Wikia

LyricWiki

Talk:Community Portal/Archive/2010 01

1,916,874pages on
this wiki

Back to page | < LyricWiki talk:Community Portal | Archive

Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current LyricWiki talk page.
LyricWiki talk archive for Community Portal
<< Nov – Dec 2009 Jan – May 2010 Jun – Dec 2010 >>


Who changed the navigation on the left?

Waaaah all the really important links are missing now^^ Please change back or at least the link to Community-Portal should be in the navigation again (maybe instead of multi-upload). - Chris 15:25, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

Ooops sorry, I didn't notice the new place. One of my scripts renames the items into the German terms, and because of the new position it changed "Hilfe" into "Künstler". But where's the "top-users" menu-item gone? - Chris 20:01, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
On an almost related note, regarding the navigation on the left, could a link to the Documentation and Policy be placed within 'Help'?  Ñôīέ2çяȳTalk 22:25, January 11, 2010 (UTC)**nudge**
Wow, you're right, I didn't expect that point could ever miss as it's the main-base. So, yep, link please, mysterious navigation-changer =D. - Chris 22:33, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
P.S.: @ all - there are two now userboxes^^ {{Userboxes/LW:PN}} and {{Userboxes/LW:PN2}} ;)
Hey, sorry I forgot to tell, I found it: click on the "Help" item itself, it's a link... Same for "Artists" and "Songs": instead of clicking on any submenu-item just click the item. - Chris 18:35, February 14, 2010 (UTC)


It's an Instrumental except for two words

(moved here from Lwt talk page)

The lyrics to Les Claypool:Robot Chicken are "It's alive" - that's it. The rest of the song is an Instrumental. I entered the lyrics as "It's alive" and on the next line {{Instrumental}}. Why did you remove the "It's alive" line? Does an instrumental have to be completely without lyrics. Even if it is only two words? -- Rossetyler 05:08, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Rossetyler.
Please don't be too severe to Lwt - in the end it's only bare cyborg and does nothing but was told to do :).
That's more my, not Lwt's fault. But truth to tell, even now I don't know how should I retrain Lwt, because it's current behavior is strictly based on current Instrumental template documentation. If text between lyrics tags contains nothing but short text, containing word "instrumental" ("--instrumental--"/"(instrumental)"/"instrumental song" etc.), then all is clear - this text should be replaced by {{Instrumental}}, assigning this song to hidden Category:Instrumental and songFooter language parameter should be removed at all. But if this part between tags contains any meaningful text and Lwt is able to detect a language of this text (this text may be in any other, non-english, language), SF.language parameter should be added imo. So, - can we tell then that this record is still "Instrumental"? I think it would be nice to ask for other admins/bureaucrats opinion. Then I'd retrain Lwt accordingly. Thx, --Senvaikis (talk) 08:38, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
I understand the nature of Lwt but also understand that there is a "man behind the curtain". I see from Instrumental template documentation that use of this template implies 100% instrumental. I would like to bend this definition to support songs that are mostly instrumental.
When you say 'If text between lyrics tags contains nothing but short text, containing [the] word "instrumental"', what do you (that is, Lwt) mean by "short". Obviously, by Lwt's measure, "It's alive" is short but can you put a number on it? I was thinking of subverting Lwt's measurement by inserting a "long" comment. Would this work? How long would the comment have to be? Rossetyler 15:10, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
I would argue that if the song contains two words, or even one word, it's not an instrumental, based on a strict interpretation of the definition found at Wikipedia under Instrumental: "An instrumental is a musical composition or recording without lyrics or any other sort of vocal music; all of the music is produced by musical instruments."
Thus, in between the lyrics tags should be the two words, period -- no Instrumental template. The documentation for the Instrumental template seems to agree with me; the issue mentioned there is that the presence of the Instrumental template suppresses the Language parameter. The reference there is to "multi-part songs with both lyrics and instrumental sections"; I think the thought was of songs such as "Layla," but it would seem to apply to "Robot Chicken" as well -- it's just that the "part" of the song that contains lyrics is very short.
I definitely think that in cases like this, Lwt should be removing the Instrumental template, not the lyrics. Trainman 16:36, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
I understand the strict definitions. Per the Wikipedia article you reference, I am talking about borderline cases. They reference songs like The Champs:Tequila and The Surfaris:Wipe Out. Strict definitions aside, these types of songs are still considered instrumentals. So, how is this best reflected in the LW lyrics? I submit that the lyrics should contain the few lyrics that exist and still be tagged as an instrumental. I tried my best to do this (as described above) but my efforts were undone by Lwt. This should be supported. How? Rossetyler 17:02, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
Hm, what about this song? Scooter:Scooter Del Mar (Kingnee - Youtube Music video on YouTube) - Chris 22:44, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
Are you asking my opinion on whether this is an Instrumental or not? My opinion is yes (as, evidently, is the editor of this page) and my opinion is that it has lyrics (I don't understand them but that is a different problem). Perhaps my opinion is swayed because I can't understand the lyrics (is the singer is using his voice as a musical instrument?). I can see how my opinion is subjective and might differ from another listener's. In any case, it doesn't matter what my opinion is on this particular song or any other. Rather, it matters that I be able to express my opinion. In turn, the LW community is free to disagree with me and we can discuss it. My point is that LW should support the expression of my (or anyone else's) opinion in this regard. LW should support the notion of a borderline instrumental. I can't fathom an argument against this. So, again I ask, if not the way I tried to express this notion then how? Rossetyler 01:06, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
No help? OK, I guess I'll try adding a comment to the lyrics of this so, hopefully, Lwt will think it is more than "short". It sure would be nice to get some guidance here. Rossetyler 19:06, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
The editor of that page was me^^ When I added the album parameters with my scripts I noticed the horrible orthography. I searched for the YT video and found out it had no lyrics at all (so the submitted ones were definitely wrong...), except for these whispered "Scooter Del Mar" three or four times. I think, it's perfectly OK to call it "instrumental". Why? Because the lyrics have no important content, they do not change the meaning or explain the topic or the sense of the song. This is how I decide. Maybe this can be your personal guideline in future as well, although it won't become a "hard rule" as that might lead to editwars (important or not important) - Chris 21:32, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Back to the left: Sorry, I have to disagree with you, Chris...I say any recognizable words absolutely do count as "important content," and therefore, what's in between the lyrics tags for that song should be...

Scooter Del Mar
Scooter Del Mar
Scooter Del Mar

...or however many times it's heard. Maybe it's because I was employed as a closed-captioner for years? I wouldn't have left anything like that out of the captions, no matter how pointless I might have thought it was.

On another note, it seems to me that identifying something as a "borderline instrumental" is pretty well taken care of by having a lyrics box that has only a few words in it. Perhaps a new template needs to be created (along with guidelines for what constitutes as "borderline instrumental") if you feel it's necessary. But whatever the case, I really don't think the current Instrumental template should be between the lyrics tags if there are any lyrics along with it -- if for no other reason than, as I mentioned earlier, it suppresses the display of the Language parameter. Trainman 22:27, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

All instrumentals (borderline or otherwise) should be distinguished from non instrumentals. A lyrics box with only a few words in it does not imply a borderline instrumental as a very short song with very few lyrics is probably not a borderline instrumental (like this ten second song). Again, the discussion of what is and what isn't a borderline instrumental isn't what this topic is about (as far as I am concerned). This topic is about how one expresses the notion of a borderline instrumental.
For now, the only way that I have found to express it is to have both the words and the Instrumental template in the lyrics. I am perfectly happy with this expression. The only thing that makes me upset is that Lwt strips the few words out if it there are sufficiently few - turning a borderline instrumental into a pure one. I would be happy if Lwt did not do this. However, since I do not have the power to change Lwt in this regard, I need a work-around. What I am trying is to add some comment fluff to the lyrics to fool Lwt into leaving everything alone. I would like to know if this will work (guidance please!). If someone thinks a new template is necessary to support this (I don't) then that's fine with me but I am not holding my breath waiting for one. Again, I would be happy if Lwt would just leave my expression alone. Rossetyler 01:05, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's not a problem for Lwt to leave untouched any expression between lyrics tags along with {{Instrumental}}. But being a cyborg (despite a "man behind the curtain"), it requires strict and unambiguous definitions to follow. You shouldn't be a cyborg to understand that current {{Instrumental}} definition makes coexistence of any lyrics (irrespective of its length) and {{Instrumental}} just impossible. If song has lyrics, then it likely may be attributed to some language, maybe even translated. But {{Instrumental}} suppresses sf.language! So, while definitions aren't changed, we have only two alternatives: if we want to declare song as instrumental, - no lyrics (and languages); if we want to show lyrics (and naturally - attribute it to some language) - then no {{Instrumental}}. I'd lean to the Trainman's oppinion (and formerly Lwt used to behave according it), but I understand Rossetyler position too (strange that Will haven't joined this discussion - he's a main "steward" of Pink Floyd namespace, containing quite a few objects of this discussion, and he would join to Rossetyler imo).
I intentionally left this discussion for a while, waiting if someone will notice the main conceptual problem here. Instrumental is musical category, while language - linguistic. So, if we want to legitimize instrumental songs with lyrics, we must separate these categories, changing {{Instrumental}} definition. As for me, I'll try to reinstruct Lwt not to touch such "shady" pages for a while, as I did with PF...;)--Senvaikis (talk) 10:18, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

