SongFight Wiki

[jute gyte]

I think the notable artists thing was an attempt to avoid presenting the entire list of artists in the wiki, which (while interesting) certainly isn't *useful* information for people who aren't crazy completionists. I think that a more useful strategy for narrowing the list of total entrants is to break up the list of total entrants by starting year, and then asking people who showed up in that year to add to the list of who they consider to be notable. Because like, I think Sparks (or drew, or that guy who did that noise piece that everyone hated back in the day) is notable (or whatever other word you want to use) but like alot of people* have no idea who he is anymore.

If noncompletionists don't want to read about Sparks all they have to do is not click on his entry. I'm certainly not a Songfight completionist and I'm against the notable artist list.

[mkilly]

I think the notable artists thing was an attempt to avoid presenting the entire list of artists in the wiki, which (while interesting) certainly isn't *useful* information for people who aren't crazy completionists. I think that a more useful strategy for narrowing the list of total entrants is to break up the list of total entrants by starting year, and then asking people who showed up in that year to add to the list of who they consider to be notable. Because like, I think Sparks (or drew, or that guy who did that noise piece that everyone hated back in the day) is notable (or whatever other word you want to use) but like alot of people* have no idea who he is anymore.

If noncompletionists don't want to read about Sparks all they have to do is not click on his entry. I'm certainly not a Songfight completionist and I'm against the notable artist list.

Well, Erik has it right. If you go to thea rchive listing, there are hundreds of artists with a single track. The Mood Rats won the only fight they were in (Let's Get Naked) but it's just an alias of a well-known fighter. There are three Nympho Leprechauns listings, four spellings of Dark Side of Archeology, five Fishboy Rex, six Forty Second Songs, and something around thirteen--at least--Johnny Cashpoint tracks. Now maybe pages should be set up for all of those, but in my opinion they should simply be redirects to a main page for the artist. I don't think, for example, Caravan Ray and Tex Beaumont should have separate pages. In my opinion this should be authoritative, not silly. The more broad point, however, is that any list (notable artists or a comprehensive archive copy) on this wiki is only as good as the individual artist pages behind it. I think it's far wiser to simply add artists to the Notable Artist page as pages for the artists are made, that is, a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach. Another issue is that keeping a huge big list of all artists isn't a set-it-and-forget-it thing. Who's going to keep it updated, week after week, as more people come in? What's the use if nobody will? If we're only counting notable artists, people who are of stature enough that somebody will make a page and write about them or they're confident/bold/bored enough to do one of their own, we circumvent this issue.

I don't think I can make any stronger a case for keeping the list of notable artists. The list of all artists is up, but I don't know who's going to do housecleaning on it and who's going to keep it updated, if anyone.

On a tangent, here, related to what I was just speaking of, I really don't want to get into any turf wars about individual artist pages. Blue deserves his own entry, in my opinion, as do sonofsupercar, as does ADD, but ADD vs. BLUE doesn't need an entry. If it had an entry talking about the origin of the song, it would be maybe 250 words, max, I figure. Now not every wiki has to be encyclopedic, of course, but it seems to me that acting as an encyclopedia/almanac/whatever should be a good goal.

[j$]

I'm against a notable artists list, for my usual reason - it's subjective. One person's notable artist is another person's kick in the musical backteeth.

Lightnin Ear Fart is noteable. Goberoo is noteable. I'm not, particularly. Unless you're gonna judge it on some agreed scale, then it's meaningless. You might as well have an empty list, or a list of everyone who has ever contributed.

Just MO, of course ... quite frankly there's better things to get a little bit antsy about ...

j$

[erik]

notable does not mean good.

[mkilly]

Lightnin Ear Fart is noteable. Goberoo is noteable. I'm not, particularly. Unless you're gonna judge it on some agreed scale, then it's meaningless. You might as well have an empty list, or a list of everyone who has ever contributed.

