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
<< 14th November - 31st December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 >>


Artist Images

Is there any template for artist images yet? Looking at one of those fancy artist boxes (official website, wikipedia article, hometown) I missed some nice fotography. -- Chillvie 03:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

{{ArtistHeader}} (which is fairly new, and not used on most artist pages yet) has a pic parameter (and even a caption parameter, if you need it). — 6x9 (Talk) 03:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Very nice. :) -- Chillvie 10:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
But avoid using the caption parameter. It's a great idea, but I got a right telling off once (rfl). I think it went "What do we need the caption for when band line up hasn't changed?". I gotta say though that on reflection I could see his point ;)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 02:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say avoid, just don't use it to state the bleedingly obvious :-) — 6x9 (Talk) 03:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Haa haa  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 05:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

New Search Server :)

Since updating our search index was taking so much time that the site would occasionally crash, we've now upgraded from the default search for MediaWiki to use the same LuceneSearch that Wikipedia and the other WikiMedia sites use. It's supposed to be better, and it's definitely faster (it has its own server, so it'd better be faster!).

It's hard to tell whether a search engine will work well for lyrics, but Lucene is supposed to be much better in general. If you have some time, please check it out and let me know if you think it's better than the default search or not. To access our search engine (as opposed to the Google Search) you can either use one of the Search Plugins listed on the side of the page or go to Special:Search.

If it works well enough (better than Google Search), we can swap it into the sidebar and the mainpage and make it our only search, so if you get a chance to try it, please give your impressions versus not only our old search, but against the Google Custom Search.

Thank you!
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 14:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks do we go about accessing this though?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 14:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
WOW! Fantastique ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 19:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Sean: I take my userbox down in gleeful triumph!
Red: Special:Search. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 01:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Aqua. I wasn't entirely sure. :-)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 01:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Way quicker, thanks, Sean. Would dropping the Google search hurt our index there? team atalkctrb 05:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think dropping Google Search would hurt our rankings, but there's no way to know for sure (Google is very much a walled-garden). One advantage though is that there would be slightly less ads on the site since Google displays ads on the site search and doesn't give us any money for it (or more accurately, they "give" us money, and then charge us the same amount so we never see it, lol). A drawback being that our servers have to do more work to serve more searches ;) (server-time for serving searches is why Google charges back all of the adsense revenue from the search-results).
The automatic-updating has been working for a little while now, so I think it's ready to be switched if it is in fact better than Google? Keep them both? Drop google? Any opinions?
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 19:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
My first question would be can the servers handle the additional demands of 100% responsibility for searches? If you think they can, then I'd say drop the Google search and stay with the LuceneSearch. If it would slow everything down to a crawl, then I'd say let the two share the load. My preference is to drop the Google search. --   RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   20:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I would just like a search that when you type in an artist's/band's name, that their main page would come up first. Is that really too hard? I keep getting songs by the artist involved (and generally not the song I'm looking for), and not the artist page. Am I the only one this is happening to? Rdinjaws 01:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
You're right, the google search (the one on the left) just does a text/name search of the content of the page. Use Special:Search for searching for artist and song names. This will always put the artist page before any songs by that artist if you do a search for the artist. That's the new search server they where talking about :) ♫ LYRIC-Humbug wordsdeeds 04:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Spammers and Vandals

I've noticed that the spammers and vandals that I've seen blocked appear mostly as IP addresses. Do you think we could possibly curtail both by requiring registration for editors and allowing anyone and everyone else to have read access only? I understand that not all unregistered users are bad, I just think adding this extra step might avoid some problems. Thanks,    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   18:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

While I admit I occasionally daydream about this, I don't think it would really help our cause. Most unregistered users are actually helpful (or at least try to be), and so far we have the spammers and vandals well in hand. — 6x9 (Talk) 20:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The schmucks who vandalize and spam are usually automated and almost never humans directly. Banning them, but not preventing them from creating accounts, ensures that the zombie-fied computers can still do good when they want to. In all other respects, 6x9 is totally right. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 05:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd User Group

With the large number of Floydians on this site and for the fact that I'm a complete fanatic, I have started a user group for Pink Floyd at LyricWiki:Pink Floyd. Feel free to check it out and join if you're so inclined. I think with the amount of fans we have on this site, it could be a pretty active group. Hope to see you guys on the dark side (of the moon that is). --WillMak050389 23:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems accessing the site from a mobile device

When a song comes up on my iPod or on the radio, I will often use my Blackberry to look up the lyrics. As soon as I found out about LyricWiki I was enthused, because of the comparative lack of intrusive advertising.

However, there are some glitches with viewing the site on a mobile device. First, the "Jump to search" link has no apparent effect. So I have to scroll 3/4 of the way down the page to see the search box. Then, when I execute a search, a "Running Script" message appears at the bottom of the browser and the actual search results are never displayed. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lava surfer (talkcontribs).

How about using Opera Mini? It works great with LyricWiki and you can easily define a custom search (just open the context menu after you selected the search field). Umat 16:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Request: Make Certification Status More Visible

I just discovered the {{cert}} template and find that for me it is a great indicator for how aggressive I should be in modifying existing lyrics. If a song is marked as certified, I am much less likely to make formatting changes or any changes other than to correct gross mistakes.

Problem is is that a song's certification status is pretty well hidden, only visible of the discussion page. Would it be possible to add an visual indicator to a song that would indicate that the lyrics are certified. For example, a miniture version of the certification seal next to the star?

You might argue that the stars provide the same thing. But I'm not sure that that is true. If I understand things correctly, a bronze star does not require certified lyrics. And a silver star is not awarded merely because the lyrics are certified. The stars indicate the quality of a broad constellation of attributes.

Basically what I am looking for is to know in advance the quality of the lyrics and the lyrics alone.

Just my 2 cents,

Steve 17:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Steve, great idea. You are totally right about the visibility issue. What you suggest is indeed the long term plan. The trouble is, right now, people are cheesed off even as-is regarding the enormous amount of work it is to fill in the data on the song page and then indicate that they've done it on the discussion page. Once we accomplish a major software upgrade (hopefully soon) then pages will automatically be able to detect what has been done and what hasn't. Then the Cert and Watcher will be on the song page, probably as little icons next to the star. Please bear with us for a few months (weeks?) longer. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 17:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Cool beans - I will look forward to the new version!
Steve 16:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Music News page

I have a friendly suggestion. I noticed the big Submit News Item logo and clicked on it to see where it led. I didn't happen to have a news item to submit but I noticed the link to the Music News page and clicked on that. Surprise! A cool page with news items. I looked around the main page and checked the community portal main page and there is no other mention of the Music News page than the ugly (sorry) yellow "Submit News item" banner. Would one of you hard-working and under appreciated admins make a nice noticeable link or pretty banner to the music news page on the Portal page, please?    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   19:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I put the link you're talking about on the page because I happened to find Music News at the back of an old dusty cupboard. It was my intention to try and generate some interest in this but regrettably you are the only one who has mentioned this in a very long time. Plus I don't really have the time to devote to keeping it updated...but if you wanted to (or anyone else reading this) then maybe we could work something out ;)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 17:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Duplication Of Information concerns


I've been doing a fair amount of editing lately and one thing that concerns me is that amount of duplicate information between Musicbrainz and lyricwiki.

For me to promote an album/artist to bronze I not only have to validate the lyrics and add myself as a watcher, but I need to add a slug of other non-lyric related information - artist homepage, myspace, discogs, hometown, credits. asin, etc.

That's useful information, but it is also information that is already being stored and vetted in musicbrainz. As a result there are two problems:

  • Adding a release, track or artist is more work than strictly necessary with most of the ancillary information available through Musicbrainz.
  • Inevitably the two will get out of sync. You get that much duplication and you're going to get differences between the two sources. So then the question becomes which of the two sources is canonical?

I guess the fundamental question is what is the "official" relationship between musicbrainz and lyricwiki? And can we, should we leverage musicbrainz more for ancillary info?

Steve 18:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no relationship between MusicBrainz and LyricWiki as far as I'm aware. We just consider it is a useful site, like Wikipedia, AllMusic, Discogs, etc., to link to. As for duplicating information? MusicBrainz aren't very good at providing links to other sites which hold information on the artist. If you're lucky you might see a picture of the album cover and get a link to Amazon on an album page. Sometimes they provide you with the asin. But in most cases that's the extent of it. They do occasionally provide links to other sites that we don't, e.g.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 20:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


I'm posting this here so that others who may have wondered about this may understand but Aqua can you please explain why on artist and album talk pages a <Cert> appears? Only this has caused some confusion. Thank you.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 12:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been waiting on a clarification of this. Initially (when I laid out Page Ranking) I thought a {{Cert}} on Artist and Album pages would signify that the watcher had check our information with some outside source. Upon reflection and usage in real life, I see that Cert is redundant on Artist and Album pages. I think it should made more clear that that is a Song-thing only. Agreed? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 19:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Aqua. Agreed. You may be interested to know that it was in fact our dear friend KingNee who spotted this. I'm just amazed that no one (including myself) has queried this before. Just goes to show nothing much gets past him ;)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 13:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with Cyrilic symbols

There is some problem with it(. I didn't notice this problem 6-7 monthes ago, but now, when I type in url bar: "Оригами" - nothing happens, but when "" - everything works well((. Maby some problem with new server?— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oleh Bardiuk (talkcontribs).

There are two problems
  1. the correct url is, not .com (www is not necessary, but it redirects to the same address)
  2. lw has no artist by those names, so you will get a blank page that you can start editing, if you wish.
try "Оригами" , "". hth ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 03:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
ok, thanks

(Pagesize = 15,816)

Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.