How about this? - Chris 18:45, January 20, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that continued use of {{Instrumental}} for borderline instrumentals will require a change in the definition of {{Instrumental}} and presentation (language must not be suppressed if there are lyrics but may (should?) be otherwise). Is this such a big deal? Can't this definition and behavior be changed? I'm sure that they can but realize there may be some cost that I am not aware of.
Chris seems to be suggesting a different template or instantiation pattern. The only problem I have with this would be an implicit invalidation of where {{Instrumental}} is already used with lyrics to express the notion of a borderline instrumental. I know that I have already used {{Instrumental}} this way in a number of places (Lwt has found a few of them but not all of them). It seems to me that bending the definition of {{Instrumental}} and presentation behavior is the best way forward.
Chris' particular example frightens me a little because I don't want anything to inhibit expressions like lyrics-instrumental, instrumental-lyrics, lyrics-instrumental-lyrics or even lyrics-instrumental-lyrics-instrumental. All of these expressions are meaningful and can be made using {{Instrumental}} template instantiations and relative placement of the lyrics.
In any case, I also find it very important that the fact that a song was tagged as an instrumental (borderline or otherwise) be retained in unformatted output. Right now, {{Instrumental}} is presented as " Instrumental" on a single line by itself (note leading space). This sets this line apart from any lyrics due to the fact that lyrics cannot be indented. I happen to have scripts that keep the lyrics to my songs in sync with LW and I can easily search for instrumentals in my collection by depending on this characteristic. I often use songs as soundtracks to my slideshows and it is very important to me to be able to locate instrumentals easily. rossetyler January 20, 2010 (UTC)

"expressions like lyrics-instrumental, instrumental-lyrics, lyrics-instrumental-lyrics or even lyrics-instrumental-lyrics-instrumental"

What do you mean? Are you talking about the order of lyrics and template(s)/where to place the template? - Chris 13:54, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
Yes. A song that has a few introductory lyrics and the rest is instrumental would have the lyrics and {{Instrumental}} template ordered as such (lyrics-instrumental). Similarly, a song with trailing lyrics (instrumental-lyrics). Instrumentals that are punctuated with lyrics may have many lyrics and instrumental sections - again, ordered as they appear in the song. rossetyler 14:20, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
I see three possible outcomes for this problem. One is changing the definition/behaviour of {{Instrumental}}, two is creating a new template ("Instrumental Section" or similar) that can be used to 'tag' a song (add it to a cat) as "partially Instrumental" and also be used in rossetyler's "lyrics-instrumental-lyrics" style markup, and three is abandoning the concept of "partially instrumental" songs.
I am for option two, as it leaves in tact the old methods set up for instrumentals and the language category (where songs without a language that aren't instrumental can be added to a cat for reference). It also satisfies rossetyler's and others desire to mark a song as an instrumental style song while listing some lyrics.

The template could render as follows, inside the lyrics box:

TrebleClef Instrumental Section

LYRIC-Humbug wordsdeeds 05:05, January 22, 2010 (UTC)


I like this - as long as it could be applied as I have described above.

  • I like the smaller graphic.
  • The {{Instrumental}} definition could then be left alone.
  • Lwt could convert violators of the {{Instrumental}} definition (ones with lyrics) into {{InstrumentalSection}} users - without destroying the lyrics.
  • Presentation behavior of {{Instrumental}} would not change (no language required).
  • Expansion of {{InstrumentalSection}} to plain text would be like that of {{Instrumental}} - that is, " InstrumentalSection" (note leading space) on a line by itself.
  • I think it would be nice to categorize these things as well.
  • Of course, the new template would have to be written and its use defined.

I am not sure that "Section" is the best word but I can't think of a better one. Perhaps a musician could.

The only problem I see with this is misuse. As some may argue I have misused {{Instrumental}}, I can forsee myself arguing that someone has misused {{InstrumentalSection}}. My intent is to be able to categorize borderline instrumentals - not to document short instrumental breaks in a song. I can forsee this future argument yielding the need for another template - perhaps, {{InstrumentalBreak}}. I don't think that Lwt could be made smart enought to convert misused {{InstrumentalSection}}s into {{InstrumentalBreak}}s. But then, what would Lwt convert misused {{Instrumental}}s into? Probably {{InstrumentalSection}} as this would seem to be the next step in a natural (but subjective) progression: {{Instrumental}}, {{InstrumentalSection}}, {{InstrumentalBreak}}.

Personally, I don't see much use for {{InstrumentalBreak}} but I think it is necessary for those that do in order that they not misuse {{InstrumentalSection}}. I don't see much use for categorizing songs with instrumental breaks but I don't think I would argue strongly against it.

I think it would be good to define both an {{InstrumentalSection}} and {{InstrumentalBreak}} and define the subjective guidelines for their respective use.

-- rossetyler 15:08, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Humbug and Rossetyler that this "inline-template" would be the best solution. Yet I want to note some things:
  • I'd call it "Instrumental Part" because "section" sounds way too much like taken from the tech./constr. wordfield.
  • I'm totally against a {{InstrumentalBreak}}, otherwise we'd need it for every solo, and this is definitely too much! Only thing we need is to say that instrumental interludes in songs do not have to be declared as "Instumental Part" or "Instrumental Section" or whatever it'll be called then. That should do.
Lwt should not change any template by judging the length of the lyrics, it is simply too risky.
And to Rossetyler: the size of the treble clef can be chosen freely, just a matter of the second parameter of [[File:TrebleClef.png|12px]].
- Chris 16:43, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
Part may be better than Section yet neither seem to convey the feeling of a borderline instrumental where the instrumental part/sections are the vast majority of the song.
The existance of {{InstrumentalBreak}} does not dictate its use. In fact, I don't think I would ever use it either. Yet this kind of expression is embedded in lyrics all the time. What is important (to me), is by using {{InstrumentalBreak}} anyone is free to express this notion without abusing the notion of {{InstrumentalSection}} (or whatever the borderline instrumental template will be called). To me, this is all about freedom of expression. If you don't like the expression then change it but don't take away the ability to make the expression. -- rossetyler 20:05, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
What do you think about {{InstrumentalPiece}}? This has both the flavor of a whole (an instrumental piece) and a part (piece of an instrumental)? rossetyler 20:44, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
On second thought ... I found a place where I would definitely place an {{InstrumentalBreak}} annotation: The Allman Brothers Band:Whipping Post. This is a very long (24 minute) song with three huge (~4, 11 and 4 minutes - significant and worth mentioning) instrumental breaks in it. I would not call this an {{Instrumental}} nor a (borderline) {{InstrumentalPiece}} but I would definitely annotate it with its three long {{InstrumentalBreak}}s. Again, this all about subjective freedom of expression. -- Rossetyler 08:25, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
I see there are very different ways of how a song can be designed, yet I think we do not have to use more than two templates (one of which is {{Instrumental}}) - this categorising stuff is not sensible to me because it's creating categories just to sort pages in, but not to search after... Well, I'll leave it to you =) - Chris 14:31, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
Categorization of instrumentals and borderline instrumentals is very important to me. Categorization of songs with instrumental breaks would probably not be important to me unless I was the one that was deciding which instrumental breaks are significant. But categorization of songs that begin with the letter A is not important to me either. I see no harm in categorizing such things unless there are technical or resource barriers in the way.
So, if left to me, I would say that there should be support for {{Instrumental}}s, {{InstrumentalPiece}}s and {{InstrumentalBreak}}s as I have described above. However, if truly left to me, none of this stuff would get done as I know little more than how to use templates. If we can reach this consensus in this forum then where do we go from here? -- rossetyler 18:12, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
As one of the "old-timers" on the site, I think that InstrumentalBreak would, indeed, open a can of worms. I think a category of "Instrumental with Incidental Lyrics" would be a nice addition, though, to the Instrumental category.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   05:30, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
Agree to Kiefer --Senvaikis (talk) 07:02, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the consensus is against InstrumentalBreak. That's OK - I would rather lose this battle than lose the war. Does anyone have a problem with an InstrumentalPiece (for describing/categorizing borderline instrumentals) as I have described it above? If not, then what next? --Rossetyler 04:16, January 31, 2010 (UTC)


Non-music tracks

Hey,

I'm currently working on Die Gerd Show. It used to be a radio comedy series, covering several songs with funny lyrics. Yet the album "Greatest Hartz" f. e. contains many of the usual comedy skits as well, so I'm transcribing many tracks that do not contain any music. I do it for reasons of album completeness. Should these tracks be marked by a new {{Completeness}} template ("This track is not a song, it was just submitted for reasons of album completeness")?

Maybe this template could replace/override {{Song}} on these pages, so the tracks do not end up in Category:Songs? - Chris 16:58, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

I recently addressed the same issue on all of the Announcement tracks on The Kinks:Preservation Act 2 (1974). These are spoken interludes (radio announcements) between the music tracks of the album. Also for completeness, I penned the spoken content into LW as {{Song}}s. I think it would be useful to tag and categorize such things but I don't think that the reason for their submission (e.g. completeness) is a good name for the category - the name should better describe their not-a-song nature. I agree that these things are not really "songs" at all even though, I think, all of the attributes of {{Song}}s still apply. Perhaps an appropriately named attribute (NoMusic?) on the {{Song}} template could be used to tag such things and an appropriate presentation method could be made based on this. --rossetyler 19:53, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
Hm yeah meanwhile I think we should leave the song-template on these pages. However you should say farewell to your idea of an attribute ;) A change in any template that is used about 10000000 times is pointless: it would complicate the code for all these pages, just because ~100 need a parameter? This is too dangerous :) We should use only one template for info-text in addition to {{Song}} - Chris 14:30, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
I am sure you are a better judge of the best path forward as I have little knowledge of the LW internal workings. -- rossetyler 18:01, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be acceptable to have a note about the nature of such tracks below the "lyrics" section. Adding a category of "Spoken word" would probably be a nice addition as well.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   05:30, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
MicrophoneThis track consists only of spoken words and is available for reasons of album completeness.

