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
<< 2013 2014 2015 >>

LW lyrics no longer displayed in Songbird / Nightingale

Hey everyone,

Since a couple of weeks, I can no longer see the lyricwiki lyrics in Nightingale ( and in Songbird ( I can still see the lyrics of other lyrics sites. Before, I couldn't see the Gracenote songs and the instrumentals but I could see all the other LW lyrics.

Does anyone else have this problem? Could this perhaps have some something to do with the upcoming merge between Gracenote and other pages?

Cheers, --MarjonW (talk) 06:51, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

I can't think of a way that the merge would affect a third-party app (but it could). Have you asked the devs of Nightingale/Songbird to look into it?
-Sean Colombo (talk) 21:40, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
No - thought I'd ask here first. Will run some tests in the weekend first - I tested this a while back already.
Is there an overview on the wiki of all music players/lyric plugins that Lyricwiki lyrics can be displayed or retrieved with? If not, I think such an overview could be handy.
I think I came across list of music players or API list or something a while back, but cannot find it anymore.
Cheers, --MarjonW (talk) 07:55, February 26, 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't just me: Bob Maple reported this 3 months ago on I went from Nightingale 1.12 + Mlyrics 1.3.4 to Nightingale 1.12.1 + Mlyrics 1.3.5 and all is well again.
Apparently, LyricWiki changed the html structure.
Cheers, --MarjonW (talk) 18:50, February 26, 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for an upgrade for Template:Youtube embed

Hello everybody! I've been working in a code that adds some new functions to the template Youtube embed, one of them is the possibility of place more than one video in any page. I made it thinking in the problem that many official videoclips haven't got the complete version of the lyrics, confusing when choosing a video for a song or verifying the lyrics. This new version not only allows space for a second video, but it labels each one automatically.

Let me explain how it works:

  1. Once a video code is placed, the template looks exactly than 'Youtube embed' like now. But when you place an second code, this second video is displayed and each video is labelled — the first is labelled as "Lyric video" 'the video corresponding to the shown version of the lyrics', the second is labelled as "Official video" 'the official videoclip'.
  2. A third video can be placed, but it hasn't got automatic label.
  3. Labels can be rewritten, using title or title1 for the first one, title2 for the second, title3 for the third.
  4. Using inverse=yes the second video is shown above the first one. This function is thought to be used with title parameters unused, showing first the "Official video" and later "Lyrics video". This function is demonstrative only, enabled for viewing and choosing how looks better.
  5. It keeps all the original functions: categorizing when there is no code written or is invalid. Note than 1= defines the "youtube" variable even if using inverse=yes.

Some new ideas for changing style include the title background, the order of the videos, placing a link in "Official video" title for corresponding lyrics, etc. Well, you can try this template here in one of my test zones where is all ready and you've got all the resources to start testing there, included a more detailed documentation about the usage. Later, please tell me if you liked it, if you want to change whatever or if exist any error, and I'll go for it quickly as I can.

Helpfully, Remiaw (talk) 21:11, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the advantage of allowing 3 videos in one template would be, when you can as easily use 2 or 3 youtube embed templates instead? The title parameter is a good idea though; and I should probably fix the yt embed template so the second transclusion won't overwrite the id variable of the first… — 6×9 (Talk) 17:47, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
This is the case — titles are for labeling videos, that's right, it's for distinguish each one of the videos. This is something that one can't do with using "Youtube embed" tho or three times. And then is the case of the overwriting of the youtube value useful for the "Song Footer" template. I made this template counting with this — only the first video will establish the youtube value. Note that the first video is for the full version of the song, all this makes this new version compatible with the actual one, and then the value in "Song Footer" doesn't change or overwrites. All this with a third purpose — the mentioned value will be always for the full version. I can change any of all this functions, just only tell me what you wanna change. So try it safely, I tried it first and I guarantee you that it is failsafe. Also, I repeat, in the testcase I left all ready, included a <lyrics> tag and a Song Footer template, so everyone can test it. Likewise, thanks for leaving your reply! Remiaw (talk) 19:44, February 25, 2014 (UTC).
Nice work!
It would also be nice to be able to embed a youtube video with extra parameters start time and end time. These additional parameters have already been added by 6x9 for the youtube link - and added to the yt embed template for future use, it does not work yet.
There are concert videos on YouTube with multiple songs in it f.e., and it would be nice to be able to embed exactly the one song from start to finish. Here is an earlier discussion about this with more technical info. Cheers, --MarjonW (talk) 08:15, February 26, 2014 (UTC)
Good idea, Marjon! So good idea that I'm working on it. For now I only know how to link to an established beginning time, but not for an finishing time. I'm making some codes and I'm trying them in my Testcase No. 4 (you can also go there and try) but for now they aren't working. Thanks for the initiative! Remiaw (talk) 23:18, February 26, 2014 (UTC).
That sounds great! Will keep an eye on your project page :) --MarjonW (talk) 07:32, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