No, but that's the point. I'm not making any judgment, all right? Nobody should be. I just want a list of artists where there's interest enough to have their own page, because it would be more compact and better to have a list of big-time artists than every tom dick and gooberoo who's ever entered a song, with every minor spelling variation and every "featuring." right now on the notable artists list there's a lot of artists without pages, but if you were to make it of every artist the percentage would skyrocket and a great, great many of those artists would never have a page because nobody knows who they are/were, or nobody cares, or both.

[deshead]

Songfight Wiki: where semantics and ego collide.

Why not remove all the subjectivity? Start with a blank page and call it "artists who could be arsed to add their data to this page." Then you've only got yourself to bitch at 'cause your name was overlooked. I think that's even what Marcus originally intended, and he threw a few of us on there to get the ball rolling. (Frankly, I'm surprised he hasn't deleted the original page, shaking his read and rolling his eyes.)

What's the use if nobody will?

Ya, exactly. Here's 2 cents worth:

Data redundancy is sometimes necessary for performance, and otherwise always to be avoided. Update anomalies weaken the authority of BOTH sides of a redundant data set.

More simply, if you don't have to repeat data, don't.

A list of "artists who could be arsed to add their data" provides information that isn't available anywhere else, whereas a static list of "all artists" is already available on songfight.org, and like Marcus said, keeping both lists in synch becomes a hassle.


[edit: I typed this before Marcus's post above ... I'm not bitching at you Marcus, which unfortunately is how it now looks.)

[jimtyrrell]

I can understand that the housekeeping of a complete fighter list looks daunting. But what's the difference with the 'notable fighter' list? The burden is still on the community to keep it updated, isn't it?

A partial list of songfighters, even if a consensus of who should be on that list could actually be reached, seems to short-sheet the whole point of having a wiki. If there's a complete list of fighters, and one of the names on that list doesn't have a page made for it, then I guess that fighter is not notable. Seems pretty clean to me.

EDIT: Like Deshead above, I posted this before reading the last MK post. When seen as a page for navigational purposes, I guess a list of notables has some weight. But I think it's pretty easy to see what's there to read (and what isn't) on the full page.

[Niveous]

A Lot of Good Points

- A week after week updating of the entire bandlisting may be a bit much. But I'd be more than willing to do an update peroidically.

- Having up such a big list gives us a lot of options on what articles we can include. For instance, if there is a story behind the Blue & ADD collaboration, we can add the story. If not, then we leave the link alone. Same with some of the flash in the pan bands. Having the total list just gives us the links available but we don't have to fill in every single one.

- I'll edit out all the doubles (like with DSOA) eventually.

- I think a short article on Tex Beaumont while a substantial one on Caravan Ray is fine. It's kind of like having an article on David Bowie and one on Ziggy Stardust.

- And why fret over which artists and collaborations get articles or not? If Billy Rockstar did a collab with his dog one week and wants to tell the story, so be it I say.

- I don't like the notable list much. But I don't hate it either. See, I love reading musical encyclopedias and the sort. I used to live out my Harmony Music Guide and my Joel Whitburn Billboard Book of Top 40 hits. So I put up the large list in hopes of making this wiki as encyclopedic as I can. But even with books like the Harmony guide, they had more notable artists first with larger articles and lesser known ones with small articles later. I don't care either way. I'm more interested in gathering information. Having the Notable list or not is cosmetic to me.

[erik]

But I think it's pretty easy to see what's there to read (and what isn't) on the full page.

Speaking for myself, it's not. It all totally blurs together, and it's a big pain in the ass to actually see which ones have pages for them.

[deshead]

Having the total list just gives us the links available but we don't have to fill in every single one.

2 more cents: Lists of links that go nowhere are frustrating for users.

In the Songfight archive-by-artist, clicking on any artist's name yields a page with new, relevant information (even if it's just a link to a single track and fight.) The archive is a long list, but every link is useful.

Good data design argues against replicating this list in another place (i.e. the wiki) if the links in the replicated list don't provide new information.

Worded another way: we'd weaken the utility of the wiki if we added hundreds of artist links that go nowhere.

A better design (at least from a usability perspective) is to point people from the wiki page at the songfight archive, and use the wiki to list only the exceptions. That is, artists for whom more information is available.

(And resolve the "sematics vs. ego" silliness by changing the words "notable Songfighters" to "Songfighter trivia" or something equally less discriminating)

[Niveous]

How about we just have a list of all the filled in entries on the front page (y'know, an index) instead of the "notable" list. And we keep the full list of songfighters off the front page, so it's still there to be used as a resource for people wanting to fill in entries. Thus the wiki's integrity isn't lost.

[john m]

That would be fucking huge. Can't have every last link on the front page.

[Niveous]

It wouldn't be on the front page, just a link to it. Just like the notable artists link. It would be a link to an index page with all the entries so far.

[king_arthur]

I just went over and filled in some info on myself, in hopes of remaining "notable" for a few more days. Noticed that editing my "notable" entry did not affect my "all fighters" entry, which will be another multiple entry issue.

I kinda like the idea of a reasonable-sized list of "notable" fighters, tho' I suppose I'd be less thrilled about it if I wasn't on it

Charles (KA)

[john m]

Noticed that editing my "notable" entry did not affect my "all fighters" entry.

Looks like it worked fine to me.

[Niveous]

Okay, I made a lit of Songfighter Entries Hitherto and placed it on the front page in lieu of the Notable list and the Full List. Both those lists still exist, they just aren't on the front page. If someone would rather it some other way or wants them back, then change it. That's the beauty of communism. I just hoped this way would clarify matters and get rid of the stigma of the word "notable".

[mkilly]

A list of "artists who could be arsed to add their data" provides information that isn't available anywhere else, whereas a static list of "all artists" is already available on songfight.org, and like Marcus said, keeping both lists in synch becomes a hassle.

I didn't see any bitching at me, I thought you were very reasonable (but maybe I just didn't read it close enough ). Anyway, you've got it. Vermont has gay marriage, but they call it civil unions. I had a page that listed artists who could be arsed to add their data or people could be arsed to make data about, but I called it notable artists.

I swear to God, I didn't think an adjective would cause so much stupid discussion. I'm not hot for the title "Songfighter Profiles Hitherto" but the method of displaying the info is acceptable.

One thing: I wish that the fightmasters could agree on whether it should be "Song Fight!," "Song Fight," "Songfight," or "Songfight!". I find the hodgepodge on the wiki very, very distasteful, but I'm stuck in the Freudian anal stage in that respect.

[Niveous]

You're not alone on that last one. I try to stick with Song Fight but I still write Songfight sometimes. And the exclamation point. Don't get me started on the exclamation point.

As for the name "Songfighter Entries Hitherto"...I'm not too big on it either but I liked "Songfight Entries So Far" even less. Songfighters with Profiles is better, I guess. I'm not fond of any of them, but that could just be me being a curmudgeon.

[erik]

We need something interesting, like "Notable Songfighters".

[Niveous]

**gouge to the eye**

Yep, it's curmudgeon day.

Hey Marcus, since you have admin rights on this wiki, why don't you just delete Songfighter Profiles Hitherto?

[Eric Y.]

it's curmudgeon day.

i just found out something pretty cool. there is a huge list of all the songfight artists here:
http://www.songfight.org/archive.php?so ... pand=false
and there's even the ability to add information about each artist and cross-reference them to other artists! how cool.

and if that isn't enough, lots of encyclopedic knowledge can be filed here:
http://songfight.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=452
or here:
http://songfight.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=328

cool, huh?

[Niveous]

Eric, it's not sarcasm day. It's curmudgeon day. It's not a day for the wise-asses. It's a day for those surly guys who waves kids from in front their house with their cane.

With that said.

*Swings cane violently*.

Plus, JB & Spud don't have to flip the bill for the wiki bandwidth.