2,054,148 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
<< January 2008 1st February - 16th April 2008 17th April - 31st May 2008 >>
February 2008

Revamping {{Song}}

A few of the members here have been working on revamping one of the main templates used on this site, the {{Song}} template. The discussion so far can be seen here. Any comments or suggestions before we change over to this template would be appreciated.
- teknomunk (talk,E,) 03:50, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Off-topic, but quite helpful...

If any users are using Mozilla Firefox and are experiencing delayed or incomplete page loads, you might appreciate the following solution.

There is a tweak for Firefox that involves enabling network pipelining and upping the number of simultaneous requests. The idea is that Firefox can make multiple connections to an Internet server, and pull in pages much faster than with a single connection.

However, pipelining does not work with many Internet servers. For those that don't like those multiple requests, you may see problems such as:

• Pages take a long time to load
• Pages load partially and seem to stop loading (or appear to be forever waiting on the server to respond with further data)
• Pages time out with only part of the page displayed

To disable pipelining, type about:config in the address line. In the Configuration page that opens, scroll down until you find the following entries, and verify that they are set to false. If not, double-click them to change them to the default setting of false (disabled).


If you've installed an Add-On for Firefox that promises to speed things up (like FasterFox), you may have to disable or uninstall it. Such extensions do the same trick, and you might have to kill them before they'll let you turn pipelining off.

I should point out that the problem doesn't appear to affect LyricWiki much, but can be quite significant on sites like Google (particularly Google Images and Google Video), AllMusic, and others. You should notice the change immediately, but it's possible you may need to clear your cache or restart Firefox before the problem goes away.

Yes, this is off-topic for LyricWiki, but I know a lot of users will appreciate knowing this little helpful hint.  :-)

—  jF 00:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Album Pages

Do we really need the album pages? The only additional info on those pages is the genre and the album length which could be added to the artists page, I think. The album pages are often forgotten if someone changes something on the album, like correcting a title name, and I can't think of a reason or situation where I want to go to the album page. So, what's your opinion about this? --MetalSnake 07:27, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Wow, what a radical idea. First off, if nothing else, I say the idea of album pages is justified for all the compilations and soundtracks that don't exist on any artist page. Second, artist's page are already cluttered and to move all the links and things to their pages would just make a bigger mess. I see what you're saying though; a lot of people don't think in terms of albums anymore. I think for now, though, they should stay and be made better. --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 10:33, 23 February 2008 (EST)
If, taking the most extreme as an example, a single artist has released so many albums that couldn't be isolated off the page, TOC did not exist, and someone was looking for a number of songs off different albums (with the wrong titles in mind), wouldn't it be a pain to scroll through so much albums on the artist page, or to wait for the page to load? Of course, that isn't usually the case, but there may be a possibility. Maybe I'm just wandering in circles on that matter, but in my opinion, they should currently remain.
To solve part of the topic issues, perhaps a simultaneous update system could be created (if not already) and implemented? So that if the albums on the artist page was updated then the albums page itself would be simultaneously updated, and vice versa. Though if there was a vandalism, it would affect both. And I have no idea how to work those codes.
However, as Aquatiki mentioned, many people think less in album terms, and the lack of an album page on LW does not witness the surge of requests from anonymous users. They seem content with the albums on the artist page... --BryghtShadow 10:55, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Such simultaneous updating is easily possible with transclusion, including one page within another. We could also solve the "clutter" problem by only include part of a page with <includeonly>, <noinclude> & <onlyinclude> tags. --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 11:31, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Ok, how about just do some code on the artists page that shows all albums and the songs on the artists page, but gets them from the album pages? I just tried that in the Sandbox, so just check here: Sandbox With this you just edit the song titles or whatever on the album pages and, as the artists pages just get the stuff from the album pages, the artists pages will be "updated" automatically. What do you think? --MetalSnake 11:38, 23 February 2008 (EST)
To Aqua, never knew about transclusion. Thanks for the info.
To MetalSnake, thumbs up. :) I think it's a brilliant idea, as it utilizes the Albums page more. I think this will reduce the bytes in a positive way.
--BryghtShadow 11:45, 23 February 2008 (EST)
look what I did here Nexus 18:16, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
This is a good example of the problems that arise from this method. Multiple album footers, the track listings aren't editable from the page itself, and suddenly Anders Manga is included on the Album O, Album W, Album B, and Album L lists. If a bot could be created to compare artist track lists and album track lists, that would likely be the best solution to track list variants. This method solves one problem, but creates a handful of others. If only it didn't, this would be so sweet (and would have been implemented a year ago or more when this was first explored) but unfortunately, it does.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   22:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
This idea came up again. I've tried to get this working before and these are the main problems I ran into:
  • How do you get new users and anonymous users to add the needed code? I think that the template system we have now will help with this.
  • Section edits won't work. Either some tricky coding would have to be done or section edits would have to be disabled.
  • Converting the existing format to the new one. A bot could be used for this, but it would still be tricky and expensive (time wise) to do.
And from the discussion with MetalSnake and DarthNemesis in IRC:
  • Categories are added to the album page. This is a bit tricky to fix, but could possibly be fixed with a small change to the software and an {{#ifeq}} statement.
I really hope that this works out.
- teknomunk (talk,E,,A) 15:05, 23 February 2008 (EST)
This'll be some tricky coding. I suggest we keep the === Album Titles (2008) === as links to the album pages, so people can see where to go in order to edit. --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 19:18, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Personally, I'm for keeping the album pages and seeing them become part of LW's development into a wealth of information about music. Yes, our goal is lyrics, but the source of those lyrics is essential to a lot of what we promote. Discussion and debate, for example—those album pages can provide a lot of information, such as who recorded the song first, whether a cover was moved into a different genre than the original, etcetera.
Someday, I'd like to see even more info on those pages to help with discussion, such as song lengths, credits for performing musicians, songwriter/lyricist information, producers/engineers, and even copyrights. Then you'd discover all sorts of interesting things, like why the Christopher-penned hit "Manic Monday" sounds so suspiciously like Prince...
Would, however, like to see some thought and effort put into simplifying the creation process for those pages. Transclusion sounds a bit better—ideally, I'd like to be able to create an album page, and have it reproduce on the artist page without having to cut and paste as we do now. It would also be nice to be able to make changes on a single page, and have it propagate to any other occurrences on the site.
—  jF 22:23, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Adding to {{Instrumental}}

I have been looking into adding special cases to the {{Instrumental}} tag, and before rolling it out, I'd like to ask some of the other editors around what they think would be some good special cases. So far I only have a few. One is 'This song is an instrumental noise compilation' inspired by Neutral Milk Hotel's older works. The other is for the Sigur Rós fans: 'This song is hopelandic, it has no lyrics.' I was also toying with 'Overture', but beyond that, it's not much. So suggestions are open.
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (EST)

I have a couple songs where there are "vocalizations" only (oh, ah, oo). 'Got a name for those? --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 00:01, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Well, I'd say that is beatboxing or scat singing. Does that sound accurate?
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 00:24, 25 February 2008 (EST)
How about the specific known lone instruments in the instrumental? EX: a piano only instumental version would be "This song is a piano instrumental", while a acoustic guitar only instrumental would be "This song is an acoustic guitar instrumental". Also, without vocals but with the same background music, such as karaoké, it might be "This song is a karaoké version", and TV MIX (often instrumentals usually played in background of TV Drama) it might have the same "karaoké" banner. --BryghtShadow 04:32, 25 February 2008 (EST)
Yeah, that's it most of the time, but there are sometimes when a band just jams, but the kind of sing-along with the instrumental jam by oohing and ahhing. I just want to make sure people who speak another language don't think they're missing something just 'cause they don't speak English; to let them know those aren't words they're hearing, just vocalizations. --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 10:44, 25 February 2008 (EST)
To Bryght: I like the lone instrument idea. I had never run across karaoke tracks, so I never thought of that...
To Aqua: That's good too. The reason I have the hopelandic special case is because this Icelandic band Sigur Rós has plenty of lines in their songs that are just gibberish, and because I don't speak much Icelandic, I didn't know until doing some research.
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 11:09, 25 February 2008 (EST)
I have some to start out. You can see them all here.

Along the same lines of timestamping...

Any chance a system can be developed for specifying who (say in a band where 2 or 3 people sing in most songs) sings the word/line? The more metadata the better as far as I'm concerned. --— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fbcd (talkcontribs), 00:52, 25 Feb 2008.

March 2008

All Music...

Can someone tell me why we don't link to AMG? Is it because a lot of people suffer connections issues with this site?    Redxx    talk   13:52, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Personally, I'm glad we don't link to AllMusic. While they can be handy for quick reference of things, they have proven horribly inaccurate with track listings. I give them credit for obvious attempts to improve (mucho accolades on working to divide original issues from reissues on separate pages), but there's still a lot there that needs improving. The search function could use some work to improve its efficiency, there are still countless albums without track listings, and they still are mixing up albums from different artists with similar names. It seems like they've put way more effort into building their revenue structure than their content, and it's hindering their growth into a truly useful site.
—  jF 01:58, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Wanted lyrics

Hi all, Don't you think it would be nice to have something like 'wanted lyrics' page here? I thought about that today, while searching (unsuccesfully) for lyrics to the new Nazareth album "The Newz".


