Tracks versus Track Versions

[emdebe]

I think. Its craaaaaaazy seeing that much "trouble" written under each other...

We must be crazy, otherwise we wouldn't start something like the wiki...  

[emdebe]

I might misunderstand these disambugiuoxiangouix pages :-), since its a too lng word for me...

Here's one
http://wiki.killuglyradio.com/index.php/You_Can%27t_Do_That_On_Stage_Anymore

Here's another
http://wiki.killuglyradio.com/index.php/Yahozna

[Barry]

I think only the official versionn should be mentioned - why bother about the bootlegs and the covers? (And the compilations? Those are not "versions", I think...)

Some people do care for them.
IMHO, all are part of the FZ world.

Some tribute & cover bands actually do a great job.

I'm with Balint on this one. Only "officially" released Songs make it onto the wiki.

If tribute & cover bands and/or bootlegs can't reside at the wiki.killuglyradio.com, then I would like to repeat an earlier suggestion to create a wiki.boots.killuglyradio.com and/or wiki.tributes.killuglyradio.com.

And I suggest we keep focus on the official discography for now until it's closing into the finish, as has been requested many times...

[emdebe]

(And the compilations? Those are not "versions", I think...)

Some compilations contain previously unreleased track versions.

[emdebe]

I'm with Balint on this one. Only "officially" released Songs make it onto the wiki.

This is a rather radical decision, and it certainly puts UniMuta out of the loop. My idea of a good time (or concensus!) would be to allow the documentation of the “Bootlegs” and “Tributes & Covers”, under certain conditions.

If you want to avoid (additional) “clutter” on the Album and Track Pages, you could decide to not include any references to “Bootlegs” and/or “Tributes & Covers” on them. But this doesn’t necessary mean that one could not create documentation about them. If the navigation bar (on the left hand side of the screen) would be extended with a “Bootlegs” and a “Tributes & Covers” entry, they could live their happy lives behind the scenes.

[Barry]

I'm with Balint on this one. Only "officially" released Songs make it onto the wiki.

This is a rather radical decision, and it certainly puts UniMuta out of the loop. My idea of a good time (or concensus!) would be to allow the documentation of the “Bootlegs” and “Tributes & Covers”, under certain conditions.

Well listen, the wiki is called "Zappa Wiki Jawaka" - not "Zappa Wiki Jawaka With All Of The Bootlegs And Tribute Acts Info On The Side, Just So We Can Complicate Things A Bit More". In time, yes, I might just put up a bootleg subwiki, and yes, maybe even a tribute acts subwiki. The concise information pertaining to these topics that is now on ZWJ could then link to those subwiki's. Once again: at this point in time it's just not our main focus. We need to finish the official discog first. You're insisting that the baby explain Einstein's relativity theory when it can hardly utter "mama" - if you know what I mean...

[emdebe]

Well listen, the wiki is called "Zappa Wiki Jawaka" - not "Zappa Wiki Jawaka With All Of The Bootlegs And Tribute Acts Info On The Side, Just So We Can Complicate Things A Bit More".

Damn, I must have missed something! My understanding was that the Wiki was

One single, complete-and-accurate-as-it-can-be, access point to all things FZ ...

 

[Barry]

Well listen, the wiki is called "Zappa Wiki Jawaka" - not "Zappa Wiki Jawaka With All Of The Bootlegs And Tribute Acts Info On The Side, Just So We Can Complicate Things A Bit More".

Damn, I must have missed something! My understanding was that the Wiki was

One single, complete-and-accurate-as-it-can-be, access point to all things FZ ...

 

I've been thinking... wouldn't it be better if I set up a separate wiki for the bootlegs? It would make things a hell of a lot more easy to organize/maintain. A la limite, the tribute acts could remain within the main wiki.

Whaddayathink?

[emdebe]

I've been thinking... wouldn't it be better if I set up a separate wiki for the bootlegs? It would make things a hell of a lot more easy to organize/maintain. A la limite, the tribute acts could remain within the main wiki. Whaddayathink?

