who wish to custom sort. This is just a suggestion and obviously feel free to pitch your own. But I think something definitely has to be done soon before the page really gets out of hand. - JoeBoxer522 (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree the DLC section is getting rather large. Not to plug my own discussion, but since we've got an opportunity to split the DLC into it's own article (see further down), it may be time to consider how we want to help navigation. We may need to sacrifice some level of "sortability" in order to make the list more managable. -- TRTX T / C 12:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding Prices to the List

Does anyone else think adding the prices in a separate column of the list would be logical. With a new free song coming out and many more $.99 songs recently, wouldn't forgoing the whole letter system (a=this song was released for free, etc.) to show the current price in the column be better? Possibly keeping the letters to express previous prices may be in store, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.130.241 (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The discount and free songs are exceptions to an otherwise universal rule (songs cost $1.99). It's much easier to manage the list in its current form, denoting exceptions, as opposed to maintaining additional rows with what will generally be redundant data. -- TRTX T / C 12:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's Official: A Split is needed

This story confirms what has been suggested by HMX for a while now. Rock Band 2 is coming. And all current Rock Band DLC will be compatible with the new game. With this news official, it's time for "The Split" we've been discussing for a while. I recommend this remain "List of songs in Rock Band" while the new article becomes "List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band platform" (unless something shorter but with the same message is possible). Other things to consider:

  • Rock Band Track Pack Vol. 1 should be split into it's own article.
  • Euopean and Wii "exclusive" disc content should remain on this article.
  • The new article should discuss the fact that both Rock Band and Rock Band 2 will be able to play all available DLC.
  • Promotions should likely stay in the DLC article.

I don't have the time to start sandboxing this "large" of a change. But I think it's something that should be done now instead of waiting for RB2, otherwise it's going to be more and more content that's going to have to get shifted over. What does everybody think? -- TRTX T / C 12:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean that if there's a Track Pack 2 that it is shared on the same page with Track Pack 1? Thus three RB list articles (pending RB3)? Sounds find to me. --MASEM 12:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Track Packs would have one article to themselves (since I doubt they'd ever double up on songs, sectioned off by Volume. -- TRTX T / C 12:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and have made this split, including making a series template (as there's 5 articles now for the series). The only thing that needs to be done is getting tier information to the Track Packs article. --MASEM 13:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Tiering info will also be needed for the Wii disc content (I've added European content since it was easy to copy/paste that info). Overall the split looks fairly clean. There's probably general cleanup and formatting that will be discovered as time goes on, but for now it looks good. Don't see any broken ref's at the moment even. -- TRTX T / C 13:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Do licensing statements by artists count as reliable sources for inclusion in future DLC lists

I am the requestor of this RFC. Past licensing announcements from artists (Nirvana's Nevermind Album) have proven to be unreliable. WP:SELFQUEST a subst of wikipedias verifiability policies cirtiera #2 states, "it does not involve claims about third parties." Along these lines, an artist can state they have licensed the content, however that does not always mean it will be released and is therefore unreliable. My concerns over this come from my experience as a software developer where our company has the license to many many different software products, however does not mean that they are actually utilizied, or ever will be. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the topic title is inconsistent with the basis of the conflict. I think a better wording is: "Should a publisher/developer be the only source considered reliable enough for inclusion in a list of upcoming DLC?" I say this because we've had these discussions before regarding magazine articles, commericials, ads, and hacked contents of game-code. To limit the scope of the question to this one issue may lead to future conflict.

Furthermore, the comments regarding Nirvana and Nevermind are not 100% accurate. The original cause for the inclusion of the album were due to a comment made in an interview early in the promotional stages for Rock Band, not because of news regarding licensing. (This can be found by looking back in the article's history to the original source used for the inclusion of Nevermind) It wasn't until recently when HMX officially confirmed that their original comments had been taken out of context, at which time Nevermind was removed with no contest.

Also, this inclusion upholds WP:SELFQUEST. As the primary source (The band in question, is only making claims regarding inclusion of their own songs). As I have pointed out in previous discussions, the only basis for any sort of contention stems from editors voicing their own speculation as a counter to their claimed specualtion on the part of the band. In this situation, I also point to WP:IAR. If the only argument against WP:V is a contended connection to one element out of 7-8 in WP:SELFQUEST, then is it really at that point a matter of speculation overtaking one's better judgement?

Finally, I too am in software developement. And I fail to see how Chris's statements regarding his own experiences apply in this situation. Chris does not work for HMX, and cannot speak HMX or assume he knows what's going on at HMX. If we take a step back and look at the facts available, we see the following:
  • A band has annouced their music will be included in a game.
  • Editors are debating the validity of the claim, including an assumption that they could be mistaken regarding a sequel. (Which at this time has no confirmation from the developers and is only a rumor based around 3rd party information).
  • There has been no official statement discrediting this "rumor", a practice HMX generally follows when a substantial leak, annoucement, or press release comes from outside the company.
  • Last week, IGN posted a story regarding the release of Doolittle. Including a playtest. This was along with the release date of June 17th. It was added to this article with no contention, even when it was IGN (1st party) claiming that The Pixies (3rd party) would be included in Rock Band (3rd party).

In all of this, that is my concern with this current discussion. It seems that a number of editors have begun to take on such a tight grip of WP:V that the article is in danger of becoming a glorified press release for HMX. In the past, I've heard arguments refuting the inclusion of content pulled out of anything from TV commericials, band annoucements, and reports on credible gaming publications such as OXM, Kotaku, Joystiq, and IGN. The goal of Wikipedia in my mind should not be to rely strictly on one source per article, but rather to make the best effort to draw information from a plethora of sources. It seems the argument being made here is slowly shrinking down the available resources to one, and that's the developer. -- TRTX T / C 19:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The developer or those the developer gives the information to to be published (press release). An official press release would clearly have no argument from anybody on this project. When it comes down to it, if we want to get technical, the developer is a primary source however I am choosing not to go down this road. The point of wikipedia is to get the most accurate information, from reliable sources. If it happens to be one sources. Now, can you answer this question. Can you tell me, with a 100% accuracy that the offspring songs will be released as DLC? Can you tell me with 100% accuracy that the nirvana album will be released as DLC? Can the offspring of Nirvana answer this question? Who can answer this question? The only people who know are Harmonix, and who they tell (via press release).Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

A few points:
  1. Another reliable source has reported the info in question.
  2. I believe that Chris is misinterpreting WP:SPS in regards to claims about third parties. If the Offspring website said that Green Day DLC was coming out, that info would be unreliable. But they're reporting about their own song, and that's good enough for inclusion. Here's another example from a page I frequent: recently Scrubs completed filming its "final season." That was until several actors from the show began reporting on their MySpace pages that the show would be switching networks and that they had been told to report for shooting the next season. This info was rightfully reported on the Scrubs page, even though theoretically the actors weren't in control of the show's release in the same way that Offspring isn't in control of a song's release in Rock Band. Do you believe that including that info on that page was improper? If not, what's the difference? Oren0 (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Quick note that the Kotaku reference is simply pulling from the Offspring's website (per the link at the end of the article). Thus, it doesn't change anything; only Offspring has reported they are in the game; Kotaku is just reporting what Offspring said. --MASEM 19:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
And HMX annouces their releases through a message board. -- TRTX T / C 20:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not arguing that the information may or may not be right. I am arguing that is meets wikipedias policies for verifiability. Myspace sure as hell is not counted as a valid source anywhere on this project. Similarly, blogs and message boards are not either. I dont care if the information is right or not on these pages, they are not reliable sources per policy and that is the question. Do artist statements of licensing count as Reliable sources?. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Harmonix annouces all of their future DLC via their official message boards, which are linked numerous times throughout the article. Again, the use of boards and blogs is up to the judgement of the editors, not any specific guideline banning/allowing their use.
Furthermore, your use of WP:SELFQUEST is misdirected. Using your application, I can make the following argument:
"Harmonix annouced Rock Band will include 6 new tracks from The Offspring." is not verifiable, as HMX (first party) is claiming that The Offspring's music (3rd party) is going to be in their game. Yet that is a completely acceptable source if HMX were to post that tomorrow. It takes two to get a song in the game. The band and HMX are two seperate primary sources, either of which have the appropriate knowledge of their side of the process.
  • As far as a press release goes...what do you think this is on The Offspring's page? Looks like an official annoucement to me. -- TRTX T / C 20:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Last week, IGN posted a story regarding the release of Doolittle. Including a playtest. This was along with the release date of June 17th. It was added to this article with no contention, even when it was IGN (1st party) claiming that The Pixies (3rd party) would be included in Rock Band (3rd party)"