Category:Spoken words

OK? - Chris 08:24, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
I like it. You seem to be suggesting the category be named "Spoken words". Just curious but is there a reason why it wouldn't be "Spoken word"? I see on Wikipedia that there seems to be some distinction between Spoken word and Spoken words. Personally, I think Spoken word is a better fit but I also see that there is some contention on Wikipedia over this use. Just wondering if you gave it any thought. --Rossetyler 17:39, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Another thought: "and is available for reasons of album completeness" almost seems apologetic. I think you can lose this. I think a "Spoken word" performance has just as much right to a home on LW as an Instrumental does. Hmmm... I don't want to open up another can of worms but ... Is there such a thing as a borderline "Spoken word"? ... sorry. --Rossetyler 17:44, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
The "s" behind "word" is an accident^^ I had no idea how to name the category, so I acted on Kiefer's suggestion. Unfortunately I either misread it or couldn't keep it in my mind good enough whilst I was offline.
However, I think "spoken word" isn't the category I wanted to establish, because WP refers to "spoken word" as a certain style of poetry, but what I mean is simply a track that's doesn't contain "lyrics" in the common understanding of the word but consists of a dialogue f. e. Anyhow - I don't know how to call it, so I'll use it in this post, but I hope you got what I meant.
"apologetic" - well, it was meant to be explanatory. You see, the track is not related to any song at all, so usually you would think it has no reason to stay in a lyrics-database. The album might as well simply list these tracks as usual black plaintext. Yet the track is even treated like a song by having a {{Song}} template and lyrics-tags and so on. So the quoted part would be justified by a mixture of three reasons:
  1. Explain, why a track that doesn't deal with music at all is accessible at LyricWiki
  2. Point out the fantastic idea of completeness of albums
  3. Fill a template, that'll be displayed full-width, with text so it's not like a big template for 7 words.
And well no, I can't imagine anything that'd be a "borderline spoken word". Either, the track is obviously not meant to be a song or something comparable to a song (like the skits I referred to in the top-post), or it's not a spoken word. - Chris 16:46, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


You like LW?

And you are happy Sean created it? Then show your love! Sign with your name here - LYRIC-Rumpel 15:49, January 27, 2010 (UTC) I hope it's okay i posted it here ^_^

Already Green check Done by Chris Lol - 17:25, January 27, 2010 (UTC)


Grammys

With the Grammys fast approaching, we were hoping to get the nomination list complete before the end of the week, but it will take some effort (not too much if enough of us pitch in). It seems that we need to complete Fields 5 through 31. For the official list, see Grammy.com. In order to not run into collisions, you probably shouldn't edit a field that has already been started and it might help to list the ones you are working on below this comment. Thanks for any help! --WillMak050389 19:01, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to make as many redlink albums as possible available via MusicBrainz and LWS - Chris 14:58, January 29, 2010 (UTC)


Having a problem with SOAP

I've tried two different programs that download lyrics automatically based on which song is playing in Winamp, and both are telling me "Lyrics not found" no matter which song I play. One of these programs has worked for me before (Luminescence LyricWiki), but doesn't now for some reason. Accurate ID3 tags are present, and the lyrics are present when I search LyricWiki myself from a browser. I'm wondering if someone could tell me if this is a problem with my machine or if there's a problem with LyricWiki's SOAP interface today. Thanks! Equazcion 19:20, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Gratuitous-disclaimer: Automatic lyric-downloading programs aren't licensed & therefore are against our terms of use.
But regarding the SOAP: yes, it's currently down due to high-traffic. LyricWiki is going to be moving to better database servers and the API is planned to be back up sometime on Monday. During the migration, there will be a period if tune that the site is read-only on Monday. This is really unfortunate timing since the API will be down over this whole weekend & the Grammy's are Sunday night so we'll be read-only during the next day... but we outgrew the database server.
-Sean Colombo 01:16, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Good to know it's not my machine. By the way, if these programs are against your terms, why do you advertise them, and without any disclaimer? Just curious..... Equazcion 03:09, January 31, 2010 (UTC)


LyricWiki RIP: Lyrics Truncated by GraceNoteBot

Well, I guess it was inevitable.

I just got alerted from the GraceNoteBot that all of the Van Morrison lyrics have been taken down.

This pretty much means to me that LyricWiki is dead, kaput, no more. Not even resting or pining for the fjords... just dead. I can't get lyrics displayed without visiting LyricWiki directly and any effort I make to share the experience of an artist is subject to being disappeared. Looks like LyricWiki is nothing but a subsidiary of GraceNote.

I guess the suits win again.

Oh well, it was a good ride while it lasted.

Oh, and suits, let it be noted that I refuse to support any artist - through purchase of merchandise, tickets, music, etc - who refuses to publish lyrics and treats fans as thieves.

Admin, please close my account and take my presence off of any instance of certified and/or watching.

Steve 01:51, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...just checked both the Gracenote version and the wiki version of "Moondance," and they're still there. Spurious alert related to the site upgrade earlier? A misunderstanding? Trainman 02:32, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
It's variable from song to song- compare to Van_Morrison:In_The_Forest. Somewhat annoying when you’re trying to Bronze up an album. NYCScribbler 03:36, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, I'd checked a few songs at random and didn't see any that looked like "In the Forest." I am a bit disappointed to find out that this is something that could happen as a result of the Gracenote licensing. Not disappointed enough to storm out immediately and declare the site dead, but I may decide to rethink my amount of participation here in the future. Trainman 04:11, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Take a look here. If that's only a start of GN plans realization, then it's definitelly a finish of LW (as a wiki) or at least of my participation in such mockery. --Senvaikis (talk) 06:46, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
So will the same thing happen to ALL song pages that don't have counterparts in the GN namespace? I suppose Sean doesn't really have much of a choice in the matter, but any sort of advance warning would have been nice. — 6×9 (Talk) 07:22, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
Woah, yeah... sorry guys that I didn't give a better forewarning about this. I only mentioned it on my "Status" and on mIRC (which generally has < 10 people in it). That was dumb of me. Anywho, I gave the detailed response below. This does suck, but it's fortunately a very small percentage of lyrics.
-Sean Colombo 20:01, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


GracenoteBot's takedowns

What's going on

Just wanted to keep you guys in the loop. GracenoteBot is currently processing the Gracenote takedowns list. This is a list of songs which Gracenote has attempted to get licensing for, but has failed. The list is just under 17,000 items in total with a fair amount of repeats. For example:
Aerosmith:Jamie's_Got_A_Gun
Aerosmith:Jamies_Got_A_Gun
Aerosmith:Jane's_Got_A_Gun
Aerosmith:Janey's_Got_A_Gun
Aerosmith:Janie's_Got_A_Gun
Aerosmith:Janie's_Got_A_Gun
Aerosmith:Janie's_Got_A_Gun_(Live)
Aerosmith:Janie's_Got_A_Gun
Aerosmith:Janie's_Gotta_Gun
Aerosmith:Janie%ABs_Gota_Gun
Aerosmith:Jenny's_Got_A_Gun
Aerosmith:Water_Song_-_Janie's_Got_A_Gun
Aerosmith:Water_Song_/_Janie's_Got_A_Gun
Aerosmith:Water_Song/_Janie's_Got_A_Gun
Aerosmith:Water_Song/Janie's_Got_A_Gun
Aerosmith:Water_Song/Janie's_Got_A_Gun

That is 17 items on the list, but only one LyricWiki page. This is not the norm, but happens occasionally in the list. In addition, there are some songs on the list which we didn't have in our database anyway. With these two factors, I'm estimating that processing the entire takedown list will remove about 1% of the current pages. Each week, we receive update files from Gracenote which will be processed by GracenoteBot and will contain new songs, changes to songs in the "Gracenote:" namespace, and a couple of takedowns (in the last month, there have been about 3 or 4 pages per week).

This is clearly not ideal (read: totally lame), and we will be exploring why some of these couldn't be licensed and LyricWiki will attempt to create its own licensing with these publishers although that's an up-hill battle with a low probability of success.

Tracking the damage

To keep track of songs that are being taken down, you can watch GracenoteBot's contributions or look at the full list on Category:Unlicensed Lyrics.

What can we do?

  • If you personally know any of the artists on the list (or are one of the artists) and think that licensing these lyrics may be an option, please contact Wikia to work something out.
  • If you are a fan of a band whose songs are on this list, please reach out to them and ask them to work with LyricWiki to get their songs licensed. For the most part, artists want their fans to have access to their lyrics... in general, they would probably also prefer that they earn some additional income when that happens rather than their fans having to go to spammy sites which don't pay royalties.