I hate to admit it ( ), but it makes sense to me.

Although, why not go all the way, and create a separate wiki for the “Tributes & Covers” as well? Before you know it, there will be tons of artists included. Even if – to prevent clutter – we omit them from the “Records On Which This Song Has Appeared” section, and move’m to the “Notes About This Song” section, it’s not gonna solve the “overload”.

Give me a finger, and I'll take your arm...  

[Bálint]

a question: if it will be a different, a new wiki, does it mean that all tha songs, the lyrics, etc. should be copied there?... Or what?

Nowadays i dont have too much time, just quicjk 5-minutes visits here, so I might have not thought it over yet, but I would not be afraid of complexity, huge-ness and so on. Tons of information with tons of links - hopefully in a clear structure.

At the moment I dont see how can a different wiki work for bootlegs. Or did I misunderstand it?

[Barry]

Look at it this way Balint:
* wiki.killuglyradio.com = similar to DonLope's fz lyrics
* bootlegs.killluglyradio.com = similar to zappa patio

These are very rough comparisons, but you get the idea.

I'm still not quite sold on the tributes.killuglyradio.com scenario...
What does everybody else think?

[emdebe]

a question: if it will be a different, a new wiki, does it mean that all tha songs, the lyrics, etc. should be copied there?... Or what?

Only "Bootleg" and "Tributes" related pages would have to be moved.
So there’s not much YOU have to worry about.

[emdebe]

I'm still not quite sold on the tributes.killuglyradio.com scenario...

Think 500-750 “Band” pages...
Think 1500-2000 “Album” pages...
Think 200-250 “Track” pages...
Think 1500-2500 “Bandmember” pages...

To me, these bands (and orchestra’s etc.) are an integrated part of the FZ world.
I listen to them a lot.
And I enjoy them very much, thank you.

Hey, we’re talking about FZ stuff here.
And some people know what to do with it, without “raping” it.

Sometimes FZ Alumni are in these bands...
FZ assigned Ike Willis to play his music after his dead...

All these bands keep the MUSIC of FZ alive.
You could say they are doing a better job than we,
who are merely “theorizing” about how to document the man’s life...

[SOFA]

I know that I've not been active in a while, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt...
It seems to me that creating separate wikis for the boots sorta defeats the purpose of a "singular spot for all things  Zappa", no?
However, I also think that including every known band that has ever played an FZ song borders on the extreme.
I agree that including every morsel of info makes the wiki harder to navigate, but we're trying to build a singular spot...
To me, this all appears to be a question of how to "focus" the info and what makes it tough is the focus can change due to the perspective of the wiki user.
There may be some who are looking for info on a particular song - so emdebe's point about getting it all in there makes sense. Then there are others who may be looking for a general view of FZ's life, or a specific portion of it - so Balint's point of it being too daunting to figure out has merit.
(I've been absent from contributing primarily due to the fact that everyone who has had an idea of how the data is presented has been correct in their assesment - as it pertains to their perspective; it's like trying to please all of the people all of the time. What an undertaking!)
I guess the point I'm trying to make is: creating another wiki, because of the volume of data that pertains to a certain perspective, goes against the ideal from which the wiki sprang forth - combining all of the excellent work of numerous FZ scholars and fans into one spot. IMO, splitting the wiki as suggested would constitute treading on the toes of Don Lope, Unimata, the Patio team, which was something we said we wouldn't do.
Something was said earlier about "not having room" to put all the info. I was under the impression that "room" was not to be an issue, which was why we undertook the project. Am I wrong?
Would it not be possible to create major sections to the existing wiki that could hold all of this data in it's proper perspective and focus? If it's not, then we should change our "mission" - IMO.
My 2 cents.

[emdebe]

From my perspective, it’s not that important WHERE we put the stuff, if only we can input ALL the stuff.