— User:TRTX

. This is the kind of source I would like to see. If the offspring came from a source like this, there would be no contention. In this situation IGN is publishing something as the secondary source (not the primary source by being the band or harmonix). These are tje kind of sources that should be used in my opinion. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

So now you've just put a band on the same level of "source" as HMX itself? This is where I have confusion. The rule regarding 3rd party sources over primary sources is in situations where material could be seen as controversial. Such as if Dodge stated its cars were better than Ford. Or if Activision claimed the GH setlist contained better artist's than RB's. In the case of annoucing game content, release dates, and other related material...anybody involved with a project is a preferred source over a 3rd party. It takes two to get a song into a game, the developer and the band. IGN reported on Doolittle using HMX as their source. Kotaku (and now Joystiq) have picked up the story using The Offspring as a source. It's the exact same thing. -- TRTX T / C 20:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed if a reliable source (which i do not consider Kotaku which favors speed in reporting over being correct.) picked up that these songs were going to be in Rock Band then we would have no issue whatsoever with including it. If this really is true then I'm sure such a site will pick up the story and this issue becomes moot. That's why i have to ask... what's the rush to include it? BTW IGN Kotaku etc are 2'nd party sources not first or 3'rd and 2'nd party sources are a good standard to use in article. This whole issue is about a band self reporting something they don't control.harlock_jds (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Now you're doing the same thing I feel Chris is doing. You prefer 3rd party confirmation, but are arguing that Kotaku is any more or less reliable than IGN. (Based solely on opinion I may add) -- TRTX T / C 20:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeas that's opinion but then again so is saying the weekly world news is not a reliable source. Something being an opinion doesn't make it wrong. Kotaku is a source of debatable reliability which is why I'd rather wait for a better source before adding it. Besides if Kotaku is reliable then we should remove Who's Next since they ran the story about the missing masters and how that makes it imposable for it to come out. You can't pick and choose what is reliable from a site and what isn't. harlock_jds (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedias policy on Verifiability states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. " Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC) Based on this, we think it is true that it will be released, the offspring may think it is true that it will be released. It does not matter what anybody thinks, it matters what is verifiable. There are NO current verifiable sources stating it will be released. If you find one that meets wikipedias vierifiability standards, that is great, by all means include it. Again, it is not what you, I or anyboidy thinks is true, it is what we can verify. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Chrislk02's view, and think he is consistently misinterpreting Wikipedia policy, and then applying it to rigidly. Vote in favour of inclusion. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This is no longer an issue of verification, as there is a source in the form of The Offspring's official page. WP:V is enacted when random users decided they'd like to add their favorite bands and artists for the sake of seeing them on the page. (For example: I decided out of the blue to add Foo Fighter's Everlong to the list of future albums. The issue now has become one of reliability, which I have yet to see a quality argument against in this situation. -- TRTX T / C 20:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
No, this is an issue of verification. Yes, we can verify it has been licensed to harmonix. we CANNOT verify it will be released based on that information. Licesning the song does not always mean it will be released. There are no reliable or verifiable sources that state with certainty when or if these songs will be released. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Kotaku and Joystiq are easily reliable sources when it comes to video gaming. The fact that they attribute the info to the Offspring website is irrelevant. What if the same thing was published on IGN? How about the New York Times? You'd still argue against inclusion? Your entire argument is a straw man anyway. You keep talking as if the Offspring report that their song has been licensed and that we're trying to say that songs will be released based on that info. But The Offspring, Kotaku, and Joystiq aren't reporting that the songs have been licensed; rather, they are reporting that the songs will be released. The idea that this reporting is based only on licensing is pure conjecture on your part. Maybe the band has playtested the songs, maybe they know the release date but aren't authorized to say yet. All we know and all we wish to report is what the band says: that the songs are coming to Rock Band at some point. Oren0 (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Outside Opinion: If I'm reading the debate correctly here, you've got a game publisher and a band who both have to agree in order for a particular song to be included in the game. In the current cases you've got one, or the other, claiming that a particular song will be in the game. Read WP:V, especially the section on self-published sources. If the band or the artist post on their own blog/website/myspace that a song will be in the game, then that is a self-published source. If IGN gets a pre-release beta copy of the game and reports that band XYZ's song is on the game, then you have a verifiable source. Ask yourself what motivation the author has to say something. If they have any financial intrest (like the publisher and artist do) and they are the source, it's probably unreliable. My 2 cents. Livitup (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
That was where I had issue with the contest against adding the content. It fits within all aspects of verifibility except for one element of WP:SELFQUEST, and even then the whole "1st party" vs. "3rd party" debate was incredibly loose. Like you said, it takes two to get into Rock Band (HMX and the band). If HMX annouces it (via their forums as they do every Friday), it's considered law and is included in the page immediately with no contention. However, if the other half (the band) annouces anything, it's met with skepticism, which I don't follow. Yes, the band has motivation to annouce their inclusion in RB...but then, there's also consequences if they make such bold claims with absolutely no factual backing. Furthermore, HMX may be the developer, but they are not the band. So if we're saying that we can't take a band at their word when it comes to news on inclusion, then why should we take HMX's? The concept of a first party (HMX) making claims regarding third parties (the bands) can be applied in the same loose fashion to render HMX's weekly annoucement as unverifiable. That was the issue I was having with this debate. The application of WP:V may seem valid, but taking the same application to a different source that's been used with no contest would render it just as unusable. And since any time an outlet reports on new DLC they use HMX's annoucements as a source, they too would be unusable as argued above.
That was my concern with the way this topic was being discussed. There seems to be an inconsistent application of verifibility vs. reliability when it comes to what sources are allowed to make the claims, and an inconsistency on when those claims can be referenced. -- TRTX T / C 12:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest the neither HMX, nor the band should be considered reliable sources. But I'm sure most of the contributors to the article wouldn't agree with that :) Livitup (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
My take is that we have a very odd variation on Biographies of Living People - there are no "living people" and there's no immediate harm should we have a problem, but if we think that as the base point, with HMX's RB as the item we are trying to protect from unverified claims (as opposed to a living person), then it is clear that WP:SELFPUB does apply to HMX, and as they are the authority on the game, what they say can be taken as verified fact as long as it is sourced correctly. On the other hand, any other band, whether its Offspring or the garage band that played two blocks from me, is third-party, and such claims of their work being in RB need corroboration typically from their own page need to be corroborated to avoid "harming" RB's reputation. This also extends to articles from normally reliable sources (as the Kotaku article in this case) - just because they publish something that repeats pretty much what the band says does not make it notable; only if they've added additional research to confirm the info does it become verified to us. --MASEM 13:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As this discussion seems to have run it's course, I'd like to remove it from the RfC list. If anyone objects, speak up—otherwise it's gone in a day or two. Livitup (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

