A Fresh Start?

[Dunk]

It seems that the wiki is quite happy to have people listed by their surname in a correct, sensible and useful kind of way.  Simply add it to the category definition [[Category:Musicians|Kleinow, "Sneaky Pete"]] then "Sneaky Pete" is listed under K rather than outside the alphabet because his name starts with a " character

It seems that the wiki can probably meet all our needs if we took a little time to get to know it's ways - rather than rushing in and making yet another long list of people/albums/socks/etc - and ignore what other people have done on other websites and stick to a purely wiki way.

The Biography should be a short introduction to FZ for anybody who knows nothing about him.  The details are in the articles within the wiki which are linked to from the biography...  

In the early 1960's he had a studio in Cucamonga.

...is all the biography needs - with studio linked to the Studio Z page, which links to recordings done at the studio, and Cucamonga linked to it's own page which links to Studio Z... etc. etc.

How about adding a date category for the tracks?  That way we can (eventually) include tracks from bootlegs sorted by date of recording.  It would also help solve conflicts within the main discography...

Little House I Used To Live In (1969)

Little House I Used To Live In (1971)

(The first linking from Burnt Weeny and the second from Fillmore - I am guessing these dates )

[[Category:1969 albums|Burnt Weeny Sandwich]]
[[Category:1971 albums|Fillmore East, June 1971]]



Presumably this could be split down to a full day/month/year category to allow for tours where the same song was often performed.

I think we have been locked into too closely following other peoples thinking - lists of albums, lyrics included on a tracks page, pictures of covers - without thinking how best to do this stuff in a wiki way.






 




 

[emdebe]

It seems that the wiki is quite happy to have people listed by their surname in a correct, sensible and useful kind of way.  Simply add it to the category definition [[Category:Musicians|Kleinow, "Sneaky Pete"]] then "Sneaky Pete" is listed under K rather than outside the alphabet because his name starts with a " character

I have a feeling we've been through this discussion already, somewhere at the Wiki, but I can't locate the specific Talk page anymore... I think the most likely response you are going to get will be something like...

Well either we're [[[Category:Scary|scaring]]] them too [[[These Strange Tags Make Me Feel Very Uneasy|much]]] with all these [[[Category:What The Hell Are They Talking About|Wiki Tags]]] - [[[Disambig|or]]] they're just being plain {{stub-Lazy}}.

Although it makes sense what you are saying, it indeed adds another layer of complexity to the Wiki. I can think of many more, but apparently that's not what most people are looking for.

[emdebe]

It seems that the wiki can probably meet all our needs if we took a little time to get to know it's ways - rather than rushing in and making yet another long list of people/albums/socks/etc - and ignore what other people have done on other websites and stick to a purely wiki way.

I think we have been locked into too closely following other peoples thinking - lists of albums, lyrics included on a tracks page, pictures of covers - without thinking how best to do this stuff in a wiki way.

Is this "sneering and stabbing" or is this just an observation?
 

[Barry]

It seems that the wiki is quite happy to have people listed by their surname in a correct, sensible and useful kind of way.  Simply add it to the category definition [[Category:Musicians|Kleinow, "Sneaky Pete"]] then "Sneaky Pete" is listed under K rather than outside the alphabet because his name starts with a " character

Well slap me with a chicken - I had no idea you could work the Category links in that way. This effectively solves the big Firstname Lastname Debate Of April 2005!
I'll keep this in mind when editing articles.

It seems that the wiki can probably meet all our needs if we took a little time to get to know it's ways - rather than rushing in and making yet another long list of people/albums/socks/etc - and ignore what other people have done on other websites and stick to a purely wiki way.

Never been a fan of Big Lists Of Things, but that's nothing new for you guys...

The Biography should be a short introduction to FZ for anybody who knows nothing about him.  The details are in the articles within the wiki which are linked to from the biography...

I agree, but I think the hardest thing about writing up a biography is that it should have a narrative that reads as if it were written by a human - as opposed to just listing fact after fact.

How about adding a date category for the tracks?  That way we can (eventually) include tracks from bootlegs sorted by date of recording.  It would also help solve conflicts within the main discography...

Little House I Used To Live In (1969)
Little House I Used To Live In (1971)

(The first linking from Burnt Weeny and the second from Fillmore - I am guessing these dates )

[[Category:1969 albums|Burnt Weeny Sandwich]]
[[Category:1971 albums|Fillmore East, June 1971]]

Presumably this could be split down to a full day/month/year category to allow for tours where the same song was often performed.

I'm not exactly sure where you're going with this... could you elaborate and/or give some examples?

Yours unwittingly,
Barry

[Barry]

Okay, following Dunk's lead on getting the category listings in proper alphabetical sequence, I've gone and changed every single page within the Musicians and Bandmembers categories.
For instance on the Ike Willis page, I replaced [[[Category:Bandmembers]]] with [[[Category:Bandmembers|Willis, Ike]]]. On the Bandmembers category page, this effectively puts a link to the Ike Willis article under W - not under I.

A similar operation will have to be undertaken with other categories that are about human beings (composers, influences, managers, engineers, ...). However, the two biggest categories have hereby been fixed - and FZ-loving librarians across the globe are getting an erection at the sight of these newly formatted category-pages!  

[emdebe]

A similar operation will have to be undertaken with other categories that are about human beings (composers, influences, managers, engineers, ...).

I went through most of them.

There're still the albums and tracks...

[Bálint]

Hi Emdebe,

I was watching the changes yesterday, and just didn't understand whats going on. :-) Now I see.

But:
My main question is that now you re-categorized (repaired, etc.) tons of (sorry) empty pages... (just take a look at "recent changes") But the thing we were talking about is it would be useful to whether delete or to COMPLETE these pages... Now we have these empty pages again - their categories fixed, with lost of work in it... I just cant see the reason why. Why kill so much time making these skeleton pages?

If someone is around there, willing to work, then some completing would be the MOST important. This way it just doesn't work.

and some more - about an article:
While being an enciclopedia, I think the main thing would be to clarify, what is the article about: "a painter form the 16th century", "an unknown director living in Los Angeles" and so on, with more details.
But now, at most of the cases of the list if I find someone in the Real Frank Zappa Book, for example because FZ just mentions him/her, then I come to this wiki, being curious, and I'll find:
"FZ mentions him/her in his book" - well, I would not call this a very useful information...

And what should I do with a page like Bruce Springsteen's?... (just follow the link there)

so:
I think huge work is tu be done, but please, no more empty pages, no more corrections on categiroes of empty pages, but CONTENT, CONTENT, PLEASE!
And I'm saying this to (asking it from) YOU because 80% of this list can ONLY be completed by you, no one else knows too much about them...



thank you!

B

[emdebe]

Why kill so much time making these skeleton pages? I think huge work is tu be done, but please, no more empty pages, no more corrections on categiroes of empty pages, but CONTENT, CONTENT, PLEASE! And I'm saying this to (asking it from) YOU because 80% of this list can ONLY be completed by you, no one else knows too much about them...

You made your point a thousand times before.
With a little patience, these (luxury?) "problems" will go away...

To quote a certain Bálint...

Lets try it - all of us (incuding me): more suggestions, more patience, less personal stuff, less sarcasm.

If someone is around there, willing to work, then some completing would be the MOST important. This way it just doesn't work.

I think I have done my share already.
Why don't you jump on somebody else's neck for a change?

While being an enciclopedia, I think the main thing would be to clarify, what is the article about: "a painter form the 16th century", "an unknown director living in Los Angeles" and so on, with more details. But now, at most of the cases of the list if I find someone in the Real Frank Zappa Book, for example because FZ just mentions him/her, then I come to this wiki, being curious, and I'll find: "FZ mentions him/her in his book" - well, I would not call this a very useful information... And what should I do with a page like Bruce Springsteen's?... (just follow the link there)

Again, with a little patience, these "problems" will go away...

[Barry]

With a little patience, these (luxury?) "problems" will go away...

To have content on pages is a luxury problem! A novel idea if ever I saw one.

And what should I do with a page like Bruce Springsteen's?... (just follow the link there)

This is a classic. Makes me giggle every time, if you'll forgive me. Anyone familiar with a movie called Brasil?

Again, with a little patience, these "problems" will go away...

You can hardly blame us for not having enough patience, emdebe...

[emdebe]

OK, one more time for the world...

Seriously: I have been hitting the Random Page link for about 15 minutes now and the amount of totally meaningless pages I've come across is in the order of 75 to 80%. A typical example (there must be dozens upon dozens of these):

http://wiki.killuglyradio.com/index.php/The_Thing

Until any and all of these floating Pages About Nothing have been either filled with content or deleted, I think it would be laughable to start up a second wiki. Let's get our act together on the official discography first (as has been said many a time), before we go and do anything else, is what I say.

Look at him go...  

While it says, just above:

Much the same as every "List" FZ made should be listed (mentioned), but does every name on a given list deserve a page?

Probably not.

That's what I tried to explain some time ago
(but nobody noticed it, or my explaining wasn't good enough):
 

Most of the "skeleton pages" are linked to the many "lists" (Freak Out, OSFA Universe, WOIFTM, TRFZB, etc.). When we started the Wiki Jawaka in March, these pages seemed to be a good idea (we were enthusiast about just anything, I guess).

After a fast start, things – with the "skeleton pages" - began to slow down, and finally almost died. There are 2 reasons for it. One: people (Wiki Jawaka contributors) began to ask if all these pages (about "Cheeseburgers" and the like) were really necessary. Two: well, let’s just say that I’m in a profession where most of the time anything seems to happen for no reason at all... And that’s the reason I cannot guarantee full-time delivery of contributions to the Wiki Jawaka...  

I think the comments I get about the "skeleton pages" are partially correct in that "empty" pages don’t make sense. Of course, in due time, these would have been filled, if only I had the time to do it... Since I don’t have that much time to spare, and since not everybody is happy with the existence of some / many / all of them, I think now is the time to make a "fundamental" decision about them.

The way I see it now, taken into account the things I mentioned above, is that I want to keep the "lists", but not necessary the linked ("skeleton") pages. I think the “lists” are an integral part of anything concerning FZ. I even (dare to) think that most Wiki Jawaka contributors can agree with that.

But I’m thinking of "regrouping" each list on 1 page. This basically means that a lot of "skeleton", but also already completed pages, would be deleted – their contents being pasted onto the particular "list page". That way we keep a – theoretically – good idea, and get rid of the annoyances.

The only exceptions to the rule would be pages that are referenced frequently (by multiple lists or other subjects; case in point: Captain Beefheart, who is not only listed on the, err, lists, but plays an important role in FZ’s life).

To quote Bálint: waddeyouthink?

Additional question: am I making myself clear?

Obviously, I wasn't making myself clear...

[emdebe]

With a little patience, these (luxury?) "problems" will go away...

To have content on pages is a luxury problem! A novel idea if ever I saw one.

And what should I do with a page like Bruce Springsteen's?... (just follow the link there)

This is a classic. Makes me giggle every time, if you'll forgive me. Anyone familiar with a movie called Brasil?

Again, with a little patience, these "problems" will go away...

You can hardly blame us for not having enough patience, emdebe...

Lets try it - all of us (incuding me): more suggestions, more patience, less personal stuff, less sarcasm.

[Bálint]

Hi Emdebe,

sorry to say, but first I have to say, that I was not personal, I was just asking something, I was talking about the work we are in now.

Okay. I see things in a much more simple way, so let me put it this way:
I just wanted to ask you about the pages you categorized recently.

I agree with you:

I think the comments I get about the "skeleton pages" are partially correct in that "empty" pages don’t make sense. Of course, in due time, these would have been filled, if only I had the time to do it..

But I also think, that "due time" is right now. And - as I think - its much more important to have normal, usable content than the correctly catagorized nothing.

You also said:

You made your point a thousand times before.

That's correct. And I would like to get just one answer to it (please, without copy-paste):
Are you ready or willing to fill in those "empty places" with content, or will they just stay there for some more months? Because - again: you'r the only one who is able to finish them, and the way they are - they just dont make any sense.

Thanks:

B

[emdebe]

But I also think, that "due time" is right now.

I notice that you have the ambition of becoming my mother...

Are you ready or willing to fill in those "empty places" with content, or will they just stay there for some more months?

Are you ready or willing to complete the Discography?
Is Barry ready or willing to complete the Cover Art?
Is Duncan ready or willing to restructure the Tracks pages?
Right now?
Since when is there a deadline in completing the Wiki?

Because - again: you'r the only one who is able to finish them, and the way they are - they just dont make any sense.

Anyone who has read TRFZB can complete these pages.

[Bálint]

Sorry, Emdebe, if an asking, a request sounds an order to you...

Well, this is a kind of community, we are working together, and we are talking about things. I think. We even ask questions.

So I have to ask again (and remember: just a question, that hopes for an answer, nothing more):

What do you think about the "skeleton pages", do you think you'll have time for it it the future? I think at least 3 of us (Barry, You and me) agreed that this way its not the best way. What dou you think of it?

And sorry, but I read TRFZB, but I just can't guess who these guys might be:

William Steading; Welton Featherstone; Velma Jaggers; Trevor Howell; Tommy Sandi; Tom Phillips; Tom Mix; Thomas Paine; The West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band - and so on (just a quick list).

So I'm afraid I wont be able to do that work. You are the one who knows the most, you are (as it seems) the only one who can complete them.

How do you see the future of these pages? (remember: its ONLY a question. Hoping for an answer.)

thanks:

B