--Senvaikis 13:47, 2 March 2008 (EST)

That would be cool to have a page like that. I think we used to have one... but I don't remember where it was. For now I think the closest thing we have is the {{edit}} template, but it's probably not a good idea to create a page just to request the lyrics (since it wouldn't be a "red" link anymore so it would look like they're already there).
If no-one has a better idea, maybe LyricWiki:Requested Pages seems like a good name for the page.
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 11:53, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
Sounds like it would be quite useful. We kind of need a way to list areas that need work so that people can know where to jump in. Along with requested lyrics, I would love to have a place to put those Artist pages that need a lot of work but which I don't have the time to fix at the moment, a place to quickly check on pages that are stubs, that have those edit templates or help templates, etc., would be nice, too. I would think that branching off of the Community Portal, however, might be the best place, with links to these put on the main Community Portal page. This is, in fact, the type of project that would be great to place on one of those pages!!  :- ]    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   22:24, 23 March 2008 (EDT)
Ditto. I tried searching "Holly" & "think I'm woman enough", trying to track down a song I used to hear every Christmas, & got nothing... BTW, if you know, you can reply here Thanx. 00:35, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Just wanted to say that i think a requested lyrics function would make this an even more useful site. I've got many "one hit wonder" type songs in mind that i can't find on this wiki, e.g. "Home of the Brave" by The Nails (even though their bigger hit, but worse song "88 Lines..." is in the wiki)

Redirecting Pages

I'm having trouble with redirecting pages... I'm using the format: #REDIRECT [[Artist_Name:Song_Title]]. Sometimes it works, but sometimes I get: 1. REDIRECT Artist_Name:Song_Title, linking to the page I'm trying to redirect to. Why does it work sometimes, but not others? I can't see how I'm doing anything differently.

--Bananaducky 14:27, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

It should only display: 1. REDIRECT Artist Name:Song Title, when you preview the page. Once you save he page, it should corrctly create the redirect. If it displays: 1. REDIRECT Artist_Name:Song_Title (no link), then you have to add the double square brackets to this redirect page in order to link to the target page. Hopefully this will clear it up. If you have any specific pages where it isn't working, feel free to post them here. --WillMak050389 14:33, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
Here is an example where it's not working:
--Bananaducky 15:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
Not sure what was wrong with that one. I re-created the redirect by selected all of the content and retyping it. I also removed the underscores. When I checked the changes between edits, it seems there was an invisible line return before the number sign (#). This seems odd, not sure how it happened. I would try to select all and retype, that should fix the problem. --WillMak050389 16:02, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Pre-Album Lyrics

Some artists such as Fair to Midland have lyrics that are completely different for some songs earlier in their lifetime. There are recordings of these songs, live and demos- that some might find interesting to listen to, or find lyrics to. Is LyricWiki interested in documenting these lyrics for those songs? --Sin 16:06, 29 March 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I say bring it on. Subtle differences in lyrics can mean a world of difference, but I should warn you that you're in for a headache trying to keep track of the various versions. I would steer away from bootleg recordings (unless they're very well-known and widely-available, like these), and stick with the officially sanctioned recordings. Otherwise, the Grateful Dead page is going to get reeeeeeally big...
I would also suggest some discretion in what constitutes a "significant" difference. One word different might not be worth the effort (and potential confusion), so I'd exercise some judgement there. But I can certainly see where some things would be nice to have. Such as Jefferson Airplane's performance of "Somebody To Love" at Woodstock, complete with Grace Slick's legendary "GOOD MORNING, PEOPLE!" transcribed in.  ;-)
—  jF 05:22, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, if it shows a somewhat major change or evolution of the lyrics, that would be great to note that evolution. If it's a word or two or perhaps a line that is changed, then probably just a note about this after the "regular" version's lyrics section would be fine. If the changes are somewhat major or are throughout the lyrics, then an entirely new page can be created with an appropriate add-on to the pagename: (Demo) or (Early Version) or some such thing. As jF noted, noting every live variant ("But they left out that word when they played it live on Saturday Night Live!") and minuscule change isn't really what the site is looking for, I don't think.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   14:05, 30 March 2008 (EDT)
The versions I'm specifically talking about are widely known by fans, and are 100% different then the final studio versions. I bring this up because I'm a bigger fan of some early demos rather then the final song. Since I'm seeing acceptance to this idea, I will begin adding another section to the already great Fair to Midland page. --Sin 00:44, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Should also add a point for this discussion that our primary focus here is lyrics, not music. An incredibly nuanced performance, a song played in a different key, or the presence of an extended instrumental break does not constitute a unique song if the lyrics are the same. Neil Young's performance of "Rockin' In The Free World" on the aforementioned Saturday Night Live was legendary, but the lyrics were the same as the album. Just because it was a really good performance doesn't mean it merits a separate set of lyrics.
On the flip side of that, singer Kevin Rowland sang different lyrics nearly every time Dexy's Midnight Runners performed live, and his extended vamping resulted in literally hundreds of unique sets of lyrics for their handful of songs. Thankfully, though, very few of those received commercial release; otherwise, their page would be gargantuan.
Again, your discretion is always the best judge of what's appropriate. If anyone disagrees, that discussion page makes for a wonderful place to come to a consensus. There's a nice democracy around here, and many people who are appreciative and respectful of any contribution. So again, bring it on.
—  jF 01:14, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
April 2008


How about using Microformats?

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

It looks like you got here before me...I have reposted my reply below.
I briefly looked over these links and I think that these would apply to our project. I have looked at Microformats at least once before and I am interested in seeing our project support these. I don't think that the first has been submitted to the site yet, so I would be a little hesitant to add that untill that is taken care of and we know that the standard doesn't change. I'll talk to the other administators about the matter.
- teknomunk (talk,E,,A) 04:21, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
I'm for waiting until it's garnered a little more support from even the enthusiats on the net. --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 06:19, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
But it is good to start discussing this now so that when the time comes, we won't have a ton of work to do to be compliant with these proposed standards. Which is why I am interested in Microformats, OpenID, and other similar standards.
- teknomunk (talk,E,,A) 13:26, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
¢ and ¢ (my two cents getting thrown in)... I like the idea of microformats, but I would be a bit leery of something that doesn't have clear support and organization behind it. From the Wikipedia article on microformats, note that they state that there is no standards body in place, and describe the microformat community as "an open wiki, mailing list, and Internet relay chat (IRC) channel." Unless I'm missing something here, there is no single entity charged with developing a uniform specification for microformats (unlike the firm guidance you see for technologies like HTML, PHP, XML, etcetera). Early involvement by Microsoft, who is notorious for doing what they want to do (and be damned if you don't like it) could easily result in more than one specification, and resultant chaos.
Browser wars, anyone?
I should also point out, in the same article, that the big two browsers are "expected" to implement microformats in their next releases, but so far that is nothing but speculation. I fear that implementation could undo a lot of achievements other organizations have realized (standardization of HTML and XML, in particular—I'd love to see this project brought to the attention of W3C, and worked into the XML standard, where it can be clearly-defined and browser manufacturers held accountable for any incorrect implementation in their products.)
I read through the blog link provided, and I don't see where that would be a significant improvement. In practice, I find that many songs have choruses that are not identical, and require separate transcription to be accurate. And while I'm playing devil's advocate, I note that the paragraph tag, <p>, is used extensively in applying microformats. This would require the addition of a cascading style sheet to alter the default whitespace; otherwise, there would be numerous undesired blank lines in the lyrics. I can easily see where that could be a headache, particularly for novice wiki users.
Unsigned, can you provide other examples of how microformats would benefit LyricWiki? While I'm dubious about whether the benefits could outweigh the learning curve and potential chaos, I'd certainly like to hear more about the possibilities it could open for LW.
—  jF 02:36, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Wikipedia links for songs (and albums)

there's quite a bunch of Wikipedia articles on songs which have a page here. Is somebody able to include links ({{Wikipedia|Song Name (song)|Song name}}) in a (semi)automated way?--Speckmade 13:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

I kinda doubt it. Wikipedia's naming strategy differs from ours, and while there might be only one "A Love Bizarre", you're bound to hit disambiguation with many songs like "One" (which over there could include "One (Metallica song)", "One (Bee Gees song)", and "One (U2 song)". You have no choice but to research the song for its appropriate Wikipedia article name, and enter that manually.
Maybe some of the bright minds around here could come up with something...  ;-)
—  jF 02:48, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

What's the Spanish word for "Spanish"?

Just kidding, of course. But need some help with some lyrics that contain various Spanish phrases, and my second language is clearly not Spanish. Any native Spanish-speakers that can help decipher this song and correct my spelling on those parts?

I'd also like help with the various things he says between lines, some of which I suspect might be obscenities. If so, I'll duly mark it with a {{pa}}. But in the interests of accuracy, they definitely should be in there.

There's audio available at GoEar on the page, if you need to hear it. I imagine my effort at spelling those Spanish words is pretty lame.  ;-)

Much thanks! (Or should that be muchos gracias?)

—  jF 06:48, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

I've done my best but his Spanish is hard to understand even for a Spaniard. There are no bad words though, it's all clean. --Aikurn 12:59, 5 August 2008 (EDT)


Can someone remind me why we aren't using the latest version of MediaWiki (Special:Version)? There was some extension we were afraid would die, but I can't remember which one it was... Maybe I could work on it? --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 00:13, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, we tried to upgrade to the latest version recently, but things broke massively. For one, the SOAP and the Facebook app didn't work at all, and the site went down completely. You can read up on the attempt here and the several following posts. We are trying to get this working, it will just take some time.
- teknomunk (talk,E,,A) 02:34, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

(Pagesize = 29,505)

Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.