FANDOM

2,044,636 Pages

Welcome…
Multi

…to the Community Forum's talk page! This is the place to talk about the site with other editors, make plans for future changes, discuss problems and discover solutions.

Have fun, keep a cool head in discussions, and remember to always sign your posts!


General
  • Topics are in relative chronological order, top to bottom, so please add your post at the bottom of the page.
  • For questions about editing, see the Help Pages. If you still can't find what you're looking for, post your question at the Help Desk.
Projects
  • Current projects with links to discussions: [edit]
Project Link Page/s
Policy change for root pages LyricWiki:Proposal For Root Pages Policy


Explicit images/textEdit

Hi all,

You may have seen that staff check images on Fandom, and delete those that are outside our Terms of Use. That includes images containing nudity, overly sexual images (including fetishes), and shock images. Fictional violence is usually okay, although we are harsher on sexual violence. But if violence is very extreme, or if it's real violence, then that's outside the ToU too.

We reviewed our policy a while back, and decided that album covers should be classed under art, which allows us a bit more leeway. That means we now alow simple nudity if it's on an album cover. I think that covers the vast majority of covers that would have been a problem in the past.

However, we still have limits and some of the images here are over the line.

When we have deleted images in the past, some have been restored, meaning that they have gone through the review process several times. That needs to stop. If you have a problem with a deletion then you are welcome to contact us to discuss that. But if an image is outside our Terms of Use, then it must stay deleted.

Of course, the easy solution is often an alternative or censored version. Although in the case of sex acts and sexual violence there often isn't a way to hide the image enough to remove the problem while still leaving it meaningful to show. In those cases a placeholder or alternative cover is the solution.

There is also a problem with some of the extreme lyrics on this wiki. For example, the songs of Funeral Rape are way over the line. I'm afraid those need to go. I'm happy to work with you to decide which ones go over the line.

