Talk:Community Portal

Back to page

1,857,564pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Add New Page

…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!

  • 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.
  • Current projects with links to discussions: [edit]
Project Link Page/s
Policy change for root pages LyricWiki:Proposal For Root Pages Policy

Appeal to adepts of African languagesEdit

Please, help me to clean finally the Category:Songs Needing Language Identification, containing atm 4 songs by Deep Forest, - all from their album Deep Africa (2013).
Baie dankie by voorbaat! --Senvaikis (talk) 08:35, November 13, 2015 (UTC)


With the spotify player now being introduced into wikia, should the player be introduced into this wiki? This is something that I have thought of many times when visiting the wiki. If this was something that would be considered, I would assist in adding these where possible. ShufflerChat 14 / 02 / 2016

Width can be reduced to 250px, so it would fit in nicely with our song badges and with {{youtube embed}}. The biggest drawback is that not every user has a spotify account; therefore it might be a good idea, if possible (and if we decide to do this), to add an option to user preferences to hide the spotify player. — 6×9 (Talk) 11:45, February 14, 2016 (UTC)
If it's possible, both technically and legally, then I think that's a wonderful idea. If bots could handle adding Spotify player to the pages, LW would become even better than it is now (and it's pretty damn good already in my opinion). So if it's some kind of community poll, count me in. Smile --Ozpl (talk) 13:53, February 14, 2016 (UTC)
The player itself can be made quite small (250px by 80px) so it would not take up too much space on the page. Being so small it would not force anyone to use the player at all, so there should not need to be reason to hide it, unless of course the community feels like it would be intrusive. I already have a bot on the Yogscast Wiki that adds Spotify players to pages automatically, so I can always run that for the majority of the pages on here if the community agrees to implement this feature.
ShufflerChat 15 / 02 / 2016
Isn't it possible to listen to those embedded spotifies, even if you don't have an account?  · Lichtweber talk service  05:52, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
No, it seems that you must have an account, though the large majority of people have accounts now. ShufflerChat 15 / 02 / 2016
@LW: the account issue (as previously noted elsewhere[s]) baffles me; with or without an account, the service (spotify, yt etc.) collects the user IP address etc. anyway, as is the case with any http activity. An account can be had by providing minimal unidentifiable identity: so why not make an account? I musta be missing something as usual... -- (ES) 06:04, February 17, 2016 (UTC)
@ES: It's just that I simply don't want to.  · Lichtweber talk service  18:58, February 18, 2016 (UTC)

For anyone that maybe wondering how it would look on pages, I have included an example here. It can easily be changed into a template to be used on multiple pages. ShufflerChat 18 / 02 / 2016

For those who are eager to take advantage of embedded spot-player without waiting for a "better times", I may remind about alternative solution, based on js-driven "on-fly" spot player embedding (and suggested almost 2 years ago):
Quote by Senvaikis @Spotify vs Goear?: "Btw, for those who don't mind spotify-"registering" or adding a few lines into user.js, I'd like to show, how spotified LW page may look like and how does it work on my box."
All you need for that - just copy one line into your common.js page:
importArticles({type: 'script', article: 'u:lyrics:User:Senvaikis/spotplayer-js'});
You may want also to add some "customization" (swithing the player on/off):
var loadSpot=true; //set loadSpot=false to "switch off" the player 
if (loadSpot) importArticles({type: 'script', article: 'u:lyrics:User:Senvaikis/spotplayer-js'});
hth, --Senvaikis (talk) 11:25, February 18, 2016 (UTC)
Senv, I tried it but it didn't work for me sadly. Can someone confirm that the snippet works? Either way, I'm looking forward to have a Spotify player included. Greetings, --Fassbrause (talk) 17:10, February 18, 2016 (UTC)
Embedded spotifies work for me though I don't have an account :) No objection.  · Lichtweber talk service  18:58, February 18, 2016 (UTC)
@FB: Sad (and strange) indeed... Have you checked if the checkbox "Enable personal JavaScript" on your Preferences/Under the Hood page is selected? Btw, what a browser are you using? --Senvaikis (talk) 19:21, February 18, 2016 (UTC)
I forgot about the checkbox, indeed. I'm using either Chromium or Firefox and thought an extension blocked it, but no. Thanks for working it out! Greetings, --Fassbrause (talk) 20:05, February 18, 2016 (UTC)
@LW: I wonder if your spot streams will get reported as c/o LyWi or c/o AdminLW!? Cool duckin 'n' runnin --ES (talk) 19:31, February 18, 2016 (UTC)
Using the Spotify embed without an account gives me only a 30 second preview. Maybe that's what Lichtweber had too? - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 12:30, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
Right, but, for me, that's usually enough to verify.  · Lichtweber talk service  21:05, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Infected spoof lyric siteEdit

Someone has made a spoof copy of songmeaningsDOTcom at songmeaningsDOTxyz; It appears that clicking anywhere on any page in xyz (if you have js enabled) will cause all manner of strange activity in your browser. Some of the js code on xyz point to a Russian site, but xyz in registered in US, hmmmm. Browsers beware. --ES (talk) 10:40, March 13, 2016 (UTC)

WrongTitle template - is it redundant now? Edit

Hey guys, I was wondering, due to latest change of {{Song}} template, is {{WrongTitle}} even necessary? SongHeader's title display looks really nice and I'm not sure that we need that anymore. Same goes for AlbumHeader and ArtistHeader, they all cooperate really well with displaying titles that are not permitted by LW:PN. There's always {{DISPLAYTITLE}}, though I'm not sure that it's allowed (I saw that on few pages but I don't know that case is resolved by policy). What do you think? --Ozpl (talk) 13:26, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

Formatting of RTL albums Edit

What is the correct way to format album titles in a right-to-left script? For example, the titles in Category:Albums Hebrew don't look quite right, but that seems to be how text editors try to group the conflicting directions. Should we force it into "tsitra:mubla (year)"? ~Bobogoobo (talk) 10:25, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

HebCat in TextEdit --ES (talk) 13:26, March 20, 2016 (UTC)
@ES: Your picture is very nice and helps a lot ;) --Senvaikis (talk) 16:46, March 20, 2016 (UTC)
I skipped the video, my bad ;-). Copying the properly formatted and displayed text from OSX TextEdit to this edit box transforms it into:
	▪	הבילויים:הבילויים (2003)
	▪	רונה קינן:לנשום בספירה לאחור (2004)
	▪	רונה קינן:עיניים זרות (2007)
	▪	מוניקה סקס:פצעים ונשיקות (1995)
	▪	הבילויים:שכול וכישלון (2007)

Wikia's bad. You don't recall your editions of a Hebrew artist page that looked crazy either way...?--ES (talk) 21:01, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This is why Kiosk albs are en-titled, even though per alb cvrs, fa was an option. --ES (talk) 21:47, March 20, 2016 (UTC)

I think this problems needs two solution:

  1. A template that displays the binary file (Album Art/YT) aligned left, and the text aligned right, so the test wrap around the binary f.e.:here (and on artist & alb pages) will get fixed. 6?
  2. (the tough one) The page names with bidirectional text (Album pages, or any song pages containing #s), Bob's example on cat pages.
Might be our luck and 6 can apply some wizardry, otherwise this 2nd one has to come down from Wikia. Best I know, non of the RTL wiki(a)s have our page naming convention and if they do, they can use arabic/hebrew script numbers to avoid Bidirectional text in page names. Or our templates (did I say 6/۶?!) might have to be modified so they can deal with Arabic/Hebrew #s;
(هایده:شانه هایت (۲۰۰۸ instead of (2008) هایده:شانه هایت (<-If you create this page, in preview you will notice the mess). But to get it to work, it has to be هایده:شانه_هایت_(2008), and the associated categories are a mess. Happy Easter! --ES (talk) 18:58, March 25, 2016 (UTC)

Collaborations v. 'Featured' on Artist PagesEdit

Following up on a long conversation I've been having with ES on my talk page, wouldn't it be better to have separate section for 'Collaborations' (ie, songs where multiple artists have a roughly even contribution) and 'Songs Featuring [This Artist]?' Apparently there's a previous discussion on this, but I can't find it.

