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
<< March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 >>

Linking songs to soundtrack album by single artist

The only way this will work properly with type = soundtrack entered in {{Song}} is if the artist portion of page name is omitted when creating soundtrack album page. See David Bowie:Ziggy Stardust: The Motion Picture (1983) and then David Bowie:All The Young Dudes/Oh! You Pretty Things. Otherwise type has to be album. So might it be best to change the help page and make soundtracks uniform, both for single artist and various artists?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 16:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

You can simply enter "soundtrack album" as type. Similarly with compilations; I've used "type=compilation album" quite a few times. If you don't want that, adding &#032; before or after "soundtrack" does the trick as well. — 6x9 (Talk) 17:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 17:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Pages Needing Split Catalogues

It's worth remembering that "Pages needing split catalogues" may not actually need splitting after the long list of Other Songs have been dealt with...  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 13:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Long John Baldry

Note the red link? I dunno what is the world coming to when Dr. Robotnik in Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog hasn't even got an artist page on here? ;)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 14:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

He's on every week on Saturday Night Blues @ cbc ;) ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 14:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Transmitted live from Heaven? Technology never ceases to amaze me... ;) ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 14:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Works for Jeff ;) ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 22:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I saw him live a number of times...guitar on lap...sad loss.  Яєdxx Actions Words 01:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Project of the Month

How about it? Displayed here, at the top of page? Or on Main Page? Although it might be more appropriate, with SNLI in mind, named "Project of the Year"..;)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 15:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, how about displaying it in the top right of the project page or adding a blue box under 'compilations' on the main page? Can I make a nominationÑôīέ2çяȳTalk 16:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Rfl..Whoa boy! (hee hee) Wherever such a link might go it would need to be where most would see it. LyricWiki:Long Term Projects page (if that's where you intended your link to go notime) isn't appropriate cos it's long term..;)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 16:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hopefully education about this won't take a month:IAFP, so I'll second nt2c. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 22:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the link Echo and I'm sure Will will appreciate you informing all our regular visitors that on the 25th of March he was having a bit of a bad hair day. But can I suggest that in future, if you want to notify of errors a fellow admin has made, you leave a polite note on their talk page, instead of keeping a note of these in your personal diary and rolling them out in Community Portal in amongst unrelated posts. This would also prove advantageous in limiting the number of bad edits, because of course if you were to inform us directly of these errors, and at the time they occurred, it would help to ensure that we didn't continue to make similar errors in the interim.  Яєdxx Actions Words 01:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Category IAFP was created on March 9th, I think it's ok to put a tip of the month box on the community portal page about that category, as well as SNLI, Violet Songs and Unknown hometown (all of them need human eyes), for those who are so inclined and have the time. Drawing attention to these categories is a good thing, imho. As for the edit example, I am pointing out the edit, well intentioned edit. As Times put it elsewhere, it's no time to argue about who did what. Back to the original post: Let's hope notime2cry can't be discouraged so easily... ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 12:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
How about an Announcements page that we use specifically for such updates? Would it be possible to set it up so that all users (registered ones, at least) get a message (similarly to the one when their talk page is changed) at the top? If not, could this at least be automatically put on everyone's watchlist? Not everyone checks the community portal regularly. — 6x9 (Talk) 14:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
A few weeks back Sean put a message that appeared for a day or so at the top of every page. He also added this message when we were doing updgrade, so....  Яєdxx Actions Words 15:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but that was present all the time, which would get rather annoying after a while. I was thinking of a banner that only shows up until you visit the Announcements page. — 6x9 (Talk) 15:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't an announcements page basically be duplicating the long-forgotten Current Events page? Perhaps we can do away with Current Events and replace it with a new Announcements page (that is auto-added to all regged user's watchlists)? --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   15:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess one of the places such a link should show is in Editor's Corner on Main Page. Would be more appropriate than "Happy New Year to all our visitors from the LyricWiki staff" ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 17:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting so there will be room to move right again) Red, that is a great idea! Might I also suggest that whomever chooses to do that would also archive the other Editor's corner posts while they're at it? There are links to the Facebook app. and other things on the page so we shouldn't be losing any information by archiving the E.C. posts. Just a thought. ~ RD ~ 18:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Editor's Corner has been fixed. This Project of the Month thing is a great idea! DO WANT! :D
I definitely agree w/giving it exposure in the Editor's Corner, and honestly it might be a cool thing to add to the side-bar navigation for logged in users. Just a thought. -Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 04:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Poetry on CD

I recently came across a page and it surprised me. Poet, Alix Olson has a series of spoken word poems published on cd. One of those poems, Sticks has been added to the wiki. Mind you, this is a poem not a song. It is listed on Wikipedia and its genre is listed as Spoken Word. My questions are do we follow Wikipedia's lead and allow poetry published on CD on to the wiki with the genre of Spoken Word? If we do, are we opening the floodgates for more non-musical content? What about poetry that hasn't been put on cd but only published in books? I have mixed feelings about this. What say you all? --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   22:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Spoken-word-only CDs have no place here. (And stuff that hasn't even been recorded in some audio format or other even less.) We're called LyricWiki after all, and lyrics and poetry are different things (although, admittedly, there's a rather large grey zone inbetween). If there are some poems on an album that also contains music with lyrics, we'll probably include them for completeness's sake… Other than that it's probably better to keep those floodgates tightly shut (and have a few sand bags ready, just in case). — 6x9 (Talk) 22:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree with 6. There are a few albums I'm aware of where major artists such as Marianne Faithfull recite poems/narrative, but any albums including such artists that I have ever come across have always contained some music/songs. If they didn't, the publishers could save themselves one hell of a lot of money by simply getting actors and voice over artists to undertake these projects.  Яєdxx Actions Words 01:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Extra sand bags indeed! William Shakespeare anyone? Though when put to music, we'll let it in :) ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 08:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Love that track well I am a bit of an old romantic. Bryan did a nice rendition too.  Яєdxx Actions Words 17:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Anyone for Lewis Carroll? Although I'm not sure whether this rendition is romantic;). Ñôīέ2çяȳTalk 18:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The Lied and Art Song texts site at lists 158 settings of songs from Shakespeare, starting from his contemporaries and up to the resent, and including settings of translations like "An Sylvia," a German translation of "Who is Sylvia?" from Two Gentlemen of Verona. Once I figure out how to adapt the Album template to the naming conventions of "classical" music (no easy matter, I'm deeply ignorant of programming) I'll start uploading these, as well as settings of Goethe, Heine, the Bible etc. User:Rootlesscosmo/Signature 15:15, 5 April 2009 (PDT)

So are we agreed that the spoken-word-only Alix Olson:Sticks should be deleted? — 6x9 (Talk) 22:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Spoken word only are not lyrics. They are prose or poetry. They have no place on a lyrics site. So yes.  Яєdxx Actions Words 23:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


is the server time 10 mins behind? ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 18:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Been that way for a long time. — 6x9 (Talk) 22:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Texts of "classical" genres

There's a huge collection of lieder lyrics, opera librettos, cantata and oratorio texts etc. available on the Web; a lot (probably more than half) of these are public domain. The problem with adding them to LyricWiki is that I'm really ignorant--honestly, you have no idea how ignorant--of programming, and when I tried to adapt the Album template to the naming conventions of "classical" music (it's a term I dislike, but that's for another day) I made a mess of it. (I was trying to upload the text of J.S. Bach's Motet "Jesu, meine Freude.") Would anyone like to collaborate with me on this? I'd be happy to provide content; my ultimate goal would be to access my iTunes library with Simplify Media and get a link to a LyricWiki page for "Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen." Anybody? Rootlesscosmo 18:23, 5 April 2009 (PDT)

I would do it like this:
  1. Jesu, Meine Freude
  2. Es Ist Nun Nichts Verdammliches
  3. Unter Deinem Schirmen
  4. Denn Das Gesetz
  5. Trotz Dem Alten Drachen
  6. Ihr Aber Seid Nicht Fleischlich
  7. Weg Mit Allen Schätzen
  8. So Aber Christus In Euch Ist
  9. Gute Nacht, O Wesen
  10. So Nun Der Geist
  11. Weicht, Ihr Trauergeister
Just remember that the first letter of each word in a song title needs to be capitalized. --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   22:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC) - P.S. We have a Help Desk where they will be able to answer all your formatting questions.
Aha1 Another fan. Many thanks. But what do I do with heads like "artist" and "date released," and how do I create a hierarchical stucture that someone can use that goes (roughly) Composer--Work Category [i.e. Opera, Song Cycle, Cantata etc.]--Work Title--Text Author--Title of Section [i.e. Motet movement, as in your example, or song within song cycle, aria within opera etc.]? Finally, if you haven't seen this recent performance video of "Jesu, meine Freude,' [1] you're in for a treat. Thanks again and pardon my bafflement. I'll visit the Help Desk and see if it, um, helps. Rootlesscosmo 15:59, 5 April 2009 (PDT)

Hometown help needed

Hi, I tried to add hometown info for Alphonsus Cassell. There is no entry for Montserrat, West Indies. I was unsure of whether I should call it a country or if it needed to be classified under England as it is a British Overseas Territory. --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   21:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait until Red is on vacation and put it under United Kingdom. And then do the same for Gibraltar. — 6x9 (Talk) 21:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The Kingdom is United enough to have it's own category!? TEOTWAWKI :) ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 22:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
What you guys need to bear in mind is that the hometown paramaters are not literal. They are merely guidelines. Yes, "country" usually does mean country, but it is no more always than is "state". Now geography is not my strongpoint, but in England we have counties. In Canada there are provinces. There are no paramaters for these. Nor do I see anyone feeling it necessary to put up info boxes on each of these category pages to explain this. No, because it's common sense. And I know it's been transferred now, but United Kingdom, Hong Kong? Or just Hong Kong? I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think we should be endeavoring to give lessons on political divides. We are a lyrics site. And using the example of Hong Kong, it just seems less confusing and more right to me to omit the United Kingdom bit.  Яєdxx Actions Words 21:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Redxx: I've put the above artist at Montserrat, West Indies. I'll leave it to others to change if they don't like it there. I don't know where to find the flag for West Indies to put on the cat. page though. xx    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   21:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
While Category:Hometown/United Kingdom is not valid Category:Hometown/British West Indies is... (applause)
My geography is same as Red's, so I'll give similar cases: Jersey, Guernsey, and the Isle of Man. LOL ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 22:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Jersey and Guernsey = Channel Isles and the Isle of Man, Isle of Man.  Яєdxx Actions Words 22:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
those three things that you just copied and pasted....are they countries, states or cities? LOL ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 00:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Would one of you guys download this flag and slap it on the Montserrat page please? Montserrat --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   23:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The word on the street is that in a few weeks Category:Hometown/United Kingdom will be bigger than SNLI ever knew how to be ;)
Since it is clear from this that retaining this category would actually create more problems than it solves and since our aim in this would seem to me to be to deliberately confuse: Category:Hometown/British Overseas Territories.  Яєdxx Actions Words 06:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
In order to make the Country known as 'United Kingdom' disappear, you created a new country called BOT; Wizardry of provincial mindset = your personal taste. By that account, The Hometwon of Rush should be Ontario/Toronto/Thornhill, and we will never speak of Canada. This is an international site. BOT is a subset of UK, and everybody who lives there is a citizen of UK, and there is no Welsh/Scottish/English embassy in Ottawa or DC. I notice your BOT category fails to link to the obligatory British Overseas Territories which educates us that BOT is ruled from London, there is also sufficient evidence printed in gold on the cover of your passport, it doesn't say England, It says UK. Berkshire is not a State, England/NI/Scotland/Wales are states. You don't know geography, others do.
The correct method of listing a band from UK is UK/England/city, UK/BOT/City, UK/Scotland/City etc. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 07:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this topic has been moved because the Help Desk isn't the place for disagreements or decision making. It's a place for new users to get an answer as to the most current method (or methods, if nothing has been set in stone but the situation has been touched upon elsewhere) of dealing with whatever is being asked. Discussion is for this page. This is where consensus is reached if the status quo is questioned.

As for this situation, I'm going to put this out there: The original hometown system of Country/State/City is much too U.S.-centric for this wiki. It causes confusion such as this. Although it won't totally get rid of the confusion, I propose that this be switched to Country/Area/City, where Area is used for the state/territory/commonwealth/county/whatever.

As for this specific situation, dealing with UK/England/etc.: old empires are a pain in the rump, aren't they?  :-] I think that perhaps an imperfect compromise might have to take place here. Perhaps not, though. We're dealing with a system of multiple divisions, and we only have room for three. So we can either (when changing the hometown business to the suggestion above) add multiple areas (Area, and optional Area2, Area3, etc.) or just use the UK as country for those areas that aren't major areas such as England, Scotland, etc. Personally, why not just add the additional optional parameters and use UK as the country? But then I'm a crazy American and obviously don't take the UK thing as seriously as some Brits.  :-]

