2,054,160 Pages

Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current LyricWiki talk page.
LyricWiki talk archive for Community Portal
<< November - December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 >>

Unplugged or Acoustic?

A couple of weeks ago i created Template:Unplugged, but i've been thinking that maybe Unplugged is not the most correct word to use. I'm not english speaker, so I'm not sure if unplugged was used before the MTV Unplugged albums. Should we turn it to Acoustic so all the acoustic albums even those not from MTV are in? Or is unplugged a generic name for acoustic albums too?? I'm not sure if i explained myself... --Unaiaia (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2007 (EST)

"Unplugged" is a good name for the template. Unplugged songs are special acoustic versions of songs usually played in electrical ("plugged") versions. (Confusing enough sometimes an unplugged album is called "Acoustic") --Lentando 09:31, 2 January 2007 (EST)

Add blog to Portal

Please check User:Unaiaia/Portal and tell me what you think. I deleted the dashed line in the "Did you know" in the actual portal, you an see how it would look in the link i gave before. If you don't like the idea i'll put the dash line back. Please suggest about the design. --Unaiaia (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2007 (EST)

Looks good; it makes the blog much more visible so more people will know about it. I would keep the number of blog post links listed there to 5 like it currently is. Any more and it would clutter the page.
And actually, Bohemian Rhapsody was not the first pop video, see Wikipedia (third paragraph).
- - teknomunk (talk,E) 22:35, 5 January 2007 (EST)
I agree, it's a great idea to have the blog feed there.
-Sean Colombo 00:50, 7 January 2007 (EST)
Done, feel free to add or change anything --Unaiaia (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2007 (EST)


When in doubt with a cover you can use this web I just discovered. Just wanted to share with you. --Unaiaia (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2007 (EST)

No Artist

Hi! I've seen some pages without an artist (see [1]) and i was wondering what should we do with them.

What do you think? --Unaiaia (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2007 (EST)

Obviously, I'm new and don't have any clout here, but my vote's on first prefixing it with "Unknown:" and perhaps also categorizing it as such. If the first option would require an undesirably high amount of page moves, maybe just a categorical maintenance tag would be enough.
While allowing artistless pages does carry the risk of a slippery slope of random, obscure songs, there are a lot of traditional and folklore songs (assuming those are okay here) without known artists. Going by the FAQ, mainspace pages without a colon prefix should only be artist pages.
The user in question could probably use a gentle warning against somewhat indiscriminate page creation like that, though his/her editing patterns bring up a good basis for discussing limits to additions, though I assume there have been similar discussions before now. – ipso 18:08, 13 January 2007 (EST)
The songs listed more than likely have an artist or writter. Using 'Unknown' for the artist of songs who's artist is truely unknown sounds like an excellent idea. But most of the time when someone lists a song's artist as unknown, they haven't looked hard enough to find the artist.
We haven't really had any discussions on limiting page creation and such. And I would like to think that we are already mature enough to take a suggestion based on the merit of the suggestion and not on the reputation of the person who gives it.
- teknomunk (talk,E) 18:27, 13 January 2007 (EST)
I agree about using "Unknown" being a potential source of laziness, for lack of a better term. I'm certainly not in support of encouraging editors to add songs without knowing their artists; my idea is more of a corrective measure. Right now, I'm thinking it's more practical to have "Unknown:" for true unknowns (and I suspect this may already have been done a few times) and simply tag badly-named pages with something like {{noartist}}. About said tag: how's this for a start? User:Ipso/Sandbox
Anyone's welcome to edit it. – ipso 18:39, 13 January 2007 (EST)
Most of those titles linked to are theme songs and such. Would they have an artist, really, or would they be more generic? Seems similar to the Disney songs. Disney isn't really the artist, but the publisher/producer/distributor/source. Grouping them as Disney songs is really more of a ease of categorization, isn't it? Who would you list as the artist for American Gladiators Season 2 Intro, for example? I are a cOnFuSeD person. I like the template, BTW. Just saw the picture, too. Unaiaia, you rock! --Kiefer KieferE KieferTalk 19:07, 13 January 2007 (EST)
I added my proposal, just added a Image and used plainlinks. --Unaiaia (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2007 (EST)
Yours is clearly better, although I'm partial to centered text (I'm picky like that). Would you mind if I updated the draft to use your proposal but with centering? – ipso 19:03, 13 January 2007 (EST)
Go ahead, center what you want and create the template :D --Unaiaia (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2007 (EST)
Well, that didn't look right to me either, so I just used yours and changed the spacing a little bit. It's still open to editing, of course: {{noartist}}
Thanks for the help. – ipso 19:29, 13 January 2007 (EST)
I also just created Category:Missing Artists for this tag. If desired, we can wait for a stronger consensus on what to do with artistless pages; I wasn't intending to push my ideas on the community. In keeping with what Teknomunk was saying, I've added the following to the bottom of the aforementioned category:
Note: This category is not meant for songs by anonymous or "truly unknown" composers. This category should be used for titles whose authors are yet to be determined.
The new template as well as the new category is malleable; if anyone has further suggestions, they're certainly welcome. – ipso 19:43, 13 January 2007 (EST)
Thanks, Ipso, for the work that you (and Unaiaia) did on this. The new template certainly helps fill a need. I can't imagine that anyone thinks you were pushing your ideas on've done everything perfectly. If you were referring to my earlier comments, I was speaking to the group in general and just trying to point out that there are still issues that need to be considered regarding some songs that are essentially without an artist. You obviously have some experience in the land of Wiki, and your talents and expertise are gladly welcomed! --Kiefer KieferE KieferTalk 22:09, 13 January 2007 (EST)
No sir, I wasn't singling you out on anything. Thanks for the kind words. (And yeah, I'm your run-of-the-mill Wikipedia nerd, so please let me know if I overstep my bounds here. I'll try not to run around making tons of unapproved edits like I would over there.) – ipso 10:33, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Artists covering other artists

I was doing the page for Bright Eyes's live album Motion Sickness, but on it he plays 2 covers. One is Mushaboom by Feist, and the other The Biggest Lie by Elliott Smith. So I had it display Mushaboom (Feist) and link to Feist:Mushaboom. It's ok?— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Noodlepaste (talk).

So far I think a separate page has been created for the cover song with the information for the artist that covered the song and links to the album, etc. A link to the original song is also listed using {{Cover}}.
- teknomunk (talk,E) 14:42, 14 January 2007 (EST)
(teknomunk once again beat me to the "Save page" button, but here's my reply:)
Just keep the artist name as Bright Eyes, because that is the artist of that particular song, whether or not another artist recorded that song previously. For a cover song, you can mark it as such on the Song page with the Cover template. Also, don't forget to sign your notes. It's the second-to-last button above the editor's box. (See Help:Contents/Editing for more information about the shortcut buttons, and editing in general.) Hope this helps...feel free to ask questions at any time. You can use the discussion page (tab next to the edit tab) for an artist/album/song if your question is specific to that subject, or here for general questions. Good luck!--Kiefer KieferE KieferTalk 14:53, 14 January 2007 (EST)

Talk:O-Zone:Dragostea Din Tei (Copy)

Moved to community portal for further comments about official/unofficial translations. - teknomunk (talk,E) 17:35, 14 January 2007 (EST)

I'm not for the merger at this time. A translation should have its own article unless it is an official translation authorized by the copyright holder, and then it should be noted as such. In my opinion. - James Reed 23:35, 13 January 2007 (EST)

I personally think it should be the other way around. Official translations should have their own pages and unofficial translations should be listed below the original lyrics.
- teknomunk (talk,E) 23:42, 13 January 2007 (EST)
Any particular reason why? My first impulse is that the official lyrics should be accompanied by the official translation, if any, with unofficial translations being considered a derivative and separate work. (Of course, my way of thinking seems logical to me, but hey, what do I know?  ;) - James Reed 23:52, 13 January 2007 (EST)
Just so you know I spend most of my time working with Japanese songs, where an English translation, along with a romanized version of the lyrics, is almost always unofficial. A unofficial translation is included even if there is an official translation released by the artist.
My thinking is that if a song translation is released by an artist, it is a different song, and that each song should get its own page. The two songs are linked together with the {{Multiple Languages}} template. The translation is linked to directly from the albums it appears on. And as you say, the unofficial translation is a derivative work of the original song.
If there is much more discussion needed on this, it should be moved to a more visible place like the community portal talk page so that all the regulars can comment on it and a consensus can be reached.
- teknomunk (talk,E) 00:17, 14 January 2007 (EST)
I have always been for consistency. Whatever policy is ultimately adopted, it should be the same for every language unless there is a clear and convincing reason for the contrary in any specific case. Although I have my preference, since both systems are reasonable and this is the established custom for at least one language I personally have no problem with it being used across the board (especially since I have no desire to edit every existing article in another language to conform with my recommendation).
This said, I do think that this topic should be left open for comment by the rest of the community for at least a little while. Whether to link to it at or move it to the Community portal is something that I'll leave for you to decide.
At this point if no major opposition is found, I would agree to the merger. - James Reed 17:23, 14 January 2007 (EST)
If it's the same song, I think it should be like other Wiki and have all informations (aka derivations and phonetics) with it. Several SOTDs have adopted it, so I have merged the pages (at my friend's house under a different IP. If there is any ambiguity, it may be reverted. However, it seems fine as it is. :-)
I'm assuming by "a song translation is released by an artist, it is a different song" you mean a recording of the song that actually sung in a different language than it's original? (Nena:99 Luftballons was the original and Nena:99 Red Balloons the english version, for example?)
My opinion is that each page should refer to a specific and unique recorded song and that there should be only one page for each song.
Translations of that song are not an actual song, but a work derived from the lyrics to that song, and should therefore be placed on the page with the song it is derived from. (In other words, an english translation of the words to a japanese song should be placed on the song's page below the original japanese lyrics.) If, however, as in the case of the Nena song above, there is an actual recorded version in a different language, then it should be placed on its own page. (In this case it's easy because the title is different, and if not, it should be marked with a parenthetical notation about its new language.) I think that this is what we've been doing, and the thought process that has been behind it. Does this seem correct? --Kiefer KieferE KieferTalk 00:11, 6 February 2007 (EST)
Exactly. That was what I was trying to get at.
- teknomunk (talk,E) 00:16, 6 February 2007 (EST)
I agree, if it's recorded in two languages they are two song, if they are just lyric translations (officials or not, Alanis gives translations of the songs in the CD booklets) they go in the same page... or in a /es /en page below the original? We should choose and make this policy --Unaiaia (please, reply here) 05:10, 6 February 2007 (EST)


I've just stumbled on to this site, so I'm a bit of a noob, but I've used the soap client and documented a way to use it with Python.

My question is this. It seems that there is a bit of duplicate work going on between this site and Has anyone considered using the heavily moderated artist/album/song information from their site to build the framework for this site?

With a few enhancements to the soap client, this could be done programmatically. I would be happy to assist in this endeavor, I just don't want to step on any toes.

IMO, anything that can be done in collaboration, builds user base for both sites. Paqogomez 20:13, 14 January 2007 (EST)

I've moved the Python walkthrough out of the main namespace to LyricWiki:SOAP/Python. – ipso 15:27, 16 January 2007 (EST)

The stuff above the lyrics

Is there anyway to automatically add the "by whoever" link above the lyrics just based on the URL? I keep forgetting to add that. I guess the solution is for me to remember, but it seems like an issue that the computer should handle. The reason wiki is brilliant for lyrics is so the lyrics will be correct... I feel like the grunt work should be automatic. Noodlepaste 21:19, 14 January 2007 (EST)

I got a random suggestion

On artist and album pages, throw a little asterisk in front of songs that need to be reviewed. Whaddaya say? Noodlepaste 22:47, 14 January 2007 (EST)

What about a {{review|album-song|--Reason--}}template that gives something like *
--Unaiaia (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2007 (EST)
And it should be at the back of the song, not the front, so something like this:
  1. The Spam Song   *
- teknomunk (talk,E) 12:13, 20 January 2007 (EST)
I think the parsing problem with MediaWiki makes this imposible, or maybe I just don't know how to make it work. Please check it out --Unaiaia (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2007 (EST)
Fixed it, I just swiped the code from Template:Abbr and substituded in as needed. Using template:
  1. The Spam Song   Template:Review
- teknomunk (talk,E) 12:37, 20 January 2007 (EST)

irc channel?

On the Main Page, bottom left there is a reference to an irc channel on quakenet but it's empty. did it move? closed down? :( I'd like to idle around there :) thanks for info. -- Veal 11:02, 18 January 2007 (EST)

No, it is just that nobody is ever in the channel. I check it every once in a while, but I leave after a while.
- teknomunk (talk,E) 12:24, 18 January 2007 (EST)

Album pages

I say we do away with album pages. Seeing as that information is readily available on the artist page, it's redundant and double the work for contributors.Noodlepaste 01:23, 20 January 2007 (EST)

Big Page

Hi! We need a policy or guidelines for big pages like Ella Fitzgerald. I think The Rolling Stones is a good example of what i mean. Opinions? --Unaiaia (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2007 (EST)

The Rolling Stones page looks like a good model for large pages, with the exception that the last section, The Rolling Stones: The Nineties And Beyond (1990-), should probably be on the artist page as it is rather small. And that the Other Songs section needs to be sorted.
- teknomunk (talk,E) 12:28, 20 January 2007 (EST)
Yeah, the clean-up of the Other Songs section has been on my "To Do" list for a while. Those are (I believe) songs that aren't on their regular, listed albums. It's just a bunch of research that I haven't gotten back to. I guess now's as good a time as any to work on it some. I left the later albums off the main page because I figured that uniformity in page format and a straight-up discography list would be best. That's what I was thinking at the time, anyhow.--Kiefer KieferE KieferTalk 23:41, 20 January 2007 (EST)


This user is using a obsolete version of a page creator plug-in and it's creating articles with errors, Attendant (creator of the plug-in) warned him in his talk page and I used the "Send e-mail" link to send him the same information but it seems like he's not reading them. Is there some way to make him aware of this problem? Ideas? --Unaiaia (please, reply here) 07:26, 23 January 2007 (EST)

SongFooter, AlbumFooter and Artist Templates

This templates use right now a "home made" code for the title, it looks like this

<div style='font-weight:bold;font-size:130%;border-bottom:1px solid 
#AAA;margin-bottom:0.5em;'>External Links</div>

And gives us:

External Links

I suggest to change this to a much simple

<h2>External Links</h2>

That gives us

<h2>External Links</h2> indistinguishable from real wiki titles. --Unaiaia (please, reply here) 10:20, 23 January 2007 (EST)

Oh, ok, just realized this gives the Edit link... so it's not useful... well, forget all this... i'm trying something, i'll be back --Unaiaia (please, reply here) 10:22, 23 January 2007 (EST)

I already suggested to change the CSS style sheet to read h2,.level2heading instead of h2 and use <span class='level2heading'> instead of <h2>. It would require another hack, but hey, since when do we try to avoid those :) --Mischko Talkicon EsperanzaIcon 06:00, 27 January 2007 (EST)

Disorganized Mess

I looked at the Hole page and noticed how pointless it is that every album have it's seperate page if it's all contained on the main page. You should either put all the song listings on the band name and not have album pages, or have album pages, but no list on the band names, just album links --Cjohnson 08:13, 25 January 2007 (EST)

The reasoning here is that when you look for an artist, you probably want to see all of their track listings easily (without having to link out to an album page), but at the same time, there are many albums (ex: Pink Floyd:The Dark Side Of The Moon (1973)) that have special history or other additional information that people might find interesting, but wouldn't want right on the main artist page cluttering up their view of the track-list.
-Sean Colombo 09:10, 25 January 2007 (EST)
This means any changes I make to the artist page, would also have to be changed on the album page. Why not try templates then? --Cjohnson 21:05, 25 January 2007 (EST)
This topic seams to be comming up a lot recently. We won't be getting rid of the album pages because of the reasons that Sean mentioned, history, awards, Album Of The Week. Transclusion of album pages is a much more attractive solution to this problem. Updates to the tracklist are made in a single plage, compilations can be listed on multiple artist pages, and makes the artist page a lot cleaner.
Both myself and Ipso have played around with using templates to transclude album pages onto the artist page. I have a set of functional, but incomplete and somewhat akward, templates (1,2,3). I tested these templates on 浜崎あゆみ (Ayumi Hamasaki), Utada Hikaru, and couple other artists to test it out. This could work rather well, but the templates requires that you know how to use the template, so I haven't brought them up yet.
It should be noted that using templates to include album pages puts additional stress on the database as it has to lookup all the album pages that will be shown.
- teknomunk (talk,E) 22:20, 25 January 2007 (EST)

Screenshot on Wikipedia

See image page and LyricWiki

To those who care, I have uploaded a newer version of the screenshot on Wikipedia (long overdue after the discussion on the album cover). I have added Unaiaia's sample album shotglass image (which seemed to be the favorite), made the iTunes top songs anonymous, and have made all links blue. I think the "Editor's Corner" and "Sponsors" sections still need to be anonymous, but didn't have the time to figure out how to do this. Anyway, any comments/concerns? --WillMak050389 20:56, 27 January 2007 (EST)

Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.