This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk | contribs) at 21:34, 25 January 2017 (→Reversions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:34, 25 January 2017 by Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk | contribs) (→Reversions)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Google Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
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)
- Going to assume silence means consensus and add back the history subsections. LocalNet (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@Y2kcrazyjoker4: I genuinely want us to work collaboratively on this project. That's what Misplaced Pages is - a collaborative project. I initially made my edits, and I was reverted. I accepted that and came to this talk page seeking discussion, as per WP:BRD. A few days passed without any responses, and as per WP:SILENCE, I was allowed to re-add my edits. I then did so. At this point, the article was default to my edit - the silence means consensus effectively validated my edit as the official one rather than it being a bold edit needing reversion. I then encourage you to come here to talk, which you defy by reverting me again. From the start of all this, you called my edited page "just degraded", and I find that both offensive and inappropriate. I am spending my free time trying to improve Misplaced Pages, and the least I expect is for other editors to be able to appreciate that even if they don't agree with the edit. But back on point, you seemingly refuse to come here and talk. Why? I am trying to reach out to you here, I really am, because I believe we are both acting in good faith, but we have wildly different views on how to do that. I made my points above about my edit and was fully ready to get feedback here, but you went ahead and reverted me with explanation in the edit summary, possibly encouraging WP:WAR. On Misplaced Pages, we need to be able to sit down and discuss with each other. I am willing to make compromises, but you have to make compromises too. Can I now, please, get a proper answer here from you?
Also, based on what I have written here, your edit now is the bold one, and I am going to revert it until we reach an agreement here. The reason I am doing that, is to leave an edit summary pointing, again, to this talk page. Last time I tried writing here, you didn't respond, so I am not even sure you pay attention unless I make it clear in an edit. I will also be writing on your talk page to let you know that I want your attention here. I want to follow the established protocols rather than having to literally shout across the world to get you to talk to me. So please, I am asking you to come here, let's have a talk, reach an informed agreement, and then decide on the final result. Is that too much to ask? LocalNet (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see why every piece of information 1.) needs to be its own paragraph and/or 2.) needs its own subsection heading. You haven't really explained that much beyond "I want my edits, let's collaborate". I would read over Misplaced Pages:Summary style for a primer on how to order article content and how to structure it. That page says, "Longer articles are split into sections, each usually several good-sized paragraphs long. Subsectioning can increase this amount. Ideally, many of these sections will eventually provide summaries of separate articles on the subtopics covered in those sections". Seeing as how this is not a very long article, there is no need to separate content to the degree that you are doing. In fact, I find it completely unnecessary and unsightly to see all these headings for what is essentially one sentence of information. Furthermore, the article order now simply makes no sense. As a reader, if I wanted to find out information on a music streaming service, I would either logically expect the history of it to be first or to have information on its features/operation first, not device availability. Look at Pandora Radio or Tidal (service). Furthermore, the phrase "device availability" implies for me that very specific models of electronic devices either can or cannot use the service (e.g. iPad 5, Google Pixel, Chromebook 2015, etc). If you want to describe the service's availability, you should do so in terms of "platforms", because that is how it is offered (e.g. web, Android, iOS). 21:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)