If you have any more ideas, please feel free to leave them here.
Thank you,
-Sean Colombo 18:51, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think most of my questions have been answered. Now that I've slept on it, I'm actually a bit less upset about the actual lyrics disappearing than I am about the inability to edit the song header/footer information on the songs that have been taken down. When those sections are fully and accurately fleshed out with the writing credits, the albums on which the song appears, the cover versions, and so on, it's extremely valuable info that I don't think is easily available together in one place anywhere else.
Any chance of the "disappeared" songs being assigned a new star color? It seems like they shouldn't be part of the existing Page Ranking system. Can I vote for red? Trainman 22:19, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
I think Red Star would be remarkably appropriate :)
Also, great point on the meta-data. There's got to be a way to make it so that we can still edit the header/footer w/o touching the lyrics. Hmmmmmmmm.
-Sean Colombo 23:50, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
One interesting side-effect I've noticed is that the number of articles on the site is going down (even though existing pages are just being shortened and pages we don't have yet from the list are being created & protected). This must mean that the short pages with {{gracenote_takedown}} put them under the minimum length to be counted as articles. That's a good thing... at least our article count will more accurately reflect reality & we won't have to mentally subtract 17,000 every time we see the number.
-Sean Colombo 04:16, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
The creating of pages that do not exist... won't this destroy our "Other Songs" as these pages are likely all misspelled and therefore will appear as orphaned pages?! Furthermore, look at these pages: Led Zeppelin:, Michael Jackson:, The Eagles:. Erm... óÔ - Chris 12:55, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
And it screws up Songs Needing Language Identification *sigh* Gracenote seems to be causing nothing but trouble and severe problems... - Chris 12:59, February 5, 2010 (UTC)
I think the solution would be for GNBot to run through the whole list again and do two things:
  1. Make pages which list the takendown songs (so they are not orphaned)
  2. Go through and set all the languages to "None" or "Not applicable"? ... or should we just work on making the meta-data editable and leave those to get the actual values for the song & ignore this until it is done? Any thoughts on which is better?
-Sean Colombo 17:27, February 5, 2010 (UTC)


An Open Letter on the GraceNote Takedowns

I seriously debated whether to post this. Probably the reasonable, more grownup and certainly less irritating course of action would be to sit down and shutup and go away. We are all free to contribute or not to LyricWiki and I have said that given the GraceNote activities I will not be contributing.

At the same time, that is simply too easy. I think there are important issues here which need to be pointed out and considered. I think it is critical that the LyricWiki community look closely at the the situation and decide whether the emperor is wearing clothes or not and - especially - if the GraceNote relationship compromises the fundamental purpose of LyricWiki.

So here are some questions I think worthy of consideration and would encourage all LyricWiki users and contributors to consider

How Will GraceNote's Takedown Privileges Impact the Value of LyricWiki?

According to Sean only 1% of the pages have been removed. But wait, how important to the site are those 1%? Are those pages never accessed? Do they constitute only 1% of queries submitted to LyricWiki? A cursory glance at the takedown list suggests otherwise - that the takedown list is full of popular artists and songs which might be accessed frequently and are therefore of considerable value. In other words 1% of the pages are gone. But really what percentage of LyricWiki's value was lost and will continue to be lost? At what point is the value of LyricWiki compromised to too great an extent?

With Respect to Contributions, are Contributors Aware Of and in Agreement with GraceNote's Authority and Limitations?

Adding lyrics to LyricWiki is a time consuming experience. I suspect that the average time I spend on entering a single lyric is somewhere between 45 minutes and an hour. That covers not only writing the lyrics, but validating them and collecting the increasing amount of meta information (iTunes, Amazon, allmusic, musicbrainz, musicians, etc.) With this takedown I have seen a lot of my effort just erased. Worse there was no way for me to know what was acceptable to add (i.e licensed) and what wasn't so I couldn't make an informed decision.

Clearly the decision to participate in LyricWiki is an individual choice. My choice is not to continue to contribute and further because of the potential that that work will be discarded. Further, I believe it is important/moral to make sure all contributors are aware that his/her work is subject to summary removal based on a corporate entity whose parameters are fundamentally unknown.

In other words, are we willing given these conditions?

Are the Terms of the Relationship with GraceNote Clear, Unambiguous, Limited?

Per Sean, the takedown notices have been - up until now rare. But this week it went through the roof with some 17,000 requests. Is this a one time thing or not? Sean doesn't appear to know. And honestly the logical conclusion is that any lyric posted which is not in the GN namespace will be either taken down or subject to takedown at anytime.

And let's go even farther, what else does GraceNote have access to? How about the IP addresses of those who contribute? The names of contributors and a list of contributions?

Again, as a community, as a contributor are we aware of the implications and willing to accept them?

Is LyricWiki Just a Front End for GraceNote? Is that Acceptable?

Does GraceNote's evident final authority on what gets published on LyricWiki imply that LyricWiki is simply a de facto website for GraceNote? If so, then are the users and contributors comfortable providing GraceNote with LyricWiki benefits - a web site, server space, computing cycles, maintenance, development, contributions - without compensation? Is GraceNote getting a free ride and immunity from public backlash?

Finally, in Acceding to GraceNote's Requirements are We in Essence Supporting a System Which We Consider Fundamentally Broken.

Let's be honest - current copyright law and its interpretation are *not* on our side. As I understand it, almost all lyrics are copyrighted and LyricWiki really doesn't have any legal basis to publish them or encourage individuals to publish them. What Sean started and we all contributed in was an attempt to get the industry to realize that treating lyrics as jewels to be hoarded and applying strict copyright rights to them was at best counter-productive and probably impossible. LyricWiki and its contributors are not - to the best of my knowledge - publishing these lyrics, spending time entering and validating them for profit or in any attempt to screw the artist. We are doing it because we love the music, we want easy non-physical access to information we have already paid for in the form of CDs and accompanying booklets, and because we know that enthusiasm and word of mouth are extremely valuable.

But that's not how the industry sees it and the GraceNote takedown fundamentally says: "Uh-uh. You play by our rules now and our rules are strict enforcement of the existing laws and existing interpretation of those laws".

So now the questions become "am I encouraging/supporting a system which I fundamentally disagree with? Is that acceptable or not?"


I dearly loved LyricWiki, but it is clear that I can't continue to use it or contribute to it. There is too much risk, the relationship with GraceNote appears too ambiguous and too unconstrained, and continuing to participate would mean - for me - supporting a system that I find utterly wrong.

Others will have different answers, which is fine. The important thing - in my opinion - is to ask the question, to know what you are doing, why you are doing it and the consequences. Rather than offend, I hope this letter has furthered the goal of awareness and choice.

Steve 19:30, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

There are certainly a lot of valid concerns there. I think my primary function in responding to this is just to answer the several unknowns as best as I can.
  1. Ratio of takedowns as a percentage of use: I actually don't know this number yet. We only recently started tracking details on views by individual page (it's surprisingly hard to do accurately and quickly with this amount of traffic). Some guesses I can give you are that most of the songs are mainstream and most of our traffic does not come from songs which Gracenote knows about. In our first report, we found mappings for 50% of the pages that had views, to corresponding Gracenote IDs. However, those pages only represented 1/3 of the total number of page-views (meaning that pages that GN knows about are less popular on our site). My theory on why this happens is that other sites which focus on SEO beat us in search rankings for the most popular songs, but since we focus on content, we are the prime source for... everything else. Also, this community loves music more than any competing site, so our tastes are often more diverse than just the Top 40 songs that are on the radio at any given point. Although I don't have good data, my extrapolation of this would indicate that the 1% of pages being removed probably represent 0.66% of our page-views.
  2. Do we make it clear to users what is going on? Not enough. We should make a page explaining the details of the relationship between LyricWiki and Gracenote in a little more detail.
  3. Are the 17k deletions one-time? Yes. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that in my post above. This big list is the list of deletions Gracenote has compiled over its entire existence. They give it to every new customer. This is one of the hardships (along with "copy-protections") that licensed sites must suffer compared to their unlicensed counterparts. The weekly updates we receive have all been around 3 or 4 deletions per week. The biggest comfort we have that this rate will stay low is that Gracenote frankly can't work with publishers fast enough for them to have all that many takedowns. For reference, we're getting hundreds of additions or changes in each update, so the ratio is pretty good of additions/changes to deletions. To recap: the big takedown list was a one-time thing.
  4. What does Gracenote have access to of ours?: Gracenote does not have access to IPs or to any of our user's personal information. What we give them is a detailed report which contains each page that had views and how many views it had. This is so that they can pay the licensing fees to each publisher in proportion to their share of traffic.
  5. Is LyricWiki even a separate project?: Definitely. Gracenote's corpus is small, inaccurate, and poorly internationalized compared to ours (no offense obviously, but all three of those are provable). LyricWiki is the best collection of song lyrics in the world and is getting better every day (except maybe yesterday :/ ...but we'll make up for it by the weekend). I still feel we have a lot to offer the world. Also, I think we have the right mindset and as we get bigger, we can actually change the rules of the marketplace. It makes business-sense NOT to have "copy-protection" and to let fans be able to look up lyrics. It will take a lot of time, but I think we can push back to get more freedom for this data while still paying licensing (and hopefully have more of this licensing go to the artists themselves).
It's really up to everyone to formulate their own opinions, but as far as clearing up the details of the situation I'm here to answer any questions you guys have. Let me know if there is anything else I can do or answer.
Thanks,
-Sean Colombo 20:31, February 4, 2010 (UTC)


Yeeeehaw

I thought we were a bit light on Country lyrics, so I'm trying to fill in the gaps. I haven't done any big runs like this since the move, so I might have a few glitches in the re-wiring. Please feel free to check my work and let me know if you see anything that went awry.
Thanks!
-ÜberBot 04:43, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

I'm causing more chaos again. This time it isn't country... but I'm testing my new handling of unicode characters. It should be better than ever before. Let me know if/when you find something that doesn't look right.
Thanks!
-ÜberBot 03:28, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
See here. Every page you added with that artist is with the same problem. I think it's the second time. That happened also with a previous batch of lyrics. :) Titaki 11:17, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. We gave ÜB a stern talking-to and after the artists beginning with "B" he shaped up quite a bit. He skips songs with clearly-botched encodings, but I'm still not sure if he would mess up songs with that specific encoding that you linked to. If you run into any other botched cyrillic, please shout! :)
-Sean Colombo 20:36, March 30, 2010 (UTC)


Partial

I was about to request a template "Incomplete" just when I found {{Partial}}. How about a new icon? http://lwchris.lw.funpic.de/Partial.png - Chris 18:29, February 8, 2010 (UTC)

Looks nice :) -Sean Colombo 22:38, February 8, 2010 (UTC)
I also made an icon for the new template {{Deprecated}}. See {{Multiple Languages/V1}} as example. I hope you like it =) - Chris 13:40, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
I dig it :) -Sean Colombo 18:49, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
Both included. Maybe I'll make some for "Requests For XY" - it's time to piecewise do away with templates based on {{Banner}}^^ - Chris 13:53, February 14, 2010 (UTC)


LyricWiki dump for download?

