Talk:List of songs in Rock Band

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
This article is part of the Rock music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to rock music, and who are involved in developing and proposing standards for their content, presentation and other aspects.
If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I.
Any sections older than 21 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Possable reason that Who's Next may not be coming out on Rock Band

Aparently Pete Townshend has said in a interview (which i have not found a link too yet) that "that the master copies for an entire side of Who's Next have been stolen" which would explain the delay (and lack of news about) of the announced 'first album' for DLC (withoutthe 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?

BTw it's prob side one of the slbum that's missing (given the who song already included)

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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: [1] [2] [3]

Full ScoreHero post: [4]

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: [5] --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)

[edit] 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)