1,963,235 Pages


hi, the wsdl has a bug!
The AlbumResult ist referenced but not defined

Hi, I need more info please (what system are you using to read the WSDL? nuSOAP, .NET, Axis, Flash, etc.?)
The problem with standards like WSDL is that everything implements it differently, so we have to hack things until they work everywhere.
If the problem is still around, please let me know
-Sean Colombo 17:47, 6 December 2006 (EST)

Tagging topics/content of lyrics?Edit

Someday I hope you add tags that describe the content of the lyrics, like parent-addressing-grown-child or man-flatters-woman.

Role Model Examples?Edit

There seems to be a lot of variation in how people handle formatting. The help pages lay this out (in rules), but are there any reliable song/album/artist instances with correct coding as examples? For instance, the Albums of the Week should be perfect archetypes- yet they aren't by far. Only an idea to guide newcomers.. Thanks. Oboro 04:07, 16 September 2007 (EDT)

I agree. A couple of pages with correct ways of setting things out would be the easiest way to do things right and quickly check how to do a specific something. --Humbug 18:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Feedback: Member RecognitionEdit

It would be cool to see some users get credit for all their work on here. Things like 'Top Contributing Members of the Day/Week/Month' type of thing would be nice. Just a thought...
Adam 20:26, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Case SensitivityEdit

It would be nice if the case-sensitivity would be turned off, since in my opinion it is not needed and only brings up problems. (e.g. here: - the real band-name is NoRMAhL) So either duplicate entries or redirects would be needed in some cases. Socke 15:37, 4 October 2006 (PDT)

Well, what exactly did you do now Frontway? Is case-sensitivity off, or did you just do moving and redirects? Socke 04:28, 5 October 2006 (PDT)
Well, thanks for your answers dude. btw now i'm seeing in my amarok lyricscript redirects instead of lyrics.. And the correct spelling of the bandname would be "NoRMAhl" not

"NoRMAhL". Socke 05:38, 8 October 2006 (PDT)

Hi, sorry to take so long to get back on this (I just found this 'problems' page and added it to my watchlist... usually I get probs directly on my talk page so I never even noticed this!)... anyway:
There isn't really a setting to "turn off case sensitivity" in MediaWiki that I know of. That's why redirects are used so frequently. Eventually we may be able to modify the core code, but until then we just use the standard that The First Letter Of Every Word Is Capitalized to make it easier for ppl to find anything (kind of a lame solution, but it's all we have for now).
-Sean Colombo 17:44, 6 December 2006 (EST)

First of all, I'm a newbie. In italian the songs titles are usually written in small letters, not with capital letters as in English. Shall I use capital letters also for italian titles? And both in choosing the title of the page or also in writing it after the "|". Second question. If capitalizing, should I write "E'" or "É"? Both forms are common in italian. --No2 17:18, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Basically for site integration into other projects, uniformity, etc., etc., all initial letters are capitalized, independent of the language of origin. (Full details are found at LW:PN, in case you haven't visited that page yet.) This breaks normal rules of capitalization in all countries, but in most instances, a display version using the correct capitalization can be created. As for "E'" or "É", the answer is the same for all languages: use whatever the artist used. If the album has "E'" (or "e'"), then use that, if the artist used "É" (or "é"), then use "É". Good luck and best wishes,    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   21:24, 12 January 2008 (EST)

Official IRC channelEdit

Another thing: is there an official IRC channel of LyricWiki where people can discuss and help each other? Boron

There is one Boron, #LyricWiki @ QuakeNet --Frontway 15:54, 4 October 2006 (PDT)

Search Engine could be better Edit


there are two things concerning the search engine of this site:

First: an example:

there is a song called "Love Don't Let Me Go" by David Guetta. At LyricWiki, there also exists a songtext page for it. But if you search for "Love Don't Let Me Go" you won't find this song. The search result is a list of pages on which the key words Love Don't Let Me Go occur. But this special song by David Guetta is not under the top 100 of this list.

Actually, I expect this song to be the first result, because the title matches 100% to the search string.

So, the search engine can be improved by sorting the results list with respect to the fitting of the search string.