These things just seem very different. A featured artist is sometimes just providing backing vocals or a couple of lines; it's totally different to a full-scale duet. This seems like information which is useful to viewers, and especially appropriate to LW, on which users actually listen to the songs and can make a judgement about whether the song is a collaboration or a single-artist song with a featured artist.

The case in point here is the artist page for Ricky Skaggs, which (in line for the 'featured' format) currently lists 'Friendship by Ray Charles'. But this song is a full scale duet; although it appears on a Ray Charles album (an album of duets), there's no sense in which this is 'by' Ray Charles any more than it is 'by' Ricky Skaggs.

That this distinction is industry-recognised can be seen in the example, from the same album, of Ray Charles & George Jones:We Didn't See A Thing, which is a duet but Charles and Jones, but also features Chet Atkins. This is actually written on the disc.

--RWDCollinson (talk) 08:53, March 30, 2016 (UTC)

In this case, I'd say you're correct in terms of whether the songs are "dual-credit" collaborations or songs with features.
However, "users actually listen to the songs and can make a judgement about whether the song is a collaboration or a single-artist song with a featured artist" rubs me the wrong way, because some artists credited as featured have a substantial part in the song too (see any song by a producer featuring a vocalist), so I'd prefer if we stick to what's written on the album/in sources, as opposed to the opinion of the editor.
In regards to collab vs. feature on the artist page, I think only one "Collaborations" header would suffice, as technically a featured artist is still collaborating with the lead artist, they way it's written can change though, depending on whether it's a joint credit or featured credit (e.g. "with" and "by" respectively). - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 14:35, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. My current query is about the titles that should appear on album pages, rather than the categorisation of songs. The docs currently don't list 'Collaborations' as a valid subsection title, although that title is used on a substantial number of artist pages.
But on the point you raise (which I am discussing with ES at the bottom of my talkpage), couldn't we just set out one rule for clear-cut cases (50/50 division of vocals for collabs, backing vocals only for featured), and leave the rest to external sources? Even that seems a little dependent to me; if LW is supposed to go on 'the lyrics as sung', it seems very strange to be relying on potentially fallible external sources for this. Relying on external sources seems more suited to a site that transcribes 'official' lyrics where possible.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 15:01, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
I'd prefer the idea that we go with "featured artist unless otherwise specified" (either by majority of sources saying it's a joint-credit collab, or the album/back cover shows "and" or "with" instead of "featured"), as this avoids relying too much on opinions, like I mentioned earlier.
E.g. some songs have a featured artist who does arguably more than the lead artist (e.g. rappers featured on a song by a singer: rapper has far more words in most cases). - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 15:15, March 30, 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm. Rap makes everything complicated! I think from the casual viewer point of view what they really want to know is a person's actual contribution to the song, but in most cases it doesn't seem to make a huge difference. While I'm here, do you have an opinion on Tanya Tucker:I Won't Take Less Than Your Love? The (compilation) album back cover says 'With Paul Overstreet and Paul Davis', and the song is evenly divided (three verses, three choruses, one each per singer), but none of the external sources acknowledge this except for Indeed, most of them don't even mention the other two artists! This is part of my difficulty here; a lot of our external sources are sadly of dubious accuracy.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 09:27, April 1, 2016 (UTC)
Does anybody have an opinion/enlightenment on the original issue? Since posting, I have noticed that the George Strait page that ES held up as an exemplar seems to distinguish between songs recorded 'with' and songs 'by', so it is possible to make a subtle distinction between collaborations and songs in which the artist is only featured in the 'Songs Featuring X' section. But I still think it would be helpful to have a separate section for collaborations.
PS: I've realised that this was actually what Pat was referring to at the end of his first response. Fair point!
--RWDCollinson (talk) 09:27, April 1, 2016 (UTC)
For deciding credits "and" and "featuring" are pretty clear, but "with" seems to mean either. In the case of that Tanya Tucker song, IMO Tucker is clearly seen as the lead artist, otherwise it would be credited as "Tanya Tucker, Paul Overstreet & Paul Davis". Not to mention the back cover doesn't even seem to list them (at least not clearly - the image quality isn't excellent). - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 11:59, April 1, 2016 (UTC)

Romanization Edit

I'm copying this suggestion of mine from Help talk:Translations as that Talk page seems to be inactive at this point. I was referring to Help:Translations#Non-Latin based scripts.
Seeing how romanization is not a translation, just the same original lyrics written with a different character set, are we sure we want them on a different page? In my opinion it would make more sense to have both non-romanized and romanized lyrics on the same page, effectively having all instances of the original lyrics on one page instead of spreading them out, as they are still both in the same language. Having them separated is almost like having a separate page for British English and American English versions. (Yes, that is a horribly forced example, but to the point nonetheless.) --SpecB (talk) 00:46, June 2, 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, but the reason we try to avoid multiple <lyrics> tags on a song page is because they tend to mess with lyric plugins. Having transl(iter)ated versions on a subpage with a well defined naming scheme avoids that, plus it allows plugin programmers to provide users with options which versions to show (though I don't know if any have actually done that so far). — 6×9 (Talk) 07:44, June 18, 2016 (UTC)
That's reasonable I guess. I would otherwise suggest using <poem> tags for other versions of the lyrics on the same page, but I guess that'd also cause troubles for (perhaps nonexistent) plugins, right? Since the romanized lyrics wouldn't be using <lyrics> tags, and all.
Although that does tie in with another question of mine that I just remembered and will post below in a minute. --SpecB (talk) 18:57, June 20, 2016 (UTC)

About Romanization rules for Japanese Edit

I'm copying these suggestions of mine from Help talk:Romanization as that Talk page seems to be inactive at this point. I was referring to Help:Romanization#Romanization rules for Japanese.
I found some of the rules here a bit inconsistent and in one case, misleading, so I would have a series of proposals, in order of how they appear on the help page.

  • This is a minor thing, but wouldn't lines starting with a capital letter be more visually pleasing? A mass of lowercase letters are just as hard on the eyes as a mass of uppercase letters. This wouldn't necessarily bring the assumption that every line is its own sentence since punctuation is missing (except in really specific cases where the original lyrics has some sort of punctuation like exclamation marks), so it wouldn't really mess with how people perceive the lyrics.
  • Current rules for particles, double consonants, and the romanization of ん are inconsistent. In case of particles, wo is traditional Hepburn, and so is rendering the syllabic n as m before labial consonants, but putting an apostrophe between n and vowels or y is modified Hepburn. In the meantime, the current rule for double consonants that doesn't list exceptions is practically not Hepburn. Either go with one or the other, and since traditional Hepburn was made in 1886, I would definitely recommend we go with modified, from 1954. You can read up on the similarities and differences on the very extensive Wikipedia page it has: [1] (As a personal note I would like to add that I absolutely abhor some of the butchery Hepburn does with Japanese, such as こっち being kotchi, but if anyone here expects anyone else to be consistent, it certainly has to start with consistent policies.)
  • As for "contractions", that rule is entirely made-up, has nothing to do with romanization, and is generally a misunderstanding of how Japanese works. It assumes that the difference between 走っている (hashitteiru) and 走ってる(hashitteru) is the same as between "it is"->"it's", whereas it is more along the lines of "going to"->"gonna", and even that might be stretching it. All in all, this "rule" should be deleted.
  • We should add that English or other foreign but not Japanese words written in katakana should still be romanized properly instead of using the intended foreign word. For example, "ライフ" would be "RAIFU" and not "life".
  • Latest accepted romanizations for obsolete kana should be added to the kana table just in case. Japanese artists are notorious for using uncommon... things in lyrics simply for the sake of being, I'm not even sure, maybe edgy? So having them there would certainly not hurt.

I think this is pretty much it. If I notice a possible rule missing I will post it here later for discussion, but for the time being, I would like to see others' input on these proposals. --SpecB (talk) 00:48, June 2, 2016 (UTC)

Different songs with the same nameEdit

There is a rule that song pages should be named in this way "Artist:Song". But there an artist which has different songs with the same name from different albums.

How to distinguish song pages in this situation?

--Artyom82 (talk) 12:09, June 11, 2016 (UTC)

In this case, both songs need to have the album name in brackets, and a disambiguation page should be set up to show both songs (with a link to the disambiguation page on each song). For an example of how to do this, see Limp Bizkit:Rollin' and the two songs within it. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 12:45, June 11, 2016 (UTC)
Is there a meaning to have a disambiguation page with list of such songs if albums contain direct links to specific songs (not to that page)? --Artyom82 (talk) 12:14, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
Some people may search for the song using either Wikia's search feature, or Google, which may lead them to the wrong song, so they may want a direct link to somewhere they can find the song they want, without having to look to far. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 16:57, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

Kana only section for Japanese lyrics Edit

On lyrics pages where the lyrics are in Japanese, using both kanji and kana, I would recommend having a kana-only version for easier reading. If having multiple <lyrics> tags would cause problems, <poem> could be used instead, in the case of the kana-only part, as it would not be the main feature of the page, but it is visually almost the same as <lyrics>. --SpecB (talk) 18:59, June 20, 2016 (UTC)

There's a {{ruby}} template which adds the kana on the upper side of the kanjis. Using it takes a lot of work, but there are ways of having both kanji and kana for reading. Take for example "Ayumi Hamasaki:Carols". You have to upsize the page to see it right though. ~Steffy13~ > talk > contribs 09:36, June 26, 2016 (UTC)
I'm aware of that template, but then we'll need to make it a general policy to always use it on every kanji, following the lyrics' way of reading them. Would that work? --SpecB (talk) 22:50, June 28, 2016 (UTC)

Watcher iconEdit

A new icon WatchedIcon has been added next to the ranking star to indicate that a page has a watcher (i.e. a {{watcher}} template on the talk page). — 6×9 (Talk) 07:12, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

Songs on Compilations vs Songs from CompilationsEdit

One of the section titles given for artist pages in the docs is 'Songs on Compilations and Soundtracks'. I'm moderately confident that this used to say 'Songs from Compilations and Soundtracks'. Wasn't that better? The point about 'from' is that it emphasises that this is listing songs which are only found on compilations, rather than all songs which are found on compilations. A very large number of an artist's songs might be found on compilations, but only a few are sourced from compilations. --RWDCollinson (talk) 17:43, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

Or for the price of one edit, clarify the C and S docs: Note that songs do not need to be listed here if they later appeared on a compilation or other album by the band and are therefore listed elsewhere on the Artist page. under the title SonC&S. --ES (talk) 18:50, July 22, 2016 (UTC)
My point is that 'on' rather than 'from' seems mildly misleading if you read only the page itself, which realistically most users will. Quite a lot of pages still read 'from', and I think that's the clearer title. --RWDCollinson (talk) 11:16, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
The question may seem purely linguistic (then I should not have to poke my humble Lithuanian opinion at all), but I'm afraid that following your logics may lead us to very undesirable non-linguistic consequences in reality. Sorry, but most songs, listed in "SoCaS" sections, actually aren't neither from compilations, nor from soundtracks - remarkable part of them, strictly speaking, came here from singles, demos or other non-studio albums releases etc. And I don't think we should strive to list all these countless/unknown/etc releases (songs came from), instead of listing minimal required number of compilations or soundtracks, where all these songs appear on.
Thus term "on" seems quite clear and much more fair to me. Once more - that's just my humble opinion. --Senvaikis (talk) 17:50, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
I suppose that makes some sense. I mean really what we mean is 'exclusively found on compilations and soundtracks rather than any other album', but that's a bit of a mouthful. --RWDCollinson (talk) 10:21, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

Repeated Line SongEdit

What do you do if you want to add a song but it only has one line repeated over for the whole song? Nanis149 (talk) 02:52, August 7, 2016 (UTC)

Per Help:Lyrics, you would just copy that line as many times as it is sung. Personally, if it's more than a dozen or so times and it's the same throughout the song, I would write it once with an ellipsis (...) at the end, but I'm not sure if others would do the same. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 06:31, August 7, 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Nanis149 (talk) 03:30, August 24, 2016 (UTC)

'Redundant' Albums / Multiple Song ListingsEdit

So here's a controversial suggestion, but I really think we should keep redundant album pages (at least studio releases) unless we're short of space. Searching LyricWikia isn't that easy at the best of times, and there's no reason why a user might not want to look up all lyrics on that particular album. Why don't we do this? Is it just that we're short of space?

That doesn't mean that the album needs to be listed on the artist page. Indeed, I wonder whether the policy that's been employed on the Ronnie Milsap page of only listing each song once (presumably on the first album it appears on) is the right policy for artist pages.

(This is relevant for me at the moment as I'm trying to sort out the George Jones page, and I'm going to run into this issue) --RWDCollinson (talk) 10:27, August 19, 2016 (UTC)

  • I doubt the treatment given to Ronnie was ever policy or was applied to many (any?) other pages, (most likely the choice of the one editor). The Chairman of the Board's page was spared such treatment...with over 1000 songs.
  • For artists with XL discographies (e.g.:Top ~200 of Special:LongPages), given that any given song may appear on many albums (of those listed @LW, not to mention extant releases), the idea of looking up all the lyrics of one album via the web (on one page) is ridiculous, Unless the user is accessing music using analogue equipment and singing along while viewing the lyrics on the web, so having every album page available is a must. Any decent digital player that accesses the lyrics via the api makes such issue moot. What you seem to be suggesting will turn LW into a massive discography site....
  • Reminder: Artist and album pages are admin tools for the purpose of organizing songs, brevity is a must. --ES (talk) 11:32, August 19, 2016 (UTC)
  • It doesn't look like it is policy. But it might be quite a good policy, in line with your 'brevity is a must' dictum. As you say, we're a lyrics website, so there's no reason to have a song appear more than once (at least on the very large pages).
  • It's not ridiculous at all if the printed lyrics don't come with the album, or if (say) you're listening to the album on YouTube. Why not keep the album pages, as long as they don't appear on the artist page? It wouldn't hurt the user in any way. We're never going to fulfill all the functions of a discography, but the new collapsible album menus mean that that list can get very long without interfering with the page. I don't follow your argument on this. Again: if only non-redundant albums appear on the artist page (and I would recommend only having non-redundant songs appear, for exactly the reasons you give), why not keep the album pages live?
--RWDCollinson (talk) 12:36, August 19, 2016 (UTC)
  • Lyrics stay, albums get created and deleted to accommodate the available lyrics. Between
  1. having an artist page with each song listed only once (how LW started with no albums but a long OS) and
  2. Having every album listed (on or off the artist page) just because the album was published...
..we have to come to a compromise. The compromise is where we are at: each album page/listing must have at least one unique song to justify its' existence. Otherwise we would end up with every album ever published, and no album ever being allowed to be deleted. We are still trying to recover from the overabundance of album pages created by discogra(phy) philes in years past when we didn't have any policy on album creation/deletion. Your argument leads to brevity by having every published album having a page on LW?! Surely you jest...
  • Why Not you ask, because albums are admin tools, not content pages. We are a lyric site, eh? :-) --ES (talk) 13:21, August 19, 2016 (UTC)
They're clearly not purely admin tools, because they contain album art and lots of snazzy formatting. Moreover (and more practically), they are also cataloguing tools. They enable users to quickly find the lyrics on specific albums they either own or know about. At the end of the day, if the existence of a page might help somebody in line with the goals of the website, and if it doesn't clog-up the artist page (because it isn't listed on the album page), what's the point of deleting the page?
The point is that the lyrics not only need to be on the website, but people also need to be able to find the lyrics. They might look for the lyrics by first looking for the album; or at least, it would be good if they could do so, if they wanted to.
As I said, surely we could have the best of both worlds by listing each song only once on the artist page (under the first album it was released on, as on Ronnie Milsap), but retaining album pages for directory purposes for all other albums. That would ensure that the site was both efficient (for the viewer of the artist page) and comprehensive. It would also save editors the work of trying to work out whether an album is redundant; they'd just need to check whether the particular song appeared on the artist page before.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 13:57, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
Finding and cataloguing lyrics for songs that we have is our mission. For finding every release where a song appears, please see mb, dg, etc. --ES (talk) 17:15, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
But users are going to want to be able to find lyrics for albums that they have. Keeping the album pages allows users to look up lyrics by album. That seems well within our purview. Again, what's the downside? Unless we're facing storage constraints, there seems absolutely no benefit to deleting people's work.
And, to be honest, this site is much prettier than musicbrainz and discogs (and certainly more accurate on the non-green pages than musicbrainz, which definitely has lots of holes in it).--RWDCollinson (talk) 20:27, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
Maybe lyrics.wikia is a misnomer that needs to be corrected or redefined. --ES (talk) 20:56, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
By that argument, we wouldn't have videos, external links, listings of covers and albums, or any of the things that we in fact do have. We have lyrics and then we have things pertaining to lyrics. So if somebody likes the lyrics of a song, they know where to find it; they can find the lyrics of songs which appeared on the same albums (which is why studio albums are particularly important to include); they can buy the song; they can listen to the song. The site would frankly be much less attractive (and largely redundant) if we just stuck to listing decontextualised lyrics.
All I'm saying is that (if we don't have space constraints) we should not go to the effort of deleting redundant albums, which seems a tremendous waste of time, and just make sure they're not listed on the artist page. Again, I just don't see any downside. It saves us time, it avoids annoying people who have gone to the effort of making those pages, it doesn't clutter up the artist page, it helps people who may have that particular album. --RWDCollinson (talk) 09:33, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

