This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LocalNet (talk | contribs) at 19:18, 21 January 2017 (→Reversions: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:18, 21 January 2017 by LocalNet (talk | contribs) (→Reversions: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| [REDACTED] | Google Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Google_2015_logo.svg){kind=link}
Replacing Software Infobox with online music service infobox?
This is what the iTunes page uses, and this article isn't specifically about the app but rather the service as a whole, no? The Template:Infobox online music service has a lot of parameters that are specifically geared towards a music service like this.
- Template:Infobox online music service looks pretty good. --Pmsyyz (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Matching and uploading
"Users can upload (or have matched) up to 20,000 of their songs" is a false statement. Even if true it would be badly written, as brackets are for asides and not for important parts of the sentence. But it is false. You upload all your tracks. That's the only option you have - upload. Not upload or have matched, just upload. This should be obvious, because how would google ever match a track if it didn't have your file uploaded to compare with its database? So the users who keep on undoing my edit are doing so either because they don't understand this very simple notion, or because they just like reverting.
Also, in automatically create a playlist of "songs that go well together", the "quote" is patronising, implying that a reader might not know what a playlist is supposed to be. It's also biased, suggesting that instant mix will always find "songs that go well together" when in fact no playlist generator can do that. The phrase was restored firstly with the bizarre edit summary "a playlist doesnt necessarily have to be songs that go well together" and then later because it was "accurate". Having been copied and pasted with no errors is not a criterion which we use to decide whether to keep a quote or not. Being patronising, biased and unnecessary is, though, a criterion for removal. 200.83.101.199 (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- If all tracks get uploaded, then how do you explain matching making it far quicker for songs to appear in your library? And do you have any reliable sources to support your version? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/1075570 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.101.199 (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
- That was of no help whatsoever. If you want articles that actually differentiate adding matched songs to your library from uploading them, check the following: Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Supported File Types confusion
The list of supported file types is for supported formats for uploading to the cloud, and files of all non-MP3 formats will be converted to MP3 on upload. Since Google Play Music is a store and streaming service first and foremost, I think the Supported File Types field comes across as a little confusing, since anything you'll ever download or stream from the service, including tracks you've uploaded yourself will be in MP3 format, no FLAC, OGG or WAV files are ever actually stored on Google's servers. "Note: Each music file can be up to 300 MB. When a file is converted to an MP3, the 300 MB limit applies to the converted MP3 file." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fisk0 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Reversions
Hi @Y2kcrazyjoker4: Obviously you and I have very conflicting opinions about how this article should look. Instead of potentially turning into an edit war, I'd like to have a peaceful discussion about it. First off, I genuinely see the benefit of having subsections in the History sections for things like when the paid streaming plan and YouTube integrations were announced. Those things received separate media attention from the original launch of the service, and serve a purpose for being distinguished in the article. Same with History of geographic availability. Not all countries were live at launch, and I think the ongoing coverage deserves its subsection. Regarding the second infobox, it reflects the software itself, and not the streaming service, which is covered by the first infobox. Thoughts? LocalNet (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Categories: