FANDOM

2,054,283 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
<< June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 >>


Do you know this woman?

JoJo:Plastic Nancy (1999)?

I'm trying to identify this artist. MusicBrainz seems to be having a similar problem identifying her too. And no she's not the JoJo ;). She may be known in Japan. She may originate from San Fransisco. That's as much as I can come up with.  Яєdxx Actions Words 02:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I want to thank you for calling her "the JoJo" (I love JoJo) as if she is the definitive artist named JoJo. Could be any one of the 25 artists named JoJo at Discogs. But a search of "Plastic Nancy" doesn't seem to reveal any answer.
The whole page JoJo (Other) should be fun for someone to identify. (Starting with one is already a challenge) --WillMak050389 04:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks 6! I have updated info on last fm.  Яєdxx Actions Words 18:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

One sided braces

Just a note, please do not use one sided braces on talk pages (or anywhere else for that matter ;)), e.g. {{tl|

The problem is not immediately apparent (in fact one of our editors has been doing this for months), but I discovered today that it causes a bug when copying and pasting between pages. This is in as far as it prevents all the text in between this: {{ and the next closing brace that exists on the page on which the one sided brace is pasted, from displaying.

I hope that makes sense. I know what I mean anyhow ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 13:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A single opening brace (or any number of closing braces) doesn't hurt, it's double opening braces that cause trouble. If you absolutely have to use them, you can avoid unpleasentness by using their html code (&#123;) instead or by separating them with <nowiki/>. — 6×9 (Talk) 14:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification 6.  Яєdxx Actions Words 15:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate Articles

I just found about these two pages Eden Synthetic Corps and [[Esc]] first I thought one of them is a redirect, but those are two pages which look nearly the same. Any idea about what to do with these? --MetalSnake 12:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a question of deciding which name we should keep.
On album covers both names appear. Musicbrainz has got band/albums listed as ESC. As you might expect, Discogs has got both names (but there are more releases on the ESC page). Allmusic have them as ESC. Wikipedia hasn't got any listing that I could find. iTunes have them as Eden Synthetic Corps. Even the fans can't seem to decide looking at the lastfm shoutbox on the artist's page. So what do you think?  Яєdxx Actions Words 02:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's what I was typing at the same time as Red (only she saved faster, because she doesn't use the preview button):
The official site (and one of the album covers) use both "Eden Synthetic Corps" and "ESC" (not "Esc" though). Discogs and iTunes use the full name, allmusic and MusicBrainz the abbreviation. Gaaah! A classic example of Artists Who Can't Decide What To Call Themselves. My preference would be to use the full name and redirect/move the pages from [[Esc]] (plus create a redirect at [[ESC]])… But since Kiefer still hasn't taken down the warning at the top ↑ I'd better not take action just yet :-) — 6×9 (Talk) 02:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes a classic case of "Artists Who Can't Decide What To Call Themselves". I think it is probably because of the way they stylize their name (full with abbreviation underneath) But yes, I would be inclined to agree with you 6. The only other thought I had was Eden Synthetic Corps (Esc) but I thought better of it.  Яєdxx Actions Words 12:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

All pages have been merged from [[Esc]] to Eden Synthetic Corps. — 6×9 (Talk) 21:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Artists who can't decide what to call themselves..

? And The Mysterians...or Question Mark And The Mysterians..?  Яєdxx Actions Words 10:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries I made an executive decision ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 10:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

next/previous link

I just discovered this site and I think its great, all the other lyrics websites on the internet are terrible. I was wondering though, is there a template or other mechanism for adding "next song on album" links to lyrics pages? Sorry if this isn't a good place to ask... not sure where else to put it. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.28.83.55 (talk), 01:04, 16 July 2009.

Please see {{Footer Nav}}  Яєdxx Actions Words 00:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
great, thanks!
Your welcome.  Яєdxx Actions Words 01:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC) PS: Please sign your posts by placing --~~~~ at the end of your posts. Thanks!

