Category talk:Track Numbers

From This Might Be A Wiki

12-23-04: This page needs cleanup. Also, I put a discussion note in the old Track Numbers page, and I don't know where that is anymore. --My Evil Twin's Twin

Should we include Long Tall Weekend, seeing as it was a new studio album of new material? -Magbatz 16:59, 11 Nov 2005 (EST)

Seeing as how TMBG called The Spine Their 10th album, I'd say not.

Exactly my point, if you assume that they're saying it was their 10th studio album, and not including STD or Live!! from NYC etc. I'm just not really sure of how to edit the template, but could someone (or Brad, if only admins can edit those kinds of things) please change it? Magbatz 01:06, 18 Dec 2005 (EST)

Looks like you did it fine, but where do we stop? Should we add Almanac and Venue Songs? What about Indestructible Object and Back To Skull? I'm not trying to put you down, you did a good job, I'm just trying to be realistic, or at least bring up the issue.
I really don't know. I always considered LTW a studio album all its own, consisting of all new songs and with a full-length-ish track listing. I also didn't really think Severe Tire Damage should have been on there, but that's just me. Maybe, if one of us got bored enough or the wiki robot thing could do it, we could have a primary track listing for just the big full-length studio albums or whatever, and then underneath, a secondary, more complete listing-- if it would be worth it to go through all of that. Magbatz 01:06, 18 Dec 2005 (EST)
Maybe 1a, 1b, etc. for EPs that are between albums? And maybe a, b, etc. for those Demo Tapes. -Ecks
Actually, i really like Ecks' suggestion, now that I've given it some thought. What does anyone else think? --Duke33 23:12, 18 Dec 2005 (EST)
Or, we could list them seperately. But that may be too much trouble.

Alright, so we mentioned it before in that big argument/conversation about instrumentals, and although I think I might have been the person to start it in the first place, how about we remove the track numbers thing from each song page. I mean, as long as the actual track pages stay intact, then there's really no use in going to the Wicked Little Critta page and seeing that it's track 14 when one more click to the Mink Car page could tell you that. The reasoning for putting it on the song pages before, I think, was for the novelty of knowing that a song like Ana Ng was the first track on an album, which might seem a little more significant, but really, having an album page to say which track was first and a track page to say which songs TMBG have put first is enough, and it's just not all that important on the main song pages. And plus, probably less than half (that's a guess-- I have absolutely no clue) of the songs actually do have places on the major release CDs and a bunch just have nothing after the "Track Number:" field. (Or, if we decide to keep the track numbers on the song pages, can I suggest for the final songs on albums, that next to where it says what number track the song is, put in parentheses the last track thing. So, Space Suit would be "Track Number: 38 (Last Track).) So there was my paragraph-sized ramble-- thoughts?

The first thought in my mind is that your non-breaking space should be between your tilde and your name if you want it to keep them together. My second thought is of agreement in the matter of track numbers on pages. It is useless on most song pages, but I think we should keep the actual track pages, they can be quite interesting. The only thing now is that they have no exposure. Oh, and I think these converguments are great for productivity. Maybe you could start one on creating crew pages or, more relevantly, the STD/LTW debate (if that's still going around anymore). --badqueso 21:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the signature suggestion-- I don't remember why I added that first space in the first place. I'm sure there was some reason. But if others agree with the remove-from-song-pages thing, then here are some initial thoughts for how to expose/link to the track number category:
  • on the applicable album pages (the ones whose tracks are included in the track numbers pages), we make the track listing link the the corresponding track number pages. ie, for The Spine:
1. Experimental Film
2. Spine
But the problem with that is that the number list won't align right, like what happened with Factory Showroom and Token Back To Brooklyn. I don't think this would have any solution like FS (it was some <ol> thing I'd never heard of) but we could make some kind of table thing, but without any visible cell borders or anything like that. Seems manageable-ish.
  • just list it on each album page, saying above or below the track listing something like "if you wanna see the trends for track listings see Category:Track Numbers", or something
  • do nothing and let people find it on their own
I think scraping the Track Number field off all song pages is a good idea, and leaving the Track pages exactly as they are now should be fine as well. I've just got to ask Duke if he's okay with getting rid of the field, and then I'll get Q-Bot to get rid of them. :) -CapitalQtalk ♪ 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Brad gave me the go-through, here goes Q-Bot. -CapitalQtalk ♪ 03:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing "The Else" Track Numbers[edit]

We need to fill in the track for album #14 (The Else) as a blank entry. Jon - can you fill it in on the missing tracks, with your bot? --Duke33 11:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Should we add BOOK to the track lists? we have the full track listing now

We might as well

Heck, I could do it, no need for bot work, there would be a lot in the recent changes, but it'd be worth it for this

--jimmyZenShinsThreeHundred11 (talk)

Thanks guys! --jimmyZenShinsThreeHundred11 (talk)