2,054,106 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
<< February 2007 March 2007 April - May 2007 >>

Featuring Artists

How do you deal with songs that have featuring artists. That is:

  • On the Album's Artist's Page, How do you display the song
  • How do you name the song
  • How do you display the featuring on the song page

Specifically I'm trying to deal with m-flo's song Love Song that features BONNIE PINK. M-flo made things even more complicated by on the album making it look like the song is written by "m-flo loves BONNIE PINK" as they use the 'love' theme throughout the album. I couldn't find anything about featuring artists on any of the help pages.YukataNinja 17:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

I generally format the link like this: [[Artist:Title]] feat. [[Featured Artist]] or similar. The point of the formatting is to link to the featured artist's page. There is not (currently) a standard for this, but the rule of thumb is to make it look as close to what the artist did as possible, with only a few notable exceptions (LW:PN).
For naming the song title, it is Artist Name:Song Name. The featured artist can be listed in the text of the page, but not in the title. And the featured artist should be a link. A good place for this is directly below the {{Song|Album (YEAR)|Artist}}
- teknomunk (talk,E) 18:57, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

A Few suggestions.

Ok, know I'm new here, but me being me, i immediately noticed some, what i would consider, short comings.

Album and Artist Categories
Is there a reason you do not categorize by album and artist? This would make browsing for lyrics much easier and make album and artist pages rather redundant (Unless being a discography wiki too is your goal, in which case, do both).
This isn't greatly needed, but i would recommend using namespaces for Artist, Album and Song/Lyric. This will make it clearer for visitors to know what sort of article they are viewing as well as resolve a few cases of disambiguation that may crop up.
Lyric formatting
I can't see anything about formatting of lyrics (which would probably be a policy of it's own)
This would be things like the following:
Alternative Vocals
Styling (perhaps colour based for a great deal of expansion) for duets, backups, samplings etc.
Tentative Lyrics
Styling (perhaps italics) to signify lyrics that need further confirmation as they could be wrong
Alternative Lyrics
Some songs have very slight changes, that really aren't worth a new article (e. one verse missing or changed), so perhaps adding something about this on the policy. This could be done with symbols as jump-to links to a notes section on the article to explain what it means in the context of that song.
Now i see you're using the format <artist>:<album> (<year>) and <artist>:<song>, with artist essentially being a disambiguation constant, year being secondary in the case of the album (and from what i've picked up, further disambiguation is handled through sequent bracket disambiguation). I'd like to recommend using <namespace>:<artist> - <album/song> (<disambiguation1>, <disambiguation2>) as i can't think of any artist with a hyphen in their name and is the well known standard for song and album titles, and requiring the year in the article name is not really needed. keeping all the disambiguation inside one bracket also is a lot cleaner and keeps the order of disambiguation clear (for when you have to make the disambiguation pages to handle it). If there is ever a need to add year, it's an optional disambiguation.