Visual changes

Howdy! Wikia's going to be updating the skin and doing some other visual tweaks. It appears that the new wordmark will say "LyricsWikia" since they're trying to get all of the sites consistent about being called "wikias" instead of "wikis" (since we had both forever and it was confusing).

In addition, they've been working on a new version of the mobile app for quite a while. It is going to have a different name than the site but will be skinned to match the site.

W-LyricaWikia mock R4 v2
Click the thumbnail to see approximately what it should look like. The content team is going to hop on and try to make the changes as best they can, but they may need some help since our homepage has some advanced templates (for multiple languages, etc.).

Since it's just the main-page and color changes, this shouldn't affect our edits much, but it's good to be aware of ahead of time :)
-Sean Colombo (talk) 00:50, April 15, 2014 (UTC)

Not really favoring the new layout - while the new logo is pretty good, purple isn't really my color and I don't like the new color scheme at all. While blue looked nice, purple is a color that I know is going to drive me crazy after having to put up with it, not to mention it makes this site feel awfully feminine... This isn't just the ol' "haven't gotten used to it yet, so it's bad" syndrome, I actually genuinely believe that I'm going to grow to dislike the layout over time.
Also, what's with the new "Featured Lyrics" section on the Main Page, and why has it replaced LyricWiki:Top 100? I don't see a reason to get rid of the Top 100 list: it allows users to easily find popular songs and it's also beneficial for me when I spot-check it every day for red links. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)19:52, April 25, 2014 (UTC)
The purple is just fine with me, but then, I went to a university that uses purple as its primary color, and I currently get my paycheck from a company that uses purple as its primary color. The pattern in the sidebars does seem to be a little much, though, with those slanted lines (yes, I do see how they mirror the italics of the "LyricWikia" logo). How about just a plain color?
I do agree that the "Top 100" should be on the main page, since the lyrics for popular songs are probably what most people who come through the "front door" are looking for.
What do the Wikia trademark lawyers say about the concept of "a wikia" (lower-cased)? I always thought this was properly "a Wikia brand wiki."
Are we going to change all textual "LyricWiki" references (such as the namespace for this very page) to LyricWikia? Trainman (talk) 03:13, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
I think the purple looks alright too, however I'm not a big fan of the grey being used behind the lyrics now, especially as it doesn't match the badges, CreditBox, etc.. Maybe the sidebar background would look better if it was fixed, rather than scrolling with the page?
I also agree that the Featured Lyrics should be replaced with the iTunes Top 100, but perhaps the Song of the Day could be expanded with a few lyrics and be considered like a Featured Lyrics section? - OneTwoThreeFall talk 04:28, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
The purple is fine with me (though it kinda clashes with the orange). Not sure whether replacing the lyricbox's colour with grey was necessary though. It kinda was part of LW's identity… At the least, I'd suggest switching to a lighter grey (more "neutral", if any grey tone can be more neutral than another):
@Nic, 123F: The "Featured Lyrics" section is kinda redundant when we already have SotD, isn't it? Also wonder who was going to update it… I like the idea of spicing up SotD with a couple lyrics. Maybe embed the video instead of just linking to it, and moving it to the center and the Top 100 to the right?
@Trainman: We'll probably have to update the LW references. In text, it's best to use the SITENAME magic word, which has already been updated to LyricWiki. Some templates and help pages use it already. No idea if/when the namespace will be changed though, and whether links using the old name would keep working. The browser title bar also still says "Lyric Wiki". — 6×9 (Talk) 17:01, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
Something similar to this or this maybe? That slightly lighter grey does look better to me, too. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 11:40, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
Hm, tbh I'm not too pleased with purple being "our" colour. Purple is a horrible colour to find matching colours to (unless you're aiming for a "girly" look). The only possible option is grayscale, resulting in a very cold and also dreary colour scheme. So much for my web designer opinion.
I liked "LyricWiki" a lot more than "LyricWikia", but I understand that Wikia wants credit for hosting the world's largest non-Wikimedia-driven MediaWiki (N.B.: the largest is actually, but it's not a wiki in how most people use that term. It's a dictionary utilizing the MediaWiki software. It's for all words of all languages, so it is of course extremely large, but has nearly no content on each page, and was solely created by bot scripts and/or the admin). - Chris 17:49, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
@6: I wholly agree with you here - I think we should get rid of Featured Lyrics, put Top 100 back, and think of a way to put some sort of "featured lyrics" option for the Song of the Day. I swear, why the Community staff thought it was a good idea to replace the top 100 is beyond me... Anyways, does anyone else second this? Featured Lyrics I already know is going to pose problems such as keeping that updated, and Lord only knows how that will go after previous failed attempts at updated facets of the main page (Album of the Week, Artist of the Month, etc.)
@Chris: Yeah, I was saying the exact same thing - purple makes this site look like its primary demographic is females, which is definitely not the case (again, terrible decision made by the staff). I've learned in web design classes that color scheme is vital in attracting the right target audience that you want - and if a male comes to a site filled with purple everywhere, chances are he'll be turned off by it and leave. However, it seems like the buttons and whatnot have been switched back to blue, so I guess the staff came to their senses there - so I can at least live with that if I'm just dealing with a purple background. As for the gray lyrics background, I'm pretty neutral on that, but as said earlier, it doesn't really complement the yellow/orange color of CreditBox, WP-Song, and similar templates. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)22:12, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
@Nic: I think we should update the templates to use CSS classes instead of direct formatting anyway, so we can change the things like size and colour of them all at once. - Chris 22:29, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
You mean the CreditBox/WP-Song/etc. song badges? Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)22:39, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
Just letting all of you know that I took the liberty of removing the Featured Lyrics section from the main page and replaced it with the top 100. Sorry to do so without prior notice, but several of us agreed that the top 100 is much more beneficial than "featured lyrics", which will never get updated anyway and isn't exactly a useful addition to the main page.
However, I do want to adopt something along the lines of what 6 suggested - implement some kind of "featured lyrics" section for each Song of the Day. If it's possible, it would be nice to have some sort of automated system where it'll display 10% of the lyrics followed by a "see more" button, which would link to the song page. Kinda like what Gracenote does, albeit without the see more button, but similar as it displays 10% of the lyrics followed by the Gracenote disclaimer. Thoughts? XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)01:56, May 1, 2014 (UTC)
10% is what the REST-API returns, but I think this is not enough (Demo: Deadmau5:Professional Griefers; even though this is a full lyrics song, 10% are only 5 lines). I don't know if an simple automation is possible here. - Chris 09:35, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
Well, if that's not an option, how are we going to implement featured lyrics for songs of the day? It certainly can't be updated by a human on a daily basis... As much as I love this idea, maybe it's best if this idea was just scrapped for now unless we find a better way to achieve this. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)02:47, May 10, 2014 (UTC)
OR we can say "well, 10% is better than nothing" and go for it but keep in mind we need to put some additional focus on it. I think if it was possible to write code to get 10%, it should be fairly easy to copy that code and use it for a magic word such as "{{#Preview:PAGENAME}}" that returns any part we want to. With some code tweaking it could surely be trained to only return full lines instead of cropping one in the middle. Since we're only going to use it on our side, copyright is not an issue here. We can make any limitations like "Print 30%, but at least 2 lines and not more than 12 lines, and never more than 50%. That would give a nice distribution as seen on the right.
Chris 23:14, May 10, 2014 (UTC)
Lines Chunk Lines Chunk Lines Chunk Lines Chunk
1 1 11 4 21 7 31 10
2 1 12 4 22 7 32 10
3 2 13 4 23 7 33 10
4 2 14 5 24 8 34 11
5 2 15 5 25 8 35 11
6 2 16 5 26 8 36 11
7 3 17 6 27 9 37 12
8 3 18 6 28 9 38 12
9 3 19 6 29 9 39 12
10 3 20 6 30 9 40 12

To be honest, I didn't like the new purple design in the beginning, but got used to it pretty fast. Your idea of displaying lyrics along the Song of the day is really good, please push this for automation. For now one could add a form, so when a user nominates a song he can paste his favorite line to display.