CONSTANT misuse of the verification policy

It made me stop watching this page a while ago during the DLC list debacle, but now even the people who previously supported it are against Chrislk's view. People are constantly claiming things aren't verifiable. If i posted just the offspring songs without a source, that would be unverifiable. If I add information, and everyone else who reads the article can go to the official band's website and see that same information. That IS verifiable. Wikipedia is just a collection of published information, is it not? As such, it doesn't matter if something is true or not, or whether a song really comes out. People who come to wikipedia to read this article will want to know that a band has officially announced six new songs on their official website. Wikipedia is here simply to document that announcement, not judge it. As TRTX said, this is NOT a glorified press release for HMX, and their word is not law. This article should contain all information on rock band downloadable content from reliable sources (such as an official bands website). Thanks to the beauty of sourcing, if someone wants to go check why something is on this page, they can go to the Offspring website and then judge for themselves how likely it is that the songs will come out. STOP MISUSING THE VERIFIABILITY POLICY. THANKS. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no misues of policy here? I am confused. I have provided a legitimate question. Can you tell me with 100% certainty that because the song is licensed to harmonix it will be released? If you cannot show me a source that shows it will be released as DLC with certainty, the statement is not verifiable. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I ask that you actually read my comments instead of just bashing me. I above QUOTE the policy word for word. I will do it again. Wikipedias policy on Verifiability states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. There are two key parts to this statement which I have bolded. First, it is not what is true. It may be that next week, the offspring pack is avaialble as DLC and in all honsety, I hope it is. I currently own all rockband DLC and every tuesday get the new DLC. That is however beside the point. The 2nd part of the statement is a reliable source. The sources koataku, and the primary source the band are not reliable sources. These concerns are DIRECTLY based off the above quoted policy. Please make the discussion about the topic at hand and avoid ad hominem arguments.Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I consider both the band and kotaku reliable sources. If the band is a primary source than so is HMX and we can't include their announcements either. Also can you please link me to where Offspring use the word "licensed". I think they said that it was "coming soon for Rock Band". The only person who has used the word license so far is you, because it helps your argument to pose the problem that way. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
There is absolutley NO way that kotaku is a reliable source. Blogs are less reliable than myspace. I could get 100 editors in here who are well versed in policy and article writing and there is NO way they would consider it reliable. If you feel licensing is being used in the wrong way, then I will avoid it in the future as we discuss this topic. Please note that soon is a weasel word, and does not define much of anything realy. Also, the band, as well as harmonix are primary sources Wikipeidas policy on orignial research states, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. This ties closley into reliable sources statements in wikipedids verifiability policies. The IGN example above is a great example of what should be used.Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to claify. Above, IGN is referenced as a primary source. Where did they get the information for their article? Did they pull it out of thin air? If IGN is the prinmary source, that means they made up all the information or is something that they have done themselves. I know they did not pull it out of thin air and highly doubt they made it up. The fact is, IGN is the secondary source who got there information from either the pixies, harmonix or both. This is how it is supposed to be done. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
wait we can't even disagree now? can't 'talk things out'. I'd like to point out that no one has removed the information, just questioned if it should be there or not.harlock_jds (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Where did Offspring get their information from? It must've been Harmonix! Therefore, Offsprings website is a secondary source following the exact same logic as above. The Offspring are a reliable source about their own songs, as posted on their official website. Your only argument about this hinged on your (fictitious) use of the word "licensing". They claim their songs will come out for Rock Band on the same day as one of their songs have already come out. There's no reason to dispute this information except to purposely hinder the quality of the article. This is so frustrating. 142.106.63.213 (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
No, the offspring got the information from themselves. They are a party to the source therefore making them a primary source. Have you read the definition of a primary source? WP:PRIMARY states "Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident is an example of a primary source" In this situation, the offspring are a party to the deal with harmonix. The information they are reporting is most likley in response to contracts or deals signed. If the offspring were completley unrelated to the release (for example, if the offspring mentioned the release of a Green Day album), that would be secondary source (although probably unreliable). I have proposed a solution below. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Other songs at Rock Band Lunch

In Ventura County at least, the Octopus Radio Station has hosted Rock Band Lunch at Rusty's Pizza. I have gone to a few of these. Some of their songs are not on here- "Simple Man", "Message in a Bottle", and "Hit Me with Your Best Shot" to name a few. Is this a hacker-type thing, or is it because they have the XBox version? They say they got the songs in Band Mode as bonuses. 65.223.58.226 (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Simple Man" and "Message in a Bottle" are available as downloadable content (see List of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series). As far as I know, "Hit Me with Your Best Shot" is not available for Rock Band, although I believe it is for Guitar Hero 3. Erusdruidum (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Planning ahead for RB2's disc export feature

With the announcement of the full RB2 song list, HMX has also stated that "most" of the songs from RB1 can be exported to be played in RB2. Obviously we want to indicate that point somehow, but at this point I'm not sure how. If by most they mean all but two or three, a footnote indicating those that can't should be used. But it's more like 5 or 10 that can't we may want an extra column or something. --MASEM 18:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say go with footnotes whichever way is "fewer". So if that means we footnote those that CAN'T be exported vs. those that can, so be it. However, since the idea is "songs in Rock Band 2", perhaps THAT article should be updated with a section regarding songs that can/can't (again which ever is smaller). A "see also" type link could be used to point readers to the full RB setlist and thus more information about the songs aside from Title/Artist. -- TRTX T / C 19:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd say we can't figure out what to do until we know more. I do agree with TRTX's "document whatever is smaller" idea on the whole, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The list of songs that can be exported is out: [1]. All but Paranoid, Run to the Hills, Enter Sandman, and (in Europe) Through the Monsoon will be exportable, but to do this will cost $5. Oren0 (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Table formatting causing some odd behavior

Looking at the page with different window sizes causes some information to get cut off. I can't scroll the window to see some of the columns. Very weird. I think it has to do with the new formatting. -- TRTX T / C 18:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

FL

I think we can start moving this list into an featured list candidate now that the DLC has been removed such that this list is stable. The only thing I've done is to normalize the column widths to keep them consistent, but I would leave any other changes to the tables to the reviewers comments (they may want the current GH List approach, let's let them suggest it). I will add top language to this to explain the tables and so forth before doing this. --MASEM 18:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect statement on the Main Setlist.