As LyricWiki is based on MediaWiki software would it be technically and legally possible to provide dumps of the whole database in an xml format as they are available from wikimedia on http://download.wikimedia.org/backup-index.html?
This would allow some interesting uses of LyricWiki, e.g. using it on portable devices like audio players, that have sufficient space for the complete database. 84.159.191.17 02:19, 15 February 2010

Hi there...
Sorry, but our licensing agreement with Gracenote (and any other lyrics-from-a-major-publisher licensing agreement that currently exists) forbids having the database-dump functionality enabled. This is partially because the big-four publishers do not want you to be able to do the exact case you described of being able to view lyrics on your portable devices (even if you paid for the songs) without them receiving licensing payments to view those lyrics.
Sorry for the bad news,
-Sean Colombo 19:56, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
We could instead only dump non-Gracenote namespaces. ΩpenBSDWiki 18:23, August 1, 2010 (UTC)
The problem is not that we would dump Gracenote pages. It is offering any possibility to download the lyrics, making them available outside from LyricWiki.
The thing is, everytime you visit LyricWiki in the web with JS enabled (which is also required, else the lyrics won't be displayed), they count and there's licensing payment for every time the lyrics were displayed. This is why they do not want to give you the opportunity to view the lyrics without them noticing that.
It may sound strange, but we'd also appreciate you could see the lyrics without visiting us in the web. But we have to comply our requirements, so this won't be possible. - Chris 05:22, August 2, 2010 (UTC)


Suggestion for new category

I've been looking for a list of non-instrumental songs that don't mention the title in the lyrics. I thought that might be a great addition for the LyricWiki. It might be as "simple" as putting appropriate songs in a category. I know nothing is truly simple given the vast quantity of songs, but it might be a worthwhile project. --Ekrubmj 17:57, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know much (anything, really) about bot programming, but it seems like this would be possible for a bot to handle: crawl the database to see if the song title matches any text between the lyrics tags, and if there's no match, add to the "title not in lyrics" category. Would probably require some manual pruning after the list is generated by the bot, though, to take care of situations where there are parentheses in the title, or where the title is in one language and the lyrics are in another. Trainman 17:48, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it should be pretty cut and dry especially if you normalize the text to not compare case or things like parens. That would actually be a really useful category for when we get to bring the Facebook app back.
-Sean Colombo 17:51, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
Would instrumentals be sorted into that category? Or is Category:Instrumental a subcategory? - Chris 10:04, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


Interesting puzzle

We're trying to make a page for iTunes New Releases (to eventually have an excerpt on the main page like the Top 10 we have now). What we've got so far is here: LyricWiki:New Releases ... but you'll notice that it's mostly red. Part of the problem is that I just threw "2010" in for the year for all of them. Does anyone know of a clever way to get the correct year? There are some dates in the RSS/Atom feed, but they seem to be the year that the album was released on iTunes, not the actual year the Album came out.
Thanks for any help you can give!
-Sean Colombo 23:30, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

My first thought was to set Lwt at that, but after a brief look at the list I realized that there'll be no much sense in such job - most of list items will stay red anyway...
...But while you are here, I'll better seize an opportunity to remind once more about more serious(imho) LW problems:
External links:
  • current iTunes Link Maker format is still incompatible with our template and docs
  • akuma album links are still dead
  • lrcDB links are all dead
SPs & Categories:
  • LonelyPages list is still useless, being flooded by GN
  • SNLI (and likely - not only) is still melting without any evident reason
  • DEP also will remain useless for a long time without more serious intervention
  • ...you know better - the list is far from being complete...
Sorry for being boring, --Senvaikis (talk) 11:48, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Well, Senv, the first 3 external links problems all all to be fixed in the footers, so why don't we update them? It'll be necessary anyways, so there's no reason to wait. You already showed how to design the new parameters, the old ones don't work anymore, so let's update. At the same time we can <!-- outcomment --> the lrcdb.org links in the {{SongFooter}} sourcecode. Don't know about akuma yet. - Chris 17:14, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Let me disagree. All mentioned external links problems just can't be solved by simple footer updating (otherwise I'd not bump Sean).
  • iTunes requires template changing with accordind corrections in Help documentation.
  • Akuma albums requires negotiations with akuma site admins.
  • LrcDB requires some alternative solution (local lrc info f.e.), 'cause site admin doesn't respond to any requests. Problem 'solution' by it's outcommenting isn't any solution imo - in such way we'll finish with "LW-Outcommented" .
External links, being related to LW 'foreign policy', are something special, and aren't so simple as may seem at a glimpse. That's why I'm bumping Sean but not you, Chris, - take it easy ;) --Senvaikis (talk) 18:53, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
I hope you're neither bumping into him nor bumping him off =O
Help and documentation are always necessary when a template is changed in a way that it requires new parameter formats. LRCdb outcomment is best IMO because it's easiest to temporarily disable code: lrcDB links disappear as long as lrcdb is down. If it comes back it can be "excommented" it again (if you'd only know why it went down, honestly I suspect copyright issues, then it's likely it'll never return in its entirety again)
Sean: Most of these look like singles or EPs, so the list sensible? Just as Senv I think most links will stay redlinks (contrary to LyricWiki:Top 100, currently 94.5% bluelinks) - Chris 20:05, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I found an alternate source (Amazon's New Releases RSS feed), but since the whole list doesn't seem to be what we want, for now it's just been left out of the new Main Page.
-Sean Colombo 22:44, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
Senv: Yeah, it's not a huge time-sink for me fortunately. User:JoePlay did all the heavy-lifting on the Main Page so far.
As for those problems, I made a change to the Gracenote header template this morning which links Gracenote songs back to artist pages and should fix Special:DeadendPages and I'm putting the finishing touches on a bot right now which will create Gracenote artist "pages" (just alphabetical track-listings) which should help clear out Special:LonelyPages.
I haven't looked at the other probs. on that list yet. While the LonelyPages bot runs, I have to fix some older code I wrote because the way I was handling foreign chars in my Gracenote tools messed up the master list I keep of all Gracenote pages (which makes botting easier/faster).
-Sean Colombo 22:44, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
Why do you create a masterlist? What about Category:Gracenote Lyrics? - Chris 22:48, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
About SNLI: Maybe, the way to the cat is a bit too tricky to work reliably?
Page = uses Template:SongFooter = if > if > if > uses Template:NoLang = uses Template:Catlink = if > Put in Category
- Chris 23:14, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
Something interesting: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:NoLang only lists the pages in SNLI, so it breakes before or in {{SongFooter}}.
Prima Dona:Cyberraga is one of those typical disappearing candidates. As it appears in Category:Songs C, it's proofed the SongFooter-inclusion is working fine.
The template is shown on the page but not listed as a page including it. Simple action=purge is not enough to fix and resort pages into SNLI. I purged Prima Dona:Cyberraga, nothing in Cat:SNLI changed. Instead, Hollywood Undead:El Urgencia disappeared from Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:NoLang. It was the last entry. This is the current list:
  • Izi:Ee Mi Geu Daen
  • Silk Route:Sabse Peeche Hum Khade
  • Lemar:Intro
  • Pornoheft:Tschechien
  • The Bilz:2 Step Bhangra
  • Ilaiyaraaja:Ilamai Enum Poongkaatru
  • Kirlian Camera:Black Harbour / Helma Nah' Shmarr
  • Monsieur Et Madame:No Title Given
  • Oshen:Meri Lewa
  • Sasha Sokol:Omhaidakhandi
  • KOKIA:Transparent
  • Blue Drops:Ring My Bell
  • Chingo Bling:Still Tippin (Refried Remix)
Maybe someone could keep an eye on the list tomorrow, if the list is melting from bottom to top.
- Chris 22:48, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
SNLI isn't the only cat affected though – Language/English has ~63,000 pages where it should probably be 10x as many. And many "small" language categories appear in UnusedCategories because the 2 or 3 pages that should populate them dropped out. — 6×9 (Talk) 13:40, February 28, 2010 (UTC)


Main Page updating...

Howdy! The old Main Page hadn't been updated since the move, so User:JoePlay took a stab at it. It removes a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense with the new skin (like the left-hand bar which was the same stuff which is in the menu on the left of the Wikia skin). There are a few things we'll have to work on and the community at large will probably notice even more places for improvement. Right now, some things that I think still need to be done are:

  • Turn the heading images into links to the pages they refer to
  • Make a good text-only fallback for those headings (instead of images) which we can use to make it quicker to internationalize
  • Porting the new page to other languages
  • Search box!
  • Make sure the thing loads fast as lightning.

Please jump right in or make suggestions here (esp. if the pages you want to help on are protected since this is the main page).
-Sean Colombo 22:25, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

  • German translation sounds a bit strange, sounds like Google Translator. I'll change it when it's ready.
  • Blue is nice, but it's all in all a bit to dark. Just make every color a bit brighter, it looks like a GPS device when you switch into night-mode.
  • Mainpage has fixed-width, which is definitely bad. Always keep in mind that many screen-sizes grow into width. At my PC the current layout wastes about 3.8 inches per side, so 7.6 inches just blue background, content-only width is 10.6 inches. To give you an impression, I uploaded a resized screenshot. Easy fix: forget about CSS class "body.mainpage div.monaco_shrinkwrap" - delete it and page width is 100% for every resolution. Then just some fixes about div sizes and layout's perfect.
Chris 15:33, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
The competition part of American Idol starts tonight (well semi-finals), and normally I put a link on the main page to the list of what songs were sung as a draw to the site, but I have no idea where that would go now.... I'm taping tonight and will do my usually yearly list. But, I really like the new typeface and streamlined look. Just need some boxes at the bottom with purty pictures to go to a site news page, special events such as the Grammy's and American Idol, and maybe one or two other things that we want to highlight, like the "Project of the Month" or something. I was pleased with the update/new paint, though!    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   21:25, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
My issues with it is that the 'i' is cut off from the right side of the icon in the upper-left corner (because I prefer to use the Wikipedia (MonoBook) skin). Also, I'd rather have the song of the day and album of the week on the left (larger) side and flip the iTunes list and Free Music to the right (smaller) side. This is because the SotD and AotW should be more featured than the iTunes list and FMotW. --WillMak050389 22:31, February 23, 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Will on the SotD and AotW issue. Also, I think editor's corner should be made visible somewhere. If there isn't much space it should go as link in the menu of wikia or if there is, putting it under the AotW (after moving it in the middle) may be alright. Furthermore, the main page looks a bit "squished up" compared to {{Main Page}}. I have no idea why but if it can look like the template it would be better. But the colouring is quite nice. I really like the new design. Titaki 13:14, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
I disagree seeing that SotD usually isn't more than 1 or 2 sentences, whereas FMotW is a text with a picture, like AotW. So I'd put iT and SotD together the narrower column. However I have to say: I'm reformatting the page to how I like it via CSS and JS, and 2 columns of identical width IMO look better than different widths. Screenshot of my layout (current layout) ;)
Seems like JoePlay has designed several wikia mainpages, yet I have to criticize him for the excessive use of div elements. This is not a good style of creating a website design. Definitely too many elements and far too complex sourcecode, therefore hard to maintain and not flexible at all, violating the KISS principle. Great layout concept, though! - Chris 15:30, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Could we please finally do something about the layout? The current one is just absolutely impractical (any change has to be done at all Mainpages because we do not use the {{Main Page}} template anymore. And it actually is just frustrating and poorly arranged and layed out. - Chris 16:10, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Good call. I think the weird layout in your screenshot is partly because you took it off of fixed-width for yourself... so what remains is AT LEAST (but not only):
  1. Get the code using {{Main Page}} again.
  2. Clean up the code to be more readable.
There is probably some other stuff too. When it's fixed-width, I can't actually think of a better order for the sections... it looks decent as-is. I'm always open to suggestions, but when I skimmed through the above convo again, I didn't see any consensus on how to move stuff. Any thoughts?
-Sean Colombo 17:27, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Well, the width of the blue column is fixed, so the length of AOTW is always the same. How does one edit <mainpage-leftcolumn-start /> - what is this tag, where is the code it is replace with, and is that code editable (for me)? - Chris 01:21, July 24, 2010 (UTC)


How does one merge pages?

And how is it different from redirecting? I've been redirecting for capitalization, spelling, and the occasional accent mark, and I was wondering if "articles to be merged" was a place where I could help out when my eyes start to hurt from Accented Characters/Spanish, or if that's something that has to be done at the administrative level. NYCScribbler 21:50, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

Merging is done via Special "BatchMove" which is admins-only. It allows you to move all pages with prefix A to prefix B. No wildcards at the beginning. Useful if an artist changed his name, to bring them all to the right one. But usually, the pages have been created as well at A as at B, so "moving" is not an option. Instead, S:BM puts these merge template onto the pages that couldn't be moved and on the target pages which already existed. That is: usually you can only find a merge-template where moving was not possible, so the page has to be redirected after checking which content to keep and maybe copy and paste some information onto the kept page. Thanks for Accented Characters/Spanish! Compare with other AC cats, Spanish is ranked 25. - Chris 22:01, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Oh-kay, seems like a caching issue, actually AC/Span is empty, so ranked 6! Wow, great work, thx! - Chris 23:00, February 24, 2010 (UTC)


Better MusicBrainz integration :)

In case you don't subscribe to the site's RSS feed: http://lyricwiki.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/lyricwiki-and-musicbrainz-integration/
-Sean Colombo 00:39, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Works Well Done!, - thx, Sean! Now akuma (iTunes, LrcDB?) to be contacted to restore at least one-way linking... ;). --Senvaikis (talk) 06:46, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Sweet! Thanks for trying it out :)
Yeah, those are getting awfully stale. I actually have Akuma's data but no time to write the bot & don't think I'm allowed to redistribute that data. Their contract is kinda over though (I stopped counting the time when their links broke though). Anywho... of those three, iTunes is the most urgent, right? I'll try to do one of these over the weekend... would iTunes be the most preferred?
-Sean Colombo 06:51, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Re: akuma, I changed the template so it should work again for many (if not most) album links. Artist links weren't affected anyway, AFAIK. Does anyone actually find them useful, though? It would be kinda silly to constantly fix and re-fix tens of thousands of external links that no one ever clicks anyway… — 6×9 (Talk) 07:24, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Great job on getting MusicBrainz integration! There is a slight bug with the MusicBrainz external link available at the bottom of lyric pages though. When clicking the link to search for the release or track on MusicBrainz the link generates a query that uses advanced search syntax, but doesn't pass the appropriate parameter to the server, thus returning incorrect results. &adv=on needs to be added on to the end of the URI to turn Van_Canto:Wishmaster's release and track links from returning thousands of results to only two results each: release and track. --24.150.19.6 06:02, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Fixed! (pages will have to work their way out of the cache for it to show up though). This way looks much better though. Thanks for the info & the detailed links to help solve it! :)
-Sean Colombo 06:47, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix! --24.150.19.6 07:11, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Akuma and allmusic are both fed from the All Music Group (AMG) database: True Widow @ allmusic, "AMG Artist ID P 1088217", akuma link "artist,p1088217,index.html", or their album @ allmusic, "AMG Album ID R 1442723", akuma link "album,r1442723,index.html" (brilliantly fixed, 6!). Maybe you shouldn't contact akuma but AMG, Sean? Well, if you want to contact Akuma, do you speak German? If not, I think 6 and I could assist you =) - Chris 14:02, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
That's interesting! (How did you notice that, 6?) So, knowing amg sql-ID, we may get an unambiguous akuma ID value?. Ok, then how about oposite direction, e.g. - is it possible to search amg by artist/album ID (taken from akuma)? --Senvaikis (talk) 17:25, February 28, 2010 (UTC)


One Song page, multiple Song templates?

I have been discussing this problem with Trainman on my talk page recently and we think it deserves a wider audience ...

Consider this problem: A series of artists has a principal member (say, A) with different supporting casts (say, the Bs and the Cs). Thus we have Artist pages A, A & the Bs, and A & the Cs. For real world examples, think of Frank Black, Elvis Costello and Robyn Hitchcock. Now A performs a song (say, X) by himself, then performs the same song (with the same lyrics) with the Bs and with the Cs. How many song pages should there be?

I think there should be one named A:X for the original performance. But how should the Song template(s) on this page be constructed? Currently, the presentation of a single song template would say "This song is performed by A and appears on the album ...". If one were to add the A & the Bs and the A & Cs performances to this single song template the presentation would be misleading as it would still only identify A as the performer. Instead one could (and, I think, should) add two more Song templates - one for each Artist: A & the Bs and A & the Cs. Thus the presentation would name each Artist (performer) with the albums the song was performed on.

I realize that there are artist# parameters that can be used in the Song template and similar ones in the AddAlb templates but none of these choices present things correctly as only the first artist is listed as the performer. This is wrong. I also realize that one could consider the first performance as the original and the others as covers but this also seems wrong (at least in my real world examples). --Rossetyler 06:01, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Another solution would be to display the album artist in {{Song}} and {{AddAlb}} whenever it differs from the "main" artist – something like "and appears on the album ----- by -----". Of course this requires an edit to these templates… but it's a cleaner solution than multiple Song templates, I think. — 6×9 (Talk) 10:53, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you'd necessarily need to change those templates if you wanted to do it the way 6x9 suggested; that only requires judicious use of the "type" option, which can give you something like: "This song is performed by John Smith and appears on the album Meet John Smith (1990) and on the John Smith and the Smith Band album John Smith And The Smith Band Live (1995)." (In that case, type2= would be set to the underlined portion.)
I believe Rossetyler is more concerned about the "This song is performed by Artist" language, which I think would take a more wholesale change to the Song template to fix, and it might be hard to come up with a coherent sentence to explain that it's performed by Artist on the first album listed, Artist And His Backing Band on the second album listed, and back to Artist on the third album listed, or something.
I also want to point out, for further discussion, that I don't think this is that common of an issue; seems to me it's only an issue in cases where a song was released by Artist, and then Artist And His Backing Band did a live version that's reasonably faithful to the lyrics of the original. (Because if there were wholesale changes to the lyrics, it probably needs a totally different lyrics page, as Artist And His Backing Band:Song instead of Artist:Song.) Trainman 23:43, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
Upon further review, that's not necessarily the best example -- since I would hope that people can figure out that an album titled John Smith and the Smith Band Live is a live album released by the performer John Smith And The Smith Band. So, let's change that example to "This song is performed by John Smith and appears on the album Meet John Smith (1990) and on the John Smith and the Smith Band album John Smith Live (1995)."
And in case anyone's curious, here's the conversation between me and Rossetyler. Some other related topics are discussed, such as whether Frank Black's new versions of Pixies songs, which appear on his Frank Black Francis album, should count as cover songs. Trainman 00:31, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
To fan the flames of your discussion, let me remind one more songheader parameter, which imo is even more unfriendly to multiple releases of the same song, while being used in a single template - it's fa, or featured artist :). --Senvaikis (talk) 14:11, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
@Senv: I hadn't thought of the featured artist problem. I too can be addressed by multiple Song templates, however clumsily (which, I'm sure, is why you brought it up).
Since there doesn't appear to be any alternatives, I will continue applying this solution of using multiple Song templates for Songs that fit this pattern. Furthermore, I will extend this pattern to match featured artists too. I suggest that others follow suit. --Rossetyler 02:33, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'd do it that way:

{{Song|Album (2010)|A|star=Green|addtext=. It was also performed together with '''[[A And The Bs|The Bs]]''' and '''[[A And The Cs|The Cs]]'''}}

This way there's another sentence, voila. It's ok to use the available parameters such as "fa", "alias" and "addtext" ;) - Chris 23:11, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

There's not much difference from what you suggest and simply adding free style links immediately after the song template.
{{Song|Album (2010)|A|star=Green}} It was also performed together with '''[[A And The Bs|The Bs]]''' and '''[[A And The Cs|The Cs]]'''
Taken to the extreme, one need not use a Song template at all. I think it better, as much as possible, to keep this information within the constraints of well defined/established templates. In this manner, as/if the template definition changes, presentation will remain consistent. To this end, I think multiple Song templates work better --Rossetyler 23:52, March 5, 2010 (UTC)
No song template is insufficient, because the song template does more than just fill parameters into one preformatted sentence; it defines some important variables, and it displays the link to the official Gracenote page. And that is, why your sentence behind the template is not completely the same (anymore), and why I'd try to avoid multiple song templates as long as it's possible: Every song template will throw a new "View the official version of this lyrics here." If you put three templates on the page, it looks really bad.
Additional sentences behind the template were appended after the Gracenote part, not behind the first sentence. So I'd really recommend to use addtext, and this solution is perfectly "within the constraints of well defined/established templates", namely {{Song}}. ;) - Chris 14:52, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
Of course a Song page should have a (at least one) Song template. I am not arguing for less structure - quite the contrary - I am arguing for more. My point is that there is no structure to the value of the addtext parameter - I can put anything there. There is no more structure to the value of the addtext parameter than value put after the Song template.
The value of such structure is that it can be used as metadata for indexing etc. It might not be used for such now but since/if these values are well defined they might be later. Also, the content of the structure can be adapted, in a structured way, into presentation so that everyone's expressions are expressed uniformly. This is good.
I argue that where something can be expressed in an established LW structured way it should be. The presentation problems that you bring up are valid but they are only cosmetic - they are not wrong. I cannot express what I want to say, correctly, in a structured way, with one Song template.
Also, your solution does not address similar problems with the use of the AddAlb template. I understand that only three albums should go in a Song template and the rest should go into an AddAlb template.
As far as the presentation issues you bring up, I don't see, conceptually, why they cannot be fixed. I am sure that you are a much better judge than me about what can be done here but ... It seems to me that some context information might be kept on a page so that only the first (or last) instantiation of a template adds this presentation. --Rossetyler 17:43, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical Song List for each artist

I don't know if this topic has been discussed here before. I apologise if it already has, or if this is an inappropriate post to the Community Portal. I've recently been looking through all of the Gracenote additions. One thing I noticed is that GracenoteBot has added an Alphabetical Track List for each of the "gracenote" artists it has added, such as here http://lyrics.wikia.com/Gracenote:Delerium. Would it be a good idea to provide an Alphabetical Song List for each artist? This may be useful because: if a user wants to know the lyrics to a specific song, but doesn't know what album the song is from, the most effective way of finding the lyrics to said song would be from an alphabetical song list.

What I’m thinking is along the lines of the "what links here" feature at the bottom of each Wiki page, but strictly dealing in songs – and more user-friendly for browsers of LW. Would it be too difficult to create a script or bot to add an “Alphabetical Song List” link at the top of every artist page that, once clicked, creates an auto-generated alphabetically-ordered list of song titles (removing any album links, image links, or redirects, etc.), i.e. pages that contain the relevant artist name parameter in the songheader.

This may also be a useful resource for LW users, to easily identify which songs are included on the site and which songs are not. For example, I found the following pages http://lyrics.wikia.com/Nine_Inch_Nails:Crushed and http://lyrics.wikia.com/Nine_Inch_Nails:I'm_An_Idiot via the “what links here” link on the artist page for Nine Inch Nails. Since I am a fan of NIN I know that they have never released a song called “Crushed” or “I’m An Idiot” so they should either be marked for deletion or redirected as appropriate. I also easily found the following pages: http://lyrics.wikia.com/Nine_Inch_Nails:I'm_Looking_Forward_To_Joining_You_,finally and http://lyrics.wikia.com/Nine_Inch_Nails:Lights_in_the_Sky. The first is an incorrect spelling, while the second does not meet LW page-naming policy. Both of which should be redirected accordingly to their correct pages, which are http://lyrics.wikia.com/Nine_Inch_Nails:I'm_Looking_Forward_To_Joining_You,_Finally and http://lyrics.wikia.com/Nine_Inch_Nails:Lights_In_The_Sky respectively. The point I’m trying to make here is: I found these incorrect pages quite easily using the “what links here” feature, and I would never have found them as easily browsing through the main artist page.

So, do you think adding an “Alphabetical Song List” for each artist - like a Master list of songs - would be useful resource for LW users and browsers? --Lukehatton 16:43, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry for the late reply…)
I don't think a content page like the GN artist pages would be a good idea. Those are fairly easy to keep up-to-date, since GN songs are only ever created by GN-Bot. So, it would have to be a Special Page.
The closest thing we have right now is the PrefixIndex; unfortunately (unlike WLH) there's no option to hide redirects. (They're recognised as such, since they show in italics, so it should be possible to add such an option. Might be worth it to pester Sean about it.)
.
.
.
Of course, if we had Semantics… ;-) Was that Aqua shouting "Too right!"?6×9 (Talk) 18:07, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


Artists with the same name

It would be nice if someone helps me with the following:
- There are 2 artists with the same name namely; the British jazz-rock Colosseum and the Finnish funeral doom Colosseum. The British Colosseum has already a page in Wikia. But I have no idea how to make a new page for the Finnish band.
Thanks ENigma885 17:23, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Colosseum (FI) :-)
Note that song and album pages should be named "Colosseum:Title" without the "(FI)", unless there's already a song of the same name by the other Colosseum. This makes using the {{Song}} template rather a pain, as you can see in this example… — 6×9 (Talk) 17:38, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I have but both artists on a shared page: Justice, or Annie. is that ok, too? --Hfs·· 20:14, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

That was fast =)..Thanks again. From funeral doom to jazz-rock, definitely there's no chance for songs with identical names :D. ENigma885 18:05, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

A minor edit: I have created a new page named Colosseum_(Fin) instead of FI as Finland is more commonly abbreviated as such.ENigma885 18:25, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


Soundtracks for TV Specials

Since this got no response over on the Soundtracks talk page, I'll ask here: any thoughts on changing the SType "TV Series" to "Television"? That would make it inclusive of albums that are soundtracks to television specials, such as Really Rosie and A Charlie Brown Christmas; as it is now, none of the five SType parameters cover that (unless, I guess, they're Disney television specials, which neither of those are). Trainman 00:08, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

I guess it'd be easier to add the parameter to the existing ones, so no change is needed for all current pages using the parameter with "TV Series". I checked the {{Album}}-sourcecode; you could basically use any "SType" you want, only thing to do once was to update the help-page and create the Soundtrack subcategory. How many pages do really need "Television" instead of "TV Series" because latter doesn't fit at all? - Chris 20:49, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
There aren't even that many TV Series soundtracks (only a few dozen listed at the moment), so it wouldn't be that big of a job to change all of them from "TV Series" to "Television," rather than have two confusing separate categories. Hmm, an exciting weekend project for me? Trainman 23:17, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me like changing it to "Television" is the simplest option. Unless anyone is opposed…? You might want to enlist the help of a cyborg or two, though. — 6×9 (Talk) 05:36, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
TV Series is now Television. I laugh at bots. (At least in this instance, where it was most likely easier for me to do the edits by hand than it would have been to reprogram the bots.) It's okay; I don't think their feelings will be hurt. Trainman 21:02, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
Cry ... haha, just kidding ;) -ÜberBot 21:08, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
/me is not a cybo...
Syntax error in line 14:
Expected "rg" but found "..."
Parsing could not be completed.
Press F5 to reload
Big Smile - Chris 05:05, March 15, 2010 (UTC)


Main Page on speeeed

Hey guys,
Last week, the Wikia engineering team shipped out to the Polish office for the week and worked on just about nothing but site-speed. All of the changes will be released to the site in the next couple of days (you can help test it if you'd like... check out the official announcement). However, there is some other stuff that we as a specific wikia can do to make LyricWiki go faster.

On the main page, I counted about 36 images. That many requests can slow things down. I'm going to be poking around to try to put some of our most used Flag icons into a single sprite. Also, I'm hoping we can turn those image headers on the sections into a reasonably-similar text-only version (they appear to cost approximately 2.121 seconds all together for just those headers... which is a ton).