This is something we should have come to you about some time ago, so apologies for springing this on you. Please let me know if you have any questions about all this. Thanks - Sannse @fandom (help forum | blog) 22:17, January 4, 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear this, as it was a tad frustrating having to figure out what alternate images to use for the deleted album covers. Some albums didn't even have any alternate covers, so they needed to be manually pixellated/censored. Knowing that there's now more leeway on this means that this will have to be done less often. I am, however, a bit mixed on this decision to delete songs with extreme lyrics, as I didn't realize this was an issue (explicit album covers make sense, but song lyrics shouldn't have to be deleted as LW allows all types of songs - shouldn't lyrics be considered art as well?). If we deleted Funeral Rape's songs, we'd also have to go and delete just about every other goregrind song on here (the genre is known for its explicit lyrics in the first place) and it would just be way too much to have to "review" with the staff. Not to mention there's some gory lyrics from more well-known metal bands such as Cannibal Corpse that would harm searchability if they were deleted. As surprising as it is to some people, extreme metal does have its fans, so having the lyrics here helps them.
I understand that Staff's word is above all, however, so you likely will be deleting a bunch of lyrics either way, I'm just putting in my two cents because I'm not sure how you guys will manage to go about it. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)22:46, January 4, 2017 (UTC)
User:Sannse, User:XxTimberlakexx: I created Template:Deleted and Category:Deleted content to try to take a stab at this. You'll notice that I have already applied it to pages. I recommend that maybe admins go along and lock pages that meet this criterion. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:01, January 5, 2017 (UTC)
Edit Barring more input, I'm not going to apply it anywhere else just yet. But I figured I would give it a start. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:06, January 5, 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the start and the template looks good, but what is the criterion here? What exactly makes lyrics "too gory" or "too sexual"? It seems rather ill-defined to me. If we start adding this template to pages, there's a lot to sift through to be deemed "too" explicit. Let's see what Sannse has to say regarding my post above before we start mass-adding that to pages or anything. We need to find an efficient way to do it and this "criterion" needs to actually be defined. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)03:11, January 5, 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to go about it either :) In most cases of problem text on wikis, we just delete what we can find and rely on the community doing any maintenance needed afterwards. We simply don't have time to be more subtle. But I want to be more sensitive than that here and allow you to come up with the best alternatives. I think the template is a good solution, along with deletion of the actual lyrics pages of course. Note that in some cases, even the list of songs on the artist page is too obscene.
From those I've checked in Category:Genre/Goregrind... yes, all of those will have to go. As to where the line is, that's a very difficult question. There is a level of "I know it when I see it" here, but to try and give better guidelines, you need to remove text and images that include:
  • Graphic descriptions of sexual acts
    • Saying that sex is happening is okay, but not descriptions of how it's happening
  • Sexual violence
  • Racist/homophobic/anti-semitic/etc language (hate speech Wikipedia16)
    • There's an exception here for the n-word if not in a racist context (for example in some rap)
  • Strong gore that reaches the level of a shock image Wikipedia16
    • For example, maybe showing cannibalism and visible guts
Basically we are talking about any content that you think the average viewer is likely to recoil from in horror. I know that's vague but I think the main culprits are pretty obvious.
Do you want help in deleting the lyrics and marking the artist pages with the template? -- Sannse @fandom (help forum | blog) 19:48, January 5, 2017 (UTC)
Help wanted I'm just an average user here--more active than most but probably not a "power user" or anyone with advanced user rights. I would imagine that if you provided a handful of examples, then that would probably be helpful. Again, it's probably best if other users see this as well and that we wait awhile before widespread deployment/deletion. Simply put, if this site is violating the Terms of Use, either the site or the Terms need to change. I can understand arguments for either. The one thing that we can't let happen is for one subdomain to be out of step with all of the others--either everyone has the freedom to post shock images and racial slurs or none of us do (and if some users find that unacceptable, they can fork content, etc.) Would linking to external sources which provide that content violate the ToU as you understand them? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:24, January 5, 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. I can't imagine this goregrind stuff is intended to be pleasurable to listen to. You can't sing along either, I would imagine. Since their only intention is to be offensive and receive censorship, I don't have any objection to removing lyrics that break the ToU. Placing templates that state why they were removed sounds good to me. Would it be acceptable to keep the lyric pages and edit-protect them, but with the lyrics replaced with the template (i.e. keep the SongHeader and SongFooter, including links to external sources)? ~Bobogoobo (talk) 01:32, January 6, 2017 (UTC)
> I can't imagine this goregrind stuff is intended to be pleasurable to listen to.
I'm sure people have said that about every genre at some time! - OneTwoThreeFall talk 09:08, January 6, 2017 (UTC)
> We reviewed our policy a while back, and decided that album covers should be classed under art ... That means we now alow simple nudity if it's on an album cover.
Thank you for more leniency in this regard, but I must ask what is the definition of "simple nudity"? After posting the above comment, you deleted this album art image, a photo of a shirtless woman standing next to a clothed man which I personally wouldn't even consider "sexual". It definitely doesn't meet your criteria listed above.
> a problem with some of the extreme lyrics on this wiki … I'm afraid those need to go.
I strongly disagree with this. From what I've read of the talk page archives, the wiki has always been fairly critical of censorship (our policy is specifically not to censor lyrics), and I don't think we should start censoring (let alone completely removing) pages now, especially based on the undefinable criteria of "I know it when I see it". - OneTwoThreeFall talk 09:08, January 6, 2017 (UTC)
To add to 123F's point, rather than removing the more "heinous" lyrics, surely we could instead hide them behind some sort of content warning template, rather than deleting them, so people who happen to come across the lyrics won't be able to read them unless they choose to. I doubt younger or more easily upset users are going looking for these lyrics, this will just end up punishing the fans of these artists (regardless of how questionable their lyric content will be). - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 13:26, January 6, 2017 (UTC)
This is going to be a loooog reply.
Koavf: Would linking to external sources which provide that content violate the ToU as you understand them?
Sadly, yes it would. We have the same policy on links to nudity/porn/ect. on other wikis. Presenting it via links is fundamentally the same as showing readers the content directly. The same goes for images behind a warning screen (it's something we tried for some more adult wikis in the past).
Bobogoobo: Would it be acceptable to keep the lyric pages and edit-protect them, but with the lyrics replaced with the template (i.e. keep the SongHeader and SongFooter, including links to external sources)?
In many cases, the titles of the songs are a problem in themselves, explicit text falls under the ToU too.
OneTwoThreeFall: I must ask what is the definition of "simple nudity"?. After posting the above comment, you deleted [image], a photo of a shirtless woman standing next to a clothed man which I personally wouldn't even consider "sexual". It definitely doesn't meet your criteria listed above.
Simple nudity is nudity without a sexual element. For example a woman standing naked in a neutral way, rather than an image with the woman in a sexual pose or (for example) obviously in the midst of an orgasm. For men, an example of "non-simple" would be an erection.
On the specific image, that doesn't appear to be an album cover, so doesn't fall in to the exception. If that were a cover, it would be allowed. Also, in similar cases on covers, it's easy for us to miss that an image is an album cover from this wiki. We don't directly see the name of the source wiki when reviewing, we have to look at a link to the wiki. So a misclick is possible. You can ping me on my talk page if that happens.
OneTwoThreeFall: I don't think we should start censoring (let alone completely removing) pages now, especially based on the undefinable criteria of "I know it when I see it".
I'm afraid this is something that needs to happen. Neither of us have a choice. But on the good side, this applies to a very small proportion of the pages here, the deletions should be minimal.
I will have to start (re)deleting some images soon. I'll leave it until Monday so that I'm around for any questions ect.
Apologies if I missed any points, please let me know if so -- Sannse @fandom (help forum | blog) 16:42, January 6, 2017 (UTC)
Is the purpose of this censoring to protect (a subset of) users from seeing things they don't want to see, or to prevent users from seeing certain things even if they want to? Because if it's the former, we can present links to external resources in a way that makes it obvious they will show offensive content.
RE: the deleted image: how do we make it obvious that an image is an album cover, if the presence of an {{AlbumCover}} template, the Album Covers category and the backlink from an album page aren't enough? — 6×9 (Talk) 16:59, January 6, 2017 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry, I missed this last comment.
We want Fandom to be a family friendly site. That makes us a resource for everyone, including our younger readers (and, more importantly, their parents). We also have some advertisers, for example Google, who have rules on what their ads can be shown next to. I realize that second reason will be controversial, but I wanted to be open with you.
On recognising album covers - we use tool for reviewing images that brings the image to us, rather than showing it to us on a wiki. We can click a link to go to the wiki, but certainly can't do that for all of the many thousands of images checked each day. That means we don't see any categories, templates and so on, just the image and the name of the wiki. When doing many images at a time, it's easy to miss which wiki the image is on, we are concentrating on the images themselves. We generally catch that it's an album cover from the shape and the general design, but I can't guarantee that we will always get it right. -- Sannse @fandom (help forum | blog) 17:47, January 11, 2017 (UTC)

I need to mention again that explicit text is as much of a problem as explicit images. That includes some song titles. I need to delete the cover of Funeral Rape - Porn Afterlife again. Sorry -- Sannse @fandom (help forum | blog) 22:48, January 12, 2017 (UTC)

I hope Lw's uploading of redacted images, following deletions by Fandom staff, and the existing censored lyrics on lw (from past contributions) shows that the fixation on "deletion" (as in removal of entire images and lyric pages) is not well grounded. It seems that this slow process of "delete >> redact" is here to stay.
As for the case of advertisers not wishing to show our explicit image beside their products, a "Viewer Discretion is Advised" template on such pages may have merit.--ES (talk) 04:46, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Seems that now the definition of "extreme lyrics" has been broadened considerably, now apparently many of 2 Live Crew's (and presumably many other rap artists') lyrics are too explicit (whatever that means, or whoever decides this).

Apart from the fact that the cleanup of those deletions is left to us (including the decision what to do with albums where half of the song links are, and are apparently doomed to stay, red), I really don't see how LW is supposed to work as a lyric site when our content depends on the whim of some advertising companies, even less when staff are apparently deleting content proactively to avoid upsetting advertisers. It would be a different matter (though still far from ideal) if pages were only taken down after complaints from advertisers, or if there were at least a review process to make sure that some members of staff don't get overzealous. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:29, December 18, 2018 (UTC)

This has been a known entity for years and I tried to solve it above but someone who is no longer an admin deleted the relevant template and category. When admins restore pages that violate the ToU (e.g. yourself), then I don't know what you think is supposed to be the solution. Mine is to use the template I made and protect pages from being recreated. And Sannse told us above that we can have lyrics that mention sex just not ones graphically describing how sex happens, which is basically all of what 2 Live Crew's music was... Nothing about this should be surprising, really. What is surprising (and disappointing) is that local admins 1.) won't help and 2.) actively revert Wikia staff. The solutions here are to comply with the ToU or to move off of Wikia. —Justin (koavf)·T·C 20:14, December 18, 2018 (UTC)
FYI, above example of restoring was from 2015, before there was any talk of censoring lyrics (rather than just images). It is also worth noting that so far only one staff member has removed lyrics citing ToU. Finally, as has been mentioned before, LW's administrators' job is to enforce LW policy, not Fandom policy – Fandom have their own (paid) staff to handle that. — 6×9 (Talk) 09:11, December 19, 2018 (UTC)

Secondary matter: deletionEdit

Per my understanding of consensus here in the above discussion instigated by Wikia staff, I created Category:Deleted content which EchoSierra deleted. Was I mistaken about the community consensus and the utility of this category? What should we do about content which breaks the Terms of Service for Wikia? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:13, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

The template {{deleted}} that was created has not been approved, documentation that explains it's application criteria does not exist. The only instances that this template was applied was by yourself:
  1. On Image file: reverted, a new redacted version of the file was uploaded.
  2. On Song page: reverted
...so the deleted category page was a mis-creation. hth --ES (talk) 04:07, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
And can you show me some policy page about approval of templates? Alternately, do you have any better suggestions for how this community can meet the Terms of Service that it is breaking? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:54, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest a careful read of the Policy page on LyricWiki:Deletion. The issue, is not a case of a mere template creation/approval. The original thread seems like a more appropriate thread to pursue this matter. --ES (talk) 05:19, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
It seems like you paid no attention: I did post this as a suggestion at the above thread and the reason the above thread was posted at all is because the guidelines that you linked to are in violation of the Terms of Service of Wikia in general. As posted above by admin User:XxTimberlakexx "I appreciate the start and the template looks good" and per the staff member User:Sannse "yes, all of those will have to go". So--again--how do you propose resolving this? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:24, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
Does it not seem likely that content removal may requires a change of policy? That is my opinion. --ES (talk) 05:30, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
You are correct, since the editorial policies at this local wiki can't really override the policies of Wikia at large. So are you going to amend that policy page and undelete the work that I did? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:34, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
Please be aware that at this point in time, even if an admin applied the template and removed content, such action will be reverted, for the same reasons explained above--ES (talk) 05:47, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
Who would be doing that and why? There is content here that needs to be removed. We've known about this for several months and unless I am mistaken, no one seems to want to do anything to fix this problem. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:11, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
(outdent) Not sure that I'd call a Wikia employee stating we must delete objectionable content, "community consensus". Don't know about others, but as far as I'm concerned, enforcing terms of service is up to Wikia themselves (it's not the responsibility of us volunteer editors to enforce their corporate censorship rules for them).
Also, per the Wikia Migration FAQ (emphasis mine):
Will the site content or policies change?
Some functionality will change due to requirements dictated by Wikia's arrangement with GraceNote; however, the core features of LyricWiki will remain the same. Except as is necessary due to licensing, decisions about content and policy are in the hands of the community.
- OneTwoThreeFall talk 09:57, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
I've been asked to comment here.
Howyou deal the extreme content is up to you. A template, a simple removal, a standard disclaimer... whatever does the job. My only concern here is that content outside the Terms of Use cannot be on the wiki.
OneTwoThreeFall, that line probably should have included "subject to the Wiki Terms of Use" . But I think that most people would have assumed that, just as they would assume it was "subject to US law" (although the only time I expect that would be an issue is in cases of sexual images of minors). -- Sannse @fandom (help forum | blog) 20:53, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

How to mark a repeating stanza Edit

I wonder if there is a way to mark a repeating stanza, instead of writing it again. For example this song Alex de la Orăștie și Laura:Străinătatea, the refrain is the following stanza:

A trecut un an, mamă
Fără tine, de când stau prin țări străine
Mi-e dor de tine, de tata
De fratele meu, departe de casă-s mereu

Is it possible to mark it in a certain way, to avoid writing it two consecutive times? Or the lyrics must be written precisely as they sound? MusicDream (talk) 18:49, May 15, 2018 (UTC)

Per Help:FS#Lyrics, The lyrics should always be submitted as sung... --ES (talk) 18:56, May 15, 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! MusicDream (talk) 19:32, May 15, 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps a little bit belated *ahem*, but for future reference: the reasoning behind this is that while any symbols might not be known to everybody, writing the text down "as is" has the least ambiguity for both content submitters as well as consumers. Furthermore, repeating the text allows people to easily scroll along instead of swiping up and down and jumping around in the lines. - Chris 19:54, January 20, 2019 (UTC)

Posting more videos for the same song Edit

Some songs have than one video - made by the authors - not by fans. For example Alex de la Orăștie și Laura:Te-am ales mândruța mea. Is it possible to mention two or more videos for the same song in the lyrics page of that song? If not at the top, then maybe in the "External links" section? MusicDream (talk) 19:32, May 15, 2018 (UTC)

Some songs have >1 video and even more spotify recordings available (from diff albums). What would be the point of linking more than one? We need them for verifying lyrics, not for the visuals... --ES (talk) 19:51, May 15, 2018 (UTC)
That's right, this is not the site for enhancing the user's viewing options. One may find reasons like this - if one video disappears from YouTube, then you still have the other - especially when they have different titles - like this one - the song name is "Te-am ales mândruța mea" but the second video is named "Tu meriți mândruțo dragă" - which is a bit difficult to find if you are not speaking that language. And there are very few such songs that have two videos - for example for Laura I could find only one such case until now, from more than 200 hundred of her songs. Those are marginal reasons anyways, I guess it's not worth to bother so I'm just saying. MusicDream (talk) 23:48, May 17, 2018 (UTC)
It is well known that fan vid uploads may get deleted, hence preference is given to vids from official YT channel of the artist; not likely to get pulled down for copyright violation.
Even the artist may delete one vid to replace it with another one. Keeping the Songpage up to date is expected to be done by interested editors. I see and remove many dead vids, I note the removal in comments and leave it to interested parties to pick and choose a replacement.
Spotify links rarely have this issue, so unless the song is unreleased and can only be found on YT, spotify link should suffice (subject to country availability etc.)
Bandcamp: afaik has no country specific limitations, but only if artist makes their songs available on there.
Video Naming: the issue you bring up is the reason we don't trust YT as a source for our page names, anyone may upload anything under any name. Until the song is officially released, what is available on YT is partially condensed vapourware; subject to instant re-evaporation. --ES (talk) 02:53, May 18, 2018 (UTC)

Released - Unreleased Edit

What are the criteria for considering a song released or unreleased? I understand that once the song is registered at a well known site (Discogs / MusicBrainz / Spotify etc), it is considered registered. But how about songs that are released by record labels? For example this song is posted on YouTube by AmmA Music, which presents itself as a Romanian record label. MusicDream (talk) 23:56, May 17, 2018 (UTC)

Please see Discogs1 AmmA, website: ?!.
Songs on YT or SoundCloud are Kingnee - Musicbrainz Standalone Recordings: If we compare one such SAR with a physical single (CD/45/78) there are all sorts of meta data on a physical releases that is unavailable on YT; info needed by mb/dg to uniquely identify similar releases in different markets (Discogs1/Kingnee - Musicbrainz). And unlike Bandcamp (which includes digital sleeves), what is on YT is not downloadable; so it may not be registered at dg. Any YT item may be yanked per whim of the uploader. YT vids are online song previews, and may never go beyond that, just like MySpace songs used to be (now dead). --ES (talk) 02:54, May 18, 2018 (UTC)

How to copy a Spotify track list Edit

I've found an album named "Manele Tari De Tot" on Spotify and Amazon and I would like to know if there is any easy way to copy it's content because it contains a lot of tracks. The same for an Amazon track list

MusicDream (talk) 03:17, May 22, 2018 (UTC)

Please see this post, and find the album tracklist in your sandbox --ES (talk) 04:28, May 22, 2018 (UTC)
P.S.: more up-to-date info on the scripts is available at LyricWiki:Scripts - OneTwoThreeFall talk 08:10, May 22, 2018 (UTC)

A good example of singles Edit

Where can I find a good example of singles well done? I've just added K1:Fată Verde and I would like to know how to do it right - both the song page and the artist page. So I need a well made example to inspire me. MusicDream (talk) 14:00, June 1, 2018 (UTC)

I was recently advised on how to properly display singes on a few pages, including NateWantsToBattle, so that page should have what you're looking for. XAedriane (talk) 17:02, June 1, 2018 (UTC)
Thats's a good example indeed, thanks a lot! - MusicDream (talk) 18:52, June 1, 2018 (UTC)

WikiData Property - Lyrically artist ID Edit

Hello, I made a proposal on WikiData to add a property named "Lyrically artist ID", in case anyone thinks it might be useful, then I suggest supporting the proposal. Thanks. -- MusicDream (talk) 02:48, July 29, 2018 (UTC)

What is "Lyrically"? Best I can find is that it is the name of an App... --ES (talk) 03:06, July 29, 2018 (UTC)
WikiData - Q1198063 (Lyrically) - wikipedia:LyricWiki - LyricWiki (also known as Lyrically or LyricWikia) is an online wiki-based lyrics database and encyclopedia. In March 2013, it was the seventh largest MediaWiki installation with over 1,800,000 content pages including 1.5 million songs. Website: lyrics.wikia.com. -- MusicDream (talk) 06:46, July 29, 2018 (UTC)
That is strange, given that Lyrically is apparently an alias of This very site (an alias that I think is new to us all, also the Lyrically logo disappeared from FNDOM mandated page headers), my first reaction would be to change that entry from Lyrically to LyricsWikia... --ES (talk) 07:24, July 29, 2018 (UTC)
I didn't know about those two names either, but I'm new here. If the community here doesn't use those names, then most likely they should be replaced with LyricsWikia.
The WikiData pages about artists and songs can already contain a link to the MetroLyrics site - Property:P2624 - check for example this song: New Divide (by Linkin Park). So why not to contain a link to LyricsWikia too? -- MusicDream (talk) 16:16, July 29, 2018 (UTC)

It's too hard to add a new band's song Edit

I found the excellent band Corduroy and their funky song "Mini." Nobody seems to have lyrics for it, so I wanted to add them here.

But there's no Corduroy band page at all. So now I have to create a Corduroy band page, an "Out of Here" album page, and finally the actual page for the song with my transcribed lyrics. LyricsWiki has skeletons for all these new pages, but it's a lot of fiddly MediaWiki markup. It's all doable, but it's a real disincentive to create new material. I just want to supply {{band: "Corduroy", album: "Out of Here", song:"Mini"}} together with the song lyric itself and have LyricWiki magically do the right thing. Does LyricWiki have a Template:Song or a page generator?

Wikipedia has a partial solution for this, TemplateData extension. It lets you keep the information for a template in a JSON blob (but editable in VisualEditor). As I understand it the template can still render the data as it sees fit.

I know this is easier said than done. Thanks for all you do. (FWIW instead I added the song on Genius instead, it took a minute.)

Skierpage (talk) 03:02, August 6, 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, there's no requirement to create the artist or album pages if you don't wish to - creating just the song page is fine!
It's a more difficult process though: you'd have to click the "Add" button at the top-right of the page and enter "Corduroy:Mini" ("Artist Name:Song Name") in the title box, rather than simply clicking the red link on the artist/album page. Once on the song page, all you need to fill in are the lyrics and the language.
Besides the skeleton page layouts, there isn't any sort of page generator here. It definitely would be nice, but I'm not sure it'd be possible since we're on a wiki farm Wikipedia16 and don't have control over the extensions used, etc. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 11:47, August 7, 2018 (UTC)

LyricallyEdit

When I click on an artist' page it says "There is no info for this artist!" When obviously there is. Any idea on how to fix this or when will it be fixed? Thanks. BuffaloBillsFan (talk) 01:08, September 23, 2018 (UTC)

Translations: Machine, Beginner, or None? Edit

Hello! I've been working of the Polysics page for a while, now, and have been wondering lately what do about adding English translations, if anything at all. I've boiled it down to three options, and I wanted to see if anyone had any input on what would be the best or better thing to do. Basically, my options are:

  1. Simply add machine translations. It would be something, but machine translations are typically not so great. Also, Polysics lyrics are a bit lacking in sense or structure in any language, and I have noticed that it's often times enough of a change to throw off the machine quite a bit. (Alternatively, I could use the NateWantsToBattle method and 'clean up' a machine translation, but that has a lot of potential to be even less accurate than what the machine spits out, even if it sounds better.)
  2. Put my meager skills to use and cobble together very basic translations. I know there's the idea of 'Put what you have, other editors can always fix/improve it', but I'm not entirely sure if there are many active editors that could do so (I have noticed the inactive state of the LyricWiki:Japan group, sadly). Also, as mentioned above about Polysics lyrics. It would be an interesting thing to play around with, but probably not the best idea for someone at my level...
  3. Don't post any translations at all. Basically, just leave well enough alone, at least until I have a better grasp on the language. Or just leave it to someone else. XAedriane (talk) 17:42, October 26, 2018 (UTC)
  1. About machine translations
  2. You will encourage others to improve your contribs, same as {{partial}} lyrics. --ES (talk) 20:11, October 26, 2018 (UTC)
Ok, thank you! XAedriane (talk) 20:32, October 26, 2018 (UTC)

Archiving (again) Edit

This page hasn't been archived for almost two years. If no one objects, I will archive old discussions back to mid-2018--this page is far too long. —Justin (koavf)·T·C 23:34, December 13, 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are some objections: your own talk page edition history (as well as entire history of your contribs) shows that you aren't yet ready for this job. Please start better from the proper archiving of your own talk page instead of unallowable deletings/remarkings of messages by other users (admins including). --Senvaikis (talk) 09:08, December 14, 2018 (UTC)
Okay? Please archive this page: it has several old threads going back two years. The process is not terribly difficult or time-consuming but it should be done as this page is too long. —Justin (koavf)·T·C 16:31, December 14, 2018 (UTC)
Is it? Effort to get to the last topic: one keypress (regardless of length). Time to load page: pretty much independent of actual content length since 100 kB is only a small percentage of total download size, once you include all external scripts. And that is with an adblocker. — 6×9 (Talk) 16:47, December 14, 2018 (UTC)
Sure. It's double the size of what en.wp suggests should probably be split. And since this isn't an article that requires some narrative, I don't see the value in keeping conversations from January 2017 on here. —Justin (koavf)·T·C 17:13, December 14, 2018 (UTC)
LyricWiki isn't Wikipedia, and this isn't an article. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:09, December 14, 2018 (UTC)
I know both of those things and actually wrote one of them in my last comment. Browsers and slower Internet connections don't make a distinction between Wikipedia and LyricWiki--length and page size is equally a problem for both. —Justin (koavf)·T·C 18:30, December 14, 2018 (UTC)
See above. Content: ~100kB. Total download for loading this page: ~1MB. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:44, December 14, 2018 (UTC)
See above. Pages that are a meg are difficult for slow connections, pages that are 20 pages long are difficult for mobile scrolling, etc. —Justin (koavf)·T·C 21:10, December 14, 2018 (UTC)