Apologies to any poor grammar and spelling, writing is far from my forte. Pretty much it, look forward to any replies. --Zeal 12:13, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Hi, a bit rushed at the moment, so I'll just cover the "disambig" section...
The year in the album names serves more than just as a disambiguation, it is a trick that lets us instantly know that it is an album page. This works wonders in the SOAP and removes a lot of confusion just as people go around the site.
The colon was chosen as a delimiter because text-analysis showed it to be the most rare character in artist names, I think it ended up being only one artist out of the initial 200,000 lyrics. Although it might be counter-intuitive, the hypen is actually pretty commonly used. Just as an example, A*Teens, A-ha, All-4-One, American Hi-Fi, Anti-Flag, At The Drive-In are all well known groups just that start with the letter A and have hyphens. They're a lot more populous than it would initially sound.
Thanks for the suggestions, hopefully someone else can discuss the others (I didn't get a chance to wrap my head around the others yet). Gotta run,
-Sean Colombo 12:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)
No worries. I'd like to beg to differ however, and clear up something i neglected.
I found the year, (mainly because it's in brackets and a suffix not a prefix) to not provide noticeable indication of looking at an album article. A disambig issue, though unlikely, could arise with a song using a series of numbers similar to a year, and any series of numbers could easily confuse a reader as to if it's an album or not.
A colon is indeed a rare character, but in mediawiki it's used to define namespaces (and psuedo-namespaces), which at the moment reads to be rather misleading for me and probably others used to mediawikis. A Hyphen however would use a space either side to seperate it, so it's not confused with artist or song names using them (WoWWiki runs into a similar issue where item names contain a colon, but then a space, thus it's not a confusing issue for readers). I admitidly have no knowledge of SOAP though, so i'm unsure of the impact there. --Zeal 12:44, 6 March 2007 (EST)
Whew, quite a few suggestions to talk about. Let see...
Album and Artist Categories
Could be done, I suppose. Although, seems like a lot of extra work for only a little benefit. There is a lot of regular clean-up that needs to be done before I would personally worry about something that (at least in the case of categorizing by artist goes) could be mostly handled by the search function.
It's a lot easier to type in (and REMEMBER to type in) the browser "Van_Halen" after than to type in "Artist:Van_Halen". So many new additions have pagename errors (misspellings, uncapped words, extraneous parenthetical notations, etc.) that suddenly adding namespaces into the mix will add another something for errors to creep into. I subscribe to the K.I.S.S. method whenever possible. Make everything as simple as possible. Added variables = added chance for errors = added chaos. Plus, at this point, a major change like that would probably crash all the plug-ins and such that use the site.
Lyric formatting
Alternative Vocals
Actually, I wonder if the <lyric> tags could be changed to be editable with an assigned background color. I think that different colors for duets/multi-artist songs would be a nice addition/option! If it could get rid of parenthetical notations within the lyrics about who was singing...I'm all for it!
Tentative Lyrics
Also something that would be nice. Although, since this is a wiki, I guess all lyrics are technically tentative.... Perhaps a template that editors could use on pages where they are unsure of the lyrics that links to the talk page where they discuss the questionable portions? That way there could be a list of such pages for editors to browse through.
Alternative Lyrics
A notation below the lyrics would be good to cover this. An editor could put a link to the notation next to the album link in the Song template. [[Artist:Song#Lyric_Variations|note]], for example.
For albums, seeing the year is probably just something you will get used to as you're going along here. It's either an album page or a song page, and visually they are quite different. Especially if the page has a correct Album template, with the album cover included! Personally, I think that the LyricWiki system of sorting pages is pretty good (with one exception - Albums by various artists). It's the simplest way to accomplish what needs to be accomplished. I come from a library and information sciences background, so I'm happy to see simple and effective categorization of pages. If not, I don't think I would have stuck around as long.
Thanks for taking the time to make such thoughtful suggestions. Most would just move on and not take the time to suggest improvements. Hopefully some of these will be implemented as time goes by. --Kiefer KieferE KieferTalk 16:44, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Album and Artist Categories
I generally find wiki's ignore categories for they most obvious helpful use, jsut as wikipedia does itself, and that's creating a navigation for browsing. Seeind navigation templates and such just look ugly and feel rather backwards to me, so i think this would be a great benefit, which less work really. Don't know if there are many capable bot's around to handle it, but it wouldn't be hard to do, especially with the artist and album already listed in correctly marked up articles. If a clean up needs to be done first though, then fair enough.
Redirects and (when multiple choices) disambiguation pages can handle this easily, don't need to worry too much about people making typo's etc. Also neglected to point out, the idea this lends itself too, is creating acrticle relationships using logical category naming based on namespaces. The details and symbols could be worked out later, but generally something like the following
The Howling
The Howling
Within Temptation
Lyric Formatting
Alternative Vocals
Well i was thinking changing font colour, but that works too :P
Tentative Lyrics
I understand everything on a wiki is subject to change and a work in progress, but you have to be carefull to make sure your readers know what is and isn't fact, as they could come away with the wrong info and go on to spread that info (this is major issue with lore on wowwiki). So just something to say "hey, this is speculative, so while it might be right, we can't confirm it yet so take it with a grain of salt" :p
Alternative Lyrcis
Not sure i follow i'm afaird :S
It's simple vs. confusing imo. Needs to be a good balance, and i'm not sure the current method is it. I just feel currently it's very open to mistakes and misunderstandings. Sure if all the info is there, it's more obvious, but when it isn't you could mess up. Things like songs beign the album titles, which is very common, or self-titled albums, could lead to people ending up on the wrong page all the time when they search/type in urls, making sure they end up in the right place (redirects), or giving them a clear choice of options to clarify what they wanted (disambiguation pages) would be helpful imo.
Anywas, i plan to stick around for a while, offer some feedback and throw myself into the mix in if it's ever needed. Thanks for taking the time to reply, and i'm glad to see some of it has favour. :) --Zeal 09:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I can see adding some categories, perhaps, but I'm still not sure what adding a namespace like "Artist", "Album" or "Song" would help. As you imply, redirects from "Van Halen" to "Artist:Van Halen" could be used if the user forgot to add the "Artist" namespace, but why not just leave it as is? I need to know the benefit of such a thing. Also, currently, I don't think we have any disambiguation pages. Why implement a system that needs them? Seems like a step backwards to me.
Tentative Lyrics
As I mentioned, I agree. A template at the top of the page to create a note that there is a discussion going on about the validity/correctness of some of the lyrics would be great, along with a link to the talk page.
Alternative Lyrics
To further explain: On a page that had very slight lyric difference, a link could be created after the {{Song}} Template for the album from which the difference took place. The link would send the user to a second lyric section (below the main lyric section), with the alternate lyrics. For instance, if John Denver:Rocky Mountain High had small lyric changes (a changed word, perhaps) on the John Denver:Voice Of America (1993) album, then a second lyric section (Titled "Lyric Variations") below the first could be added, notating the verse/chorus that had the change. This second lyric section could then be linked to after the "This song appears on the album "Voice Of America (1993)" by John Denver." notation. This could be done with [[John Denver:Rocky Mountain High#Lyric_Variations|note]].
Here's where I'm confused. What, exactly, about the current state of things do you find "open to mistakes and misunderstandings?" If you have examples you can link to, perhaps, this could become clearer and would help the discussion.
As an aside: another reason for adding the release date (besides clarifying between song pages and album pages) is that it helps to organize the albums on the Artist page in chronological order, which otherwise would likely be haphazard at best. Since the Artist page is essentially an artist discography with added song listings, having it in chronological order is the norm.
--Kiefer 11:03, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Tentative Lyrics
I know you agree, was just clarifying, perhaps for the benefit of my own thoughts :p
Alternative Lyrics
Ok, sounds good to me. I meant to ask about the issue of different releases and such, but that adresses it too by listing the album/single again with it's version.
Current problems
Ok, some examples of why i feel there needs to be a change. One key question i would like to see answered though, is what this site intends to be. Are you trying to manage a discorgraphy and possibly biography site along side the lyrics? Because if you aren't, the suggestions could make them both redundant for you.
  1. I already pointed out that it can be confusing with the current naming system you have, what is and isn't supposed to be an album jsut from the article title (so a link, a search result etc) and even on the page if it doesn't contain the correct format or information.
  2. You put the artist as a prefix on both albums and songs, which looks messy (of course, just my opinion) and puts the actual title of the song and the article you want, at the end.
  3. Because you're using a psuedo namespace system, this means where you could simply use {{PAGENAME}} for templates, you can't. Several bits of info that you're currently manually using in templates, could be automated if your used a real namespace, and naturally, that's not going to work when you use an artist as the namespace (too many make it unfeasible).
  4. Having to link back to and enter the album and artist multiple times could be made redundant with categories. Listing songs and albums on the actual artist page would be made redundant with the category system i mentioned above, as you could simply link to the categories. This also allows for dynamic list updating, and you can create categories within those to your heart's extent (albums, singles, years etc), No more needing to worry about the ordering, naming and listing of all songs and albums on an artist's page, and the same for an album's page. If you really wanted, you could make artists and albums in the category namespace only. want to order your categories chronologically and alphabatized as an option? thne simply have both category, something like Category:Artist:Within Temptation/Songs (Year) Category:Artist:Within Temptation/Songs (Alpha) (though i'd personally prefer to have the latter as default).
  5. As to disambiguation, i've not seen anything in place to resolve something like two songs release by the same artist, same name, but completely different. Same for albums. THe fact you haven't had to deal with that yet, doesn't mean it won't happen. I've seen people adding (Bonus Track) (2004 Rerelease) (Special Edition) for disambiguation perposes (as these aren't the real names), but in soem of those cases they weren't disambiguations really, just alternative verions that could have been handled on the same page. For example, within Temptation have a dutch and a german (eventually international) version of one of their larger singles. They were released in the same year, and really only 1-2 songs are the same on it out of about 6. Now are you going to name the songs Within Temptation:<song> (<year>, <disambiguation>)? because funnily enough, that's also how the name of the single.. and you've got a problem then. You'll have to add <single> or <song> to the title and create a disambigation page for them. Your system does require disambiguation, every wiki system does, you've just not had bring it into play just yet, possibly because people have not adhered to a standard that would have brought about one.
Sure there are multiple ways to arrange the wiki system by, but the one i've suggested is what i've tried to come up with that addresses these rare occasion issues before they happen, so when they do happen, they don't confuse users or contributers. I generally favour consistancy and easy understanding over simplicity with complications pruducing messy results, as the former ultimately makes everything easier for all in involed (guideliens easier to follow for contributers as all situations are addressed before hand, self explanitory links and titles for readers)
Sorry if i keep going on without making things clearer, i tend to do that >_>; But i'm happy to continue till it is clear, lol. --Zeal 13:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
No, no, this is clearer. I think I see where you are coming from now. By not having things a bit more pure it's difficult to automatically make albums and artist lists from the Song pages, right? I guess that the main question then is as you wrote, is "what this site intends to be." Other lyric sites are built to be a mere data base of song lyrics, linked to by artist usually. Without talking to Sean, the site creator, I would say that LyricWiki was meant to be a little bit more. While it isn't meant to be as comprehensive with information as Wikipedia is, LyricWiki is meant to add a little more to the "lyric experience." Songs of the Day, Albums of the Day, Related Artists, Awards, Hometowns, album release dates, etc., etc., are meant to add a little more context to the lyric equation.
I think this comes from the reason that Sean started the site. He would visit other lyric sites and get bogged down with ads and pop-ups and junk. They'd have bad lyrics, misspellings, incorrect artists, and in many cases, were bland, bland, bland...or really confusing! This has been my experience as well when double-checking lyrics on other sites. The obvious purpose to these sites is to get people to visit and click on ads (often put in unusual locations to maximize clicking on them by accident), and make money. This site is more about the love of the music.
For instance, I tend to work a lot (when I get a block of time) with the 80s and prog rock artists, because that's what I know best and grew up with. Teknomunk works with the Japanese songs, primarily. Others work in rap or metal or teen pop areas, because that's what they love. So adding tidbits of information to those pages (which would not work if they were automatically incorporated into other pages) is encouraged. Little details such as thumbnails of album covers and such show that what this site is is a labor of love by the fans of these songs. Wikis are collaborative and usually non-profit efforts by volunteers.
Now, perhaps none of this really changes your point that things could have been organized differently at the beginning, but the organization does reflect the owner's vision of what a better lyric site should be. I happen to agree. For me, it's all about context. Artist to Album to Song. Your points are good, but this late in the game, with LyricWiki incorporated into other sites and media plug-ins, I'm thinking that it's a little late for such a wide-spread reorganization. (3rd largest wiki, I think.) You're obviously a thoughtful, analytical person, though, and hopefully despite the site redundancies, you'll have a great experience here!
PS: Just to be clear about alternative lyrics...if a song version is substantially different, the usual thing is to have separate pages for the song. For instance: Neil Young:Rockin' In The Free World and the longer Neil Young:Rockin' In The Free World (Electric) --Kiefer 15:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Well i do now see, after spending a bit more looking around, that your are fairly well integrated and established, so it'd be rather hard to make these changes, much to my dismay. Pains me to see it always happens with wikis, generally not planned out well before adding content, and then they quickly become too big to make any major format changes. No offence though, no one can predict the future. I understand the vision for this place, and thing my suggestions could co-exist and complement that vision.
Anyways, thanks for taking the time out to understand my babblings and respond :p Hopefully some of the smaller changes can still be done, but the inability to make the major ones (and some other commitments of mine) makes me want to stay out of their creation and implementation. --Zeal 03:30, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

What template to use on multiple and different songs/links?

I'm helping on the Disney split. Going through The Cheetah Girl's songs, there's multiple (5) links to the same song, another one has (3) links, and I didn't go through the rest of them. Every link is a different format name... (one is "Girl Power", another is "Girl Power - The Cheetah Girls", etc). I listened to the introduction on Imeem & picked the correct one.

What do I do with the others? Insert a "Request a Merge" or "Request a Deletion" (and put the reason as "Already Existed")? I did remove them from the Disney page, but I have all links in their format in Notepad. I didn't touch the actual "Disney: Other Songs" page.

Also, within the "Other Songs", there was (2) links for "Hawaiian Rollercoaster Ride". One of them is correct (link name & lyrics.. I personally know how to sing it). The other link is called "Hawiian..." instead of "Hawaiian". What do I do? Merge or Delete? -- Khluvr621 14:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If they are duplicates, mark it with the Deletion template, with the reason being duplicate. Please include a link to the song that it is a duplicate of, it makes it much easier for the admins to verify.
If the song is by a particular artist, then it should be listed under the artist's name and not Disney. Instead, the link from the Disney page should have 'by [[Artist Name]]' after it.
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
- teknomunk (talk,E) 15:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Don't you think they should be made into redirects to the correct pagename? That's what I do now with such pages, unless the title is misspelled or incomplete. I figure that there's no telling what someone may search for! --Kiefer KieferE KieferTalk 16:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks to both of you. I guess the explanation for re-directs seems logical because I also noticed some others had lyrics within the song, as their titles... so good point there.
edit: I'll also keep the artist's name vs Disney link in mind. -- Khluvr621 17:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

"Houston, We have a problem" Argh... I think I found the problem of random song names in the "Other Songs". Disney Channel Original Movies. Pfft.. It's just going to keep getting bigger w/ more films, etc. The Disney page overall needs to be split up into Walt Disney and Disney Channel - the bots seemed to pick up everything related to Disney. It's only a suggestion, as even if you guys omit the Non-English versions from that specific page, it's not going to help. The theme songs & theme park attraction songs can stay with Walt Disney; it's just movies like "Pixel Perfect" and "Lizzy McGuire" is considered Disney Channel.

Splitting the page up as you suggested would work. If the Disney Channel page is still to large, you may consider splitting that up further by year.
- teknomunk (talk,E) 14:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

The Good News... is The Bad News

File:Lw traffic.jpg

Another month, another hosting payment. In retrospect this seems as though it was inevitible... since integrating LyricWiki into Pedlr didn't go well.... traffic is up (very good!), but we're almost certainly going to have to plop a *shudders in anticipation* banner on the site (ungood).

The Downward Spiral

Since the very beginning I'd had high hopes that it would be possible to have a site based on just Amazon affiliation and have it survive nicely. As I learned more about the true cost of delivering hundreds of thousands of pages, I've been forced to relax my standards repeatedly. First I thought AdSense could cover it (there was one month where that actually just about broke even... but the server was getting owned, so I had to upgrade). The next idea was to integrate LyricWiki into Pedlr and have the growth of Pedlr cover the costs of LyricWiki. Apparently, if a wiki doesn't have the same skin as Wikipedia, people start thinking it got sold or they aren't confident using it.


The amazon affiliation get some revenue, but it falls short. AdSense helps on top of that, but it still falls short. The partnership between LyricWiki and Pedlr helps, but it too has fallen short (primarily because it didn't really happen). My theory was that with the traffic we were getting, LyricWiki would just pump users into Pedlr and it could become nice and profitable really quickly and afford to pay for LyricWiki. The new skin was too big of a change, and - in the short time it was up - didn't get anyone else to sign up. Server fees are piling up. I may have mentioned in the past that I pulled out of school & have been living off of my life-savings to build Pedlr... Well, the site is up and running, we're bleeding server-fees, and the LyricWiki/Pedlr partnership didn't work as planned.

The End Of The Innocence

This has all been quite a learning experience. I guess in my naïveté I thought everyone online was just being over-zealous by putting banners up and didn't think that the real reason that virtually every major site (save Wikipedia) has banners was necessity. I surmised that maybe banners paid off three-times as much as text links or something. The true rate is something much closer to a 100x payout.

Money For Nothing

So basically, the server fees are $880/month and about to jump in another month or two (traffic doesn't stop growing... a good problem to have I guess. It means that all of your contributions are being put to good use!)... and from the very beginning I would never have wanted to have banners if I was given the choice. But the real choice ended up being this:

  1. Hold on till the money is gone (it's gone)... then watch the site die a martry's death.
  2. Swollow our pride and do what we have to so that all of our hard work doesn't go to waste.

Sell Out

At this point the choice is clear! We've all worked far too hard for LyricWiki to just disappear in a couple of months. The team of admins, contributors, etc. is really l33t and has done some REALLY cool stuff. Contributions have gone far beyond the basic page-editing that fuels the day-to-day operation of the site. From media player plugins using our SOAP to lists of Grammy Nominees and American Idol songs, to translations and an entire new page layout. You guys have done so much and I'm endlessly thankful for your help! I assure you that I am as reluctant to accept banners as you probably are, but it has to be done.

The Future

There are still some questions as to how we can continue... where are the optimal banner-locations? Should they move? Etc. I'll be getting more details on size, shape, price, etc. in the next couple of days and I'll be asking for input on how we should place them.

Hate Me?

If you don't hate me now, and are still on the site... please let me know your thoughts:


First off, that graph is rather nice. I wish that I could have seen that earlier. Very good overall trend. $880/month? Ouch! I wasn't aware that it cost that much.

About the skin. There was just too much change too fast without any discussion. Change is good when it makes things better. The thing is that if you make changes like this, make them gradually and tell people about it before doing so. It lessens the shock and not as many people run off.

If you want to, set up a mock-up for the new skin and put it under a different name (not the default skin) and ask for comments on it. The skin can be changed in the user preferences section. This should allow for feedback before changing the default skin without disrupting the site. This could also be used for mockups for the location of the banner ad (yuck, but I understand that it is needed to keep the site alive).

My opinion on ads is that I would rather not have them, obviously. I think that in the short term however, this will be needed until some other revenue stream can be secured. Would a single banner ad have the same or greater revenue that the two current ads do while taking up less screen space? If so, I don't think that anyone would really complain too loudly. The wikipedia article would need to be updated and a few other things. I don't want people to say that we are sell-outs but reality is harsh at times.

I would help financially, but all the money I have to my name will probably be gone with next semister's classes. I am more than willing to help in any other way that I can. I don't want this site to go under. I feel that it has the potential to be huge in the way wikipedia is for online encyclopedias and google is for search engines; there is no reason to use anything else.

Pedlr has a great potential, but right now it is somewhat lacking in selection. It, like LyricWiki, needs some time to mature and get the bugs worked out. Of the music I have listened to so far, my favorite are from Isadora, which is not really a suprise I think, but I somewhat tend to like music in foreign languages. Sorry, but this and my financial status doesn't really allow me to help in that regard.

I hope that my thoughs are help (and are coherant, sometimes I go off on a tangent ranting). As always, I am more than willing to help with whatever needs to be done. This is my spring break so I would have the time to help out on any projects that you want done.

- teknomunk (talk,E) 23:21, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Holy muck...100x payout?? Well...okay. One thing to consider...I know a site or two that have a "Pay For No Ads" kind of a program. If (when) you go to the banners, you may want to consider a similar type of program, where the user can pay to have a no-banner layout. Are there other music-related sites that we could link to for a few extra bucks? Also, a little Donation box on the front page might not be a bad thing, either. I mean, you have ads for other sites on your front page, but don't allocate a little real estate for yourself? Dude! I know you have the Donations link, but perhaps something a little more chunky next to the Send To A Friend box? From the survey you did, most of the users seem to be high school/college students and don't have a lot of extra cash, but maybe you'll hit a few sugar daddies here and there.  ;-]

As for the selection at Pedlr that teknomunk mentioned...have you advertised the site in any guitar mags/keyboard mags/etc.? That might get more artists on the site. Perhaps do a little research on local weekly entertainment newspapers such as Creative Loafing. More money out, which sucks, but hopefully more money coming in eventually.

And (preemptively) for anyone who would cry sell-out, I would say that you haven't been making money all along from the site and then said to yourself, "Wow, I'm making some dough now, so how can I make MORE MONEY!?!?!?!!" Doing something for survival when all other options have been tried isn't selling out. It's...well...survival. (duh) Now, if the dough from Pedlr starts coming in hand over fist and you don't drop the banner ads...well, then the namecallers might have something firmer to stand on. :-p

So, do what you've got to. I'm going nowhere. --Kiefer 00:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, we are faced with a tough decision. Sean, I can not thank you enough for giving all the time and financial support that have kept this site running for the last year. It is unfortunate that the site is still not self-sufficient after all this time. 8 months ago I made the distinction between good and bad ads, and suggested Google Adwords as a possible solution. I must admit now that I have been disappointed by the apparent accuracy of the ads, many of them seem irrelevant to the content of this site. Perhaps more importantly, their payouts still fall a long way short of covering the ever-increasing cost of this site.
So, we need a solution to make this site self-sustaining.
If I may, I would to re-raise from earlier discussions the issue of Donations. Now, until 30 seconds ago, I was unaware (and perhaps I should be ashamed for this), that the site was accepting donations. The issue was discussed, early on, but I was unaware, or had forgotten that it was now possible to do so. I think the fact that I, as a long term contributor to this site, didn't know, is important to note. It only took 10 seconds for me to discover once I went looking for it, but I had to go looking. PUSH PUSH PUSH the issue of donations. Wikimedia puts progress bars on every page during its fundraising periods, everyone who visits the site is welcomed to donate, we need to let people know that the site struggles financially and needs help, its nothing to be ashamed of, ask for donations or die!
Now for the moment to the raised topic of Ads. OK, we don't want them, but we don't want to loose lyricwiki. If we have to do it, lets do the best job we can (within ethical limits, popups malware and porn will drive people, including me, away from the site). Put one under the page title of every page, and one at the end of <lyric> tags. Annoying, yes. Necessary, unfortunately, yes.
Before proceeding with this though, is there a way to estimate how much income this will bring? if its only going to cover 50% of the costs, we need to seriously consider other alternatives to compliment/replace the ads. Maybe we just need to try and find out.
I'd be glad to write an extension to place ads throughout pages if needed, just let me know.
I think a combination of donations and ads would work best. This assumes that neither ads or donations alone will cover the costs of the site.
  • Adds will be placed in articles.
  • Requests for donations prominently placed on the site.
  • Financial details of the site are made completely transparent.
Details of all income and expenses should be made public (see wikimedia reports. This will increase public confidence in donating. They know that their donations are well spent. Donors will know exactly how important their donations are. See note 1 below.
  • People who donate as registered editors may view the site add free, for that month, for a period depending on the donated value, or indefinitely.
This may encourage regular donations by regular visitors. See note 2.
Note 1: donations could be called on a monthly schedule (as expenses (hosting) are required monthly). People may be presented with an indicator saying '70% of this months expenses are covered'. This may provide bursts of donations at the start of the month, but hopefully will balance income and outcome, while providing people a simple and clear indication of the need and importance of their donations.
Before donating, people should be presented with that months financial balances, allowing them to judge an appropriate amount to donate. I think it is important that these aspects (the progress bar, and financial balances page) be automated. It will increase public confidence that the figures presented are accurate (yes, I am aware it could be pragmatically fixed, but it still provides a greater level of assurance than a manually updated page). I know it may require significant scripting, but I think its worth it. Again, I'd be glad to volunteer my services here.
Note 2: some very active contributors may feel hard done by with the placement of ads on the site. Perhaps members with more than 100 contributions/month or 1000 contributions total (numbers are examples) could also use the site add free.
Additional note: I would suggest setting up a paypal account for lyricwiki, rather than using the account for motive force.
There are also other fundraising options such as merchandise sales, shirts, hats, magnets, etc. These, properly advertised provide the majority of funding for many community sites (especially blogs and web-comics), and open source projects (FireFox), and also wikipedia.
Not everything I've said is pleasant, but if the site is to survive, we need to act quickly. What I have said here is nothing more than my opinion, I have no experience with such large projects, so I too would like to call for suggestions, comments, criticisms, and ideas for the financial continuation of this site. In the wiki spirit, Be Bold, contribute to this discussion and help us find a solution to keep this site running.
-TrevorP 00:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

We all want LyricWiki to survive. That is first and foremost, so, as Kiefer pointed out, if we need ads to survive, we put them on until we no longer need them. I think everyone has had good ideas here. We need to make donating a more prominent feature. Those people that use LyricWiki, will want it to survive, but if they aren't informed about how to keep it running, they can't do anything. So every once in a while, try the fundraising progress bar as Wikipedia did a few months ago or put something on the main page about financial situations.

Ads, though we do not want them, may become a necessity for a while. Unfortunately, we might need them to keep the site running. I like the idea that we could add incentives to contribute or donate by giving those who do so an ad-free site experience.

As said above, advertisements and merchandise for LyricWiki will hopefully bring in revenue in the long run. People will see the ads for us and check out the site. If they like it, which a lot of music people will, they will contribute and hopefully donate also. Advertising in music magazines, shops, etc. will attract musical people.

Merchandise - bands do it - why not us? Find a way to get logos printed on coffee cups, notebooks, sheet music paper, t-shirts, hoodies, or anything else. Merch is a double-whammy in terms of money, people pay to buy the merchandise, then it is free advertising for us. I know I would buy at least a hoodie if we sold LyricWiki brand merchandise.

The main tactic we need to use is get people interested, and this means anyone interested in this site. Websites with lots of visitors stay alive. Sites with only a select few visitors/contributors do not stay long. Anyone who wants this site to stay will tell their friends, suggest it when anything musical comes up, buy merch to promote the site if we start to sell any, just get the news out there. --WillMak050389 16:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT) --- Sad to see it happen, but honestly i feel this was invitable. I see that your original goal was to never touch banners, but honestly i've naver had a gripe with them. They're not really obstrusive and they're easily blocked by most browsers anyways for those who just don't want to bother with them. Text ads and tooltip ads can throw you off a bit, make you think it's part of the content or interal to the site, so they've always annoyed me. Popups, popunders and hover ads.. those are the ones people tend to hate the most, and hope you can avoid having to resort to those. Generally ads alone don't turn me away from a site, it's when they become obstrusive or detrimental to my ability to gain the content i want, that i leave.

One suggestion i'd liek to make though, don't go for a straight "Subscribe and get no ads" deal.. it tends to receive the sell out comercialized hatred you want to avoid. Simply leaving it as "We have ads. For every x money you donate, you will not see ads for a month on your account" avoids that imo, and makes people feel like they're helping out, and you're giving them a gift for doing so.

Either way, good luck, and i'll be sticking round to see the outcome as i think this place is worth saving. --Zeal 03:54, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Aggregated Summary of Responses

Hey guys, thanks for all the great feedback. I know it's time-consuming, and I appreciate it :)
I thought I'd take a sec to aggregate the ideas into a nice bulleted list...

  1. Getting rid of the text-ads might save overall space
    • NOTE: AdSense can be removed instantly, but I have to cancel the TextLinkAds... I don't know how to do that yet, but since they take money on a monthly basis, I may be obligated to finish out a month before removing them(??)
  2. Push the donations more...
    • Open up the finances (automated and in a format like wikimedia's reports)
    • Make a progress-bar on the top of the page (does anyone know how to make a progress bar automatically... I think the problem here may be automating the PayPal).
  3. Optional paid ad-free usage (and/or as an insentive for contributions)
  4. Sell branded-merchandise (any suggestions? I've seen CafePress and SpreadShirt, but if anyone knows of somewhere that gives a better payout or has more interesting products, I'm all ears)

If there's anything I forgot, just tack it on there. Thanks for your input everyone, and let me know about the boldfaced stuff... thanks!
-Sean Colombo 02:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Soundtrack/Compilations - or the Whole Various Artists Bit

From my UserTalk page:
Hey, I noticed you posted something about soundtracks on Kiefer's talk page (through the Recent Changes). This is an exact quote from Kiefer that he left on my talk page.

"In the past, I've told others that in regards to soundtracks (although normally I'm talking about regular movie soundtracks like Moulin Rouge) to leave off the Artist designation and use only the Album format. ("Big Movie Soundtrack (2002)" instead of "Various Artists:Big Movie Soundtrack (2002)")".

Hope this helps you. I think the Compilation thing is a great idea, as a "NOW!" CD is a different style than a soundtrack specifically for a movie. (And yes, I'm also another person addicted to this site. -- Khluvr621 14:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, there you are...and in my own words, too! You can certainly add Category:Compilation as well...that is a great idea to help differentiate between those pesky various artist albums. If there is a large series of compilations, such as "NOW!" then a central page (like an Artist page) can be created to list the albums for easier reference. I'd still leave off the Various Artist bit and just go for the "NOW! 22 (2005)" (or however they are titled) designation for the namepage. Glad to hear that you are both addicted to LyricWiki, BTW! --Kiefer Esperanza Talk! 20:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

My response:
If I do as you suggest ("Big Movie Soundtrack (2002)" instead of "Various Artists:Big Movie Soundtrack (2002)"), I remove the artist line in the Album(or Song) Header/Footer and it shows garbage like {{1}} or something. I don't want to even show wiki reference to 'Various Artists' on the Album or Song pages (obviously plain text would be fine). Check Honeymoon In Vegas (Original Soundtrack) (1992) and Billy Joel:All Shook Up to see what I mean. --JeffASaul 08:23, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

True enough. New templates would have to be created or the original templates adapted. (The templates could also be left off and the link to the album hard-wired onto song pages, of course.) As an example, I've built a VariousArtistAlbum template (which I've used on your example Honeymoon In Vegas (Original Soundtrack) (1992)), and a similar change could be done for songs. It would be nice if the templates could be adjusted so that if Various Artists or some such similar thing were put in place of the artist section the change would automatically be made. I'm not a template builder, though, so I'd have to put that into better hands than myself. --Kiefer 01:40, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
That looks good, simple and should work, Thanks. Maybe you can make it automatically assign Category=Compilation as well, since any Various Artists album really is a Compilation. At any rate, this should be helpful to anyone addressing these types of albums! Also, thanks for the tweak to the footer as well, that makes sense. I guess for the individual song pages, I will just 'hard-wire' the album info, that's not really a big deal. Thanks again! --JeffASaul 07:42, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Next/Previous song links?

Take a look at this: [[1]]. That's the first song on its album, and I added a link at the bottom for next song, so if you want to sing along to a whole album you can just click right along as you finish a song. It took a few minutes and was quite annoying, but if you all think it's a nice idea maybe there's an easier way to do it. If you don't like it, feel free to take it out. Noodlepaste 20:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmm, that is a nice idea... There's got to be a way to do that in a more automated way (more automated than a bot even... maybe an extension for like <next_song> which could be inserted in the {{SongFooter}} which would look at the wikitext of the artist page to find the next song in the track-listings where the current page appears... On second thought, that might be a lot of additional overhead to lookup the wikitext for the artist page every time a song is shown. Do any coders have thoughts on this?
-Sean Colombo 01:37, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I wouldn't put it in the {{SongFooter}} as a song can potentially be on more than one album, and if we are going to have links like this, it should be done for every album (we can probably safely ignore singles as they usually have only a handful of songs).
As to automated implementations, using an extension would add at least one additional page lookup and possibly more, depending on how it is implemented (artist page scan, what links here, search, etc.). More lookups, more stress on the database server.
- teknomunk (talk,E) 02:31, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I went and made a tempalate {{Navigate}} and applied it to the first two pages of the album Bear Vs. Shark:Terrorhawk (2005) linked to in the first post.
- teknomunk (talk,E) 02:51, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I too have tinkered with such links. My solution is shown in Pain Of Salvation:Imago, this however is an example of a more complex album structure (chapters etc). I think no matter which way you go, an extra lookup is required, but I don't think it will be a drastic increase in load. I haven't looked into the workings of MediaWiki in this area, but I imagine every time a template is included, it requires an extra lookup and rendering of wiki text. Every link must be checked to see if it exists, etc. There is already a fair bit going on, this wont add much, but still we must be somewhat cautious, we don't want the straw that breaks the camels back.
There are two solutions that come immediately to mind (rushed ideas sorry, about to leave for a few days)
  1. add a new tag, that when rendered, looks up the album page, and renders an appropriate linked output (whether a forward/backward link, or showing the entire album). The lookup in this instance could be stored as a session variable, so the lookup would only have to be made once (per user & per day etc.)
  2. Add a {{:Artist_Name:Album_Name_(Year)/Template}} to each song page (or have it automatically included). If the page doesn't exist, one will automatically be generated from [[Artist_Name:Album_Name_(Year)]]. This allows the default to be overridden in complex cases. This would be included like a normal template, being governed by mediawikis normal procedures for caching pages.
I'm not 100% sure of the feasibility of the second option (regarding convincing mediawiki that the page exists when it doesn't in the database), but would otherwise be an easier (and safer) option (by not requiring new methods for caching as session variables etc.)
Hope this helps --TrevorP 09:43, 29 March 2007 (EDT).

Now CDs

I need some help putting the now CDs onto LyricWiki. If anyone has some time, go over to wikipedia's pages for the now cds. I already completed putting on Now 1 and 2. Thanks! --Adara1993 12:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I created NOW! as an Artist Page. All NOW! albums should be located here. Since there are so many, this page will just list the albums and link to the individual Album Pages for the Songs. Thanks

to User:Adara1993 for posting the first two albums.--Jeff 10:35, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

had to edit; got my answer looking later on -- I filled #3 in; but if you wish, can stick an overview in there. -- Khluvr621 13:15, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Since NOW! is equivalent to the Artist page, please make sure that when you are creating an Album page, to have the link back to [[NOW!]]. If you add one from a different country, please make sure to create a section for that country and include (Country Series) after the year.--Jeff 23:27, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Can we not just leave compilation albums where they belong? In the bin? 08:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Cast Albums/Soundtracks

I saw the note above about soundtracks; what about cast albums? Most commonly, you're likely to see "Original Broadway Cast," "Original Off-Broadway Cast," "Broadway Revival Cast," and "Original London Cast," but there are exceptions, and if you don't know which one you're looking for, you might not find the right album. Further, while various incarnations of a show usually have the same lyrics, there are certainly exceptions (Godspell being a notable example, with major lyric changes for the 2000/2001 revivals). --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 16:12, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I think the same logic would apply. File the album name without the Artist (see Honeymoon In Vegas (Original Soundtrack) (1992). You could create a category for the Cast choices above. If more than one album uses the same lyrics for any given song, just make sure the SongPage references both albums.--Jeff 09:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I recently ran into a situation like this. When I rip cast recording cd's they're automatically tagged with information from cddb. My music player uses that information to search lyricwiki and automatically download the lyrics to whatever song I'm listening to. But with cast recordings there are very often incompatibilities between how cddb has it tagged and how lyricwiki does it. Is there some way to have it tagged the way outlined above but still be recognized by amarok?--User:reldruh
My inclination was to file musicals (cast albums) under the composer - Andrew Lloyd Webber for Phantom of the Opera, Claude Michel and Alain.. for Les Mis, Stephen Schwartz for Wicked and Godspell; and then within the artist list, include different variations of the show - Stephen Schwartz would get Godspell (Original Broadway Cast), Godspell (2000 Revival Cast), etc. Also, shouldn't these albums be filed under "Musical"? 10:13, 1 May 2007 (EDT)User:kellygrape

New Templates?

For what? Example (I'm sorry! I get confused when I read the Recent Changes) -- Khluvr621 15:15, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't know. I'm going to go ask the creator about them.
- teknomunk (talk,E) 17:09, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Album Categories

Wouldn't it be wise to automatically categorize albums based on fLetter in the {{album}} template? This is already done for individual songs in the {{SongFooter}} template.
- Slate 00:35, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that the only thing {{Album}} does with the fLetter parameter is categorize the album. If it is not doing this and you have an example, please let us know.
- teknomunk (talk,E) 00:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Apparently my eyes deceived me. It already does what I asked. Thanks for pointing that out.
- Slate 01:01, 27 March 2007 (EDT)


Currently, here is no set standard for song titles for instrumental songs. Many use the song-name (Instrumental) format. I believe the (Instrumental) should be taken out, unless the song is actually titled as such by the artist. Most instrumentals should just be the song title, with an {{instrumental}} tag on its page. What are your feelings on this?
- Slate 01:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

There actually is a standard for instrumental songs and several other instances, like featured artists. As stated on LW:PN, notations such as feat. and (instrumental) should not be included in the title, but placed after the link (on artist and album pages) and that the page title should not include these. The {{Instrumental}} should be used on the song page insead of using, for example, <lyric>Instrumental</lyric> or some variation.
- teknomunk (talk,E) 01:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Since {{Song}} supports only 1 album...

As we all know, {{Song}} only supports 1 album. What about another template, {{SongAlso}}, which basically does the same thing. So, in the case of a song having multiple appearances on various albums, you can first have a {{Song}} then as many {{SongAlso}}s as necessary.


{{#if:{{{1|}}}|This song also appears on the album "'''[[{{{2}}}:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]'''" by '''{{#if:{{{3|}}}|[[{{{3}}}]]|[[{{{2}}}]]}}'''.|by '''{{#if:{{{3|}}}|[[{{{3}}}]]|[[{{{2}}}]]}}'''.}}


Slate 20:55, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Right now I tend to just throw {{Song}} in there multiple times (example). It seems to work just fine, except the grammar might be more correct if we used SongAlso. As far as semantic-coding (for the SOAP, etc.) it's a little bit easier to use just the one template (but it's not a necessity or anything). Does anyone else have any ideas about one template vs. two?
-Sean Colombo 01:34, 29 March 2007 (EDT)


Since no one has yet responded to the talk page, I thought I would bring my concerns here. This template appears to put a LyricWiki stamp of approval on a set of lyrics, and kills any further comment/improvement/edits. This is completely against the point of having a wiki. As the notice below the edit box states: Please note that all contributions to LyricWiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here. The template just has the smell of an editor marking territory, whether that is the case or not.

Also, if someone does come in and change it, then the template no longer is true...the lyrics are no longer the same as those official ones on the artist's website. The only way to stop that is to make the page protected, which should only be done in special circumstances, and (once again) goes against the point of having a wiki.

Finally, as we all know, official lyrics can be quite different from those actually recorded. I can't count the number of songs that I've run across with lyrics different than those in liner notes or song books or whatever. I've always been of the mindset that we are trying to have the lyrics match the recorded version.

I think that a notation about the location of the official lyrics should be placed below the lyrics in the external links area. This way the official lyrics are still linked to and available for those who are interested, but the appearance of a LyricWiki stamp of "Official-ness" isn't placed on the LyricWiki page itself, and can still be viewed as editable.

--Kiefer 12:47, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Just a heads up first; I wasn't trying to mark territory in any way, so I apologize if it seems that way. I only question the purpose and usefulness of a wiki as much as you do. In response to this: "I've always been of the mindset that we are trying to have the lyrics match the recorded version." I agree with that as much as I disagree. Having the correct lyrics is the mindset I am under. However, as you stated, there are often times 2 correct versions of the lyrics: the official and the ones actually sung (sang?). I think that is where this issue comes to light. I know that in my personal experience, I've wanted to know both versions of the lyrics. Obviously, having a {{Official_Lyrics}} would only show 1 version. The same goes for having the "what you hear" version of the lyrics. I have two possible solutions for these issues. One is based on expanding {{Official_Lyrics}}; the other is based on changing {{Official_Lyrics}}.
What about having 2 blocks of lyrics. I think that from within the {{Official_Lyrics}}, 2 anchors can be added. One to the "==Official Lyrics==" and one to the "==Lyrics==". The "officials" can be on a sub-page, which would help separate the "editable" vs the official. This probably would be useful mostly for casual users who don't know much about wikis and editing them, thus preventing a casual user from changing the "official lyrics". You've already listed the negative implications of this template, so I'll go on to my next idea.
Another idea would be to change the template so that it looks/acts just like a {{Wikipedia}}; that is, a floating box on the right which is mainly a link to the official lyrics. This is similar to Kiefers suggestion, just a little more in depth. However, this could have two negative implications:
  1. Users will be driven away from the site, preventing them from stumbling upon the rest of the site.
  2. This would basically prevent/remove lyrics from the site, inhibiting growth (to a very small extent, if any)
Let me know what you think. Hopefully we can come to a consensus on this issue.
- Slate 18:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Although I'd like to see what other admins think, I think that a small, inconspicuous box underneath the Wiki floater would be acceptable. Stating something along the lines of "This artist has released official lyrics to this song. The recorded lyrics noted on this page may differ from this official version, however." ("official lyrics" could be made into the external link.)--Kiefer 22:45, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't have any objections. Perhaps a banner is a little bit too conspicuous; I think that something small would be appropriate.
The other thing I thought of would be to have the official lyrics be the standard to have, and use notes (using a cite extension or similar) for the lyrics heard. This issue of alternate lyrics exists with some artist releasing several versions of the same song (remixes and such) that all have the same title and nearly identical lyrics.
- teknomunk (talk,E) 22:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
I think most people coming to the site want to know the lyrics to what's being said in the recording. What if they downloaded the song? What if they have the booklet, but it's incorrect? Personally, I'm inclined to have the lyrics on LyricWiki be what's heard in the song, then have a link somewhere on the page that links to the official lyrics, whether it be on the artist's site, LyricWiki, or wherever.
Also, along the same vein, what about a template for songs that have no official recording? An example is Damien Rice:Sand. I put a notice at the top, but it would be nice to have a template for those rare songs that are only performed live.
- Caboose 23:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
When the official lyrics are already online on the artist's website, a link could be added in the SongFooter template together with the other external links. I think that it would be better than a box, even an inconspicuous one, because it would keep all external links in the same area.
Valhalla 06:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
(Yet to be answered on my talk as well, I decided to look around and I have found a similar topic. Yay. :))
Anyway, adding to what teknomunk said, there are actually songs released by artists that have the exact same title, but with slight alterations to the lyrics and released on separate albums.
However, since they have the exact title, creating one page creates a fixed link for all the other pages yet to be created :(. I would like to do something about it so that I can get back to creating those similar-yet-different pages.
-BryghtShadow 07:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
If there are only very slight changes, making a note below the original lyrics is a good way to go. (A second lyric section with the changed portion(s) would be a good addition, as well.) If there are major lyric changes, such as added verses, a changed chorus, etc., then creating a new page with a parenthetical description [EX: (Live), (Remix), (Extended), etc.) is perfectly wonderful. If you wanted, you could even create a link between such versions. --Kiefer 13:20, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
I think I'm beginning to get the idea. :) Thanks.
-BryghtShadow 13:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Search List Help

I need some help with Search. How can I get a complete list of articles/pages for a given Artist? For example, I did a search for Jimmy Buffett and got back a long list. However, this list is incomplete. I noticed this because FoxyTunes Planet ( (which uses LyricWiki) lists lyrics for songs that I don't see on the Search Results. An example of this is Jimmy Buffett:Kinja Rules. A complete list of just Page Titles would be useful to note duplicates where the Title is off by a character. Also, on a related note, if I do [[Category:Review_Me]], this is not complete either. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks --Jeff 16:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Try this: Special:Allpages/Jimmy_Buffett
-TrevorP 17:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
This is another way: [2] Special:Prefixindex
- teknomunk (talk,E) 17:47, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks! I am sure I am not the only one who will benefit from this! You guys rock!
--Jeff 09:17, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.