Nena

Moved from Redxx's talk page: Hi Redxx, I'm not quite sure if I'm doing this right (never used a talk page before). Anyway, as you might have seen I was about to do some corrections on Nena's albums. Now that I've noticed you suggested to split the page between the band and the solo years I'd suggest to split between Nena's pop albums and the ones she did and does for children. Her career is based on the band's recordings, and she later worked with all of the band members to greater or lesser extent, and with all those compilations out there made by different record companies you'll never get to know which is more band and which is more solo. I would have separated the children's albums already if only I had found a suitable heading... like "Nena (Children's Songs)" or "Nena (For Children)" - but that all sounds silly to me. So if you could think of anything better... I would do all of this plus continue to correct all the pop-albums. The "Remix '91" of Lass mich dein Pirat sein was made of the original track without her involvement (it's just some new music), so I wouldn't call that a solo effort, btw. I hope I can help you (and LyricWiki) with that, I'd really love to. Sebl 18:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sebl. Yes you did that perfectly ;) LyricWiki (and I) would be glad of your help with sorting Nena out. I never seem to have enough time to do everything I want to do so thank you for volunteering.
Ok firstly I want to just clear something up. You said "The "Remix '91" of Lass mich dein Pirat sein was made of the original track without her involvement (it's just some new music), so I wouldn't call that a solo effort, btw." No, nor would I. That's why I wrote at the top of the page that all releases apart from Nena Die Band, "Greatest Hits" type compilations and the single Lass mich dein Pirat sein (Remix '91) are solo works. I guess you misread that ;)
Ok down to business. This is what I suggest you do first: create a second artist page in the name Nena (The Band). Once Nena (The Band) has been created, simply copy and paste all albums prior to 1988 onto the page, i.e. up to and including Eisbrecher, together with any compilation albums subsequently released that you know relate to the band. Leave all Nena solo releases on the Nena page.
I know you would like to separate the albums Nena made for children but it is LW policy to list all releases in chronological order and I consider this should remain the case here. Whatever the content, they are still Nena solo releases after all.
A {{disambig}} page should then be set up named Nena (disambiguation) and the {{WrongPage}} template added to both artist pages linking to the disambiguation page.
Once you've done that we will have to sort out the links but I feel I've given you enough to be getting on with. Thanks again Sebl! Any problems just leave me another message and I'll get back to you.  Яєdxx Actions Words 23:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Redxx, thanx for your reply. The way I understood your Remix '91-sentence was "[...] all releases (apart from Nena Die Band), "Greatest Hits" type compilations and the single Lass mich dein Pirat sein (Remix '91) are solo works". But now I know what you meant. Thanks for your patience. ;)
I'd still feel really (and I mean really) uncomfortable separating the band because of how Nena is viewed publicly, because of all of those compilations (what to do for example with one that has songs from 1982 to 1992 - leave it on both pages?), because of the "Nena feat. Nena"-album celebrating 20 years of her career (it mainly consists of songs from the band days) and so on. I see that LW policy is to list the work of an artist in chronological order, but in this case - for me - it's not logical. It's just that her pop albums have nothing to do with the children's songs (except for two songs that were singles and appeared on "Alles Gute" and one on the first "Irgendwie, Irgendwo, Irgendwann"-compilation), they can be distinguished easily because they're not mixed up on any compilation- or live-album. I don't know how many people there are who listen to both the pop and the children's stuff. I have the first two children's albums, I wasn't interested in them when they were released, and I can't stand stumbling upon them inbetween all those pop albums on the LW artist page of Nena. But that's just my opinion.
If that wasn't convincing to you and you keep insisting on separating the band I'd do that. But I'd not be happy about it. ;)
Cheers, Sebl 08:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Compilations

  1. OK well this is another good reason for not listing compilations. We do list them yes, but there really isn't much point including them if all the songs are on studio releases already listed on the artist page. All it does is over inflate the page which in turn presents problems to some of our users and increases loading times. And some artists have more compilations out there than they have actual albums, like these guys. That having been said they shouldn't be deleted.
  2. Don't worry about the compilations for now. If it is a band song the link will go to the band's page.

Splitting the Nena solo releases by type

  1. I have considered what you have said, however it seems to me that this is more of a personal preference than a reason to split the releases. We don't differentiate between compilations, live albums or studio releases, they all go in chronological order, and I wouldn't want to set a precedent here to split by type.
  2. Also, by listing releases in chronological order it is easier to follow the artist's recording history and therefore to see exactly what the artist was concentrating their efforts on at any particular point in time. This may be preferable to some than differentiating between the types of releases.