Second, but strong related to the first thing:

To find a special songtext with this search engine, one should know Artist and Title. There should be a possibility just to search for an artist (which is there: each Artist has his own site on LyricWiki), but also just to search for a song (which is not there: if you search for a song title, the result is a list of pages, where the key words of the search string occur. Better would be a list of pages, whose TITLES consist of the key words of the search string.)

Perhaps all this stuff is already implemented, and I just can't use the search enginge correctly... But for normal users, there would better exist an option to search "For Title" or "For Artist" (and not just search for the keywords, no matter where they occur on the whole site)

Delete Pages for SongsEdit

I don't know if this is the best spot to ask this, but how do I go about and "delete" pages that I have accidentally created for some songs. I still want it to link to that song's page but I want it deleted because red would signify that there are no lyrics for that song. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Despwa (talk).

Mark the song page with {{Deletion| and put a reason here }} and an administrator will get around to deleting it.
Also, please mark all of your talk page posts with your name by typing ~~~~.
- teknomunk (talk,E) 19:37, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I wish someone would update the artists search page, go and look for Tool under the T category, and it doesn't exist. But look for a Tool song, and lo and behold it's there! What's up with that glitch?

Duplicates Edit

I'm finding that there are too many songs with duplicates pages, sometimes due to capitalization, punctuation or even misspelled song titles. Wouldn't be a good idea to create a template to quickly mark those pages and request cleanup?

One problem that I see is that sometimes the lyrics in one page differ from the other, and the lyrics on the correct pagename aren't always more correct and complete, so the duplicate pages should be merged instead of simply deleted. --Calavera 16:19, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

You are more than welcome to put together a template. Have a look at the source code for {{RequestKanji}} for an idea on what to do.
- teknomunk (talk,E,) 20:05, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
Done. Please take a look at Template:Duplicate and tell me what do you think of it. --Calavera 23:46, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
Looks good to me. However, it should be noted that if you can fix the problem, that you should.
- teknomunk (talk,E,) 23:53, 22 September 2007 (EDT)
What about automatic redirection of typical problems, like "pt 1" and "part one"? I just discovered that the Harmonic widget couldn't find the Eels song "Going to your funeral, Pt. 1", even though it got the rest of the album right. The song is indeed listed on Lyricwiki, but under the name "Going to your funeral (Part I). I'm pretty sure "Pt. 1" is the official spelling. Any ideas on this? What is the chance of fetching the wrong lyrics if a "fail-safe" system like this is implemented?
- Marius, 02 September 2008

special characters toolbox Edit

I would like to see a toolbox below the edit window with some essential special characters (MediaWiki:Edittools, the most needed for me would be: –“”×)--Speckmade 14:18, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Full stops on templates... Edit

REQUEST:- Would it be possible to display the full stop ending the pre-configured sentences contained within templates as an option, so as to provide the editor with control over the same?

REASON:- The reason I ask, is because whilst I use these templates (and their formatting) as a basis, I often adapt them to suit the info I am providing. This being so, the full stops are often placed inappropriately in the sentence I compose.

I'm sure I can't be the only one getting irked by not having any control over this inclusion so I hope you (Sean?) will look favourably on this request.

   Redxx    talk   12:50, 2 March 2008 (EST) and no, I'm NOT Keifer's new assistant (hee hee) - I'm just waiting for someone who understands code to help me adapt 'my' personalised signature further. Go on, you know you want to help me really! ;)

I saw this, but I'm not sure what you are asking for. I think I have an idea - that you want to be able to adjust the built-in text of the template - but I'm not sure. If so, then if the edit is something useful for the rest of the site, then perhaps discussing the change on the template's discussion page would be better. One of the template-gurus might see it and help out. If it's a "minor" thing, for a special case or such, then it's probably better to just make a "hard-wired" version on a word processor/text editor and copy-and-paste it where you need it. (I have a few of these on a page that I always have up for quick reference.) If this is a case where you want to adapt an existing template for new purpose, then making a new template is probably okay. you're not my assistant? bummer.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   17:23, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Wrong encoding Edit

Very nice site, but you have some wrong encoding, I think you have saved the lyrics with a different encoding, look at this example:

I use firefox 2.0 and at the place of all specials characters appears a question mark.

Bye correttore

Yes, that is why the "accent" template was added to the page, so that the incorectly encoded characters could be fixed. If you know the correct characters, please add them to any such page that you find - it would be a biiiiiig help!    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   17:07, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Cover songs Edit

Hi all!

