Latest revision as of 13:14, 20 March 2017

Welcome to The Bunker! This page is for discussion about the BoC Wiki itself: policies, structures, rules, ideas, suggestions, etc. This page is inspired by Wikipedia's Village Pump, which serves a similar purpose there.

Introductions[edit]

Hello, I'm Moebius. I am also on WATMM and Twoism (with the same username) as well as the Yahoo! group (as pimlottc). I first heard BoC around early 1997 and have been a strong fan since MHtRtC. My wiki background comes from using Wikipedia, where I try to keep the BoC pages under control (also as pimlottc). I'm a bit of a perfectionist, so I would love for the BoC wiki to one day become the most comprehensive repository of all things BoC. Moebius 20:25, 31 August 2006 (CEST)

Hi there, I'm Fredd-E. I'm active on WATMM, Twoism, xltronic and slsk (username: Fredd-E) as well as the Yahoo! group (username: freddd_e) and YouTube (username: Yawg81). I discovered BoC when Geogaddi came out and I am still deeply intrigued by the mysterious depth of their music. As you all know I'm also the new maintainer of the former davidac boc pages.Fredd-E 11:16, 2 September 2006 (CEST)

Formatting[edit]

I come from Wikipedia, so I am used to many of the ways they do things. In general, I think we should follow their guidelines in terms of style and formatting. In particular, WikiProject Music (and sub projects for albums and songs) has some good guidelines for how to format albums, songs, track listings, etc. In general:

• Album titles go in italics: Music Has the Right to Children, Trans Canada Highway
• Song titles go in "quotes": "Roygbiv", "Farewell Fire", "Chinook"

Take a look at those guidelines. If we can all agree with them, I think we should make them standard for the wiki. Moebius 20:36, 31 August 2006 (CEST)

I've begun fashioning my pages after Kaini's excellent "You Could Feel the Sky" article. This has more to do with organization than formatting issues, but I like the look of his page, and I feel a certain uniformity will keep the wiki professional-looking and navigable. Any problems with this approach? thedisavowed 20:48, 16 January 2008 (CEST)

I agree that this formatting approach seems optimum. However, I would like to suggest adding

a section for technical references, as well as cultural. Also, it may be best to include

basic track information at the top of the page, such as the release it appeared on and track

length. See my page on Chromakey Dreamcoat for an example. Skytree 3:48 PM,

07 March 2008 (CST)

I've given all the a category. It's easier to keep track of all the templates we use on this wiki. --Fredd-E 00:03, 29 August 2008 (CEST)

To Do[edit]

feel free to add, but also, feel free to remove items as they're completed

Interview pages[edit]

All of the interviews have been merged from the formerbocpages to the wiki. Most of them do lack wikilinks though. Those links should be added. --Fredd-E 23:20, 28 August 2008 (CEST)

Some policy stuff[edit]

At the moment every track on every album page is a wikilink; looking at it realistically, not every track deserves an article. with most tracks, the page is at worst gonna be an infobox, and at best, a one-liner. therefore i propose we restrict track articles to those with lyrics or with notable information (examples: 1969 deserves an article because it has lyrics and some nice cultural references. Aquarius deserves an article because we can mention the connections with the musical Hair, and there's a nice article on religious/hippy/acid connotations there. but Ready Let's Go, or Into the Rainbow Vein? imho, if there were articles on those, they would remain eternally stubs. --Kaini 04:33, 3 September 2006 (CEST)

Yes but we've agreed at the Formatting section that we put the song titles in quotes and make an article of it. You never know what someone is able to find about any given track. And we need to put all the tracks like this because of the consistency. It's too hard to decide which tracks deserve to have a link and which don't; that's too subjective imho. --Fredd-E 09:07, 3 September 2006 (CEST)

I don't see why there isn't material for every song, or at least most songs. Take a look at Fredd's existing pages about comments and lyrics, there's something there nearly every track. If we don't have a page for individual songs, those are going to go into the album pages and they'll start to get really long. This way we can have a clean seperation between comments on tracks and comments on albums as a whole. And even if some songs remain eternal red links or stubs, what's the problem with this? At the least, it's a consistent way to do things, and if in the future there is something to add for one of these tracks, having it linked is a good hint to a contributor of where the comment should go. --Moebius 15:51, 4 September 2006 (CEST)

Almost all tracks do have a proper internal wikipage now; regardless of wether there is decent info about the track or not. It definitely needs to be like this for the consistency. --Fredd-E 23:22, 28 August 2008 (CEST)

Songs or tracks?[edit]

Should we use the term songs or tracks? Songs is usually the general term used for most music, and is the term Wikipedia uses, but it doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense for BoC, since there isn't really singing in any of them. Moebius 16:05, 4 September 2006 (CEST)

I think they can be interchangeable. What do you think, Fredd? --Thedisavowed 16:16, 4 September 2006 (CEST)

Within the text of article, yes, it doesn't matter. But I mean more in terms of categories, infoboxes, articles names, etc. Here we should pick one and be consistent about it. Moebius 16:33, 4 September 2006 (CEST)

I'm okay with either Tracks or Tracklisting. For now I've edited it all to Tracks due to consistency. Fredd-E 23:47, 4 September 2006 (CEST)

But uhm Tracklisting isn't correct English so I guess we better stick to Tracks then ;-) Fredd-E 23:48, 4 September 2006 (CEST)