At the moment, it states that "Players can play Rock Band alone through a Career mode on lead guitar, drums, or bass"

You can only play the bass in practice mode, quickplay or Band World Tour. I think that this is meant to be 'vocals' instead.

ElvenPixie (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The Table

If you have not heard about it, there is a new rock band website that will be launched soon. A section of the website will be dedicated to the songs in the game. In that section, every song in the game (whether it is on either disc or as DLC) will have its own little "bio" including the difficulty rankings. TRTX brought up on the DLC article that with this information readily available, we can link to that page and remove difficulties altogether. I would be for that, but I think that also allows us to do some other things with the table. Despite most songs being masters, couldn't it be helpful if we add a column for master status, allowing users to sort the table that way, like the GH tables. Just a suggestion. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I would support adding it once the tables are shrunk down. It would provide readers with an easy means of learning which included songs are masters and which aren't. -- TRTX T / C 19:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I would consider adding "Year", "Master Rec." and "Genre" (per defined in game) with the extra space given. --MASEM 19:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think in the case of RB, "Decade" would be a better fit, since that is what the game disc sorts by. Information regarding the year would require editors to go into the music store to provide updates, which is what I think we're trying to avoid here with the removal of tiers. Of course, there are a few places where this is in error (Fortunate Son I believe still sorts as a 70's song even though it's year is marked as 1969). -- TRTX T / C 13:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
There are 3 mistakes I can think of. Fortunate Son AND Amazing Journey are both songs from the 60's that are listed as 70's in the game. Both were released in 1969. The other one is the song by Machine Head was released in 2007 (I believe) and the game has it listed as 1983 (the dates could be off, but I know for a fact it is a song from the 00's and the game lists it as from the 80's)... None of these effect this article because they are downloadable songs, but I am assuming we are going to keep all of the Rock Band song articles uniform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowdyoctopus (talk • contribs) 22:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we start removing the tiers of all RB articles to match the current DLC article? I would assume so but I wanted to check here before making a major (and somewhat mundanely time consuming) edit. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A consensus should be made among other editors before making such changes. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 11:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the RB song tables is that we've got 4 or 5 of them across multiple articles. Consensus was reached in the DLC article talk page, but never relayed here. See talk. Much like the GH tables, the goal is to have some level of uniformity across the articles. Tiers are more important for somebody who plays the game, but as an outside observer they'd likely be more interested in the genre and decade. -- TRTX T / C 12:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I made the entry here to start a discussion. Since we reached a consensus on the DLC page (for that article) and expressed an interest to keep the RB song list articles uniform, I figured it would be OK to remove them. I brought it up here, waited a day or two, and removed them. If I should have waited longer, then I apologize. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm against this. I understand the problems with the DLC page and the inconsistent RB1/2 rating systems, but that doesn't apply to the individual game pages, and uniformity is a poor excuse to remove useful information. I was using the page as a reference to compile unofficial soundtracks for my own listening, ordering them as the game does in Band Quickplay. Poiuyt Man talk 11:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The official RB page now has a uniform tiering system available here. It was suggested in the DLC page to simply include the overall song difficulty (which you see on the main page), and then provide the link to users who wish to learn more. We can't record EVERYTHING here, and in light of this new page, we have an opportunity to streamline the difficulty column and update the table with information more useful for people outside the group that plays RB. -- TRTX T / C 12:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
i'm a newbie not sure how to add to the talk page, sorry if I'm violating some sort of rule. but i was very disappointed to see that the tiers had been removed. It was very useful information, and i hat to see useful stuff being taken out of my favorite encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.45.42 (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
sorry to also barge in this way, but i am also a newbie not sure how to add to the talk page, sorry if I'm violating some sort of rule. I agree, useful info that has been avail (to my knowledge) for 1 year, and now it is gone??? It wasn't replaced with anything and the space is unused. I vote to put it back in or put it on a sub-page or something... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.141.142 (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Anyone can contribute to the talk page. Everyone has an equal say, though people who are rude and/or insulting tend to not be taken seriously. There are also administrators that can do things regular editors cannot and their opinion generally holds more weight. Just make sure to sign your post with four ~. The information was removed for a few reasons. First, it was debated whether or not the information was encyclopedic to begin with. It is borderline game guide, which wikipedia is not. Secondly, with the difficulty ranking system changing from Rock Band 1 to Rock Band 2, the downloadable songs page can no longer provide the difficulty tiers. There is not enough room to list the difficulty tiers for both games, and choosing one game over the other is creating a bias. Also, rockband.com has the Rock Band 2 difficulty for every song. For those two reasons, the difficulty tiers were removed form the DLC songs list. In order to keep all of the Rock Band song list pages uniform, as is desired, the questionable difficulty tiers have also been removed from the on0disc song list articles. I hope that helps. If you have and ideas/suggestions/comments, feel free to make them known. Rowdyoctopus (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Australian Track List