I was just wondering, it would be very good if, when you indicates that a song is covered by another artist than the original, in the page of the principal song is created automatically a link for this song version. For example: in the song Like A Rolling Stone, covered by The Rolling Stones, if there's an indication that this song is a cover, in the Bob Dylan's page of the same song title would be created a link to that version. It's a little hard to explain, but that's all.

Thanks, Andero

To mark a song as being a cover of another artist's song, place
{{Cover|Artist = the artist of the original song|Title = the title of the original song}}
directly above the top <lyrics> tag.
To mark an original song as having been covered by another artist, place
{{Cover2|Artist = the artist of the cover song|Title = the title of the cover song}}
in the same location. Hopefully that's what you meant?    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   13:39, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Two Suggestions Edit


I am new to this site and I like it so much better than the typical neon-colored lyrics pages I typically find. So I would like to stick with it and maybe even improve it. So I have two suggestions/questions. I am not very HTML savy, but I get the basics. So I don't know how easy it would be to implement my suggestions, which is why I am also calling them questions.

One-It seems to make more sense to me to have comments and threads on the community portal pages in reverse chronological order, so that the most recent subject/update is at the top of the page. Would that be possible easily?

Two-I would like to see all the pages listed at the top/bottom of the catagorical pages, so you could easily move from one page to the next without having to scroll through each page. For example if there are 10 pages of "P Artists" I would like to be able to go to page 5 then back to 2 then to 7 without have to go through each adjacent page by clicking (previous 200) (next 200). So what I would like to see is something like: (previous 200)(next 200) pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 that are links to those pages within that catagory. Does that make sense?

Thanks so much. I noticed that there is not a lot of action on this page, so I hope I have written to the correct forum. If not please point me in the right direction!


Mirz — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mirzabella (talkcontribs).

Thanks for stopping by! Glad we good impress! Let me address your points
  1. This chronological order of top to bottom is kind of part of wiki-culture. It's what they do on Wikipedia and the medium lends itself to it. I agree that in some ways what you suggest is more intuitive. However, since we use the same software as Wikipedia and because a majority of people are already familiar with their way of doing things, it would run against the grain of almost all users. Plus, it'd be really hard to change all that we've been doing!
  2. What you suggest would require some programming changes but is conceivable. I'll get back to you ........ --Aquatiki - T - E 01:28, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
After some ruminating, the best I can come up with ... has already been implemented. If you look at Category:Songs W, you'll see there's a banner across the top to take you to subdivisions within the category list based off of the first letter of the page. Since the number of pages is dynamically changing, it would be a major overhaul of the MediaWiki system to try and have individual page number links. I hope our current work-around will help you enough. --Aquatiki - T - E 10:26, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Put the word "The" at the end of the band's name. Edit

I have first come to this website today and one big problem I have is that when browsing by a band's name, every band that identifies itself as "The" followed by what they call themselves are all lumped together under the word "The" under the letter T. For example, "The" Beatles are not listed by the letter B as they should be. So it would make common sense to redo those bands by listing them as something as "Beatles, The" or just remove the "The" from their names altogether. Most of us often omit the "The" when it comes to searching for band names alphabetically as that word is only a supplement to the band name's plurality or inanimate noun or thing. Just a thought.
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by ARomero82 (talkcontribs).

One of the reasons that "The" is included at the beginning has to do with the international nature of the database. Wikipedia divides itself into partitions based on language, while we do not. Japanese editors can work on songs in English, and British editors can work on songs in Japanese. Sometimes language can create some organizational challenges, and when it comes to the organization, the main objective is to keep things as simple as possible and not have a dozen rules that depend on the language the song is in. The, A, and An often get put at the end in English organization, but what about La or Le or L'? What about Spanish articles? Explaining and clarifying the differences in style between French and Swedish titles to a Japanese editor as well as an English editor as well as a Greek editor, etc. can be daunting. So the site keeps it as simple as possible, even though this does not follow some well-known indexing styles. The good news is that the recent update to the latest MediaWiki program may allow the site to be a little more helpful in the future with regards to this.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   06:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[chorus] Edit

Is there a community project to remove [1st verse], [refrain], [chorus], etc. from lyrics? They're really annoying. We should also change them so that lyrics that only show the chorus once should have the chorus pasted over where it says [CHORUS]. This-guy 13:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome This-guy!
Yes, you are right it is annoying which is why we advise people that this is not how to create song pages. Most users heed this, but the odd one (often bot created) slips through the 'net' Please correct these when you come across them.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 13:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, please feel free to suggest this over on the LyricWiki:Bot Portal's talk page as an automate-able project to help clean up LyricWiki. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 20:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Winamp pluginEdit

It would be great if someone who knows programming develop a Winamp plugin which uses LyricWiki's database. I would really appreciate it, because I think the database here is great, and the lyrics are mostly well written. Tincho8773 14 April 2009

Citation of Author of LyricEdit

I'm surprised that there is no REQUIREMENT for proper citation of authorship of lyrics on this website. Authorship should be ACKNOWLEDGED and properly cited/referenced. Accusations of plagiarism are supported by improper/absent citation. I suggest a project for research and citation of authorship for each song entry. itsdocb

If you read our page ranking policy, you'll find that credits are required for a song to reach Silver or Gold status. Ideally, all song pages should have them, but to make that a requirement (enforcement of which would mean deleting all song pages without them) isn't practical – we simply don't have the manpower to do that.
PS. If you sign your posts using ~~~~, a timestamp is automatically added to your username. — 6×9 (Talk) 16:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

API shows strange und wrong results Edit

I found two problems if I use LyricWiki's API.

There is a song Subway To Sally:Traum Vom Tod II with correct lyrics. But If I call the API for it, I won't get the lyrics. - I often found some songs that needs a REDIRECT because of case-sensitive search in calling the API. But I can't see the problem here. Maybe I and i ??

Second problem is with translations and API. That song Subway To Sally:Eisblumen and Josh Groban:Per Te have translations. But there is no API for it and I will get ugly answers with both lyrics and html-tags inside. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misery (talkcontribs).

From the looks of things, someone figured out the first one. The problem is with the api applying capitalization rules to II which turns it into Ii. A redirect solved this particular case.
For the second item, there is a discussion going on in the community portal about dealing with this. If you have time and feel like it, give the discussion a read and let us know what you think.
- teknomunk (talk,E,,A) 16:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Amarok Plugin Script Issues. Edit

I'm running Amarok 2.1.1 on KDE 4.2, Fedora 11 GNU/Linux with all updates installed.

The issue I'm having is that "notes" inserted into the lyricwiki page presents issues when downloaded to my Amarok player.

Take, for example, "Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2", by Pink Floyd.

The actual page can be viewed here: Pink_Floyd:Another_Brick_In_The_Wall,_Part_II

When downloaded it appears as:


EDIT: It seems I can't copy+paste the issue, I'll get a screenshot.

Edit 2: Being the idiot I am, I can't get the link to not actually put the screenshot on the talk page. Just delete the spaces and follow the link.



Obviously, this is a small conflict, and nothing hugely important, but it would be nice to fix this for seamless integration 20:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Diffrent versions of songs with same name Edit

There are songs out there with multiple lyric versions. Some have just small changes (from single to album version for example) but some have major differences. For example see Jonny Sniper. The Version on that page is from Anything Can Happen In The Next Half Hour (2004) and differs a lot from the Take To The Skies (2007) - version. But both albums link to the same song-page.

I didn't find a solution to this obvious problem yet (though I read throw every help page related to song-editing I could find), please let me know if there's an easy way to fix this. Is Ja Irre 00:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Solved by using "Enter Shikari:Jonny Sniper (Album Version)". I hope this is the correct way to handle this. - Is Ja Irre 22:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

End of Line PunctuationEdit

I have been discussing the issue of end of line punctuation with ES.

The current policy reads:

'The lyrics should always be transcribed as sung and reflect what is sung on the recording -- including repeating any even if these differ from the "official" lyrics published in the liner notes or elsewhere.'


'In general, capitalize the first letter of each line and use minimal end-of-line punctuation, plus any other punctuation needed for clarity's sake. Leave a blank line between stanzas.'

The current administrator policy interprets this as meaning that all end-of-line punctuation should be removed – even when there is an audible pause at the end of the line, as the line break already signifies a pause. Punctuation is 'not sung' and therefore should not be written.

I think that this is the wrong policy for the following reasons (in descending order of importance):

1) It creates an unnecessary and inaudible discrepancy between official lyrics and lyrics transcribed to LyricWikia. This is bad because (i) it is a waste of time, as it means the editor needs to remove all end of line punctuation, especially when he or she has been able to copy/paste the lyrics from another source; (ii) it fails to respect the wishes of the artist, who wished to present the lyrics in a linguistically-correct and comprehensible way. Note that I am not suggesting that we should slavishly follow the official lyrics if those are audibly different to the sung version; my point here is precisely that punctuation is largely inaudible.

2) It creates an inconsistency in the way that we treat punctuation in the middle of lines, and at the end of lines. For example, nobody is going to omit commas from long lists if those fall within a line, and yet the current policy requires us to omit commas if the next item follows a linebreak. Similarly, even if the singer pauses *within* lines, no editor is going to produce superfluous commas ('I, lift, my, eyes, to, you').

3) It reduces clarity. I do think that the current wording can be interpreted to allow end of line punctuation wherever that better conveys the sense of the lyrics. Colons, semicolons and commas all change the meaning of a sentence. The internal logic of a song is often best conveyed by the correct employment of punctuation. (How clear this is in the sung lyrics varies, of course).

4) It just looks amateurish. Well-used punctuation is our friend.

I would strongly urge that either the policy be adapted to allow end-of-line punctuation wherever this enhances the clarity of the song and/or is consistent with the official lyrics (provided this does not create an audible discrepancy with the sung version), or else that the current intepretation of the policy be relaxed to allow this. RWDCollinson (talk) 08:05, October 8, 2015 (UTC)

I don't interpret it as all EOL punctuation has to be removed – just the majority, since in most cases it's unnecessary.
1: (i) If the creator doesn't want to clean that up, we won't force them; only when he wants to uprank the page past Bronze will they have to. (ii) Our obligation is to the user, not to the artist (who might want all his lyrics lower- or uppercase, or all whitespace removed).
2: Lists: I don't see a problem with "A, b, c, d (linebreak) E, f, g"; however, "d, (linebreak) E" looks weird unless E is lowercased. As for "no editor" using commas to indicate pauses: I wish that were true, but I've seen it way too often.
3: Covered by policy: if removing punctuation reduces clarity, don't remove it.
4: Some lyrics would require (nearly) every line ending in a period. That, to me, looks amateurish.
To me, the current policy is fine. But maybe the wording needs to be changed if some admins interpret it differently. — 6×9 (Talk) 10:32, October 8, 2015 (UTC)
Many of the song lyrics that I'm uploading are modern hymns, which typically stretch complex (but grammatically complex) sentences over several lines. The addition of end of line punctuation where that is appropriate does, I think, genuinely help to read the meaning of the song. It certainly doesn't look haphazard or messy.
1 (i) I'm currently finding that EchoSierra and Lichtweber are systematically going through the various songs that I'm uploading and removing the end of line punctuation, and requesting that I 'comply with the policy'. This seems to be contrary to what you're saying about not forcing page creators to 'clean' the page. (ii) What I'm not understanding here is how the user is served by the removal of standard punctuation. There seems to be a difference between this, and artists desiring non-standard punctuation. My major objection to this is that it is a systematic removal of useful information.
2 In that case, wouldn't it make just as much sense to say that first lines should no longer be capitalised? My point about the use of commas to represent pauses is that this would be consistent with the policy of having punctuation exactly match audible pronunciation, even though it would look terrible and being very unhelpful.
3 This seems to be subjective, and as I've noted above, some administrators seem to be systematically removing all punctuation (except, for some reason, speech marks).
4 I think that, in most songs, a semicolon at the end of every line would be more appropriate than a period at the end of every line. But I do think that my particular concerns relate to the genre that I'm dealing with. --RWDCollinson (talk) 13:14, October 9, 2015 (UTC)
Since you mentioned me: I never forced you to remove EOLP, but while current policy is in effect, we can expect you to comply when adding new song pages. I actually read some of these modern hymns of yours, and given the line breaks I can't see how EOL punctuation improves intelligibility.  · Lichtweber talk service  20:32, October 9, 2015 (UTC)

Search Function: Exact PhrasingEdit

The search function on LyricWikia seems really poor; I don't know if we can change this, or if this needs to be fed back to Wikia centrally. I just created the page Don Francisco:The Sunday Morning Chainsaw Massacree. But if I type 'Don Francisco The Sunday Morning Chainsaw Massacree' into the searchbar, the song doesn't appear anywhere on the first page of the results list. Entering the words in quotation marks doesn't seem to help.

The search function doesn't seem to try to get the most exact match or to care about the word order, or even to find an article which contains all of the words listed, never mind prioritising the page title. Rather, it just seems to list the most popular pages which have some of the words, irrespective of how close the page actually matches the search terms. This seems a pretty major limitation on a lyrics website (in practice, it's much easier to find the desired article on Google Search). Is there anything we can do about this? --RWDCollinson (talk) 10:45, October 29, 2015 (UTC)

It works now as described; I guess the index needs some time to get updated? Greetings, --Fassbrause (talk) 00:41, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
That's fair; I was clearly a little quick! But it's still true that there's no way of making the search care about word order/exact phrasing, or even to only bring up pages which contain all of the words, which is still a massive problem. Surely, a lot of site users are going to want to search for the only line they can remember from a song.
If I search for the song 'Breathe' by Marie Barnett, for example, by looking up the second and third lines ('This is the air I breathe; your holy presence living in me'), there are fourteen songs listed before any version of this song. Only one of these songs contains the word 'holy' (which is a little ironic since a lot of them are Christian songs). Indeed, if I type in all the unique words in the song, The Air That I Breathe by Maroon 5 is still at the top of the list, and all of the other search results appear in more-or-less the same order. --RWDCollinson (talk) 18:40, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to nudge, but does anybody know whether it is possible in to introduce an 'exact phrasing' function, as is typical on most search engines? Or to create a function like 'Display only pages containing all the words...' As I've hopefully illustrated in the last example, it's really problematic on a lyrics website that one can't search for a single clearly-remembered line. --RWDCollinson (talk) 09:45, November 5, 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure it is possible, but it's not really something we can do here by ourselves - you'd have to ask Wikia about it. Personally, I use an actual search engine with results limited to, as like you said, it's much easier! - OneTwoThreeFall talk 10:06, November 5, 2015 (UTC)
They got back to me very quickly, and this is what they said: 'Thanks for getting in touch. We would certainly like to improve the search feature with these functions, but it's quite a complex thing to do due to the sheer volume of data stored on Wikia. Unfortunately, I don't have an ETA to provide for this kind of update, but I'm certainly hopeful we'll get there in the not-too-distant future.' So, one day! --RWDCollinson (talk) 10:04, November 6, 2015 (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)
Does anybody else want to weigh in on this? The solution I suggested earlier really seems to capture what everybody wants: every song would only appear once on each artist page, but people wouldn't find their work being destroyed through the needless removal of 'redundant' albums. That means there's no clutter, and anybody who wants to look up a particular album can do so, and contributors won't be annoyed by having their work destroyed.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 12:31, November 18, 2016 (UTC)
You're saying this solution you suggested seems to be what "everybody" wants, but who are you speaking for? Was this conversation held anywhere else? I wouldn't make such a bold statement as this conversation has only been (to my knowledge) between you and ES, unless you have discussed it with other users and gotten their say.
I honestly don't have much to say that ES hasn't already said, as I basically agree with all of his points (not to mention I already had this discussion with you). But again, LyricWiki is not a discography site (at least, not this extensively) and most users don't seem to have a problem with this from what I've seen. We're not going to change a policy that has been in effect for so long - if we did, we'd have to recreate every previously-deleted redundant release and create any future ones that we see get released. It just isn't practical.
As for "work being destroyed", it's really not the end of the world if an album page you created gets deleted - if an album/EP/etc. gets deleted for redundancy reasons, you're not really losing anything except the album info and talk page info, so I'm not sure why this is much of a concern. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)13:22, November 18, 2016 (UTC)
I didn’t mean to be claiming that I was representing everyone in the world! :) I meant that I thought I'd addressed the major objection, which seemed to be that artist pages would become hopelessly cluttered.
If redundant albums were simply left, again, what would be disadvantage? This wouldn't involve more work for the admins; it would involve less work, because you wouldn't need to keep deleting stuff. This is a Wiki. It isn’t supposed to depend on the work of the administrators alone (although I think some of the more arcane rules put people off, and it must be admitted that we have a very small number of regular non-admin contributors).
As far as redundant albums go, my suggestion is just stop deleting the pages. In practice, that is a tiny change in policy. That's got be a service to users, and it doesn't hurt anyone. What I'm saying is that having redundant albums is not a blemish and hurts no-one (unless they are causing clutter, hence my suggestion).
Albums (admittedly mostly studio albums, although the docs already suggest those shouldn't be deleted even if they are redundant) are supposed to be experienced holistically. You should be able to sit down and read every song on an album, as an album. That's about the lyrics, it's not about discography. It's also about ease-of-access. (Although I don't see why we don't do discography, given that we already gather huge amounts of discographical information; if we were really just a lyrics site, like metrolyrics, we'd obviously be much worse).
I am, separately, suggesting an overhaul of artist pages that would make the pages of all major artists smaller, and that would take time, but it would be in line with what ES is saying about trying to avoid clutter (seriously, take a look at the Ronnie Milsap page from before ES edited it; it was very elegant). Say you had a compilation album which only had one unique song on it: you could make a page for the compilation album, but the artist page would just have the link and an entry for that single song (a bit like what we do for the 'songs featuring this artist' section or the 'soundtracks and compilations' section).
It's a concern to lose work because destroying people's work puts them off. You don't lose much data, but you lose time! When you've put work into something, you don't want it deleted for no good reason.
--RWDCollinson (talk) 14:02, November 18, 2016 (UTC)
It wouldn't make sense to stop deleting redundant albums altogether without recreating previously deleted ones, as I previously mentioned. Otherwise this would be on a pick and choose basis on what redundant releases to delete and that wouldn't work.
Yes, your argument about "ease of access" makes sense in when it comes to studio albums, and since we often keep those (save for some exceptions ES mentioned before) it shouldn't be a problem. As you said, it's not always true for compilation albums to be a cohesive whole as they are exactly that - a compilation. Same can be said for some other redundant releases. However, just because you like to experience albums holistically doesn't mean that's necessarily the case for everyone. Some people may just want to search lyrics for specific songs instead of whole albums, and that is why we have the search bar (alternatively, someone could Ctrl+F for a song on an artist page). Yes, we do have discographies, but we only list what we need to list. Listing more than we need to is a waste of time in the first place.
And again, I'm still failing to see why deleting album pages is such a big deal, and they are indeed deleted for a reason that's well-established in the policy. Yes, people put time into making it, but a very small amount of time - I don't know how long it takes other people to create album pages but it usually takes me no more than a minute or so. It's not like we're deleting pages that took people days or weeks to create, and it's seriously not a huge concern - if people are so put off by it (which I haven't heard of - most people accept it from what I've noticed), then they should straighten their priorities out as there are many bigger things to worry about Wink XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)16:17, November 18, 2016 (UTC)
Being redundant is in itself a blemish. Having a page exist without any backlinks is certainly a blemish. Personally, I completely ignore live albums and compilations in almost all cases when listening to music, and I can't imagine too many casual lyric-searchers pay attention to them either; so it's more of a waste of time to create and maintain them. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 04:08, November 19, 2016 (UTC)
Anything can be done; at a cost. What RWD wants can be done, without a huge cost to LW, like so:
Senv already made 3 wikifyers, so navigate to any album page at (iT/mb/sp), copy to new page at LW and preview... even save it in your sandbox. Saving it in main space is our concern. --ES (talk) 05:15, November 19, 2016 (UTC)

Keep I definitely think there is value in presumably redundant releases because it's easier for those viewing the site. If I have a certain compilation album, I can find all the lyrics at once and navigate much easier. And on occasion, there will be remixes or radio edits which are not strictly identical and maybe someone wants those lyrics. It's not like there is a problem with server space or extraneous albums cluttering up our Internet connection, so we should do this in service of listeners. For artists with wildly large discographies (Grateful Dead, Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, etc.) we can just have a section like "Other compilation albums" and list the albums but not ever track on the artist page. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:33, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, we often don't make pages for radio edits or remixes - usually we'll list them on an album, but we'll link to the original song. In some rare cases where the lyrics are significantly different (or have a whole new verse, etc.) then we make pages for them (example) XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)15:22, November 22, 2016 (UTC)