SotD suggestion not working Edit

Please fix LyricWiki:SOTD has an input box and it does not actually display the suggestions that are input. I think it's important to nominate Chuck Berry:Johnny B. Goode for October 18, which is Chuck Berry's 90th birthday. Any thoughts on the nomination or why the input method is not functioning? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:53, August 20, 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a good nomination, but sorry to say, the SotD system has not been working properly since Jan/Feb 2015. I've just sent in a message to Wikia about the issue. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 10:28, August 31, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Who is deciding the SotD and how then? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:42, August 31, 2016 (UTC)
Nobody, as far as I know. Looking at the archives, we haven't had any new songs of the day since February 2015. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 08:33, September 11, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks I didn't even think to check. Are any admins watching? If no one wants to do it himself, does anyone want to promote me? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:12, September 11, 2016 (UTC)
Oh, it's not an personnel problem (sorry for not being clear) - the Special:SOTD/Admin page literally does not function correctly, making it impossible to process the nominations. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 20:31, September 11, 2016 (UTC)
Restoration I wasn't necessarily asking about the mechanical aspect: I mean do we want to have a Song of the Day again? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:02, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
I can't see whey we wouldn't: Song of the Day has been a feature since LyricWiki's creation, and has only stopped due to these technical difficulties. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 07:40, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
Wow Let me see if I can work on some fix soon. I will have some free time in 48 hours. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:34, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
Considering it's a server-side issue, what sort of fix would you be thinking of? I've been working on a JavaScript substitute for the submit form (to redirect new nominations to a page on the wiki, where they can be manually added to the queue), but of course that'll be just a work-around. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 10:46, September 13, 2016 (UTC)
A work-around has now been implemented, so if you (or anyone else) would like to nominate a SOTD, it will be added to the nomination queue. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 08:44, September 21, 2016 (UTC)
It worked! Thanks. Here's hoping we can hail, hail Chuck Berry in October. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:11, September 21, 2016 (UTC)

Featured artists in SongHeaderEdit

For clarity and consistency, the fa1 … fa3 parameters in {{SongHeader}} have been renamed to feat1 … feat3. My bot will replace them shortly. They will continue to work for a while, but will eventually be removed. — 6×9 (Talk) 10:18, September 10, 2016 (UTC)

ApologetiX - Other Songs Edit

Over the past few days I've been working on many of the articles for Christian parody band ApologetiX - mainly adding the parody template (and the parodied template on the associated article). Tonight I noticed that there are quite a few articles listed under "Other Songs" on the artist's page that are of the format "ApologetiX Song (Original Title - Original Artist)". These pages aren't linked to from anywhere else but the artist page and already have a corresponding page under the correct title.

Example: ApologetiX:Lazy Brain (Crazy Train -Ozzy Osbourne) is just a duplicate of ApologetiX:Lazy Brain

How should these be handled - should I just redirect them to the correct article or should I just flag them for deletion?

Oldiesmann (talk) 06:02, October 6, 2016 (UTC)

Redirects should be fine for those. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 13:33, October 6, 2016 (UTC)
Redirect They may be recreated by a bot later anyway, so leave them as redirects. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:51, October 6, 2016 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki