1,927,287 Pages

Archive Index

Updating the Docs

I recently set up a page where we can list due documentation updating, and discuss it if necessary: ​LW:DocUpd. I think this should be a joint effort, so your input is much appreciated.

  • Capitalisation: Not necessarily policy, but I think users should know that proper capitalisation is not only possible but appreciated. So I'd like to make it a part of a future user guideline.
  • Soundtracks: needs some clarification / simplification imo, I'll come up with some suggestions later
  • Traditional: Not policy, but guideline

I suggest to discuss details on the ​talk page  · Lichtweber talk service  19:04, January 4, 2015 (UTC)

Special Artist Needed

Hi guys, please have a look at the Sesame Street talk page. I think we need SPAs after all. Please share your thoughts.  · Lichtweber talk service  05:54, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

Definitely useful for cases like this (see also MB's bogus artists). I don't think we need to change all that much to allow them: basically a sentence on artist help page detailing when it is appropriate, and a small note/infobox (+ category?) on the artist page. — 6×9 (Talk) 10:23, May 3, 2015 (UTC)
When would it be appropriate? Your ideas are welcome @ User talk:Lichtweber/Special Purpose Artist, then I'll fix sth. @6: Would it be possible to modify let's say the colour of the artist box to immediately show that this one's an SPA?  · Lichtweber talk service  11:58, May 13, 2015 (UTC)
Basically the scenario you described above – when there are numerous actual artists with no songs outside the show. Re: colour, change is simple enough but requires a parameter, like |special or |type = special. — 6×9 (Talk) 15:00, May 13, 2015 (UTC)
From my perspective, SPA would be the last resort i.e. if no human artist or "real" band could be credited. It would be great if Nic could share his thoughts since we have an actual case.  · Lichtweber talk service  17:49, September 2, 2015 (UTC)
Please also refer to "Whose Line" discussion.  · Lichtweber talk service  18:20, October 18, 2015 (UTC)
I definitely think we should introduce some sort of "non-artist" format for these special cases like Whose Line and Sesame Street. I highly doubt anyone will have the time to fix all of their pages and they'll most likely stay in their messy state, so this would be a good idea. Perhaps a new type of Artist Infobox and page format.
I think this would work well, because I still despise the new look of the Whose Line page. It's a mess now, only certain pages have the performers on them when others don't, etc. The cast just fluctuates so much (outside of Colin Mochrie) that I always thought having one consistent label for them would work much smoother than listing individual cast performers. To me, it's all over the place now. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)10:36, October 21, 2015 (UTC)
I think special purpose artists would be a handy concept to have for these cases too, rather than using all individual performers, which can make pages harder to search/find/manage, or using "Various artists", which isn't at all descriptive. The ​Sesame Street and ​Whose Line ... pages, for example, seem fine to me - I'd consider them like a band or group, even if the "members" may change fairly frequently. Of course, it should be used only when needed and appropriate. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 17:31, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
I too agree with introducing SPAs (but I hope there will be some changes to {{​Song}} so "Performed by Sesame Street" doesn't occur) - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 20:15, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
All in favour, that's great!
Now we need to find criteria that enables us and our editors to make a safe decision on wether a specific prefix is allowed as SPA. In addition, we have to make sure that we do not accidentally allow all possible one-time casts from musicals or (Disney) soundtracks as legitimate artists. This would happen if we had the "No songs outside show" rule as our sole criterion. Thus, we have to find additional criteria.
Right now we have de-facto SPAs:
  • Traditionals (no particular artist associated with them)
  • National Anthems, etc.(linking certain kinds of pages)
  • The Simpsons, Sesame Street, et al. (too many pple involved)
We have at least one prefix that is definitely not an SPA:
And we have borderline cases:
  • Alvin and the Chipmunks (only three main authors resp. performers over the years: Bagdasarian, sr & jr, Janice Karmen, exact allocation in time possible, but no other releases outside show)
  • ​Whose Line Is It Anyway?: Main cast consisting of 4 people only. Exact alllocation possible, at least one of them has releases outside show: ​Wayne Brady, no albums released afaik.
So how can we make a set of rules of that?  · Lichtweber talk service  20:33, November 2, 2015 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with them, but from a quick look I'd say "Alvin and the Chipmunks" should be a standard artist page, not under "David Seville" (as it is currently) nor as a SPA, just like how we have a page for "Gorillaz", not "Damon Albarn & Jamie Hewlett", even though they're the actual performers. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 09:25, November 4, 2015 (UTC)
I agree. But the question still remains: Based on which grounds (which we have to define just now) can we allow "The Chipmunks" and "WLIIA?", but not ​Strawberry Shortcake, ​Don't Hug Me I'm Scared? or any one-time soundtrack cast?  · Lichtweber talk service  23:04, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

Simplified Song Page Names

I moved this topic from my talk page, this here might be the appropriate place for it.  · Lichtweber talk service  18:17, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

While there were discussions about simplified pagenames, they never made it to policy, so if it's a true collaboration, removing any collaborants from the pagename violates our current LWPN. FWIW, I'm strongly against unfairly shortening a list of (what should be) equal artists; if we have to do shorten pagenames (and I agree that for more than three artists it would be a good idea), I'd rather use "Various Artists:Song Title". — 6×9 (Talk) 17:00, August 7, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this is a good opportunity to settle the "oversized page names" issue for good.
Right now I can see no cons since all the attributing is done by templates. The pro is easier editing.
I'm not sure if it's a good idea to use "various artists" - isn't that confusing since we have a list by that name where all unresolved song pages accumulate?
Thoughts? Do we have to change LW:PN for that?  · Lichtweber talk service  17:14, August 7, 2015 (UTC)
Can we make it so "oversized page names" only apply on soundtracks by cast members, because some popular releases recently have had 3 or more artists with lead credits which don't really overinflate the title that much (see here and here) Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 17:46, August 7, 2015 (UTC)
I think we should agree on a code of conduct that keeps us flexible in our decisions wether or not to simplify page names.  · Lichtweber talk service  15:53, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
Any substantial cons vs. simplified? Come on guys, let's settle this once and for all, shall we?  · Lichtweber talk service  15:53, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
Any cons would depend on how exactly a page name is to be shortened, I'd think. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 20:22, August 14, 2015 (UTC)
…and on when – do we always use a fixed number? Do we shorten only (or at a lower threshold) if the listed artists have no non-collab songs?
Above-mentioned VA confusion wouldn't be a problem – the list is called "Unknown Artist", and any pages with va prefix can be quickly batchmoved. — 6×9 (Talk) 12:46, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary Notes: I don't think we have to turn every little bit of handling into a policy. In this case, I think it would be enough to document our considerations for admins and interested editiors so that they can make an informed decision. So maybe we should introduce some kind of "commentary pages/green pages" and link them wherever they may come in handy. (e.g. LW:RvW)

Attributing System

As I understand our system (please correct me if I'm wrong) all the attributing is done by our templates. The page naming makes sure that we have unambiguous names for each song page. While there's also the possibility to sort (and search for) prefixes, this tool becomes weaker with every additional name we add to the prefix: With two artist names, we have two possibilities to note them: A & B and B & A. With three artists we already have 6, with four artist 24 and so on. (not to mention how the're separated: by "&" or "," or "and", or a combination of them)

How to Shorten

Having said that, I don't think it really matters how we shorten the prefix, as long as

Depending on the situation we could

  • shorten, i.e. "A & B:Song Title"
  • substitute: instead listing all performers, we could note the lyricist or composer (handy for "cast cases")
  • use "Various Artists", imo only when nothing else would make sense (can't think of any such case, though)

As I see it, the only two things we'd probably have to make policy are

  • how to list more than one artist in page names (I'd say we should make the ampersand mandatory, i.e.: A & B & C) unless usually noted differently, e.g. Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
  • the order of listing more than one name (I'd say: alphabetically, e.g.: "​A Naifa & ​Baba Khan:Song Title"), unless, of course, collabs are usually noted differently, e.g. Simon & Garfunkel

I don't see why shortened prefixes should be unfair, since the attribution is done by our templates (see above).

When to Shorten

Imo we should allow simplified prefix, respectively substitute cast for lyricist/composer, as soon as there's more than two artists: This way we can maintain a certain consistency for collabs: "A & B:Song Title" and/or "Casts": Lyricist/Composer:Song Title".  · Lichtweber talk service  13:40, August 16, 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of the silence - is it approval, is it indifference?  · Lichtweber talk service  20:36, August 25, 2015 (UTC)
TBH, I'm with 6 in terms of using a "Various Artists:" prefix as opposed to picking specific performers. (Also mandatory ampersand for more than two artists in header looks ugly, would rather have comma separation until last artist: "A, B, C & D:Song Name" like we have with most collaborations on this site).
Also, why can't we have it so "Cast:Song Name" is used, but in {{​SongCollaboration}} have the individual performers listed? Because from what I've seen people just dislike "Cast" as an artist page, not necessarily as a prefix. Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 20:48, August 25, 2015 (UTC)
The silence is caused by more complicated reason, not by indifference. Don't you think that "pagename simplifying" hardly may be considered as an object of any policy at all? Recommendations - yes, go ahead, but the policy makes any its requirement mandatory. Don't you think that the object of discussion is too versatile to be crammed into any single policy model? So I never agree to make a policy neither "alphabetic ordering", nor "joining by ampersand" or "replacing by most significant performer" etc. If I don't like some rule, but can't suggest any better universal rule, that may indicate that either a)I'm not wise enough for that or b)such a universal rule can not be created at all (hope you understand why I like the latter reason more... ;)) --Senvaikis (talk) 09:15, August 26, 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, now we're getting somewhere. From your replies I can see that I did not make myself clear, sorry for that. So let me rephrase the whole thing:
  • I do not want to change our policies to allow shortening, because
  • As far as I can see, nothing in our docs forbids us to shorten prefixes of song pages or substitute a long list of possible performers with lyricist and/or composer. But 6 doesn't agree? Please explain why.
  • By bringing the issue up here I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page
  • To prevent discussions being started over and over (not only with this specific issue) I propose expanding our doc system by introducing "commentary pages/green pages"
Imo, the only thing we need to settle this is to finally check if shortening is in accordance with current policies and to have a short feedback if you guys think we should introduce ​green pages or not. If yes, I'd come up with some suggestions on LW:DocUpd  · Lichtweber talk service  14:37, September 5, 2015 (UTC)
Shortening: How is "as close as possible to the original name" or "Artist:Song" ambiguous (other than the pending definition on what makes an artist an artist on LW)? Me being the only one mentioning it doesn't necessarily mean I'm the only one to think so…
As for pagenames not having to list actual performers/artists because attribution is done in the templates, let me point at this ancient discussion (danger: might ruin your weekend).
Green pages: sound useful; maybe this way we could trim down some of our help pages (I'm sure they look dauting to a newcomer). — 6×9 (Talk) 11:16, September 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • "as close as possible to the original name": I read: The song title should be as close as possible to the original name. e.g.: "Somebody That I Used To Know" vs. "Somebody That I Used To Know (featuring Kimbra)".
  • "Artist:Song": I read: (At least one) artist ("artist" being singular)
So, at least to me, this is (and always was) ambiguous. But that's not a bad thing. It gives us the freedom to decide on the merits how to build the song prefix.
  • Ancient discussion: Didn't ruin my weekend, on the contrary made my day! So good to see a constructive discussion with more than two participants ;).
But I have to ask: Why did you link there? Is it because of artist namespace affecting API? Given those many possible ways of building a prefix when there's more than two artists involved, I don't think we can handle that either way. Please let me know if I'm off track.  · Lichtweber talk service  15:26, September 19, 2015 (UTC)
Again, it's not ambiguous. "…as close…" refers to the pagename (it's a policy about pagenames after all), thus meaning both artist and song part in the case of song pages. "Artist" doesn't mean "person", else Pink Floyd songs (for example) would have to have a "Roger Waters:" or "Syd Barrett:" or "David Gilmour:" prefix. I'll admit it's written in a way that might be misconstrued with a bit of effort, but it's still pretty unambiguous – this is the first time I've ever seen it interpreted a different way.
As I explained, I linked to that discussion because it was about the point you made above – whether pagenames should list actual performers/artists when attribution is done in the templates. There's a reason we ended up with one Neil Young page but several different artist prefixes (and NY is one of the milder examples), thus having to deal with all that alias and albumartist stuff. — 6×9 (Talk) 16:35, September 19, 2015 (UTC)

As for ​LW:PN: I'm not hair-splitting. And if it happens to me it could happen to anyone. I am saying that LW:PN isn't airtight in that respect and that we should use this fact to solve oversized song prefixes. Be that as it may: I am trying to find a solution for a common problem, so if you don't agree, please make a proposal how it could be done.  · Lichtweber talk service  17:05, September 19, 2015 (UTC)

Name any policy or rule that applies to real-world situations that is airtight. Do you really, as an admin that should set an example for other users, want to exploit a loophole in one of our most important policies?
If we want to shorten song pagenames, which violates the spirit if not the letter of LWPN, then we will have to amend LWPN. It's as simple as that. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:14, September 19, 2015 (UTC)
Why do you make it sound so vile? As I said: I'm trying to find a solution. You don't like it - very well. Please come up with another one.  · Lichtweber talk service  18:27, September 19, 2015 (UTC)
Please point out where I wrote that I don't like your solution (as opposed to certain parts of it). — 6×9 (Talk) 19:24, September 19, 2015 (UTC)
Well, the very core of my solution is the premise that simplifying song page names is within the limits of LW:PN. So, what's yours?  · Lichtweber talk service  17:57, September 22, 2015 (UTC)
If we want to shorten pagenames, which would violate LWPN, then we will have to amend LWPN. It's as simple as that. But I think I already wrote that. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:44, September 22, 2015 (UTC)
What should such an amendment look like exactly, in your opinion?  · Lichtweber talk service  18:55, September 22, 2015 (UTC)
How it would look exactly would depend on exactly how and when we would shorten. Approximately, it might consist of specifying how and when it is acceptable to shorten at the bottom of the "Song Pages" section. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:47, September 22, 2015 (UTC)
And this would be the point where you present a proposal how and when to shorten (or stating that you can live with what I proposed in my initial post). This feels like squeezing blood out of a stone. :(  · Lichtweber talk service  14:08, September 23, 2015 (UTC)
Funny, I had the exact same feeling during this whole bit of the discussion… How: See my very first post; When: currently leaning towards a variation on Pat's idea (cast members if 3+ or 4+, "regular" artists if 6+, maybe more or less depending on how long their names are). — 6×9 (Talk) 15:50, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

Let me sum up the discussion. As always: correct me if I'm wrong:

  • Changing LW:PN: yes
  • How: Various artists prefix
  • When:
    • Cast members: if 3+
    • "Regular artists": 6+, more or less depending on name length (in bits?) (what are "regular artists"?)
  • Changing LW:PN: no
  • How and When: not a policy issue: too complex, would make things mandatory, rather "recommendations"
  • How: use various artists or Cast prefix
  • Being flexible on shortening
  • Changing LW:PN: no
  • Flexible on shortening
  • Use new type of doc pages to help making an informed decision

In view of this I agree with 6 allowing "Various Artists" prefix in Song Pages subsec of LW:PN. I agree with Pat to keep things flexible, but wouldn't want "Cast" prefixes to be allowed since it contradicts Help:Artist. I also agree with Senv that the exact how and when should not be object of any policy. This is why I propose linking a Green Page with a summary of our considerations to LW:PN, and keep Song Pages subsec as brief as possible.

  • Changing LW:PN: yes: officially allow "Various Artists" prefix, and adding link to Green Page in Song Pages subsec
  • Considerations to be documented in Green Page
  • When: As soon as 2+ possible, not mandatory. Making an informed decision on the merits (no fix numbers) and Green Page doc.
  • How: Either use Various Artists or substitute with lyricist and /or composer

Is that something you all could agree to?  · Lichtweber talk service  12:10, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

Change "2+" to "3+" (maybe 2 if both artists have exceptionally long names, but even then I'd rather leave it) and I'm mostly happy. However, I'd rather hold off making final decisions and updating docs until we decided whether or not we should have Special Purpose Artists (see above). Would any other admins please weigh in on that? — 6×9 (Talk) 13:51, October 18, 2015 (UTC)
Can we use some other moniker for this purpose, instead of Various Artists? How about Collaboration? anything but VA--ES (talk) 18:07, October 18, 2015 (UTC)
3+ OK with me.
VA: 6 convinced me. What's wrong with VA?  · Lichtweber talk service  14:35, October 20, 2015 (UTC)
Various Artists is used here for other purposes, also on the net it has been much abused. I think Collaboration is a better label (maybe not the best, but better than VA), and causes less confusion. Not sure what is OK with 6...;) --ES (talk) 16:28, October 20, 2015 (UTC)
Let's close this chapter: I take it that Synthesis is agreed on with 3+ artists instead of 2+. I'll start working on resp. ​Green Page and LWPN text.
Now let's settle the SPA issue, please.  · Lichtweber talk service  14:26, October 27, 2015 (UTC)

Subpage for vocalist notations?