Please add a link to the archive of user blogs on the front page! The heading "User Blogs" could be a link for example. I can't find _anywhere_ in the wiki a link to the archives. BTW: Not sure if it is just my Firefox browser, but the "Create blog post" button is cropped, "post" isn't readable. --Fassbrause (talk) 16:41, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

@Fassbrause: That's just you - the button appears fine for me. Wink
@Chris - I'm not sure if you're even keeping up with this at the moment or if you're off on another wiki sabbatical - but if you do get a chance, I really would like to see featured lyrics implemented for SOTDs using your system, so I'm +1 for that.
Also, I know I'm beating a dead horse by bringing up the new visual changes last month again - seeing as how the terrible parts of it have been reverted - but I just want to comment that I really was not pleased at the time. Like, the changes were one thing - but changing major aspects of the wiki without prior admin discussion? I find it rather unfair that the wiki staff just automatically chose what our color scheme and main page should look like without consulting us first - and that's still something I don't understand and was frustrated about. It just assumes that the wiki staff have endless power over every wiki and don't need to consult its community before making changes. I feel like I'm really the only admin here that felt vehement about it and I'm sorry if it's a bad time to bring this up again, but it's been on my mind for a while. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)00:29, June 5, 2014 (UTC)

Lots to do at LyricWiki:GNLF

Howdy :) The bots for the LF/GN merge finished a while ago, but unfortunately there are a bunch of pages that we couldn't automatically figure out what to do with.

These LyricFind and Gracenote pages are mostly redundant garbage which not only gives us more work to do for everything-automated, but also results in penalizing us on Google on and off (Google penalizes for duplicate content... we try to tell it to ignore those namespaces when they have corresponding main-namespace pages, but it's not as good as if any duplicate pages weren't there at all).

Once we've cleaned up all of those pages (lots of deletions, lots of renaming, a bit of merging) then we'll be able to completely nuke those namespaces! :)

If you have some spare time, head on over to LyricWiki:GNLF and help out with the categories listed at the bottom. There's no shortage of cannon-fodder, and it'll do great things to help clean up the site!

There's also a table on the bottom to help track our progress. Thanks for any help you can give!
-Sean Colombo (talk) 00:16, June 2, 2014 (UTC)