Good grief, a chance to update a template, and no one jumped at this? Shocked! Shocked, I say! Wink3 <- Look, I used an emoticon!    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   02:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I do like the idea of changing the wording to Country/Area/City. My own personal opinion echoes that of Redxx above in that I think we shouldn't worry so much about making sure that a country is listed in the state parameter to clarify that this country is recognized as a dependent territory of that country. We don't need to be identical to wikipedia. If an artist lives in Puerto Rico for example, I think the natural thing for a person to do would be to use that as the country and most folks wouldn't think of using it in a State parameter. We need to keep things as uncomplicated as possible to encourage our editors to fill out as much information as possible. Anyway, those are my thoughts on the matter. --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   04:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Haven't we already been here once before.. ??
...just use the UK as country for those areas that aren't major areas such as England, Scotland..Aren't major areas??!! Tut, tut Kiefer!
Ok for the purpose of clarification:
  1. Our towns/cities equate to your towns/cities.
  2. England, Scotland, Wales, etc. do not equate to American "states" Echo. Our counties equate to American states.
  3. Your country is the United States Kiefer. Echo's is Canada and 6's is Germany. My country is England. but on a Thursday I come from the UK and on a Saturday I come from Great Britain and on Mondays I think I'm European.
  4. Since there can only be the three parameters, then Area1 = town/city, Area2 = state/county (where applicable), Area3 = country/name of territory/dependency or whatever.
Oh and with regards to British Overseas Territories, Isle of Man and Channel Islands, if you look at that wikipedia page again Echo, it educates us that "the British Overseas Territories are fourteen territories that are under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, but which do not form part of the United Kingdom itself". Similarly, on the Jersey page it educates us that "Jersey is part of neither the UK nor the European Union; rather like the Isle of Man".
Area 3 = Montserrat, Gibraltar, Jersey, Isle of Man, England, United States, Canada, Germany, Hong Kong, etc. KISS  Яєdxx Actions Words 04:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. And apologies Kiefer, but I didn't quite know how to say to ES "Do you want to come over to the Community Portal and say that" ;)
Yes, KISS, 'Origin Area 1 + Area 2 + Area 3' where Area 1 = country. If I want further details then Wikipedia/Google Earth will do. Incidentally, today I'm feeling pretty English (more so than British at the moment and generally I'm only European when across the channel) although if I was going to 'run a flag up my flag pole and see who salutes' it'd be the Union Flag interestingly, although it's been a few years since I was in Northern Ireland, when I was there I saw the Union Flag far more than their ownÑôīέ2çяȳTalk 14:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
If whether you feel English or British (UKish?) were important to the matter at hand, then we'd have to promote Bavaria, for example, to country as well ;-) — 6x9 (Talk) 14:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm..fine by me Wink3  Ñôīέ2çяȳTalk 19:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
In order to have a Category Hometown United Kingdom, do we need a vote? NO. Do we need an administrative decree? NO. read further if that didn't make sense.
The hometown of a UK band can be disambiguated with a minimum of two values 95% of the time:
|country = United Kingdom
|state = England or Oxfordshire is sufficient, empty will do
|city = Abingdon
|country = United Kingdom
|state = BOT or whatever else Red will concot, empty will do
|city = Isle of Wight, Gibraltar etc
|country = United Kingdom
|state = Scotland or Edinburgh or just empty will do
|city = Edinburgh, off shore isles
|country = United Kingdom
|state = Northern Ireland or County Antrim, empty will do
|city = Belfast
Now Red is free to choose, and police/administer/guide contributors and herself for the state value, Not the country value; according to documentation, with proper wikipedia links, and without treating United Kingdom like a figment of one of my numerous bad hair days :)
Users of hometown need two bits of info, the country and city, the middle value (state) is just for disambig. And as for me, I will just fill the country value, for UK/US/Germany etc, knowing that Keifer (de facto US expert), Times (de facto German expert), and Red (expert at large), and RD (Dependent Territory expert), won't mess with country attributions and Top Level hometown categorizations. As for Hong Kong.... ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 00:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
So that's it, is it Echo? You've decided? And Kiefer (de facto US expert), Times (de facto German expert) and RD are all going to do what you say and not "mess" with what you decree to be the Top Level hometown categorizations? And you are giving me permision to police the state value, but not the country value?  Яєdxx Actions Words 01:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
England is a country, Scotland is a country, Wales is a country, just as United States, Canada and Germany are countries. Leaving out England, Scotland or Wales etc. in favour of 'United Kingdom' will most definitely not do and is unacceptable. 'state = England or Oxfordshire is sufficient' and you said Redxx didn't know geography?? Redxx is completely and unequivocally correct. By all means have United Kingdom or British Overseas Territories but do this by adding a fourth parameter, not at the expense of omitting a country or demoting it to 'state' status. Ñôīέ2çяȳTalk 01:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't know if this has been suggested before, but I thought I'd dance around the landmines you people are leaving and offer up a (possibly) previously not mentioned option. Hopefully I don't offend any one, but:
|country = United Kingdom/England
Include both in the country parameter. I don't know, just another thought. I'll leave you guys to your quarreling. --WillMak050389

Okay, seriously...can we stop being snarky about this?


I tried to be lighthearted previously and thought that I had come up with a good compromise that would allow for the various sensibilities. No such luck, I guess. We're still arguing about which 3 items should be kept, when I've suggested adding the ability for multiple intermediate steps to allow for these multiple divisions.

I'm a little disappointed. Not so much that the idea wasn't hailed with trumpeted fanfare, but because everyone's still stuck on the UK or not UK bit. This is shown by how Redxx read my line about how we could use the UK as country for those areas that aren't major areas such as England, Scotland, etc. as meaning that those are my examples of non-major areas. Exactly opposite of my meaning. I can see how you might read that, but you really thought I meant that?!? I was giving those as examples of major areas, NOT - repeat NOT - examples of non-major areas. And then Notime2cry just carried on with that theme. That's not what I meant. I figured you guys knew me well enough to know that. I mean, good grief, what could I possibly have been considering as the major areas of the UK?!? *sigh*

But the fight itself appears to be the reason for this discussion, as opposed to finding a solution to the problem. Go ahead and Brit-slap each other if you like. I tried. Brit-slap is hereby trademarked and copyrighted by Kiefer. Thank you.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   02:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaah..sorry Kiefer. I will admit I was very surprised to say the least ;) Reading it again I think I get your drift. You mean excluding England, Scotland, Wales, etc.? For places such as Montserrat, Gibraltar and the British Overseas Territories? Only problem there is that these aren't actually part of UK (see above/wikipedia). Thanks Will for your suggestion too.
Ok, before we get much further into this I have a question. Seeing as the solution to this would be to add an optional fourth (top level) parameter, can someone explain to me why can't this be done?  Яєdxx Actions Words 02:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that there is a reason why it couldn't be done. Now that we're calmer, would it help solve the problem, though? That's what I'm hoping here.
Would things be all higgledy-piggledy if (for example) UK was the top parameter (Country), England the second (Area), London the third (Area2), and City of London the fourth (City)? We obviously need to have some sort of succinct and specific guideline for what should be listed in the Country portion. Should we go by the United Nations membership? The UN has the UK as the member, and not England, Scotland, Wales, etc. Is there another guideline that could be used? I'm sure there is. (The UN doesn't have all nation-states as members, I do believe, and entities such as Jersey would need special consideration as to their particular usage with regards to the template.) At any rate, once this mess has been sorted out via consensus then a User Guide for this will probably need to be written. Because this is about the third or fourth time that this subject has come up, I think. And we're all, obviously, tiring of it.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay. *Takes a deep breath* After doing research into the matter, here's what I've come up with to help solve this situation:
  1. As proposed above, the three parameters be renamed to Country, Area, and City.
  2. For "Country" we should use the List of sovereign states as our reference, automatically using/accepting those listed in the leftmost column as a country, but also accept any area that is a territory or commonwealth of another country but which isn't automatically an included part of the sovereign country, as well as any countries, such as England, etc., that are considered Constituent Countries of a sovereign country. Examples of these territories, commonwealths, etc., are found in the rightmost column. For Australia, this would include Christmas Island, Cocos Islands, Norfolk Island, etc. For the United States, this would include Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, The United States Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands. For the United Kingdom, this would include Bermuda, Jersey, Isle of Man, British Virgin Islands, etc. This would not include such areas, such as the States that make up the United States, or (likely, although I'm sure I'd have to do more research into the matter) the portions of the Russian Federation, as they do not have any sort of nationalistic autonomy and/or government.
  3. Create an "semi-invisible" parameter than can be optionally added above Country to include the Artist in Category:Hometown/United Kingdom for the Big 4 plus the associated commonwealths and territories, Category:Hometown/United States for Guam, etc., and Category:Hometown/Australia for Christmas Island, etc., as well as other similar situations, such as Category:Hometown/France for French Guiana. This would allow for groups that might be associated with the United Kingdom, and not one specific included country, to still be able to be listed in that way as the "country" and have them show the UK flag, but also allow for Scottish bands to show the Scottish flag and listed as Scotland as the country, and yet still be included in the broader UK category.
Now, I have not dealt with the whole organization of the Categories. I'm guessing/hoping/praying that these are possible changes. Bots could add the |CountryTop = United Kingdom parameter (or whatever it should be called) to English artists and similar, and hopefully this will satisfy all concerned.
So...?    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The countrytop parameter might not be necessary; if we can get together a list of all countries that need it, the template could add it automatically for said countries. — 6x9 (Talk) 04:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
In this scheme aren't you going to have United Kingdom and also England, Wales, Gibraltar etc all defined as Countries? ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 04:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's how the "hopefully this will satisfy all concerned" part works. England is a country. Wales is a country. Gibraltar, while not a country, is a self-governing British overseas territory. The addition of the SupraCountry addition (whether by parameter or automatic inclusion, as stated by 6x9 - which would be GREAT! by the way) satisfies the inclusion of the overseeing country category-wise for these entities, while not being offensive to English citizens, such as Redxx, and other similar nationalities, and allows for these countries, territories, and commonwealths to display the appropriate flag. It also allows for United Kingdom to still be listed as the Country for the more broadly-based bands.
(On a side note, why are you both marking edits as "minor" when they aren't? Is this a system glitch?)
  Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I thought personal taste wasn't going to be part of this? You took the list of Dependent territory and put them at the same level as their containers (countries that they are dependent on for representation at United Nations). Just like trying to put a song and it's artist both at the same level. Does this scheme have a precedent anywhere? Check United Nations for the country list, is that too far out? It's a pretty close match to the sovereign states list that you just mashed up into an MC Escher piece ;) ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 04:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No offense, Echo, but the others are right. UK is a country, but so are the Big 4. This has nothing to do with personal preference, this has to do with finding a solution to the situation. You aren't doing much but complaining, pointing fingers, mocking others and being snarky. I've made a proposal that allows for containment under the UK umbrella for you, but still doesn't ignore the rights of dominion that the Big 4 constituent states have. Are you just doing this to tick Redxx off? That's what it's beginning to appear like, because you're obviously not listening to others' concerns. It sounds more like you are the one pushing a personal preference.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   11:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

We are very lucky to have you amongst us Kiefer. If anyone ever wondered why Sean chose you to be a Bearcat I think the above is proof of this. Thank you for the time and effort you have put into all this and thank you 6, Will, RD and of course Notime for your contributions and your efforts in working towards a solution. It sounds great to me.
 Яєdxx Actions Words 11:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. Happy St. George's Day England 1

England 1Seconded with thanks from Great BritainEngland 1 Ñôīέ2çяȳTalk 13:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No offense taken. What is the top level entity that contains California & Guam, Hawaii & Puerto Rico? Where else in the world your scheme was used before? on wikipedia? United Nations? You are stuck on the country label. Think about it as a whole (like United States). Guam is either part of (whole) US or not, your cooked up scheme has it both ways. is that a clue or offense? cheers ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 20:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
(rolling my eyes in exasperation) Would you puh-leeeeez get over yourself? You know perfectly well that California and Hawaii are states. Guam and Puerto Rico should be treated as if they were separate countries. --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   20:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
RD, you are either the son of your father, or a brother of your father, not both, you don't get to choose, and if you are the brother of that man, he can't be your father. A Puerto Rican is an American just like a New Yorker, not for you to choose, wherever you are from, whoever your father is. hth ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 22:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Echo, you want a top-down, patriarch-styled categorization system, but this isn't a top-down situation. You are thinking Grandfather/Father/Son, when the situation is more like Son/Last Name/First Name. All three of your items (GF, Father, Son) are a son. The United Kingdom and England are both countries. That one "contains" the other isn't really material. In the case of these countries, to use your analogy, they truly can be both the son of the father and the brother of the father. That's because one did not and does not beget the other!
You cannot equate states such as California to mostly independent countries such as England, either. It's bad logic. You're being over-the-top hoping to prove a point, but you're doing the opposite. By going over-the-top you're showing that you're not willing to listen. Through all of this, you haven't even given your own proposal to the situation, instead trying to punch holes in others' ideas.
A Puerto Rican is, yes, technically an American as they have American citizenship. But if you don't think that Puerto Ricans view their home as its own country as well, you haven't met many Puerto Ricans! Puerto Rico is primarily self-governing. If it weren't, it would have voting members in Congress and be a state, not a territory. This self-governing, non-enfranchised nature means that it isn't a pure subcategory of the United States as the 50 states are. Once again, if you view the situation in a purely top-down manner, you are missing a large portion of the picture.
Obviously, I support my proposal. In an effort to help the project, I will begin a listing of Countries for reference, as well as marking those that are to be categorized under two Country listings, such as with England with the UK. (Might not show up until this weekend, however.)    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   01:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I have started a page of the Hometown Countries at: LyricWiki:List of Countries.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
It's essentially done. It might be nice to incorporate flags on the page in front of the "country" name, but give it a once over for anything that you find weird. If nobody finds anything unusual, then the automatic inclusion stuff can be worked on. Kiefer 19:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Question about that last bit – do we actually need that (i.e. country=England automatically using Cat:HT/UK/England instead of Cat:HT/England and such) or would it be enough to leave Cat:HT/England and add it as a subcategory to Cat:HT/UK? Second option won't require editing {{ArtistHeader}} (though we have a number of pending changes queued up anyway) and has the added advantage that it can be altered easily should the political situation change in the future (maybe when the UK finally notices that monarchies are rather old-fashioned). — 6×9 (Talk) 19:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I suppose. What did you mean when you wrote "The countrytop parameter might not be necessary; if we can get together a list of all countries that need it, the template could add it automatically for said countries."? I thought it meant automatic inclusion through the template. I was envisioning English bands as appearing in both the list of those from Hometown:England and Hometown:United Kingdom. But if the other way can be done, then I'm for whatever is simpler. I was fearful that the template way might make the template too burdensome, but I was trusting in your template-ninja-skillz!! Whichever way works and is easiest for all concerned. You would know best in this.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   20:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I understood at the time that you wanted, for example, Cat:HT/England changed to Cat:HT/UK/England, and to add a top-level parameter to {{ArtistHeader}} to accomplish this while still having country=England. This could be done automatically, without said parameter, and without too much additional spaghetti in the template.
If, instead, we simply leave Cat:HT/England as it is, only adding it as a subcategory to Cat:HT/UK, the template (or the current cat. structure) won't have to be changed at all. — 6×9 (Talk) 20:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
That's not quite what I had envisioned, but if Cat:HT/England (and the rest) can be listed as a subcategory in Cat:HT/United Kingdom while still being accessed from the Category:Hometown page, then that works okay. I was envisioning (as I mentioned above) that an artist would show up on both lists, but no biggie. No change to the current template is a good thing!  :-] Thanks for clearing that up.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   01:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Since there were a few other pending additions and bugfixes (mostly to {{ArtistFooter}} – which now has asin and youtube parameters added) I've gone and implemented it anyway. So, if you put "England" in the country parameter, the page is added to both C:H/E and C:H/UK. (The whole thing is handled by a subtemplate, to avoid making AH itself more complicated… maybe that's why we didn't get the same vanishing-categories bug as with the language in SongFooter… I dunno.) — 6×9 (Talk) 17:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you do this for all those wonderful little mix-and-matches? If so, I'm going to have to reword things again. Not that I'm complaining!    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Copied & pasted from your list so I wouldn't be the one to blame if it went wrong :-) — 6×9 (Talk) 16:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
It's okay, I'll take the heat, I guess.  :-] I'll see if I can get to re-rewording that tonight when I come back on. (Just a brief visit right now.)    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   17:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Instrumental template

  • Moved discussion (commenced 30th November 2008 and resumed 8th April 2009) back to Template talk:Instrumental; as soon as the job queue gets near zero (which might take a while, currently it's growing!) I'll implement the changes. — 6×9 (Talk) 21:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

{{Instrumental}} has been updated, along with some minor changes to {{Song}} and {{SongFooter}}. Most of these changes can be found under Recent Changes here and here. The rest is mostly category stuff, boring for non-bots. — 6×9 (Talk) 03:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

RIP box in a box conundrum. lol ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 03:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User suggestion regarding Captcha

I'm posting here for Nadelspitze who wanted to know if it would be possible to tweak the settings so that after a registered user has made 50 good edits that they would no longer be required to use the captcha to add or change pages. What do you folks think? Sean, what's your take on this? -- RainbowDragon posting for Nadelspitze 19:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

won't nobody say something to this? Nadelspitze 20:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I made some changes to the CAPTCHA this morning since it was clearly rather overbearing. It wasn't working as their documentation said it was, and even that was a bit burdensome. I've made changes to it now, including:
  • If you're an autoconfirmed user (currently the settings are: you've been registered for 4 days or more and made 5 or more edits... but these settings are configurable and may change over time) then you don't get the CAPTCHA.
  • Since adding external links to a page causes a CAPTCHA prompt, any new page created was causing the creator to be prompted since the templates generate links to wikipedia, amazon,, etc. I've added (to the best of my knowledge) all of the domains that are automatically generated to a white-list which means that you won't be prompted just for adding links to those domains.
Hope this makes it better. If you see behavior that doesn't seem to match what I said above, then something is broken. Even then, if it seems to be a major pain, let me know and we'll figure out some other way(s) to make it more friendly and still effective.
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 22:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
cool. thank you. Nadelspitze 12:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm still having problems with an overbearing CAPTCHA. Everytime I edit a page and add links to iTunes, Wikipedia, etc., I see the CAPTCHA. Photocopy 15:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Not cool. I'll look into this again tonight. Thanks for reporting this & sorry for the hassle!
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 16:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It appears there were 2 problems: 1 was that I overwrote the file which had the whitelist this morning, so since about 9:50am the whitelist was gone entirely. 2nd problem was that I spelled "musicbrainz" as "musicbrains" by accident (the "z" is the correct domain) in the whitelist. Oops! Both should be fixed now and I actually tested it this time (should have done that to start with!). If you see any more problems, please let me know! Thanks for reporting this Photocopy,
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 23:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Janitor learns a new trick

Janitor just learned how to forward links to redirects so they skip the redirect entirely. As this is new for him, he may make mistakes. If he does, leave a note here or on my talk page about it so I correct his behavior.
- teknomunk (talk,E,,A) 23:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
(P.S. for those who may not know, Janitor is a bot script)

wow! the LyricWiki:Page Names bot. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 01:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
What I'm noticing, is that Janitor is correcting the links so that a page that has been redirected to the correct page but which hasn't been removed from the Other Songs list now displays the incorrect title, but links to the correct one. Would it be possible so that if Janitor finds an redirected page on the OS list that it can just remove that song?
Also, sometimes incorrect links are given on talk pages that are meant to be there, as a point of discussion. Can talk pages be ignored, please? Thanks.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   02:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

{{Album Art}}

Said template has been modified so that, in most cases, the first parameter (image filename) can be omitted and only the second one (album title) needs to be specified. I've also added some documentation… though, come to think of it, maybe I should have waited a week until its third anniversary :-) — 6x9 (Talk) 17:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Need 'album4' tag

I added this tag to Talking Heads:Take Me To The River

Song|More Songs About Buildings and Food (1978)|album2=The Name of This Band Is Talking Heads (1982)|album3=Stop Making Sense (1984)|album4=Sand in the Vaseline: Popular Favorites (1992)|Talking Heads|star=Green

The album2 & album3 tags show up, but not album4. Seems like popular songs could be on over a dozen albums. But at least album4 would be nice at the moment. Dan 19:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

For these cases we have the {{AddAlb}} template. Note that album2 and album3 should then be moved to AddAlb as well. — 6x9 (Talk) 19:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
PS. Please also remember LyricWiki:Page Names – it should be "…Buildings And Food".

Another Template Change Suggestion

I'd like to see {{RelatedArtists}} have the ability to give a reason for the inclusion of an artist on the list. Some pages include such a thing using the non-template method, and sometimes adding a note explaining that Musician A was previously in Band B is helpful.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That would require extra parameters, which in turn would mean we'd have to change the current unnamed parameters to named ones (so users won't have to count the pipes). Dunno whether this is the point where I should bring up Automatic Page Ranking… considering the amount of unresolved topics already on this page. — 6x9 (Talk) 16:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
'related artist name' & 'relationship type'. So formalize the relationship types. Fellow band member (former or current) is one type of relationship, Another is Collab.... ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 16:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
So we could leave the current unnamed parameters as they are and add a few more sets, e.g.
  • m1, m2 etc. – "ARTIST was/is a member of Band"
  • c1, c2 etc. – "ARTIST collaborated on Collaboration"
  • t1, t2 etc. – "freestyle" text that is reproduced as-is, for anything that doesn't fit the above (e.g. Wikipedia links)
Is that what you had in mind? — 6x9 (Talk) 17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's take a real life example, on the Pink Floyd page how do we describe the members and their rels, and on the member pages, how do we describe the rels.
  • On Pink Floyd Page: {Band|DG|RW|RW|NM}
  • On DG page {Collaboration|Kate Bush|Jools Holland|Rick Wright}
  • On DG page {Memeber|Pink Floyd|JW}? ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 17:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Kind of giving this topic a nudge. Can we just have it so that the template will just automatically create a bulleted list of whatever is between the pipes. That way descriptions can be added, as well as whatever else might be necessary without having the extra parameters?    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   01:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
That would mean we'd have to edit all pages where it's currently used to restore the internal links. The simplest solution would be to use the template only for "pure" links and add any links with additional text below, like this:
{{RelatedArtists|Artist 1|Artist 2}}
*[[Artist 3]], who went to the school where the sister of the drummer's hairdresser was a teacher.
6×9 (Talk) 03:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Would an extra parameter (default set to link but could set the template to not link) be too much of a hassle? --WillMak050389 04:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Somewhat impractical, as we'd need one per artist, and they'd have to be named parameters, meaning you'd have to count the pipes exactly ("unlink5" for the 5th artist, and so on). We could have two sets of parameters instead – the current ones producing links, and an additional set (of named parameters) just reproducing the text. But there'd really be no advantage either, since "|a1=link and text" is actually more work than "*link and text". — 6×9 (Talk) 04:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I meant one parameter for the whole template. --WillMak050389 04:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
True, that every instance where that template is being used would have to be edited, but it seems like a bot job to me.
I'm primarily bumping this because I noticed NightOwl made at least one edit yesterday replacing the old style (which had explanatory notes) with the new style (which didn't.) I'm sure that this has happened before, as well, causing us to lose information that others have taken the time to research and add. Redxx recently changed the help page which had an example that had explanations to the new template which doesn't.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   11:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes I updated the help page after updating an artist page to include the new RelatedArtists template which is now being used. In so doing I had to remove the bit asking users to provide details as to the involvement of the related artist because of course there is no parameter on new template allowing for this. A simple add text would do but I feel it should be there. I am also wondering whether the wikipedia links with the icon (wpi) could also now be incorporated into the Related Artists template. This was the whole reason I designed the wpi template after all. I would but ask that the fact these are wikipedia links and not internal links is retained.  Яєdxx Actions Words 12:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Describing the relationships to the related artists; Which is more important: that Neil Young was a member of Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, or as well that he was a member from 19xx to 19zz and what was his role? and where is the best place to list this relationship clearly? Is the best place inside the template? Would that not make the template too complicated (the original objection)? On the pages where I used the RA template, there are two types of related artists listed: those that this artist was a member of (bands/collabs: NY relates to CSNY & Crazy Horse), and those that this artist worked with (NY relates to Crosby, Stills). The membership of NY in CSNY (span of years, instrument played, etc.) can be described in the template or it can be described elsewhere. On the G3 page, all listed related Artists were past/current members of G3, is it best to repeat member of, played guitar 20 times in the template? For the sake of simplicity and to accommodate the current RA template, I have avoided trying to describe the relationships fully & completely but they are all artistic relationships. A textual description might look like a short bio: try describing every artistic relationship of Eric Clapton or Bob Dylan , including years active, roles played, in a compact manner! Night Owl 13:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC) PS: a third type of related artist I have used is when there is a parent or sibling or spouse relationship hence Diana Krall/Elvis Costello, Leonard Cohen/Adam Cohen & Bob Dylan/Jakob Dylan, David Wilcox/Simon Wilcox, et al.

Why are you so against the idea of a simple addtext parameter like we now have in the song template Night Owl? As Kiefer said at the beginning of this, ..sometimes adding a note explaining that Musician A was previously in Band B is helpful.  Яєdxx Actions Words 16:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Against? I am all for a better description of the relationships! Night Owl 17:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Nothing simple about it. Song has one addtext parameter… RA would need one per artist. Or, like Will suggested, a single parameter which turns all artists into non-links (which is indeed possible). Either way, any advantage would be lost, since a header + bulleted list would be quicker to type. So I'll ask again: what's wrong with using the template for plain links, and adding any links with additional text in a bulleted list below? — 6×9 (Talk) 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok apologies for misunderstanding you Night Owl (It's been a long day). OK 6 like how's it gonna look? Show me...  Яєdxx Actions Words 17:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Example already provided above. — 6×9 (Talk) 17:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
In view of the possible complications concerning {{RelatedArtists}} ie, inability to incorporate additional text or {{wpi}}, not appearing in TOC in addition to whatever any 'Category RA' may contain would it not be better to stick with '*[[Artist 3]], who went to the school where the sister of the drummer's hairdresser was a teacher' at this time ?  Ñôīέ2çяȳTalk 00:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The purpose of this template isn't really to simplify things (because even with the current links-only version the gain is minimal anyway). But if we ever want to automate page ranking, we'll have to templatise everything (as far as possible) that affects the rank. Here's hoping that Sean's SMW test turns out favourably…6×9 (Talk) 00:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
How about this: JS? there is a template, an entry in TOC, and a description of why those artists were included in RA. One big advantage of the template is that all the artists with tl|RA are grouped together for work by editors, the old style related artists is lost in the sea of +30,000 artist pages. For a worst case scenario see the group members listing on Scorpions. Night Owl 02:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
JS is visually unwieldy and does not easily convey the information that it is supposed to. Certainly an instance where the cure is worse than the disease. As for the Scorpions list, it does what it's meant to. The two Related Artists headers, however, is awful. The note is unneeded. The Related Artist list isn't meant to be comprehensive. Adding a note that the list isn't comprehensive is an unnecessary redundancy.
So, I'm going to reiterate my solution one more time, as it seems to be the most utilitarian. Have the template just automatically create a bulleted list of whatever is between the pipes. Links, templates, etc. are all therefore usable. So notes can return, wpi can return, etc., etc., etc. The only objection was that the current uses of the template would have to all be edited to re-add the brackets around the Artist names, but that is certainly a straightforward botable job.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   02:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
JS was an example in response to your point that "why were these artists included in RA?", it looks awful indeed, the wp links are unnecessary because all those artist have their own lw page and wp link on their page. The Scorpions example was just someone else's edit and their comment, I was trying to convey the fact that huge lists of band members need to be accommodated. There are also cases where the description given for the related artist is just the genre (Techno, trance), I don't think that is what is intended for a RA description. These are edits by the community. What is the information that RA is supposed to convey besides the name of the related artist? whether the related artist is a band member, or a non band member? Night Owl 06:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Where did I ask that? I searched the page and didn't see that quote. Ah well, immaterial. Huge lists of band members need to be accomodated - agreed. Having the description of the Related Artist as just the genre is not good, and probably an instance where the editor believes that the Related Artist list is those artists that have a similar sound to the main artist, as opposed to an artist that has worked closely with the main artist or which included a member of the band at one point. That is certainly not what is intended for an RA description. The information that RA is meant to convey is the name of an artist that has worked closely with the main artist or a member of the artist band, plus a description of the relationship of the RA. (Wow! The guy that led this band went on after they disbanded to form New Rock Band Supreme!?!! I didn't know that!) The Related Artist list should not include past or present band members, as that information should be given and linked to in the Group Members section. That's a Sean thing from waaaaaaaay back.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   18:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
On the very first line of this thread, ^, you said:"I'd like to see {{RelatedArtists}} have the ability to give a reason for the inclusion of an artist on the list." I tried to give reason for why those artists are indicated! Night Owl 18:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
So, that was your way of agreeing with me that a method inside the template is needed because adding that info separately is unwieldy and ugly?    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   19:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the main problem with this entire thread is that different people have different ideas about what RA should do. Is it just a quick way to create a bulleted list of wiki-linked LW artists? Then it is perfect the way it is, and any additional features would actually make it useless (because it would then be just as fast, or even faster, to make a regular list). Or do we want it as a step on the way to automated page ranking? In that case it would indeed have to accomodate all sorts of additional information, and we'd need similar templates for band members and collaborations as well. In that second case we might as well combine them into one ArtistInfo template (like I proposed in a different thread below).
But until that point – what RA is for – is cleared up, this whole discussion seems pretty useless. Like arguing about the colour of the bikeshed when we don't even know whether anyone actually has a bike. — 6×9 (Talk) 22:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm really not understanding the problem with all of this. It was a simple request to make the current template as versatile as the original RA format that Sean and others (myself among them) had created years ago. We had a definition (a format) that was used (it was described in the Help pages), and then when it was decided that it should be templatized for future automation, part of that format was summarily thrown out. Why? I don't know. I'm guessing because it was simpler to code that way.
We could have taken the original format and replaced the first couple of equal signs with a couple of curly brackets, removed the second set of equals signs, added pipes where the *s were and then ended the thing with a couple of closing curly brackets. Done. OR...the template could just have been used to create the header and be a marker that the section existed for automation purposes. Instead of ==Related Artists==, there could just be {{Related Artists}}.
But there's really no reason to define what RA is supposed to be, because it was already defined. No offense if anyone is confused (I don't think they are), but that's their own fault. To vamp off of your analogy, we had a 10 speed bike, and then the spokes were removed. I want the spokes back so it'll roll like it used to. I could care less about the colour of the bikeshed. I'll keep it on the back patio, thank you very much.
Does anyone have a problem with restoring the ability to give a notation as to the reason of inclusion of an Artist on the Related Artists list? If so, let's hear why. Otherwise, let's get this done.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   02:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I must have missed the bit where this template has suddenly become mandatory. Why not just use it as a timesaver where pure links are sufficient, and not use it where they aren't? Or use a combination of old and new format?
And I'm sorry, but we do need to define what the template is for. If it's just a timesaver we can't make it more versatile, because then it wouldn't be a timesaver anymore. If it's for automated pageranking then we do need to make it more versatile. Or am I missing something here? — 6×9 (Talk) 03:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
@Keifer: I had alreday brought up the issue of describing the related artists both ways, from Artist A --> Artist B, and from Artist B -> Artist A. Be it related artist by way of collaboration, memebership in a band etc. I gave the example of G3 where 20+ artists are listed who are past & present members of the band, I gave the example of Scorpions which has a similar situation with many band memebers listed. I pointed out that there is no place on lw where a template is included in TOC. I have tried to bring to your attention the worst case scenarios that need to be addressed. And you have labeled an example, as my personal preference! The progression of tl|RA has been the same as the progression of tl|Genres and tl|Labels, neither of them shows in TOC, nor does AF. What else would you like me to address, short of creating a new template, whose purpose nobody wants to define, and eventually will be labeled my personal preference anyway? The folks who are using RA are not here raving about it, and the folks who don't care about tl|Labels are not here requesting it's banishment from lw either. From the title of this thread, it appears that a template is accepted as a solution, Correct? the old format of indicating a Related Artist was not a template, just like the current method of indicating related releases is not a template. Night Owl 05:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Night Owl, you (like your predecessor) are very unclear when you present things in these discussions. You don't explain yourself properly and clearly, and usually take these discussions to places that do not have to do with the nature of the original posting. As such, it is hard to decipher your meaning or intent and therefore reply properly. Those examples you gave really didn't address what my request was about - that the template be updated for more functionality. It wasn't a "show me what wrong/weird with Related Artist lists that have been created" posting. Others not following the site's official format as discussed and shown in the Help pages is not applicable to this discussion. Neither is the question of RA, Genres, Labels, etc. in the TOC. The thing that I stated as being your personal preference had to do with your wanting to create two pages for the same recording so that API wouldn't be broken on Neil Young's page, compilation page, and similar rare instances on the site, which was against site policy, but which you were saying was another editor's personal preference to do it the way that goes with site policy. Also not relevant to this topic. I think that this topic could have been concluded days ago without these distractions.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   19:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Bikesheds indeed. After reading the last few posts I now know why these discussions go on and on and why I always agree with Kiefer - he's the only one who talks any sense! Yeah Ok 6, I understand you most of the time including the bikesheds reference, but not in this because like Kiefer, I'm really not understanding the problem with all of this either, because with your templating skills extraordinare, I'm finding it hard to believe that what Kiefer requested at the outset of this discussion presents an impossible task.

For it was a simple request: to make the current template as versatile as the original RA format. For this we need the option to add text to the right hand side of each artist name in bulleted list, and be able to add {{wpi}}, the wikipedia image links, under the same Related Artists heading, for artists that do not have an artist page on LW (although I accept these can simply be added underneath). Like this:

Related Artists
  • [{{canonicalurl:<<Related Artist #1>>}} <<Related Artist #1>>] (<<Connection with this band/artist>>)
  • [{{canonicalurl:<<Related Artist #2>>}} <<Related Artist #2>>] (<<Connection with this band/artist>>)
  • {{wpi|<<Related Artist#3>>}} (<<Connection with this band/artist>>)

I for one was happy with Related Artists as they were. As shown above. Untemplaticized. I have no objection to Related Artists being made into a template (which it seems is necessary sooner or later anyway because of page ranking), but for a template to be successful it needs firstly to accommodate all aspects of the original format, and secondly to improve upon this. If aspects of the original format cannot be accommodated, (such as the option to add text), then clearly such a template will encourage a loss of information and should not be used. If text can’t be added by the side of a link, it won’t be. It really is that simple.

I would also suggest that because of the problems that result, if not all aspects of the original format can be accommodated, maybe the candidate being assessed is not best suited to templatizing. To introduce a (for want of a better phrase) half baked template, as it seems to me now may be the case here, knowing that the template is woefully inadequate (i.e. does not offer the option of adding text by the side of link and will lead to a loss of information, will not suffice for page ranking and will need to be changed, etc.) for templates sake, simply does not make any sense to me at all and I think this is perhaps what has led to some of the confusion and the length of this discussion..

Ok well in an effort to help resolve this issue I'll endeavor to pick up on a point you made and see where we go from here. You said we need to define what we think RA is for. Well it is already defined in the help pages:

Musical groups and individual artists will often have a close connection with other musical groups or artists. Linking to these artists is helpful for users to move easily from artist to artist. Examples of artists that should be listed:

  1. Other bands which members have been in
  2. Band which this band spun out of
  3. Band which spun out of this one
  4. Other artists that have worked or collaborated closely with the artist
  5. Relatives of the artist

And this is what it needs to look like:

Related Artists
  • The WTFs (Guitarist George Helper left this band in 2005 when moving to Helper.)
  • The ZoomQuilts (Former tubaist George Helper, Jr. founded this band after leaving Helper in 2005.)
  • Henrietta Helper Wikipedia16 (Wife of Henry Helper)

As for asking what the new RA template is for. You created it I believe, so you are the best person to know that. But whatever your intentions, I hope I have been able to persuade you that it is likely to lead to a loss of information in its current form. As such I would rather it was not used until this has been sorted out.  Яєdxx Actions Words 13:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

[2] I'd still like an answer to my question. — 6×9 (Talk) 14:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, 6x9, I think we are nearing a common destination. So, here are the answers:
The template should not be used merely as a shortcut. Because if it is, it causes more work to undo it when explanations are desired and added. And as a shortcut, it essentially removes the need for 4 characters per line. Not that impressive of a shortcut.
If it was meant to be optional, then it should not have been used to replace the existing lists, especially those lists that had explanations.
If it wasn't meant to be optional and instead meant to be a replacement for the original system (which the handful of people using it appear to assume was and is its purpose), then it should have included the previous functionality.
Frontway, I guess, would be the one to answer some of these questions of origin and purpose, since he created the template. The weird thing is...I could only find one instance in his history where he actually used it, and then it didn't replace an existing list, but started the list. It appears as if he created this template as a lark or a test, and then others saw it, latched onto it and started using it, despite its shortcomings and despite it not being discussed or authorized for sitewide use. From clicking on a few dozen pages where it is included, it appears as though only a handful or fewer editors are the main forces behind its use.
So, I guess if the template doesn't serve a purpose for future automation of the ranking system, then we should go back to the original method and remove the template from the site so that it doesn't get used by other editors. If it does serve a purpose for future automation of the ranking system, then it should be improved upon. The only question left is does it serve this purpose?    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   19:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Finally! Thank you. Yes, that's what I meant, and why I asked about its purpose. As a timesaver, its benefit is marginal and the proposed edit would remove it (the benefit) entirely. As a step on the way to automated PR, the ArtistInfo template I proposed somewhere below could do a better job, I think (TOC entry, taking care of Band Members as well, etc.).
So can we close this discussion and decide instead whether we want such an ArtistInfo template? In a NEW thread? Pretty please? — 6×9 (Talk) 19:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry dear. I hope my ramblings helped a bit though. Yes NEW thread I'm with that. :-)  Яєdxx Actions Words 00:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
New thread. New start.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Semantic MediaWiki testing

Since I have two servers which are just sitting in my apartment while I wait for additional RAM to arrive (so that they'll be powerful enough to put in the datacenter), I figured that this is probably a good time to at least look at testing SMW. But to do that, I need to make sure that the test is valid because it'll probably be a long time before we have this many testing resources hanging around.

This test is just for the performance aspects, reviewing how we can get SMW to work with LW gracefully is outside of the scope of this test.

So if you're test-oriented, please help me think about the test setup. Here is how I'm planning on setting it up at the moment:

  • SERVER 1: Load a full copy of LyricWiki into a "lyricwiki" database and another full copy into "smw" database. During the installation of SMW, it will do a conversion to the SMW database. Both databases will be running at the same time.
  • SERVER 2: Install MediaWiki in the /wiki directory and Semantic MediaWiki in the /smw directory. They will both be running at the same time. Poke at SMW a bit and send some requests at it to make sure that there are no basic tweaks that can be made before running the tests in order to give it a fair chance of not crashing, etc. (MW wouldn't work on our system without tweaks, so SMW shouldn't be expected to out of the box either).
    1. Take a selection of 1 hour from the actual logs of the current Apache server (will give a realistic view of many pages and which pages will get hit multiple times, etc.). This will be the "Representative Page Set".
    2. Use some semantic tricks on the Song template, then do runJobs.php to update things. Do this before the benchmarking.
    3. -- TEST MEDIAWIKI --
    4. Reboot both severs and check to see that everything is running correctly including memcached.
    5. Set the performanceLogger script to use "test_mediawiki" as the hostname on the Apache server and "test_mediawiki_db" as the hostname on the database server, then run it once to get an initial sampling of the servers at idle.
    6. Run a script which requests all of the pages in the Representative Page Set as fast as possible. Log the total time that this takes (will probably be multiple hours). This script should be run from the squid server for a few reasons: it has extra idle time and doesn't fluctuate usage like achilles (which could tamper with results), it will be the actual server talking to the apache tier anyway, since it is internal it won't have network idiosyncrasies affecting the results.
    7. Let performanceLogger take at least one sampling on both the apache and db boxes.
    9. Since SMW is new and MW has had some time to bake... if there are problems with SMW that can be QUICKLY fixed, it makes sense to quickly fix them and completely restart the SMW test without a penalty.
    10. Reboot both severs and check to see that everything is running correctly including memcached.
    11. Set the performanceLogger script to use "test_smw" as the hostname on the Apache server and "test_smw_db" as the hostname on the database server, then run it once to get an initial sampling of the servers at idle.
    12. Run a script which requests all of the pages in the Representative Page Set as fast as possible. Log the total time that this takes (will probably be multiple hours).
    13. Let performanceLogger take at least one sampling on both the apache and db boxes.
  • INTERPRETING RESULTS: Several factors should be considered in the comparison:
    1. Any crashes or restarts (other than basic tuning when first testing SMW) are really really bad.
    2. Total runtime of pulling the Representative Page Set from each system
    3. The stats from the performanceLogger for both tests (pay attention to average load as well as any spikes).

If anyone can think of anything else that I should pay attention to, anything that I didn't think of that might mess with the results, or anything else that isn't being measured in this list but should be, please let me know!
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 20:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I know it's a bit of a long shot and he's probably too busy, but I've emailed Aqua.  Яєdxx Actions Words 20:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Given that we're testing to see if SMW can handle our load (the biggest it's ever taken on), I would think that you should make copy of our whole database and just add a couple of properties to {{Song}}, since that's the bulk of our pages. Then change it and try to runJobs.php. If that doesn't choke it, then nothing major is wrong! --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 00:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah! Yeah I hadn't even thought about changing the content to actually use SMW, lol. Probably pretty important. I'll try out your recommendations. Thanks Aqua!
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 00:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


…is no longer necessary since the upgrade. You can use [[File:imagename|link=pagename]] instead. (6x9, circa April 2009). Only problem is that the new way doesn't display link text in Firefox so it is inferior to clickpic. Anyone else but me and Notime noticed this? And as clickpic has now been deleted, can something be done to enable link text to show?  Яєdxx Actions Words 22:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sch ff I thought your problem was that it does display the link text, when it should really display the caption? You also seem to have forgotten the bit where clickpic never allowed for a caption in the first place. Not to mention it didn't allow for resizing. Yes, clearly inferior. — 6×9 (Talk) 22:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Although I could've sworn it displayed alternative link text (I even have this included in my original clickpic code) it seems I am wrong. Ok so on the basis that IE6 does display this alt. text I guess I can't say it is inferior.  Яєdxx Actions Words 23:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Bomb ie

Volunteers and Suggestions Wanted

In a previously archived discussion it was brought up that our wiki could benefit greatly from having special projects that folks could help with. I am here to revisit that subject and to get input on what folks see as needing a boost. I'll give a couple suggestions to start things off:

There are many missing official website/myspace entries in the Artist Header. There are missing or incorrect entries in the song/artist and album footers. Lastly, there are many artist pages where the Other Songs list needs to be broken up into albums.

Could we get a few more suggestions and hopefully a few people to step forward to volunteer on whatever is decided upon? Thank you,    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   16:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Surely this can't be true SNLI only has 42 songs in it now (National anthems) ???
I didn't realise I'd been asleep for so long ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 00:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah ok it's building up again.. Яєdxx Actions Words 01:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Open source Windows application uses web service

A desktop application called Music Explorer has been posted on the TheCodeProject web site. Both the source code and executable are freely available. The small C# application (less than 0.5 MB) allows users to search for music information by artist. The results include a complete listing of albums and tracks. When a user selects a specific track, Music Explorer retrieves the lyrics by calling the LyricWiki web service. The lyrics can then be copied to the Windows clipboard, for subsequent use in other programs. A sample screen shot of Music Explorer can be found here. Ted Faison 18:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ted,
You can add your app to the directory on LyricWiki:Plugins to get more exposure.
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 14:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(Pagesize = 90,433)

Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.