Seeing as this topic rears its head every now and again (one of the first topics I got into with 123F ​way back when), and seeing as my opinion has changed (since I started goldifying lyrics affected), can we have some sort of place for vocalist notations? I personally would like to keep them, but not on the main song page, but on a subpage like translations/timed lyrics. IMO this will keep members of both parties (pro-voc notations and anti-voc notations) happy. What do my fellow admins say. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 21:40, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Given that lyrics are to be transcribed as sung, then singer notation doesn't belong in lyrics anyway, and removal of such notations will not make the lyrics muddled. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by EchoSierra (talkcontribs).
@ES: Another inconsistency in our docs :( We should fix that.
@Pat: This might indeed be a solomonic solution. with a lot of redundancy, I might add  · Lichtweber talk service  23:08, November 5, 2015 (UTC)
@LW:I was hoping the re/creation of such subpages would be left to contributors...Subpages for trans/rom are highly desirable and as such we (as admins) ought to actively participate in their creation and upkeep, but singer-notation (like lrc/linked) subpages are a niche area that imho is best left for the (primarily Hip Hop) fans to deal with it, so the redundancy will correspond to the participation level of singer-notation fans/editors. --ES (talk) 09:01, November 6, 2015 (UTC) If that sounds too convoluted I'll rewrite it R2L ;-)
That was my idea: completely non-mandatory, but there for those (like me) who want to have some way for these notations to exist without impeding the quality of regular pages.
Huh, seems an anon has been waiting all day for this, and is cleaning up my gold pages for me. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 15:00, November 6, 2015 (UTC)
I cannot believe that it was deemed necessary to note the vocalists when they were all members of the band! I thought this was only used for collabs/fas. --ES (talk) 15:20, November 6, 2015 (UTC)
Yeah... me last year thought it was necessary, but not now.
Well, my gold pages have been purged of notations as of now; everything looks so clean Tongue - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 17:26, November 6, 2015 (UTC)
Now hang on a minute… The help page clearly states that singer notation may (not must) be added, yet suddenly anon users are blocked because they do that? And pages are protected (even worse, indefinitely) because they had such notation added?
It's sad that I should have to remind you (for some admins, again and again and again), but the order in which these things should be done is: (1) wait for consensus (and no, 36 hours is not enough to assume silent approval from those who haven't chipped in yet); (2) update the docs; (3) notify users who stick to the previous way of the change; (4) only if notification goes unnoticed may they be blocked or the page protected – for a limited timespan.
Until these steps have been taken, the following apply:
  • The current help page holds true, meaning notation of who sings what may be added as soon as there is more than one singer.
  • Such information may not be removed unless it can be, and is, sensibly put into the CreditBox instead. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 6 times 9 (talkcontribs), 09:05, 7 November 2015‎.
100% with 6, --Senvaikis (talk) 10:09, November 7, 2015 (UTC)
I apologise: It was sloppy of me not to limit the page protections. Will be more cautious in the future.
@6, Senv, sorry if I missed something, but I'm not sure how your statements should be counted as a vote on Pat's motion. Could you please put that straight? Thx,  · Lichtweber talk service  14:41, November 7, 2015 (UTC)
Let's not sidestep the real issue. (1) The main problem is not that you didn't limit the page protection, it's that the pages shouldn't have been protected in the first place. (2) My (and, I'm sure, Senv's) statement shouldn't be counted as a vote either way, because it isn't. — 6×9 (Talk) 15:10, November 7, 2015 (UTC)
No doubt about the course of action as you describe it. Of course, if premises are incoherent or even contradictory, things can get bumpy. From my perspective, his actually is the issue.
I acted in good faith, and I believe the other admin involved did that too.
Fortunately, we're about to resolve this. With 6 and Senv abstaining, we have a majority for the motion.
@Pat: care to set up a draft for changes to Help:Lyrics? I propose using LW:DocUpd#Vocalist Notation.  · Lichtweber talk service  14:20, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
Added my ideas to the DocUpd page. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 14:48, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
Considering a number of people are fans of this, this should really be discussed on the Community Portal first. Whilst I've never added these myself, I have no issue with vocalist notations as long as they don't clutter/overshadow the lyrics, and would prefer having a few notations on the lyrics over duplicating the lyrics just to keep notations separate. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 16:06, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
Quote by Lichtweber: "...With 6 and Senv abstaining, we have a majority for the motion" contains two false statements, 'cause:
  • no, we aren't abstaining - we just call you to refrain from hasty decisions, and especially - from hasty and inadequate actions
  • no, you do not have the required majority, - I regret being forced to remind you this
--Senvaikis (talk) 15:22, November 9, 2015 (UTC)
If your statements are not to be counted as abstaining, why don't you just give us an unambiguous vote then?
Or do you, by linking to the bureaucrats list, mean to say that this is not up for any vote at all?  · Lichtweber talk service  15:53, November 9, 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't 6 clear enough? Then I may repeat - we aren't speaking about voting at all, 'cause both we, as admins and bureaucrats, are concerned about more serious problems in adminship atm.
Btw, speaking about voting - that's a very symptomatic example. How may you expect some "unambiguous voting", while there's no any unambiguous proposal, formulated for the voting? I don't speak about Pat's suggestion - it's really worth to be discussed and prepared for one or another decision. But it's absolutely unacceptable to start applying administrative measures, based on unapproved yet policy. What a policy - even an unambiguous question for unambiguous voting hasn't been formulated yet...
--Senvaikis (talk) 16:59, November 9, 2015 (UTC)
  1. Two different discussions (though related) are mixed in one thread. This, imo, is not at all constructive. So I propose to open another thread (e.g. "Admin problems"), thus keeping them separate and restore constructivity.
  2. on topic:
Two distinct proposals were made:
  • Allow subpages for vocalist notation
  • Not to allow those notations on regular song pages. The exact how-to can be discussed at LW:DocUpd  · Lichtweber talk service  17:32, November 9, 2015 (UTC)
Well, keeping my promise to LW, I should try to explain why above proposal isn't suitable yet for voting imo.
Any voting imo should be the final state of process, started from some idea and followed by suggestions, discussions, and finally - by formulating of change-model proposal for voting. During this process all possible answers to the questions why, what for, what pros/cons, how, in what order etc should be considered and discussed. Change model (or limited set of possible models) for voting should include unambiguous answers to all these questions to avoid possible misunderstandings in the future, after changes in the policy. I don't allege that Pat's proposal hasn't been discussed at all, but while these discussions are scattered through multiple places, this thread still doesn't contain any didgest of answers to all the questions I'd like to ask before voting. Here are only some of them:
  • Q: "what for"
    • A1: clean lyricsbox, leaving only a "pure" lyrics. But I'm not sure, if I'd like to "clear" absolutely all pages. Yes, it's a nonsense to keep all vocalists notations for each member of a group. Then leave notations only for musicals, as Pat's suggested? So, ​this trio also should be "cleaned"? Again - I'm not sure if I'd like that - finally, is that so crucial for LW to eliminate any non-sung word from the lyricsbox? Finally, if we decide to leave notations for this type of songs, then what for should we complicate our life with additional templates, subpages, and their administrating, if they will contain only mentioned notations for group members? Maybe simple strengthening of the policy, forbiding such notations, would be enough?
    • A2: reduce the risk of edit wars. That would be nice, if not a small fear of possibility to have just a new battle-field for hostility.
  • Q: "How?"
    • A: "-" I'm not sure, but seems to me that this question hasn't been even discussed at all. Who is ready to realize this policy, if it were approved? I mean just simple lyrics "cleaning" on existing pages to make them legitimate (we are speaking about lw policy, aren't we?). Or you are going just to declare a new policy without making any changes? That hardly would help to reduce edit wars - believe me...
Sorry, but must shorten my list of questions, - should leave to a conference. I just want to add that these (and possible other) questions should not be considered as my voting against "Pat's motion", as you call it. Actually that's not so important to me. Just I'll never take participation in any voting while I'm not sure what I'm voting for. Thus I just hope to see more detailed, unhurried and completely unambiguous version of proposal for voting. It may contain several possible scenarious, but each shoud contain an answers to these keystone questions: a)what notations remain legitimate in a new policy b)how this new policy should be realized
regards, --Senvaikis (talk) 12:13, November 11, 2015 (UTC)
Alright Senv, I'll answer your queries as best I can Smile
  • Point a) You mention my idea of leaving notations for musicals and the like. I only suggested this because in a past discussion I vaguely remember someone mentioned that notations may be essential to understand a song (e.g. has two characters like ​John Travolta & Olivia Newton-John:Summer Nights) - however yes it seems silly to go through this work of "purifying" some pages if others will still have them (like musicals), so I'm happy moving all notations to the subpages (actually I'd prefer it; hence my "potentially" on LW's DocUpd page).
  • Point b) For how this can be done: it can be done like what is still being done with translations; offending pages have their notated lyrics moved to subpages when they become known (e.g. One Direction songs), remove the notations from the main page, and any users known for adding/removing notations (current and future) are informed of the (currently proposed) policy so they know where notations should and shouldn't be for future reference.
  • I'd potentially like to have a template to lead users to and from these notated pages, however our template wizard is currently on vacation, not to mention the fact that it could cause some clutter above the lyric tags (e.g. what if a song has translated, timed and notated lyrics - three templates before lyrics are seen - not good for a lyrics site), so perhaps a section of {{​CreditBox}} can be used to lead users to this section? Could they be placed below lyrics tags (Like timed should be anyway according to {{​Timed}} documentation)?
Hopefully this answers your questions. Other proposals for how from other admins are also welcomed. Whether my motion is accepted, the current policy of vocal notations being allowed stays, or vocal notations are removed altogether with no subpages, is fine by me (as long as there's consensus). Grin - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 14:45, November 11, 2015 (UTC)
  • What for: The less exceptions in a rule, the easier to maintain and the less chances of edit wars. Thus, Senv's example above could get an additional /vocal page: Regular page w/o notations, additional sub page /vocal with notations. Nothing is lost, it would just be on a new kind of a page.
  • Implementation:
    • Fix ​Help:Lyrics accordingly
    • Introduce {{​Vocal}} to be put on both, regular and /vocal page, similar to {{​timed}}
    • ​This is how vocal banner could look like, placed beneath lyrics on song page, above on subpages.
    • Handling of both page types similar to {{​timed}}.
    • Inform users (especially those who love to tag all over the place) and
    • fix their pages. (preferably create /vocal, then purge regular page from vocalist notation). In addition, maybe bots can help.
    • As we go.
 · Lichtweber talk service  15:13, November 11, 2015 (UTC)
  • Implementation(fix): sry, but task is practically unbotable. --Senvaikis (talk) 18:17, November 11, 2015 (UTC)
    • on the other hand, simple declaring of a new policy, leaving pages unchanged (and thus de facto - ilegitimate) isn't the strongest part of this project
    • I, for one, will start fixing pages as soon as we're through with policy work  · Lichtweber talk service  22:57, November 11, 2015 (UTC)
      • ...and when are you going to be done, LW?... Sry once again, but both your and Pat's comments give the impression that you still don't realise the real magnitude of the problem. So, Pat, it just can't be solved "the same way as it was done (and still is being done) with translations", 'cause, as it was already mentioned, both tasks (problematic pages detection (categorizing) and fixing) are virtually unbotable. --Senvaikis (talk) 07:30, November 12, 2015 (UTC)
It will take as long as it takes, I guess. I'd rather have a clear cut policy with the chance of getting fixed pages in time than not do anything.
Maybe bot could make a list of song pages that contain bold text followed by colums in more than one line within lyrics tags
Similar: Square brackets and columns, etc., you might find more patterns,
Lists can then be checked manually in time. In a first course we could then add a label similar to {{​Misattributed}} to them, if we can't fix them right away..  · Lichtweber talk service  18:15, November 12, 2015 (UTC)
Well, I hope you know what kind of task complexity you are talking about. Hope also that you know a bot, ready for such task, but that's definitely not Lwt... --Senvaikis (talk) 19:27, November 12, 2015 (UTC)
I never used a bot, so I guess I'll have to rely on the innovative powers of users who do, such as yourself. But let's not forget: we're a vibrant community. I'm pretty confident that we'll master that task in a joint effort.  · Lichtweber talk service  20:08, November 12, 2015 (UTC)
  • Template location: agree to Pat (moving all this clutter below lyrics given such decision would be taken...) --Senvaikis (talk) 18:36, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

​People are wondering what's next in this department. I am one of them. Senv, since you brought this to a halt: Can we now start making drafts (@LW:DocUpd as already started) or do you still object to this motion?  · Lichtweber talk service  16:22, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Actually I haven't brought anything to a halt - just asked some questions, and I'll be honest - some answers still seem slightly superficial to me. But I've never told that I'd veto such decision, if taken - even if I had such permission :). Btw, - why don't you want to know a 6's opinion? --Senvaikis (talk) 20:20, December 10, 2015 (UTC)
I really wish we had more distinctiveness in our conversations, e.g. you could've just written: No, no objection, and Yes, we can continue with the draft. Now, I just have to assume that this is what you meant to say.
As for 6: I'm sure he knows where to post. And if he doesn't post - well, there's an old saying in German: "Wer schweigt stimmt zu" (He who remains silent agrees)  · Lichtweber talk service  16:00, December 11, 2015 (UTC)
I could quote Einstein's variation on that saying… instead I'll just say that, in my view, "Silence means consent" is right up (or down) there with "Those who are not with us are against us".
I'm strongly against moving singer notation to subpages. Apart from all the necessary manual work to convert existing pages, it means replacing a straightforward, intuitive and easy-to-use system with a more complex one, plus additional documentation and doubled maintenance. As for Echo's "Given that lyrics are to be transcribed as sung", that's not relevant here since we aren't talking about lyrics but about additional notation. (Therefore no inconsistency in the docs here either.)
I also find it sad that, while absence is readily interpreted as approval, none of you even bothered to acknowledge 123F's very important point: that this issue should really be discussed on the CP first, rather than decided by admins. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:01, December 11, 2015 (UTC)
(just in case you were referring to your LW vacation:) I never said (and I never would say) that absence should be interpreted as approval; you were present when the topic started and you are back for a while now.
Because of the additional admin work I think it should be adminship first to decide whether or not they approve of this idea. After all, we're the ones to implement it. Only if admins agreed, it would make sense at all to discuss this at CP. And if we did that: What should be the conduct then? A vote? For how long? ...
On the merits:
  • Imo it is indeed contradictory because additional notations simply do not belong to lyrics.
  • "No vocalist notation" is very straight forward too.
  • Maintenance: we have worse: Think of all the album pages: Total redundancy for the sake of few additional info from ext sources.
  • LBNL: less cause for edit warring because both parties happy.  · Lichtweber talk service  21:45, December 11, 2015 (UTC)
  • So your "Wer schweigt stimmt zu" was purely facetious then?
  • You can't be serious. We do the work, therefore we decide what work we do and how we do it? Is that what you tell your boss?
  • The help page states explicitly which additional notation is allowed in lyric tags, so again, not contradictory. Nowhere does it say "never put anything but lyrics between the lyric tags". (That would mean the instrumental template too.)
  • "No vocalist notation" is not sufficient, or would you leave the subpages undocumented?
  • "We have worse" is not a valid argument.
  • … except for the party who thinks that even more subpages, and templates, and duplicated lyrics, are unnecessary in this case, because what we have now is perfectly fine. — 6×9 (Talk) 08:58, December 12, 2015 (UTC)
  • It was a bit ironical too, but also descriptive: That's how things have been decided before.
  • In this picture, it goes like this: Before I make a proposal to my boss, I would want to make sure that my colleagues and I are prepared for the outcome.
  • What I'm saying is that this would be a very easy to follow rule - no arguments (given that we do the docs properly).
I've seen pages where people not only noted every single line with the singer of a girl group, but they also noted the names of the background singers in parentheses. In this extreme example we sometimes had up to three v-notations in one single line. This, imo, is covered by our current policy, but it turns the lyrics unreadable. If we had /vocals, people could do that and at the same time we still had pages where the lyrics were readable.
  • This is my statement: We can bear the albums, so we can handle /vocal too.
  • ...perfectly fine except for the quarrels (see #3).  · Lichtweber talk service  13:10, December 12, 2015 (UTC)
As for extreme examples: they can always be found, and dealt with with a bit of common sense (e.g. only 1 notation per line). As for preparedness: that matter has been thoroughly adressed (we can handle template & docs, but not changing all songs). So do you agree there's no longer a reason not to go to the CP? — 6×9 (Talk) 14:26, December 12, 2015 (UTC)
From docs: If a lyric is sung by several different singers, such as the parts sung by the individual performers in a musical, each singer or character can be entered immediately above the relevant section in bold text:
That covers The Simpsons, what about the rest of +VN songpages? --ES (talk) 14:28, December 12, 2015 (UTC)
Is there a Canadian version of the help page that says that it only applies to the Simpsons? What else would make you think that all other cases need to handled differently? — 6×9 (Talk) 14:52, December 12, 2015 (UTC)
  • Those examples just show that our current policy covers them as well.
  • As stated before I am confident that we as a community actually can change all songs in time.
Just to be clear: I do not say we should not ask the community. What I'm saying is that first we have to agree to a plan which we can present to the community. Only then the community has something that they can actually vote for.
  • Quarrels ahead because technically we'd have to allow those extreme ones.  · Lichtweber talk service  17:55, December 12, 2015 (UTC)
Wrong except for #1, which is actually a good thing. Not all our policies cover extreme cases.
The CP is there for discussion, not putting finished plans to a yes/no vote. Even if it were, the thing to vote on first would have been if we wanted to change the current system to a subpage based one… which, in case of a "no", would have made 95% of this discussion pointless. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:33, December 12, 2015 (UTC)
It's a trainwreck trying to sift through this discussion, and I'm confused what we agreed on (if we even agreed on anything at all). I'm bringing this up again because I recently re-formatted a song that RWDCollinson certified to make it look better, and he wrote me asking why I removed the vocalist notations. So before I do put the notations back, I just wanted to know what decision we came to regarding this.
Relevant, I checked the protection log the other day and noticed Licht protected John Travolta & Olivia Newton-John:Summer Nights. I checked the edit history and I see an IP tried to remove the vocal notations repeatedly. Though I must ask, why are Licht and Pat singling this page out? I looked at the contribs for those IPs, and they removed vocal notations from many other songs and we didn't restore those. So that just adds to my confusion. Maybe you guys are secretly big fans of Grease? Wink XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)11:36, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
I personally "singled" out the Grease page as I used it as an example earlier, but I agree we should come to consensus (including CP) on whether notations should be allowed (as per current policy), and if so, how it should be formatted to avoid making the lyrics difficult to follow (maybe an extension of the relevant help page section) - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 12:11, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
TBH I don't really know what else I can bring to this discussion on my behalf, as I've voiced my opinion on vocalist notations several times. But I'll see what others have to say and go from there. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)15:39, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
If we bring this, i.e. Pat's initial post, to CP, and we want to achieve a distinctive decision, I think we need a clear setting:
  • How long do we want to discuss this? -> time limit?
  • How do we reach a decision? -> vote? To answer your question, Nic: I became aware of the edit war at this page, so I took action. · Lichtweber talk service  17:39, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
Well, considering we've been discussing this on-and-off for over 2 months, what do you mean? Do you mean additional time? And I'm not really sure how we could reach a decision, truth be told. Should we get a vote of who is for and against vocalist notations or something like that? Or would it have to be more in-depth? XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)20:40, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
The fact that we didn't get anywhere with this discussion is the reason that I think we need a code of conduct for discussing policy changes - here @AP in general, and in this case @Community Portal as well.
The question to vote about @CP would be wether to move all vocalist notations to a subpage or not, except noting characters from a play/musical. @123: That is what you had in mind when suggesting to ask the community, right? · Lichtweber talk service  16:39, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty much - a community (not just admin) discussion would be good on ideas like this. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 11:56, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
In that case, should one of us get a discussion started over there? Wink XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)18:31, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
The question of how to conduct this to get a valid result is still open. 123 and 6, you wanted this, so what are your ideas?  · Lichtweber talk service  18:54, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't "over-bureaucratise" it: Present issue/proposed solution and ask who is for or against or has other suggestions. If we get a strong majority one way or the other, we can skip the voting, otherwise we wait until the discussion (if any) dies down. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:27, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of page ranking business