If you come up with any other ideas (for example: more images that we use a ton... page-ranking stars perhaps?), please let me know.

Thanks!
-Sean Colombo 19:15, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

I took off five of the six header-images but haven't touched the flag images yet. This removed over half of the download size of a primed-cache page request. :) ... (it only took about 5% off of the total size for a new page request though). Replacing those images with text has the benefit of making the page more easily internationalized also.
Some side-effects are that this added a little space at the bottom of each and the word-spacing is a bit high. Anyone here who is good with CSS, please take a stab at changing styles at the bottom of MediaWiki:Common.css to fix those two issues (or just make the text-version look better in general... however works best. If the text ends up looking really good, then I'd like to remove the "Welcome to LyricWiki" image and make it into text also.
-Sean Colombo 02:27, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
I'm very good at CSS and I'll take care of it. May I also reset page-width to full-width? - Chris 12:25, March 12, 2010 (UTC)
Spacing is done =) - Chris 02:01, March 13, 2010 (UTC)


Help about the lyrics tag

Greetings! I hope I'm in the right place to ask about this. I am here because I'm interested in the way the "<lyrics></lyrics>" tags works and how to incorporate something similar to a wiki I'm working on now. My hopes is to come up with a tag that does exactly the same thing, which is basically a text section that can't be copied or edited, to include the text file that comes with some games (like READ ME files, manufacturer's documentation, etc.) into this walkthrough wiki. I faced the problem that the walkthrough I wrote for a currently abandoned DOS game, would benefit from the original READ ME file that came with it. Sadly, I couldn't incorporate it into the article effectively because it looks as if it was part of the article and I don't want that. I want it to look like what it is, a READ ME file that came with the game. The lyrics tag does exactly what I'd want. Can anyone help me incorporate it to that wiki? By the way, I'm not the admin there, but I'm working with someone who wants to ask for the wiki's adoption soon. I appreciate all the help you can give! --Molokaicreeper 08:39, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Hello Molokaicreeper.
The lyric tags are handled by the parser function, but you could really easily simulate it: in wikis, there is the option to enable HTML sourcecode. Furthermore, you can style the HTML elements with usual CSS (Cascading Style Sheets). Just one example:
<div style="border: 1px dotted grey; background-color: lightgrey; font-style: italic; padding: 8px">This is some example text not belonging to the answer itself.</div>
produces
This is some example text not belonging to the answer itself.
Now it's really bad to always have this lengthy style defenitions. So you could to it like that:
<div class="manual">This is some example text not belonging to the answer itself.</div>
and add to your MediaWiki:Common.css file the following class definition:
div.manual {
  border: 1px dotted grey;
  background-color: lightgrey;
  font-style: italic;
  padding: 8px
}
The indention is optional and added for a better layout. (Of course, you could add even more attributes, this is just an example.)
This way, all divs with the class="manual" attribute will be formatted that specific way. Some links to CSS references are collected here: w3.org CSS learning.
I've got quite a bit CSS knowledge, so if you need help, feel free to ask me on my user talk page or just ask here as you did now. =) - Chris 14:51, March 13, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much, this will definitely help! I'm going to copy that to a text file in my computer since I can not edit the Mediawiki on that wiki due to not being an admin at the moment. But I'll save it too, I may be able to use it later. --Molokaicreeper 15:45, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

SongFooter reference

Hi, why does the reference still include "album" and "artist" for parameters? I thought they are obsolete in most cases now. - Chris 17:45, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

I use them so that the links in SongFooter will display with the "correct" capitalization -- that is, even if the first letter of every word has to be capitalized at the top to adhere to LW:PN, the album title can at least look pretty at the bottom, with the articles and short prepositions beginning with lower-case letters. (Conversely, I do take it out when unnecessary -- I just now removed "album = Elemental" from every song on the Tears for Fears album of that title.) Trainman 20:26, March 14, 2010 (UTC)


American Idol

Do we already have a page going for this season of American Idol? If so, where is it hiding? :) I think it'd be nice to get an image on the main page for it again if/when it's there.
Thanks!
-Sean Colombo 05:25, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't started one this year. Bad admin! I'll get something up now. Since I've been basically a lurker most days, it'll be good to do something from scratch again. I mentioned it when the front page's layout was changed that I had no clue where to put an AI link, but I guess there's no reason to put up a link if there isn't a page!  :-]    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   02:00, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
I added to a page that Afroditi started: LyricWiki:Lists/2010/American_Idol    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   02:29, March 25, 2010 (UTC)


Akuma link in AlbumFooter

Can someone who knows more about This Sort Of Thing than I do take a peek at the way the Akuma link is displaying on this album page -- and, for that matter, all the Weird Al album pages that have Akuma links? I suspect the issue is the quotation marks. Trainman 02:45, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Looks like " is not allowed in external links. Should be fixed now. Thanks for the notice! Maybe those akuma links are more trouble than they're worth – literally, since IIRC we don't get paid for them anymore anyway… — 6×9 (Talk) 04:43, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you'll find some solution for poor Nick too (akuma's accepting only NC instead of NC&BS)? :) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Senvaikis (talkcontribs), 11:09, 8 April 2010… tee hee.
Solution? Sure: (1) move everything from NC&BS to NC and change artist parameters accordingly; (2) remove those ****** akuma links, since they're just a PITA; (3) pester akuma to fix their database – after all, a unique ID should be sufficient. — 6×9 (Talk) 11:04, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 :)
  1. agree if you'll get benediction from bureaucracy ;)
  2. agree if you'll get benediction from BM ;)
  3. agree without any reservation
--Senvaikis (talk) 14:43, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


Update (meddling)

I'm doing more updates. There will be some additions and some deletions. There are a decent chunk of deletions of Spanish songs, but overall there are at least twice as many additions as deletions in this batch. Let me know if you see unintentional errors.
~ GracenoteBot 04:48, April 9, 2010 (UTC)


Experimenting with a different ad type on monday

Since Wikia is always trying to find less invasive and more relevant ad types (because naturally they're far less annoying than invasive and irrelevant ads!) next week (possibly as early as Monday if it's ready), we're going to be experimenting with allowing sponsored links. This would let advertisers buy a simple text link that would go at the bottom of a specific page. Keep an eye out to make sure there are no bugs or anything. We have so many pages that I doubt they'll show up on that many anyway. Also, please let us know your thoughts on them once you have a look.
Thanks,
-Sean Colombo 00:18, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

How are they gonna be designed? Framed between two gifs (like those "Send song XY to your cellphone" with these annoying flashing mobilephones)? Which font-size and -color do they have? And are they linked target="blank"? What does "at the bottom" mean? In the lyrics box, below the external links, below the page, below the footer? =) - Chris 13:44, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
I think the styling is just as a text link in a bulleted-list similar to how it would look if it were in "External Links", but in a different section (called "Sponsored Links" or something). It will be the very bottom section of the page. The new system is live as of about half an hour ago, so if some of them are bought soon, we'll have some examples to look at.
-Sean Colombo 17:10, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
Could we decrease the padding of the <div> to "0.1em 0.5em 0.8em" (values = top sides bottom) instead of "1em"? Currently it is just too big! <p> element and surrounding elements already have margins, so that amount of padding isn't necessary. - Chris 15:24, April 20, 2010 (UTC)


Stars above

A cosmetic question: Should the ranking star appear on a level with the page header instead of directly below it (or below any template that happens to be placed above Song/Album/ArtistHeader)? Have a look at this screenshot to see what I mean. We'd need to add some padding-right to .firstHeader though…6×9 (Talk) 16:05, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Star above the line looks good. Does it work in every browser? If you change {{Song}} for it, please also do the following thing: if the option "addtext" is used, there should be a space before the text is included, because a leading blank in the parameter will be cropped. - Chris 16:32, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
The position is relative to the main body, not to the header, so it's less dependant on the browser than on whether there's some notice up there above the title (like the ugly red preview-mode-warning box in the standard skin). The edit would be to tl:Star, so no excuse for "fixing" Song. Anyway, I left the blank out on purpose, since often the addtext would start with a comma. Plenking is ugly! — 6×9 (Talk) 16:55, May 5, 2010 (UTC)


Artist categories

How about doing a category for each Artist, in there would be all Album and Song pages. That way it would be much easier to find existing song pages which aren't listed on the artist page yet. It would be possible to automatically add all pages to the correct category with the page name. What do you think? --MetalSnake 18:34, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

What about Special:PrefixIndex? We could as well create a link in {{ArtistHeader}} saying Find "ARTIST" pages linking to ":Special:PrefixIndex/ARTIST:",
for example on "Michael Jackson": Find "Michael Jackson" pages.
They are sorted like a category is, and even redirects are listed, so that maybe songs which are commonly known under completely different names can be found. - Chris 10:27, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
Wow, didn't know that. Now if that search link would be in the sidebar (under "tools" that would be great! --MetalSnake 10:36, May 20, 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer the {{ArtistHeader}} way even more to be honest... - Chris 08:29, July 29, 2010 (UTC)


Janitor is back. Report any bugs, please :)

Janitor (the bot which adds Orphaned pages into the Other Songs sections). It has been re-written in Perl, based off of the original Ruby code from Teknomunk. While I tried to port it directly from Teknomunk's code, there are bound to be plenty of bugs as he runs. To start, I will be running him at a fairly slow speed so that we have more time to review the changes and find bugs.
If you see any bugs, please report them on User talk:LYRIC-Janitor or on my talk page.
Thanks!
-Sean Colombo 20:36, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki