Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:08, 8 August 2008 [1].
List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock edit
This is probably the most complicated of the Guitar Hero lists (due to the type of gameplay in the game, and the amount of downloadable songs) but it is consistent with the other GH lists (or more specifically, recent reformatting to clean this list has been used in the other GH lists so that they are consistent with each other). Note that the downloadable content section will continue to expand likely through the end of this year, but the format is set and not expected to be a problem when new tracks are added. --MASEM 16:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose because majornelson.com, Twitter, Joystiq, Kotaku, and wowwiki.com are not reliable sources. Weirdo with a Beardo (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:VG/S for more information on sources relating to video games. Major Nelson's blog is noted there. The author of the Twitter piece cited is a notable reliable source. Same for Joystiq and Kotaku. wowwiki is not used as a source in this list. —Giggy 13:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been able to remove or replace the twitter, wowwiki, joystiq, and kotaku reference links (ec with the above, some of those were easy to replace). However, on majornelson, Larry Hyrb is VP for Xbox Live material, so he has the dates and other information for releases on XBox Live. His "Major Nelson" blog is not done as part of his job, but on his own time. Thus, it is not the best source for certain types of information but is appropriate for release dates and contents of the various song packs on the service. Now, if these are still a problem, I should be able to replace them but I don't believe this to be absolutely needed. But if you feel they have to be, I'll do it. --MASEM 13:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- No bold links in the lead please.
- Can we refrain from starting lists with "The following is a list of "... use your imagination to come up with something more catchy?
- "music video game " linked twice in two sentences.
- Is " music video game video games" really necessary?
- "To date, there " what date? As of July 2008, ...
- "There are also four songs exclusive downloadable songs " doesn't make sense.
- " One other downloadable song was only available for a limited time." for what platform(s)?
- "These songs are arranged in eight sequential tiers based on their relative difficulty, and the player(s) must complete some or all of the songs in the tier (based on the career difficulty selected), including the Encore, to open up the next tier." tier is used three times (I think) in one sentence, makes for clunky reading.
- "different Encore songs than " different from.
- Avoid small text in the notes.
- Order refs numerically unless there's a good reason not to do that.
- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A editor, in good faith, had jus changed the lead from the non-bold/non-"the following" approach, but that has been fixed; the other points mentioned in writing style have been corrected. I took out the small notes. However, I don't know what you mean on the numerically ordered references; the article uses standard WP referencing system , and yes, I see there's a few refs in the bonus song section that look out of order, but that's because its the same refs used earlier. Unless there's something else, then if you can explain where you see the problem so that I can try to fix it. --MASEM 13:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm talking about "Track Pack[17][15]" where I'd prefer to see "Track Pack[15][17]" please. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A editor, in good faith, had jus changed the lead from the non-bold/non-"the following" approach, but that has been fixed; the other points mentioned in writing style have been corrected. I took out the small notes. However, I don't know what you mean on the numerically ordered references; the article uses standard WP referencing system , and yes, I see there's a few refs in the bonus song section that look out of order, but that's because its the same refs used earlier. Unless there's something else, then if you can explain where you see the problem so that I can try to fix it. --MASEM 13:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "3 "Boss Battle" songs, 6 co-op career exclusive songs," MOS:NUM says to write out numbers under 10
- WP:ACCESS says not to use small fonts
- footnotes [a], [b], and [c] of the first table should ideally be in the same column
Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Numbers have been spelled out, and notes a and b are moved (throughout the list where applicable). I will note that ACCESS doesn't say anything against using small fonts, just that one should not use the FONT tag or CSS (which was being used here and has been removed) to define them instead using SMALL/BIG to adjust sizes. I will note that without sizing, the 3rd table will likely be limited by the page width and may have some odd formatting for those with narrow windows. --MASEM 00:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm.. It used to. It's so that hard-of-sight users don't have to strain to read the screen. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do note I took out the sizing here by any means, so it's all at normal font size. --MASEM 06:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is 90% size for the font really going to cause anyone to strain their eyes? It was put in mostly to make the list look less dense and make the table more manageable in size. And I think 90% is reasonable to still having the text be readable at the same time. As for the footnotes A, B, C being in different columns - that is because the information they are supplementing or indicating notes for are relevant to those columns. The note about a song being re-recorded for GH3 was put in the Master Recording column because such an item directly impacts whether a song qualifies to be called a Master Recording vs. a Cover Version. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looked a lot smaller than 90%. And it made the reference letters almost invisible. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a feeling it's browser dependent so it shouldn't be used. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looked a lot smaller than 90%. And it made the reference letters almost invisible. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is 90% size for the font really going to cause anyone to strain their eyes? It was put in mostly to make the list look less dense and make the table more manageable in size. And I think 90% is reasonable to still having the text be readable at the same time. As for the footnotes A, B, C being in different columns - that is because the information they are supplementing or indicating notes for are relevant to those columns. The note about a song being re-recorded for GH3 was put in the Master Recording column because such an item directly impacts whether a song qualifies to be called a Master Recording vs. a Cover Version. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do note I took out the sizing here by any means, so it's all at normal font size. --MASEM 06:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm.. It used to. It's so that hard-of-sight users don't have to strain to read the screen. Matthew Edwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Numbers have been spelled out, and notes a and b are moved (throughout the list where applicable). I will note that ACCESS doesn't say anything against using small fonts, just that one should not use the FONT tag or CSS (which was being used here and has been removed) to define them instead using SMALL/BIG to adjust sizes. I will note that without sizing, the 3rd table will likely be limited by the page width and may have some odd formatting for those with narrow windows. --MASEM 00:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.