6, does your bot have the capability to find all song pages with Spotify and then mark the "audio" section on their talk page (if one exists) to "done"? I ask because ever since we implemented Spotify on the site and regarded it as acceptable for the "audio" parameter, there's a plethora of song pages with "unknown" audios when they really should be "done". There has to be more song pages with Spotify than Goear now, and I'd say it's a more accessible and popular "audio" site to use. So this would certainly help. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)20:52, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

I could, but any info should be checked by a human before being marked as "done". A bot can check whether the link is valid & live, but it can't listen to the song and verify it's the correct one. — 6×9 (Talk) 21:10, December 17, 2015 (UTC)
Good point - since Lwt added a lot of those links, chances are it added a good amount of incorrect ones. I was just curious, thanks for answering. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)22:02, December 17, 2015 (UTC)
Yes, most of spots have been added by a bot, but have you tried to evaluate at least approximately the reliability of these additions? Statisticaly it may be ~90%, if not better. Yes, I understand 6s position - as a bureaucrat, he is absolutely right - ranking is and should remain purely "human-being' business" - under definition. But let's take a look at this "business" from another, pragmatic point of view - we may change reliability of audio param from current ~30% to ~90% (of course, values are hypothetical). Don't forget, that watchers are always free to fix any noticed mismatch after such batch update, or to be precise - that's their duty. What choice is better then - to "follow the letter of the law" or to have x3 times(!) more reliable info? (...if it have any sense at all...) :) --Senvaikis (talk) 22:24, December 17, 2015 (UTC)
PS: One more (alternative) point of view: strictly speaking, such update doesn't outrage even "the letter of the law" - according to the definition and requirements to info page, actually it's nothing more than some "digest" of its "parent page" content, ergo - it should be synchronized to this content. If some spot or yt is invalid, watcher should fix/remove it on the parent page first of all, but info page should remain always synced to its parent. --Senvaikis (talk) 06:32, December 18, 2015 (UTC)
Just for curiosity: here are the results of brief statistic evaluation for gold songs only (assuming they should be watched the most carefully). So, atm we have 17823 Gold Songs (set A) and 783845 Spotified Songs (set B). Then the count of golden songs, which should have an audio param set to "done", may be taken from the set C = A ∩ B (intersection of A & B). It's equal to 11243. And only 5480 (48.7%) of them have this param set to "done". Yes, I should admit that my initial evaluation was too pessimistic (at least for golden pages). But anyways, - 5763 gold songs still are waiting for some attention. May you imagine what would be the results of similar stats for bronze songs? :) --Senvaikis (talk) 10:03, December 18, 2015 (UTC)
PS: despite to much better results for the set D=GoldGoEar (7996 pages with expected high 86.7% reliability), it brings additional 1064 pages to be checked, so the final count for Au is 6827.
Just to play devil's advocate – while watchers should, in theory, check any edit to pages they have "adopted", in practice they'll have to notice that edit first, which requires them to have "hide bots" and "hide minor" unchecked.
I see what you mean though. I'm really on the fence about this issue. Strictly speaking, any Ag/Au song with audio=n/a and spot should be changed to "unknown" and downgraded… hardly feasible or fair. Even more strictly speaking, "n/a" should have a timestamp, since n/a at time of checking doesn't necessarily mean n/a now. I guess in the greater scheme it doesn't really matter – so many pages have been ranked Bronze or above without the necessary checking of even basic things like correct pagename, or existence, that a few potentially wrong spotify links are hardly of any consequence. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:54, December 20, 2015 (UTC)
Quote by 6 times 9: "Even more strictly speaking, "n/a" should have a timestamp, since n/a at time of checking doesn't necessarily mean n/a now"
If you were really strict, 6, you'd apply the same statement for "done" also - see the lists of Au & Ag songs with currently unavailable yts (most of them positively have been available atm of setting their videos to "done"...) :) --Senvaikis (talk) 21:19, December 20, 2015 (UTC)

Songs With Music Videos category

Do we really need this category? I stumbled upon it today and it felt like a dupe category to me, since Category:YouTube/Song already has 80,000+ articles in it. It seems like this category is a misnomer as only pages that use the {{​video}} template are listed in it. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)20:50, April 6, 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. It is was actually older than YT/S, and SongFooter originally used this template to show video links. — 6×9 (Talk) 06:54, April 7, 2016 (UTC)
Ah okay, figures. I'm surprised that slipped by us without deletion for this long Wink The 30+ songs in this category may still need to be purged as they still show up as members of the category. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)10:50, April 7, 2016 (UTC)
Touching: done, but that wasn't enough to resolve Nicola's question - this cat still contained some members (containing {{​Videodm}} or manual cats). I removed all mancats and deadlinks to Dailymotion, but don't know what should we do with those 7 remaining (with a valid {{​Videodm}}s)... --Senvaikis (talk) 14:22, April 7, 2016 (UTC)
PS: Question for reflection: what'd you say about restoring C:SWMV, with 3 subcats: C:YouTube/Song‎‎, C:Vimeo/Song‎‎ and C:Dailymotion/Song‎ (to be created then)? --Senvaikis (talk) 15:13, April 7, 2016 (UTC)
Another good catch not surprising, with all the fishing you do :-) Updated videodm to bring it in line with other footer templates. Restoring SWMV sounds like a good idea, though I'd keep them in C:ExtLinks as well. — 6×9 (Talk) 17:05, April 7, 2016 (UTC)
--Senvaikis (talk) 07:49, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
Funny you should ask – been wondering about that too. Pop the question now, or wait for a bit? Looks good so far though. — 6×9 (Talk) 20:54, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
How about just now? --Senvaikis (talk) 12:08, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
Are we making suggestions for what I think we are? Because if we are I have an additional nomination in mind - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 14:12, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
Go ahead then, Pat - I'm just curious if I guess right ;). And what can you say in answer to my Q?
I agree with the nomination already stated. My nomination however goes to a certain German beverage ;). - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 14:22, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
There's only one possible objection to you suggestion (nothing's strange I guessed it right) - too many DEs in one ship ;). If seriously - I agree 100%, but my agreement doesn't mean I withdraw the previous nominee (considering your definition as additional, not alternative...) :) --Senvaikis (talk) 14:44, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
Of course, I was merely throwing an additional suggestion :) (much like mine and 123F's nomination). We can always have more coding powerhouses around LW. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 15:29, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
I assume ​Category:Songs With Audio is of a similar antiquity too? Added by {{​Audio}}, and contains a single song page (though the template's also used on SOTD archives + AOTW talk pages).
It could be repurposed along with Songs With Music Videos, containing the relevant GoEar/Spotify/Bandcamp/SoundCloud categories. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 12:39, April 13, 2016 (UTC)
+1 on SWA, and on 2nd nominee. — 6×9 (Talk) 13:37, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
Well, we have agreements from 3 admins... Considering the fact that 2/3 of them are bureaucrats and other admins haven't expressed any objections (though at least two of them have positively seen these nominations), I think it's time to ask for a nominees opinion. Surely, I'd prefer to see a bigger quorum (btw, it's not late for voting yet), but anyways I'm going to ask BB for his agreement a few hours later. Would you agree to ask FB, Pat? --Senvaikis (talk) 18:13, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I'll ask him when you ask BB (if asked in the next 3 hours) - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 18:25, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
Do you mind being clear? What the heck are we supposed to vote for?  · Lichtweber talk service  19:23, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
Two new admin nominations. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:25, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
Care to elaborate...?  · Lichtweber talk service  19:31, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
I object!  · Lichtweber talk service  20:09, April 16, 2016 (UTC)

New Template

Template {{​cv}} for covers on artist pages, similiar to {{​ft}}

{{cv|Full Song Page Name}}

U like? Improve?  · Lichtweber talk service  19:50, April 14, 2016 (UTC)

¡gracias! Was long overdue...--ES (talk) 20:00, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
I spied you working on that, nice work! - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 20:07, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
I thought unnamed params were assimilated, even in one param templates... --ES (talk) 08:23, April 15, 2016 (UTC)
Small bug showed up. --Senvaikis (talk) 08:42, April 15, 2016 (UTC)
after-fix PS: you are welcome!
Thanks for your help guys, I think cv is good to go now. I added it to ​Help:Templates already :)  · Lichtweber talk service  12:46, April 16, 2016 (UTC)

We might need to come up with some general guidelines on what info is allowed on track listings and what isn't – both {{​feat}} and {{​cv}} duplicate info from song pages, as does "(instrumental)", but while the former are accepted, the latter generally isn't. — 6×9 (Talk) 08:46, May 21, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd think anything specific to the song (cvr/cvrd/feat/credits/romanized/transtitle) is best not duplicated on alb/artist pages. Then there are cases of track times/ indicated on alb/artist pages, exact alb release date / alb type etc. (added to album headers and pages) Instrumental only when non instrumental version exists? Transcluding may allow display of such song specific info without explicit typing in track lists... Is that a possibility? --ES (talk) 09:45, May 21, 2016 (UTC)
I like having cover/feat, at least, displayed on the artist and album pages. It makes it easier to see where a guest artist has contributed, who all the artists working on the album are, and other artists related to the given artist. Instrumental only when there's a non-instrumental version sounds good, similar to other notations. Transcluding: not really possible unless we make each track a parameter in a template, which doesn't seem practical. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 01:26, May 22, 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Bobo; feat and cover (as well as notations like remix or live) is beneficial IMO. I think there should be a separate rule for cases where the majority of the album features covers, however, to avoid over-inflating the page. Instrumental notations and translation/romanisation of song titles should remain on song page only, though. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 12:37, May 22, 2016 (UTC)


Speaking of templates: I'd like to do the same for {{​ft}} as for the fa parameters in {{​SongHeader}} and remove the autolinking. To that end (and also for naming consistency) I'd create a new template at {{​fa}} and let my bot convert all occurences of ft, adding links only where the target page exists. This would also be announced on the CP. Thoughts? Does anyone see a problem with that? — 6×9 (Talk) 09:24, April 16, 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather that we kept the template name {{​ft}} because I feel that this is the "most natural" name for it. But removing autolinking is a good thing, I guess.  · Lichtweber talk service  12:43, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
How about removing any ambiguity and just going with "featured", or "feat"? I doubt anyone's fingers will fall off from having to hit a couple extra keys… — 6×9 (Talk) 13:27, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good! I prefer 'ft' over 'fa' too - it took me a while to figure out what 'fa' meant when I first started editing here. The name's not that important though, so whatever works best! - OneTwoThreeFall talk 20:06, April 18, 2016 (UTC)
Would anyone have a problem with choosing {{​feat}} over {{​ft}}? (A new name wouldn't break current links & make keeping track of converting a bit easier.) Also, should we (eventually) rename the SongHeader params to ft#/feat# for consistency? — 6×9 (Talk) 09:56, May 5, 2016 (UTC)
I'm okay with feat if SH gets changed as well (however it would take some relearning Tongue) - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 17:00, May 5, 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me as well. Maybe bold the featured artist name if it doesn't exist? I like feat# for SH. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 21:42, May 5, 2016 (UTC)

Nominating New Admins

I am sorry, but I don't think it's fair to expect us to vote for new admins when nobody even bothers to officially and explicitly name the candidates here @LW. And I object to limiting the voting process to "a few hours". Name the candidates, give everybody at least one week to consider their vote. I won't vote for mysterious unknowns.  · Lichtweber talk service  20:05, April 16, 2016 (UTC)

I thought the secrecy was just a bit of fun and games. Both nominations have had their user pages linked, but here's some clarification for you:
  1. Bobo, nominated by Senv
  2. Fassbrause, nominated by me
Both very good editors who can do with the additional tools. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 20:11, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
Have you any other, more specific objections, which could change our opinion, LW? --Senvaikis (talk) 20:41, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
PS @Pat: let's wait till tomorrow... :)
[edit conflict] Note that, while we didn't explicitly state that we were talking about adminship nominations, both nominees' usernames were explicitly mentioned. — 6×9 (Talk) 20:43, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
@Pat: Thank you.
@Senv: I honestly don't know how to answer this. Let me just say Hannover. You are unbelievable...  · Lichtweber talk service  09:32, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
@LW: Trying to remain polite, I just say bluntly: that's not a post of admin. --Senvaikis (talk) 11:24, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
It appears he left. Anyway, the edit summary was completely unacceptable and would have led to an instant block for most users. I've removed his admin status. Should he ever return & be willing to discuss things objectively, I'd be willing to reconsider. — 6×9 (Talk) 12:40, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
The mood is spoiled, but we should decide what to do imo - hope both nominees will understand that actual reasons of the conflict have nothing to do with them... What do you think, Pat? --Senvaikis (talk) 14:46, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
We haven't heard 123F, ES and Nic's (and Dr B's :P) thoughts on the nominations (I doubt they'd have objections), so maybe they could chime in with their opinions. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 15:16, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
No objections here. Fassbrause has been a great contributor for a very long time, and Bobogoobo, while only having edited regularly for the last few months, definitely seems to have the experience. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 16:13, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
No objections to either nominee. --ES (talk) 17:56, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
...why not both? --ES (talk) 19:17, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
It's always been both (I probably could have made that clearer earlier Tongue) - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 19:29, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
I've been considering Fassbrause as a new admin nominee for some time now, so I'm definitely on board for that. I've seen Bobo around but haven't really looked at their profile/contribs much - in doing so now, I also have no objections to them becoming admin as they seem to be well-versed in Wikia and very helpful. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)10:17, April 18, 2016 (UTC)
*bump* That's as unanimous as it gets… — 6×9 (Talk) 18:44, May 2, 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Would be nice though to hear that we aren't going to wait for absolutely all remaining admins chiming in, putting such way an end to this shameful story.
My apologies to both nominees (hope that the break in FB's contribs is just a coincidence...)--Senvaikis (talk) 06:04, May 3, 2016 (UTC)
That would be a new record for LW's admin curse – mere mention of the possibility of a nomination! — 6×9 (Talk) 11:00, May 3, 2016 (UTC)
Shall we send out the requests then? I'm sure FB will hopefully start editing again soon, and the admin request will be a nice thing for him to return to. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 15:28, May 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • BB: request: done, answer:done, grants: done.
  • FB: request...
--Senvaikis (talk) 19:35, May 3, 2016 (UTC)
FB: request: done, answer also pending
And it looks like Bobo's up for it. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 23:17, May 3, 2016 (UTC)


"...non-Latin writing system that uses symbols for entire words (Chinese, Japanese, & Korean)..." Yes, but what about syllable-based alphabets, which are somewhere in between (like Ethiopic or Canadian)? I vote for using the script language, rather than the first character, for these scripts.

Also, how do we deal with CJK Unified Ideographs (Unicode range x4E00-x9FFF)? "Many characters in this block are used in all three writing systems, while others are in only one or two of the three." Do we fall back to language (for songs) and hometown (artists), with suitable replacements (Mandarin => Chinese, Hong Kong => Chinese)? — 6×9 (Talk) 06:42, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on the first question. Far too many characters to be worth categories. For CJK Unified I'd go with song language, yeah. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 04:30, May 9, 2016 (UTC)


Quoth LWPN: "… in the case with albums or songs that start with a Twitter hashtag, the number part should be removed completely …" I think and a certain admin candidate, who's still waiting to be proposed to by Senv, agrees that it would be better to replace "#" with "Hashtag ", to reflect the norm in spoken language. Thoughts? — 6×9 (Talk) 17:18, April 27, 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Usually we follow Wikipedia's lead for things like this, and they seem to leave the hashtag out. However it is true that hashtag is spoken, so I'm wouldn't really be opposed to either. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 16:10, April 29, 2016 (UTC)
As stated above, I'm in favor of converting any characters with technical restrictions to the way they would be pronounced in the title. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 04:30, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

Bot request

Not sure what the procedure is for requesting a bot flag on an account, since bureaucrats can't set them anymore. In case this is the right place: I'd like a bot flag for an account I've already used as such elsewhere, User:Lyra Botstrings. I haven't taken the time to learn PyWikipediaBot, though I am experienced with Python, so I just use AWB. Don't have any particular projects for it at the moment, but I'm sure it will be useful. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 04:30, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

You'll need to ask the Wikia staff through Special:Contact. Not sure if admins need a recommendation letter (bureaucrats don't), but in case you do:
I, 6 times 9, being of mostly sound mind, hereby declare Bobogoobo fit to own a bot and unlikely to use it to destroy the internet.
6×9 (Talk) 16:50, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, the rights have been granted. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 04:12, May 10, 2016 (UTC)

Soundtracks in multiple languages

Presenting {{​SoundtrackLanguage}} (following this and this discussion). You can see a working example for songs here and a not-so working example for albums here – it requires albums to be actually formatted as such, complete with AH. (If the French version was released as soundtrack, it should get a regular album page, not just a list; if it wasn't it shouldn't be listed as released version…) — 6×9 (Talk) 08:21, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

Looks great! ~Bobogoobo (talk) 23:33, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

Vocal Slicing in Lyrics

Help:Lyrics is unclear about how songs using vocal slicing/chopping should be transcribed. (At least when the song is composed mainly of such -- for only a line or two, I would exclude it entirely or use an ellipsis as usual.) Often the sliced portions do constitute "part or all of the chorus" or make a song notable, but that rule has been contradicted before. I think it's very inaccurate simply to mark the song as instrumental. Often there are whole words among the slices. What do you guys prefer to do with it? As an example, take Echelon:Sleep, of which I have created a sample slicing transcription in my sandbox. Obviously it would be ridiculous to include all of it on a mainspace page, as much of the slicing is open to interpretation and, indeed, meaningless. But what about the whole words, especially between the "verses", or even within them? Should there be some notation for excluded slice portions? It's not really the same as scat/vocalizing where you can put a small portion and imply the rest. In any case, I think Help:Lyrics should include a specific line just to cover the bases. (Also, while I'm here, I made a suggestion that may need some discussion here.) ~Bobogoobo (talk) 04:40, May 30, 2016 (UTC)

IMO, the whole words should definitely be included, but vocal splicing like your example should only be included if it leads to a full word (e.g. ​"lo-lo-love me like you do"). I've made an attempt on your sandbox at laying out the lyrics to your song. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 09:52, May 30, 2016 (UTC)


Minor thing, but I didn't want to unilaterally change a bunch of organization. Does anyone object to creating subcategories for Category:Users, such as Users by Location, Users by Artist Fandom, Users by Languages Read? Would make it a bit easier to navigate, and would be nice to put them under the relevant letters. Also, I don't think user pages should be put in the category directly, but rather should belong to one of the existing subcategories. EDIT: also, {{​Userboxes/Hometown}} creates an inconsistency by using "Users who are from X" rather than "Users from X", so there are some locations with one of each category. I prefer the latter, but either way we should pick one. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 07:05, June 16, 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. On the same note, I'd also put all "Albums released in" categories in "Albums by Release Year" or something, rather than directly in ​Category:Albums. — 6×9 (Talk) 17:58, June 16, 2016 (UTC)

Retire Code Purple

I think {{​Code Purple}} is unnecessary. It is only used on 31 pages. Most of it is covered by {{​RequestTranslation}}; the rest would be better served by a new {{​RequestWriting}}, which can be placed directly on the song page and would make it easier for users to find requests in languages with which they are familiar. (For example, this song could use {{RequestWriting|German}} instead of Edit.) Only two pages are in Requests For Searching, and could be placed into Requests For Writing instead. This usage would be more intuitive as everything would be a more specific version of Template:Edit, and none of the categories would be on talk pages. Edit: also, Category:Requests For Romanization is inconsistent with the rest - it's the only one that lists all the pages also contained in the subcategories, which isn't very useful when split by language. Also, could you guys please take a look at these topics on the CP? Thanks as always, ~Bobogoobo (talk) 22:04, June 17, 2016 (UTC)

  1. Agree on CPu; putting it on a talk page means it'll only be found by a small fraction of the users who'd see it if it were on the content page.
  2. Good point on RfR, I've changed it to only use the main cat if language is not provided (0 pages so far, unlike RfT).
  3. Cant' really comment on romanization rules; I'd prefer sentence case but there might be very good reasons I don't know about. (LyricWiki:Japan seems to be mostly dead, unfortunately…) — 6×9 (Talk) 08:06, June 18, 2016 (UTC)

Watcher icon

A while ago, Bobo came up with a good idea – adding a watcher icon to the other header icons. We'd only need a decent icon… the crazy eye doesn't really work at 20px or below, and when stripped down it isn't really recognizable as an eye anymore. I found this one, but it might look a bit too creepy. And most b&w icons are too plain next to the coloured icons. Anyone got an eye for eyes? — 6×9 (Talk) 17:52, June 18, 2016 (UTC)

If all else fails, maybe binoculars? ~Bobogoobo (talk) 20:57, June 18, 2016 (UTC)
That could work. (Using this icon, unfortunately not svg, but most images are either too elaborate or too pictogram-ish.) — 6×9 (Talk) 13:49, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
Anyone against this? Anyone have a different icon they'd prefer? While making changes to {{​Star}} I'd also like to merge all "Unranked PAGETYPEs" categories into one "C:Unranked", is that OK with everyone? — 6×9 (Talk) 06:53, June 25, 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 18:51, June 25, 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me too, seems quite useful! - OneTwoThreeFall talk 20:33, June 25, 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with Bobo and 123F. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 20:48, June 25, 2016 (UTC)

done As always, if you find any bugs please let me know. — 6×9 (Talk) 07:05, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

VA compilation albums redundant?

Are various artists compilation/greatest-hits albums (​1, ​2, ​3, etc.) considered redundant per LyricWiki:Deletion? To me, they don't seem too useful (other than for filling up album# parameters on popular songs), but I'm not sure if these sorts of various artist albums are a special case to be kept. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 17:28, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

They're probably useful to their owners the albums', not the pages' for having all the links in one place instead of having to hunt for each song separately. Can't tell how often they're actually used for that though… — 6×9 (Talk) 18:23, July 20, 2016 (UTC)
Fair point, though you could say the same thing about single artist compilation albums too. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 05:19, July 21, 2016 (UTC)
Not quite, as all songs are (or at least should be) listed on that artist's page and can be quickly located with ctrl+f. This argument could of course be also applied to "regular" albums as well…
A guideline for VA comps would be useful though. I don't think we need (or want) pages for obscure, long out of print releases and such. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:59, July 21, 2016 (UTC)
I thought the guideline was create VA comps only when needed for songs that can't be found on other releases, (which could very well be obscure and out of print singles). Single artist compilation albums are best looked at case by case, as they are not always the same as "Greatest Hits", and they help displace long out of print studio albums. --ES (talk) 19:44, July 21, 2016 (UTC)
That guideline was only ever applied to/enforced for single artist comps. If we want to extend it to VAs as well, we'd better get some opinions on the CP first. — 6×9 (Talk) 14:50, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

More artist lookup links

Can we have lookup links added for PureVolume and bandcamp in Artist ExtLinks? Lots of indie bands may only be found there... --ES (talk) 04:14, August 22, 2016 (UTC)

One more template in C:EL?

Hi, bros,

I'd like to hear your opinion about this discussion, - tia! --Senvaikis (talk) 12:27, September 2, 2016 (UTC)
Yandex: agree with your reasons and its removal. GooglePlay: little informational value; personally I don't think we should advertise a paid service unless it helped paying our bills (like Amazon and iTunes links). — 6×9 (Talk) 18:12, September 2, 2016 (UTC)
Yep... I suspect that this time hardly "silence gives consent". Next to 6, I'm also not sure if we should promote GP, but on another hand, full-featured Spotify is not free also... In addition, GP may have less regional restrictions and gives more info about artist, compared to SP. But its free version doesn't have any player controls - that make it less usefull for lyrics transcribing...
Well, if someone have any thoughts - I'll wait till next week. Otherwise, if I got it right, - decision should be negative (deleting template). --Senvaikis (talk) 08:51, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
I haven't encountered any limitations with using Spotify for wiki purposes. I didn't see any benefit to Google Play, and agreed on lack of controls. I don't think it allows you to play the full song either. Doesn't seem worth keeping for now. If there were a referral link maybe it could just be an optional addition separate from SF. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 00:56, September 8, 2016 (UTC)
So, seems we should return a verdict: "to be deleted"? (Though I know at least one user who will be definitely saddened by such our decision - contrary to Spotify, GP gives much wider list of available Russian artists...).
@BB: It is just a separate external referral link, not intended to be used in SF...
Well, I'll wait till tomorrow, before deleting it finally... :) --Senvaikis (talk) 08:25, September 13, 2016 (UTC)
Are many people interested in having a GooglePlay template here? Maybe Wikia would like to make a referral deal with them? (side-note: iirc, our iTunes links haven't used a referrer tag for a while now, so they're not helping with the bills either!)
Agreed though - it doesn't seem to provide much use over offering to buy the song. If it is useful for a particular song (if it's the only source, for example), a link can always be added with {{​ExtLink}}. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 11:50, September 13, 2016 (UTC)
done, --Senvaikis (talk) 07:02, September 14, 2016 (UTC)
P.S. @(6 & 123): just for fun - try to create to GP, using {{​ExtLink}} :)
Exactly - not really userfriendly (putting it mildly), especially in

A temporary work-around for SOTD?

Considering the ongoing issue with Song of the Day management, I've made a little script at MediaWiki:SOTD submitter.js as a temporary work-around.

What it will do is intercept the submitting of a new nomination on the Special:SOTD page, and instead add it to the LyricWiki talk:Song of the Day page under the relevant section (either 'Nominations' or '"Preferred Date" Nominations'), similar to how nominations were submitted before Special:SOTD. Management will be a manual affair, but hey, at least it'll be working again!

If this would be considered satisfactory for now (until a proper fix can be made), all that needs to be done to enable it is adding an import for the JS page into MediaWiki:Common.js. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 11:36, September 13, 2016 (UTC)

Is your script membership in Category:Invalid YouTube Link unavoidable? --Senvaikis (talk) 12:40, September 13, 2016 (UTC)
Oops, fixed! - OneTwoThreeFall talk 13:07, September 13, 2016 (UTC)
This is now active - new SOTD nominations via the special page will be added to LyricWiki talk:Song of the Day, where they can be approved by being moved to the queue page. Once we have a few nominations, User:ÜberBot can be unblocked, and should process upcoming SOTDs as it used to. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 09:32, September 20, 2016 (UTC)

Easier JS usage?

Working on Senvaikis's suggestions, I came up with a system that allows fairly easy management/customisation of various JS code for the user. (To be honest, I finished making it a while back but forgot to bring it up here!)

It would allow having a central place to choose and customise available JS scripts (you can simply visit a page and check boxes for what you wish to use, with extra settings available for scripts that use them), as opposed to the current methods of using importArticles and global variables. Also, instead of having scripts stored in various user namespaces (making them hard to find), they would all be in the MediaWiki namespace.

Would this be useful to have here? Thoughts/opinions? - OneTwoThreeFall talk 09:39, September 20, 2016 (UTC)

Having a central place for scripts sounds like a huge plus – at least if we can get the staff to make that namespace editable for admins again! Failing that, could it be adapted without too much hassle to look in the LW namespace instead? — 6×9 (Talk) 20:17, September 20, 2016 (UTC)
Support for sure, I never got around to working on cataloguing our scripts earlier. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 02:16, September 21, 2016 (UTC)
As it should have been expected, - I agree, though should confess - still have no clue how does your system work. :) --Senvaikis (talk) 04:44, September 21, 2016 (UTC)
Some pages in the MediaWiki namespace are editable now, including all .js pages, so that should be alright.
Basically how it works is a page listing the available scripts is made (here's an example one), and the main script uses that page along with a user page (kept at User:Example/preferences-codeload.css) to load whatever scripts have been enabled. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 10:05, September 21, 2016 (UTC)
Happy to say this is now done! There should be a link in the tools menu on the bottom toolbar named "Script preferences", which allows choosing scripts you'd like to use.
As of now, there are three scripts listed there (new editor buttons that I've been working on). For the existing scripts in the user namespace to be available, they'll need to be copied to the MediaWiki namespace and then added to the MediaWiki:CodeLoad-definitions.js page. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 16:34, November 16, 2016 (UTC)
Only played with it on a handful of pages so far, but looks good! Thanks! — 6×9 (Talk) 20:42, November 16, 2016 (UTC)
+√ --ES (talk) 03:59, November 17, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, glad it's all working well! - OneTwoThreeFall talk 09:48, November 20, 2016 (UTC)
Oops, just found a bug stopping settings being loaded from the user page if the browser data is cleared. I've made a fix, and it'll be live in the next day or two once approved. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 12:21, November 20, 2016 (UTC)
Would be nice to find all the ancient artist/album pages that contain "_" instead of space in tracks (bot/dpl?) (+manual fix), since this breaks the resolve redirects JS. --ES (talk) 18:14, November 20, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the note! The resolve redirects JS will now work on links with any combination of spaces/underscores (and I've added it to the new scripts page too). Not sure if they're worth replacing en masse, though. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 08:25, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

Special Purpose Artists

Let's give this another go. I've made a first draft of a ​template for use on SPA pages, and at a ​guideline (using examples where we pretty much agreed in the last discussion that they should be SPAs). It's rather meagre so far, so we'll need more categories and examples.

It's fairly obvious that a waterproof policy that'll let us decide with 100% accuracy is impossible. There'll always be borderline cases that'll have to be decided individually. That's why I use the term guideline instead. — 6×9 (Talk) 08:11, October 11, 2016 (UTC)

Category sort orders

Might it be more useful if the Songs by Artist and Albums by Artist categories were sorted by song/album title, rather than the complete page name? Taking Category:Songs by 10,000 Maniacs as an example, the only sub-heading now is "1", but with such a change, it would have the A-Z sub-headings, making finding a song in the list quickly easier. It'd also allow using {{​CatAZ}} for bigger categories, if desired. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 15:17, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense to me! ~Bobogoobo (talk) 18:33, November 21, 2016 (UTC)
+1 --ES (talk) 19:30, November 21, 2016 (UTC)
I left default sorting because that way songs are grouped by alias; for navigation there's {{​CatAZPrefix}}. But I'm not really in favour of one over the other, so if you prefer sorting by song/album, I've no problem with changing it. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:04, November 22, 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realise it sorted by alias; you can really see the effect of that on artists like Renard! Considering that, and the prefix template I wasn't aware of either, I feel fairly ambivalent to the sort order too. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 09:24, November 30, 2016 (UTC)


Looks like wikia just enabled IPv6, so don't be surprised when you see anons like this. — 6×9 (Talk) 05:16, June 29, 2017 (UTC)

Moving user talk topics

Regarding the most recent drama with a certain user (ES moved a topic from his own talk page to said user's, leading to a revert war and inevitable short term block)… Can we please agree that talk page topics should stay on the user's talk page where they started? I doubt Justin is the only user to be put off by this, and whatever the benefits are, I don't think they're worth it. Plus, I REALLY don't want other users to start swapping topics around as well…

I don't want a complete ban – moving relevant topics to the CP is fine of course, or to a template talk page if it's about a bug/feature in that template. And if a user posts on your talk page but apparently doesn't check for a reply, it's OK as well. — 6×9 (Talk) 15:35, July 5, 2017 (UTC)

The threads I moved was as a service to the user. An exception justifiable due to his approach to LW matters, imho. And I agree with your point, 6. --ES (talk) 17:42, July 5, 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. It's happened to me once before and I was a little confused why the topic was moved, so I'm sure others would be too. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 18:45, July 9, 2017 (UTC)


I don't really want to get involved in the latest drama, but it raised two issues concerning the docs that we should probably decide upon…

  1. Which albums to list, specifically the phrase "listed elsewhere": I always understood that as "elsewhere on the artist page", thus excluding v.a. compilations. Either way it should be clarified.
  2. When to create pages for instrumentals. The main point is for lyric plugins to show "instrumental" instead of "no lyrics found". Does it make sense to create separate pages for instrumental versions of songs without lyrics, or should they be redirected to the "regular" pages? (I'd prefer the latter.) — 6×9 (Talk) 17:18, August 11, 2017 (UTC)
1. @​Help:Contents/Editing/Formatting/Artists#Singles:
Note 2: Often, non-album tracks from singles are later included as bonus tracks on an album or collected on compilations. :In that case, they should be included on the album/compilation and not listed in the Singles section.
The quoted passage above seems to apply to two track singles that have one track already listed on a VAComp/VAST.
2.The main point is for lyric plugins to show "instrumental" instead of "no lyrics found" Which also leads contributors to assume that entire instrumental albums may be created. If that is not the case, please clarify in docs under what circumstances Instrumentals may be created. Exceptional cases: Entirely Instrumental sound tracks (by one or more artists, example: RN/RC/MK STs), entirely instrumental studio/collaborations please see ​Sco-Mule (2015).
  • we have many CJK releases where the instrumental tracks are indicated as black links, or indicated with the sung version link with an (instrumental) notation (example:​鶺鴒: is a 3 trk single or 1 trk single?). Clarifying the manner of indication of such tracks in docs would be appreciated
  • Additionally, if entire instrumental albums (which types?) are to be avoided, what is the minimum number of sung tracks required, per ​1 & ​2 tia.--ES (talk) 19:27, August 14, 2017 (UTC)
PS: It seems that a template for ​Eurovision Song Contest artist pages may be needed; if a link to the esc release page is not desired--ES (talk) 19:33, August 14, 2017 (UTC)
1. As above. When I added that bit in the Singles section I meant albums/compilations by the same artist, not va. Else it'd still have to be listed in the misc. songs section.
2. Going by the current docs, separate pages may (and should) be created for versions of songs if the lyrics differ significantly. I'd say missing the lyrics entirely is as significant as it gets, but you seem to disagree. — 6×9 (Talk) 17:19, August 15, 2017 (UTC)
1. Please clarify what you meant in the docs. "Note 2" I linked above seems to contradict what you meant and what is written elsewhere in the docs.
2. Instrumentals: If any known exclusions exists regarding creation of Instrumentals (Inst. version or not), please clarify in docs. If artists with entirely Instrumental output are not legitimate lw objects, please clarify. Also Please clarify the status of albums like ​this, for the sake of contributors. Past talk page discussions seems to imply there are known/desired but undocumented exclusions, which leads to conflicting edits.
  • If referring to this thread as justification for creation of all Instrumentals, and avoiding any deletions and redirections is sufficient, until Policy regarding Instrumentals is amended, then please advise. --ES (talk) 19:46, August 15, 2017 (UTC)
The whole point of discussion on 1 is to get consensus on how to clarify the docs. I know how I interpret them, but other admins might see it differently.
As for 2, that there are no known exclusions is exactly the point. Does that mean you agree that your redirect was against policy? If so, you might want to apologise to Kopf. — 6×9 (Talk) 20:39, August 15, 2017 (UTC)
1. So VAA albums are excluded from "Listed elsewhere", If that may be stated explicitly so it may not be subject of interpretation.
2. Thank you for clarifying that there are no exclusions regarding creation of Instrumentals. Hopefully this will lead to a consistent approach by admins. Clearly The deletion/redirection of instrumentals is Against policy, and thus an apology is in order. --ES (talk) 21:23, August 15, 2017 (UTC)