Kiefer, tek, KingNee, Will, 6, Senv...any differing thoughts..Anyone ?  Яєdxx Actions Words 11:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I'm getting more and more confused about all that. I just looked at the pages linked to the artist footer (that you used as evidence for the need to split between band and solo), and I just found two that make that separation - Discogs and MusicBrainz. And on both of them it's just a bloody mess. Why? It's just not possible in any reasonable way. I kept thinking about it the whole morning and couldn't come to any conclusion. Splitting band and solo work feels so artifical - you put up a borderline that gets trampled down by all of those compilations that are out there anyway.
I do know that something has to be changed in order to make the artist page more accessible - which brings me right back to my "personal preference" (as opposed to "reason"). I never said I'd like to list live albums and compilations separately (I hate how it is done here; and if you take a look at what I've already spent days and nights on (JA, Nits, MF, JW), you'll see that this is not my intention in any way), but that is what needs to be done if there's a distinction between band and solo albums. For me the children's stuff is a completely different body of work, and yes, it might be just a personal preference, but so is wanting to see Nena's full recording history in chronological order to see what she was up to at what time. Which is impossible anyway because of all those cheap compilations released by different record labels. I would never want to delete those though, because I'm sure a lot of people do own them, and they should get a chance to find those songs without having to look which album they were released on originally.
Auf Wiedersehn ;o), Sebl 16:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
A couple points…
  1. Compilations by solo artist + band are always a pain, but possible – see Bryan Ferry and Roxy Music for example.
  2. If adding tracklistings for compilations (and/or live albums) makes an artist page too cluttered/messy, you can leave them out and just link to the album pages, like here.
  3. Personally I'd prefer to have all of Nena's releases on one artist page (not only because, like with Neil Young, a user might not always know if a certain album or song was by the solo artist or by the band). If necessary, you can divide them into subsections by using the {{caption}} template.
  4. Chronology or not, I'd also separate the children's stuff into a subsection this way. I don't think the policy really applies here.
(I doubt Red wanted to hear/read any of this, but that's entirely her own fault – she asked for my thoughts! Specifically for differing ones!) — 6×9 (Talk) 18:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you 6, indeed I did. I think I'll move this to Community Portal to ensure the others do see it.  Яєdxx Actions Words 18:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
OK as an interim measure, and because you both seem to think similarly about this (and Nena is after all one of your country's major artists), I have separated the albums and left them on the one page. If any albums are in the wrong sections please move them. I'll leave you to add the exernal links in the artist footer 6, because as you would expect, both musicbrainz and discogs detail Nena solo works and Nena the band separately. Whether the page remains like this or not, can you amend the caption template 6, so that we haven't got two headings per section? Only it does look a little silly, seeing as how they are both exactly the same. Plus, clicking on the "edit" link to the right of the first heading takes you directly to the edit box of the {{Caption}} template. Яєdxx Actions Words 00:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Get a decent browser then. If it can't handle "display none" it isn't worth its money (not even if it's free). — 6×9 (Talk) 01:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you although not for the insults about my browser. Obviously. It looks much better now :-)  Яєdxx Actions Words 01:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, I think it looks better altogether, but still I don't get why the band had to be separated. Now you've got the compilations with band songs recorded live inbetween her solo stuff, then there are those damn children's albums thrown in and at the bottom there are mixed compilations. WHY??? I still think it would be much more convenient to have her pop stuff altogether first and then the children's stuff, no matter how hard two other websites fail in separating the band.
Besides I keep wondering why you changed the title of Die Band back to "Nena Die Band". It looks strange and doesn't make any sense in German. You could name it "Nena - Die Band" or "Nena, die Band", but there's nothing like that on the cover. It's "Nena" (the band's name) and "Die Band" (album title).
P.S. I couldn't get my message through because the spam filter kept crying it found display none (in 6 times 9's text). So I put the colon out in order to make it work. Maybe my browser isn't worth anything as well. ;o)
Sebl 11:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Strictly speaking Nena solo stuff should be on a separate page, so the fact that I've separated them but kept them on the same page you should view IMO as a compromise ;) The band works are listed first because they preceded Nena becoming a solo artist and because here at LyricWiki we sort artist pages chronologically.
I am a bit confused in that you have said "now you've got the compilations with band songs recorded live in between her solo stuff". If any albums are in the wrong section please move them to the correct section, but I can't see that is the case. If a compilation relates clearly to the band, then it can go in the band's section of the page and if any compilations relate solely to Nena's post band work they can go in the Nena solo section (N.B. in chronological order).
I have changed the album "Die Band" from Nena Die Band back to "Die Band" although again I am a bit confused by you saying "Nena Die Band" doesn't make any sense in German. It translates into English as Nena The=Die Band.  Яєdxx Actions Words 14:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Strictly speaking there is no rule that says they should be on separate pages. The trouble with the compilations is that they include band and solo stuff, so they would fit in both sections. My solution would be to rename "Nena Solo Works" to "The Solo Years" or something, then we could list the compilations in the same section (where they also belong chronologically) without implying that they only contain solo stuff.
(Hardly anyone would write "Nena die Band"; you could use "Nena (die Band)" or "Nena: die Band" or the options Sebl mentioned above, but "Nena die Band" just looks weird.) — 6×9 (Talk) 14:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
What we are effectively talking of here is of two separate artists, so I stick by what I said about the separate pages 6 ;P
I did try to establish whether the compilations were "Mixed", "Band" or "Solo" and I don't think I done so bad for being English ;) but like I have said above, if I've made any mistakes, please move to the releavant section. If all compilations include band and solo stuff then they should all be in "Mixed" section. (But I don't think they do. )
Finally, I have changed the heading from "Nena Solo Works" to "Nena - The Solo Years" because I "preferred" it.  Яєdxx Actions Words 15:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Batch move

Can an admin batch move Nίνο (Nino) to Νίνο? I didn't notice the latin "N" :(. Thanks! Titaki 14:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Done6×9 (Talk) 15:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks :D Titaki 15:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(Pagesize = 44,667)

Using NOINCLUDE for track listings of albums on artist pages

I like to request that artist pages should INCLUDE album pages as I did in Ben's Brother, Jasper März and some others. So you don't have duplicated track listings and album/artist pages are in sync. I hope it is possible to add NOINCLUDE-tags to the template so we don't need to add it every time. Misery 13:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm absolutly pro this idea. This would reduce a lot of unneded redundancy, at lot of work which is done twice now (just think about fixing a song title on the artist page, which always needed a fix on the album page too). --MetalSnake
Maybe using ONLYINCLUDE around track listing if templates can not have it. Misery 14:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The idea has come up before. It's a good one, and normally I'd be all for it, but this is the reason why we don't do it (normally the album and its tracks should be visible). — 6×9 (Talk) 15:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is something that has come up several times before and is something we'd all like, I'm sure, but regrettably using templates makes the information invisible to those that retrieve lyrics via API, as indicated by 6 above.  Яєdxx Actions Words 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Is that the only reason? I think the API-Script should be extended to support it.
[18:19:26] <Misery> Sean_Colombo: is it possible to add support to "includes"? If we use onlyinclude in album pages and includes it to artist pages instead of duplicated track listing?
[18:22:59] <@Sean_Colombo> Misery: the code wouldn't be hard ... i think it's a bad idea tho
Misery 11:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I feel I may have forgotten the other reasons why Sean might consider this a "bad idea". So to save me searching old posts, and avoid any misunderstandings, can I ask if Sean elaborated further on this Misery?  Яєdxx Actions Words 11:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it also has/had to do with the extra level of difficulty for editors to edit. When a new editor sees an incorrect listing or item, then they go to edit the page, they see the transclusion note, as opposed to the track listing. They think "What the...?" and then either remove the note and add their own track listing, or just forget about it. It's a fine line between editing accessibility and making sure the track listings on the Artist page match those on the Album page. I have a feeling that if we really wanted to make the two track lists being identical a priority, then the process could be botted.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   18:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
That particular problem could be solved by changing the section edit link into a link to the album page's edit mode… — 6×9 (Talk) 18:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
My thinking that it was a bad idea is basically just what Kiefer said. I'd like to keep this site as friendly as possible to wiki-newbies, and transclusions are probably quite confusing. Making the edit link point to the album page like 6 said is a great way to make it confusing less of the time... but when users click the "edit" link on the top of the page, they'll still see the weird inclusion format. Because of licensing things, I've been looking into ways to change the editor lately... perhaps there is a way to make transclusions in the editor actually show up as links with mouseover text that says "click here to edit [pagename]" or something? I'm currently not sure how to pull this off, but between this and 6's trick, if it could be done it might solve the confusion problem AND the duplicate data problem.
Thoughts?
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 19:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't that be fixed for new user to include a note in the hidden text things saying to edit the track list on the album pages? <!-- Like this? --> - ezekiel000 20:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Would be great if it could be done...  Яєdxx Actions Words 09:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
So what is the conclusion now? :-) Misery 22:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


Clarification needed

Help page: Important: The album on which the song originally appeared should be listed before the artist parameter. Subsequent albums entered after the artist parameter should be listed in chronological order.

I feel that we need to clarify this bit in the help page to indicate whether we mean to include various artists compilations. The reason I say this is because a song's first appearance can often be on a various artists album, particularly these tribute albums. See The Who's "Saturday Night's Alright (For Fighting)" which originally appeared on Two Rooms: Celebrating The Songs Of Elton John & Bernie Taupin (1991).

Also the links in song footer, should they direct to "the album on which the song originally appeared" if this was a various artists compilation album, or to the same version on the artist's own album?  Яєdxx Actions Words 16:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bump  Яєdxx Actions Words 13:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


A request to all editors..

Whether you actively partake in the Page Ranking Scheme or not, if you look at a song page and it looks ok, e.g. the page name is correctly capitalised, the lyrics are between lyrics tags, it has a {{Song}} template at the top and a {{SongFooter}} at the bottom, the "song" and "fLetter" parameters in the SongFooter have been completed, please rank it "Bronze" by changing the star colour from Green to Bronze in the Song template at the top of the page. Even if that's the only thing you do :-)

If you are also able to recognise the language of the song, it would be great if you could also enter this in the "language" parameter of the SongFooter. However this is not a necessary requirement to upgrade the song page to Bronze. Bronze, when applied to song pages, just means the page has been viewed by a human and is basically in good order. (There are different requirements for album and artist's pages though, so I am only talking here of song pages.)

For further information on ranking song pages, see Help:Page ranking/Songs

Many thanks!  Яєdxx Actions Words 02:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What about the lyrics themselves? I'd prefer if song pages were only ranked Bronze if the stuff between the lyric tags is actually the lyrics for that song. (That's why I leave many of the song pages I edit at Green.) After all, Bronze is supposed to mean that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the page, and on a lyrics site, having the lyrics for Song B on the page for Song A is about as wrong as it can get. — 6×9 (Talk) 02:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Mmmm...Correcting the lyrics is a necessary requirement for Silver, not Bronze. Default, fresh off the press pages = Green. Green pages could be a right mess, a bot made mess. Bronze simply confirms the page itself is in good order and not a bot made mess. I think that this is the first and most important thing that needs to be established in ranking a page and this is indeed my understanding of the system. Saying that a page is basically OK sorts the men out from the boys so to speak. Once this has been established it is then time to move deeper into the page, onto stage two - correcting the lyrics - and for that of course you have to actually know the song. I edit lots of songs on a daily basis that I am not familiar with. I'm sure others do too. But I still mark the page Bronze if it meets all the above requirements.
There are currently 7,304 pages that are Bronze, whereas there are 757,505 pages that are still Green. Many Green ranked songs have been viewed by a human who knows that the page is basically OK but I doubt many of these are getting upgraded. With our combined activities that seems to me such a waste and a shame.
We want to improve the ranking of our pages as much as we want to improve the pages themselves, but if we want to achieve this it has to be done as a gradual thing. First things first. Makes a whole lot of sense to me 6 ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 03:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not talking about correcting the lyrics. I'm talking about ensuring that the lyrics on a song page are for that actual song and not another song entirely. Two different things. Correcting the lyrics is only a requirement for Gold. — 6×9 (Talk) 03:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
If that isn't "correcting the lyrics" what is it? It isn't checking the page itself is basically OK. Just agree with me 6, you know I'm always right ;) Яєdxx Actions Words 09:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Correcting the lyrics is things like spellchecking, fixing some misheard or printed-this-way-in-the-booklet-but-sung-differently words, expanding "x2"… If the lyrics are for a different song the page definitely is not "basically OK". — 6×9 (Talk) 11:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
There was the case of this south african artist recently, all of his songs could have been starred bronze, regardless of language (afrikaans vs dutch?) turned out to be a spoof— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.146.66.209 (talk), 16:45, 13 July 2009.
Yes I did some work on that page. But do you recall when this was discussed before, it was decided that we needed a rank that separated the bot created from man made, that we didn't want pages to all remain Green (or whatever colour it was then) forever? That is what I am following here.  Яєdxx Actions Words 16:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
And why do we need such a separation? Because humans can check a few things that bots can't. Not many things though. Whether these lyrics are actually for this song is one of the few. — 6×9 (Talk) 17:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

All wo/man make page receive a defalut bronze den? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.91.86.29 (talk).

For what it's worth I use the stars as an indication of how careful I should be in correcting/updating info. If a song is marked green then I assume no one has really looked at it and I am free to update it as I please. If it is marked bronze or silver, I tend to be much more careful and conservative in my edits. Bottom line I think if a song has received "human love" then it should be bronze Steve 17:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we're all pretty much in the same place. In a perfect world, human interaction would help to ensure that the lyrics match the song, but that really isn't a requirement for bronze status. Bronze essentially means that a person has looked at it and there aren't any glaring errors/omissions/etc. If the lyrics were obviously incorrect, then that would certainly be a glaring error. But remember without a Watcher, the page could at one point hold correct lyrics, be marked as Bronze, and then be edited to hold a bunch of vandalized nonsense. Matzo Virus, anyone?  :-] So, only by having an active Watcher/Certifier is a page ever assured of not having absurdly incorrect lyrics. As such, I think Redxx's call for help is a good one, with the possibility for quite a bit of good with minimal chance for harm.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I never use Bronze-star because it feels strange: "bronze" sounds like an award - and pages that maybe are containing nonsense although human-created are not earning an award-status. Maybe another trivial color like blue is needed to show "this is a human-created page, but no warranties for nothing", whereas "bronze" means "human-checked".
Because I think this is the main problem: "human-created" isn't equal to "checked". So in short:
"Green" and "Blue" to distinguish between "bot-created" and "human-created", "Green/Blue" and "Bronze" to distinguish between "created" and "checked".
Chris 05:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You'll probably be thrilled to hear that about half a year ago this very suggestion has come up (we even have a 15px). Instead it was decided not to make the ranking system more complex by adding an additional colour and instead relax the requirements for Bronze to what they are now. — 6×9 (Talk) 12:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
So there's nothing inbetween "bot-created" and "human-checked"?!? Oooh... "Complex" - ha ha, it would be 6 icons then - not very complex =p I think you should know if you are human or a bot, so the guideline should be really easy; deciding whether now "green" songs would be green or blue is rather easy, too: just look at who's created the page. Bot > green, not a bot > blue. Then look at all "green" songs and look who was the latest editor: if not an bot > blue. Done.
Maybe you noticed me to be pushing for blue-star^^ - Chris 17:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
In view of the above I don't consider this subject really needs any further discussion (agreed 6?), but it seems to me that where the problem lies is that some think like Chris, that upgrading a page is giving the page an "award". It is not. It is an assessment. It is a checklist, a gradual one, culminating in Gold. Gold is the only rank that can be considered to be given an "award", indicated by means of a certificate Ok OK I know it's not for that and it is solely for checking the lyrics, but maybe it should have been though....mmm....
Anyway, thanks for the link 6, it was very helpful. And thanks for your input Kiefer and Steve. And Chris, I thought you might be amused to learn that we quickly realised that blue wasn't suitable as a colour for page ranking. I'll let you figure out why (lol)  Яєdxx Actions Words 20:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Seems like you love letting me figure out something, Red^^. I couldn't find any other reason than "Blue Star" might be protected by "Blue Star Fairies", or because "blue songs" = "sad songs" (this is really the best I could think of, lol). Well, not so important. OK, the topic was discussed and rejected, so I won't bother you anymore^^. Btw, when I was searching for the reason I found a lost cover-art, yibbie x3.
Is it really that easy to give away {{Cert}}? oO Listen and read - ok, well I think I could certify about, umm, 50 songs then. xD - Chris 00:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Just a little threat: Will soon come up with a little "surprise", maybe it's useful^^
Chris, regarding the colour blue and why it would never be suitable for page ranking the answer is on this page >> look at the second dead link. That's why (lol)
Suprise eh? I'm intrigued.  Яєdxx Actions Words 02:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I exactly understood nothing of what was written there^^ "Blue Films"? Maths? Either this English was out of my league, or so colloquial that it's too hard to understand for me. But it's not important anyway. Thank you for trying, though xD - Chris 04:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
"Blaue Filme" sind pornografische Filme  Яєdxx Actions Words 04:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Oooooh... ok *rofl*. Edith wants to leave you a message: He's about to infest your talkpage again, Red. Be warned!^^ There's so much he wants to ask you, he almost deserves his own subpage on your talkpage. - Edith - Chris 04:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the warning Edith, but it's Ok. Answering Chris's posts beats doing a crossword in my tea-break Coffee  Яєdxx Actions Words 11:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

New interpretations of very old songs

I know about the templates cover and cover2 to show that a song is actually just a re-interpretation of a song from another band, but what's when there is no real original version of it? Like with Die Moorsoldaten (Peat Bog Soldiers) for now I did a wikipedia template for that one (Welle:Erdball:Die Moorsoldaten and Helium Vola:Moorsoldaten) and for some other stuff that have no wikipedia entry I did a note (for example: Qntal:Un Vers De Dreyt Nien) What do you think is the best way to handle these? --MetalSnake 00:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the way you handled it (a note, and a wikipedia link where possible) is the best solution. At least I can't think of a better one. — 6×9 (Talk) 00:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
See also Helium Vola:Moorsoldaten (that's what I do anyway). I got the credits info from Wikipedia. With regards to the "original artists", the original artists were the prisoners of course, so that's as much as we can say.  Яєdxx Actions Words 01:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Discogs albums (master and release)

I just wanted to add discogs information to Einstürzende Neubauten:Grundstück (2005) but I can only enter either the id for release or for master, and one of the links would be wrong then. Master and release are found here.Or did I get it wrong? --MetalSnake 22:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

After Discogs introduced their master pages (not too long ago) we adjusted {{AlbumFooter}} – now you have to enter "master/ID" or "release/ID" instead of just the ID. (If you use just the ID, the template will complain.) Not ideal, but the best solution we could come up with. If a master page exists, it's usually preferable to link to this. — 6×9 (Talk) 23:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Album & -Footer templates updated

Following this discussion, I just now added a "float" parameter to {{Album}} that allows floating items like {{Album Art}} to be added directly below, without pushing the tracklist down (example). While I was at it, I also finally made the "artist" and "album" parameters in the Footer optional (though "artist" is still necessary for split releases). — 6×9 (Talk) 13:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 6 but in your example both look exactly the same to me..I guess the difference is very subtle huh? Nice one about the footer! Keep up the good work!  Яєdxx Actions Words 14:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
On my screen, the tracklist in the upper example starts at the same level as the Album Art template, in the lower example it starts where it should. Hardly what you'd call subtle. — 6×9 (Talk) 15:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
File:Before and after.jpg See? The same...  Яєdxx Actions Words 15:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Only the before, because the after looks the same as in your screenshot. See? Not the same… — 6×9 (Talk) 00:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Bee dee bee dee bee........ SandBot 19:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I still don't get this 6.. I haven't seen a page like the screenshot you uploaded for ages now.  Яєdxx Actions Words 01:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Songs on Albums from different Artists

I just found that the song Ultravox:Dancing With Tears In My Eyes was apparently also released on a split album called Midge Ure:If I Was - The Very Best Of Midge Ure & Ultravox (1993) how should those be handled? --MetalSnake 22:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have updated song page MetalSnake. Have a look now.  Яєdxx Actions Words 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A new template!

{{Album List}} – the documentation pretty much explains what it does. The nice thing about it is that there's only one master list per artist, so only one page has to be updated whenever a new album is added. — 6×9 (Talk) 10:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff 6! I haven't used it yet but I will. :-)  Яєdxx Actions Words 01:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Artists with two iTunes ids

I just found that Wumpscut has two ids at iTunes here and here what should be done here? --MetalSnake 19:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd use the first one, because it says ":Wumpscut:" which is the correct title. - Chris 20:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You can link to both – put one in ArtistFooter (preferably the first one, as Chris suggested) and use {{iTunes/Artist}} for the other, like {{iTunes/Artist|50234008|Wumpscut}}.The preceding unsigned comment was added by 6 times 9 22:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC) PS: Please sign your posts by placing ~~~~ at the end of your posts. ;)
I'm sure you enjoyed that a lot. — 6×9 (Talk) 11:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Devil2  Яєdxx Actions Words 21:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

License migration

We're going to be transitioning to CC-BY-SA license today to keep us compatible with the rest of the wiki community. I have a very small announcement on LyricWiki_talk:General_disclaimer but will be changing LyricWiki:General_disclaimer to reflect the new licensing.
Unfortunately, it's a bit of a rush so we have to get this done tonight in order to make sure our content stays compatible (so that we can use content from other wikis and contribute back to them). Some more info from another site that transitioned early can be found at Appropedia. More details on the technical stuff can be found here.
If you have an questions or comments, please add them to the thread here: LyricWiki_talk:General_disclaimer
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 23:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.