Talk:Google Play Music/Archives/2017

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 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)

I genuinely want us to work collaboratively on this project. That's what Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 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)


 * Hi. Thank you for finally coming to talk here. Before I say anything else, let me just say that I gave details on why I thought subsections were important for some of the content in my original talk page post above. I don't understand how you summarize me giving those explanations as "I want my edits, let's collaborate". But guess what, even if I had written just that, it would still warrant a reply, which I didn't get. And because you didn't write anything back, that puts us in this position. From the very start of all this, you've had a negative attitude towards my edits ("just degrading"), and I just want to repeat what I wrote on your talk page about how actually being able to be friendly towards other editors' work can be essential in this place. Having read Summary style and Manual of Style/Layout, I see that short information should generally not have its own subsection. I did not know this during my initial edit, and it would have been helpful enough if you had just easily linked to those pages rather than calling the result of my work degraded. I assumed the focus here would be on making it easy for readers to find specific information, but Wikipedia is rather focused on the amount of text. Although I disagree with that, I put my personal opinion aside and I want to follow the guidelines, and as such, I agree that subsectioning different historical points becomes ineffective for Wikipedia. In regards to the name "Device availability", I do agree "Platforms" would be more appropriate. Finally, this conflict was solved thanks to three posts in less than 24 hours on the talk page, instead of a week with edit wars. In the future, please seek the talk page before people have to almost literally scream across the world to get you to discuss with them. And, I will repeat this once again, avoid calling people's work bad. It's absolutely fine to disagree, but if editors write those kinds of messages, Wikipedia is going to lose contributors, and that's not good.


 * I will now change the page. LocalNet (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Some Albums and Tracks unavailable due to Monetary Gain
Some albums are either removed entirely (such as Guardians Of The Galaxy [1]) or just selected tracks (such as from DEADPOOL - tracks 1, 4, 8, 17) go missing from being accessible. This is most likely due to capitalism - Guardians went off being accessible right before the sequel came out, ensuring LOTS of album sales at about $10 each. You may find accessibility different, this is happening in AU at least. These are the only albums I've seen do this, but might be more. Worth adding the imperfection in the service. It isn't all perfect. (This comes from a SUBSCRIBER. I only stay to kill YouTube ads and because killing the service and returning increases the cost from $9.99 to $12.99 a month! I got in early.) - 58.179.253.89 (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not worth adding. Music is added/removed all the time as artists/record companies negotiate what work to make available for sale/streaming on digital services. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 15:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)