Can anyone confirm the track list for the Australian version of Rock Band? It ships in two weeks so it should be settled by now. The press releases imply that it is the same as the North American version but do not give a detailed track list. It would make more sense (IMHO) for HMX to release the European version instead of making another PAL disc. 203.211.85.173 (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link to this press release? It'd be helpful to take a closer look at it. -- TRTX T / C 18:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm after info on the NZ release, but am assuming the Aus and NZ versions will be the same. The Rockband website announcement is very vague, http://www.rockband.com/news/rock_band_australia or http://www.rockband.com/news/rock_band_new_zealand. Two of the bigger gaming stores in NZ look like they have just copied the North American descriptions, with no word on any other tracks http://www.ebgames.co.nz/PS2/product.cfm?ID=9658 http://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/Xbox-360/Rock-Band-Ultimate-Bundle-Game--Instruments/2627704/

If there were localized content like we get with Singstar releases I'm sure Harmonix would have made a big song and dance about it as they did for the European release. As it stands now, I can order the PAL version of RB from the UK with more songs for the same price as the local version. 203.211.87.208 (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

European / Wii version

There's a section about the Wii version, and what extra songs it has. There's a section about the European verson, and what extra songs it has. Now, which of those songs are in the European Wii version? I wouldn't dare to think that all of them are... --MooNFisH (talk) 11:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a weird section at the bottom of the page named [5 question marks]

Is there a way it can be removed? --Addict 2006 14:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Solved. Vandalism on template. --Addict 2006 14:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Medium or higher unlock song list

When going through the game I was trying to find on the web the list of songs that could only be unlocked in Medium or higher tour level. I now know this and wanted to update this wiki with an identifier next to each of the 15 songs that can only be unlocked by doing medium or higher skill level. Considering the wiki is locked, how do I do this? Brado23 (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a game guide. If you wish to find this type of information, please consult a site such as IGN or GameFAQs. -- TRTX T / C 02:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

correction request

The band name Vagiant needs to be changed to VAGIANT Boston —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wes.robins (talk • contribs) 16:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I will update the wikilink, but the name itself remains "Vagiant" as that is how it's presented ingame. -- TRTX T / C 20:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Electric Version

The New Pornographers song is called "The Electric Version", Electric Version is the name of the album. Could this be fixed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.42.24 (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Tiering?

Why don't we list difficulty tiers? I remember the page used to have it before Rock Band 2 was announced. Why was it removed? Zeldafanjtl (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As RB1 and RB2 use different difficulty tiers and the majority of these songs can be used in RB2, we'd have to pick which tiering system to use. As this info is available on the rockband.com website, we have opted not to make a decision on which tiers to include and instead use that. --MASEM 19:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
This is not an article about RB2, thus it should be obvious that the RB1 tiers are used on the wiki page. The Rock Band site does not have the RB1 tiers unless I'm missing something. Azzaman333 (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a game guide. Due to the amount of information available about these songs, the editors agreed across the pages came to a consensus that the tiering information was only useful to people who already owned the game, and thus they were removed to make space on the page for information more useful to largest amount of readers (regardless of if they own the game or not). -- TRTX T / C 13:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
But the Guitar Hero pages have the tiers. Should we remove them or add RB1 tiers to this page? 76.117.11.33 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Bump? There needs to be some form of consistancy. Maybe use the tiers for full band like we did for Guitar Hero World Tour? This applies to the other RB games as well, of course. 76.117.12.143 (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Bump. I don't see why we can have tiers for the Guitar Hero games, but not the Rock Band games. 76.117.12.143 (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
GH has fixed orders the songs are played in, making tiering easy (and there it is less about tiering and more about how they are grouped in setlists). How do you tier RB songs when there are 5 possible ways to rank them? There's no way to do it without bias, and hence why we don't do that. --MASEM (t) 03:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The same way we do it for Guitar Hero World Tour. The "Band" tier.76.117.12.143 (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_songs_in_Rock_Band/Archive_6&oldid=1092053117"