Howdy! I've cleaned up a bunch of rubbish myself, and it looks like no points are rewarded for that, correct? Edits on a LF or GN page are not counted it seems, and removing the merger suggestions from the song page is not generating points either, correct? I think points may help. And would it be possible to put some instructions at the top of page LyricWiki:GNLF? Since a lot of song pages now link to this page and I think most people do not know what to do when they stumble upon such a merger suggestion. And would it still be possible to automate some stuff, I think a LF merger into a bronze page can always be discarded. Cheers, --MarjonW (talk) 06:25, June 2, 2014 (UTC)
Hi MarjonW! :) When you say 'points' are you just referring to your Edit Count, or are you talking about other credit towards those Badges?
Fortunately, you shouldn't need to edit GN/LF pages (and if you do it would be very temporary as part of the merge) since the goal is to get rid of those pages completely.
You asked if deleting the {{mergefrom}} templates at the top of destination pages would generate points... that should definitely count towards everything I'm aware of that could be called points (edit count, badge progress, etc.).
I'll add some instructions to the top of LyricWiki:GNLF... thanks for the help!
-Sean Colombo (talk) 13:14, June 2, 2014 (UTC)
Updated LyricWiki:GNLF with quick instructions on how to help :)
-Sean Colombo (talk) 13:41, June 2, 2014 (UTC)
Hello Sean! :) Yeah I meant credit towards Badges :) It's an unrewarding and annoying job to put a redirect in the GN/LF page and remove the merger suggestion from the song page and copy all the credits into the song page, I did clean up the majority of Dutch pages and I must say I had my fill! So I thought badges might help to get people to do this! Thx for user instructions! Cheers, --MarjonW (talk) 14:31, June 2, 2014 (UTC)
Ow ow ow! This looks a bit more like stuff that I love. Tons of work with all the same target. I need to get into this Wiki again. I haven't been able to spend so much time for this, so I've got no clue what is going on. Are we abandoning the "Official version" namespaces aka. Gracenote and LyricFind? Can we finally edit and delete those? If so, please tell me. I can't wait to fix things like this; they are horrible! - Chris 18:02, June 29, 2014 (UTC)
Short version (for long version, check LW:GNLF talk, as well as Sean's talk page): Yes, they're freely editable now and will eventually go away completely (or so Sean claimed). Don't delete LF pages though; UserBot is still active (apparently because nobody knows about it) and will add them back. It's even immune to blocks… Better to just redirect them until that's taken care of. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:02, June 29, 2014 (UTC)
Wat?? Userbot is still around? Gah. :( Can you point me to a changeset so I can re-open the bug report?
And yeah, those namespaces are going away as soon as we can get rid of the pages. It looks like it's a little slow-going (LyricWiki:GNLF) but hopefully it'll go faster if UserBot is really screwing us & we can get it killed. Death to UserBot.
-Sean Colombo (talk) 22:02, July 1, 2014 (UTC)
Funny thing about UserBot is, while the frontend keeps saying he's not registered as such, to the API it looks just like any other user – you can look at its contribs (seems like it's running weekly, around Tue/Wed) and even block it (which I did a while ago… didn't prevent it from running though). — 6×9 (Talk) 07:44, July 2, 2014 (UTC)
Well, at least it works via API! I'll try to get that guy nuked.
Also, with the size of this merge (and from what I've seen doing the manual merges) for Bronze LyricWiki pages, I think we should auto-merge those too. I could have a bot go and clean those up (once UserBot is dead) and I think that'll make the project a lot more tractable. Let me know if that sounds silly or something.
-Sean Colombo (talk) 15:13, July 3, 2014 (UTC)
Let's leave that as a last resort for now – Senv & I are currently working on thinning out the ranks, trying to get the numbers down as much as non-humanly possible. Problem with Bronze is that checking the lyrics was never a requirement – they might be all lowercase, without linebreaks, with terrible spelling, or for a completely different song… — 6×9 (Talk) 17:26, July 3, 2014 (UTC)
Just FYI – UserBot is back again, with several thousand page edits/creations since 2014-07-08T05:00:26Z. — 6×9 (Talk) 15:03, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
Btw: I'm back hunting this little jerk-script! Thanks for the help debugging it. That's cool that we can identify it through API if nothing else. Here's my plan at the moment:
  1. I think the guy who wrote this isn't at Wikia, but I sent a message to the guy who helped him merge many of the changes, so he might have some insight (he's in CET so I will probably hear something tomorrow).
  2. I found a cronjob that looks very suspicious. Most likely I've found it.
  3. If neither of the above work, our last-ditch effort could be to add some code to deny all page-creation in the LF and GN namespaces.
Hopefully once this thing is gone, we can finally make some progress. It seems like even with all your hard work, the damn bot is making pages faster than we've deleted them.
-Sean Colombo (talk) 17:53, July 16, 2014 (UTC)
Yup, pretty sure I found it! Time to get my pale horse... -Sean Colombo (talk) 18:22, July 16, 2014 (UTC)
Congrats on your little one! And good job smiting UserBot – let's hope it stays dead. We'll see next Tuesday whether it comes back as a zombie. — 6×9 (Talk) 17:09, July 17, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! :D So happy about our little girl!
It does look like UserBot stayed dead this time: no updates since the 16th >-) muhahaha
-Sean Colombo (talk) 18:35, July 25, 2014 (UTC)
Congrats on both accomplishments :) Why is the number on still going up? Every time I press the refresh button, the number is higher..? What is doing, 6 x 9? Cheers --MarjonW (talk) 09:18, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
I've put a short explanation on its userpage, hope that clears things up a bit. (It's slow going, just about to finish the B's in LF...) There are still lots of pages without merge or move, either because ÜberBot didn't get round to them or because they were created by UserBot after ÜB's run. — 6×9 (Talk) 09:51, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation :) I was worried it might be redoing stuff that was already done before, since Sean stated "The bots for the LF/GN merge finished a while ago". Cheers, --MarjonW (talk) 11:13, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
Well, 6x9 has put 00101010 on the case, so a bunch of UserBot stuff is being swept up finally. Sadly, we're still actually losing ground (ie: the number of pages to be merged has gone up in the last couple of days).
There is work to be done after the merge (deleting the namespaces & a bunch of old code) so Wikia is getting a bit discouraged by the fact that we're not really trending in the right direction yet. Tbh: I'm also excited to get that garbo off of the site.
Since LF lyrics are so consistently horrible, and we're not gaining much ground yet, perhaps now it's worth trying the auto-merge for Bronze pages? They'll still remain Bronze after-the-fact so someone will at some point have to verify the lyrics anyway, but this would let us move on with the cleanup of all of the other GN/LF cruft that we can't do while those namespaces still exist. Sound reasonable?
-Sean Colombo (talk) 01:25, August 1, 2014 (UTC)
Biggest problem is the number of LFGN pages without ns0 counterparts (or where my script is too stupid to find them); that's about 50%. Of the other half, around 2/3 get deleted, and the rest merge-req'ed. So that's about 1/6, only part of which is Bronze… I've added Bronze to deletion reasons anyway, because even 1/20 of ~800,000 is waaaaay too much to do by hand.
The largest problem will be to check how many of the other half are valid, and where to move them. Senv is a lot better equipped to do that, with his experience in checking external sources. — 6×9 (Talk) 15:40, August 1, 2014 (UTC)
R.E.S.P.E.C.T. for 00101010!
Just out of interest: what is the logic you use? F.e. do you ignore "The" at the beginning of song and title in your comparisons, or " (live)", "!" or "?" at the end of the song?
Some other suggestions based on the manual stuff I did: using a table with common spelling variations (Rock And Roll->Rock & Roll, Rock 'n' Roll), using an extra table with bands and their alternative names (10cc->Graham Gouldman, 10cc->Hotlegs, Eurythmics->Annie Lennox) or make use of the related artists administered on the wiki somehow...
Here's some manual stuff I did earlier
LyricFind:10cc:Heart Full of Soul (Redirected page to Graham Gouldman:Heart Full Of Soul) (top)
LyricFind:The Beatles:Rock & Roll Music (Stereo) ‎ (Redirected page to The Beatles:Rock And Roll Music)
LyricFind:The Beatles:From Me to You Fantasy (Mono Version)(Instrumental) ‎ (Redirected page to The Beatles:From Me To You)
Cheers, --MarjonW (talk) 17:27, August 1, 2014 (UTC)
Awesome... 10,000 in 3 days :) at this rate we could be done in ~5 months which isn't all that bad. Especially since there are still some pages being picked up by UserBot in that time, probably (and those should run out soon). Thanks for adding Bronze songs, 6x9! It's a bummer that they're such a small portion. It's looking promising!
Let me know if there's anything (other than the manual merging) that would be helpful for me to do to keep it going fast.
-Sean Colombo (talk) 18:08, August 2, 2014 (UTC)
Pssst, over there… ←
@Marjon: Script already checked for "(…)" appendices, those actually make for the biggest number of variations by far, probably followed by different capitalisations. It also checks for artist redirects (but not related artists).
I added a few of your other suggestions yesterday (non-letters at start/end of song titles, "The "/"A "/"An " at start), as well as replacing "ing" with "in'" and vice versa; unfortunately this slowed down the script even more. I'll have to do a major rewrite, collect all alternative titles and fetch them at once…
@Sean: Numbers are going down more quickly at the moment because I'm cheating: while redoing LF script I'm running another one on ns0 pages in Category:Articles to be merged, removing red/redirected links and killing dupes/anything linking to an Bronze-or-above page.
The (probably) biggest problem is that we have no artists for many/most of LF pages. Of ~66,000 LF artists, ~41,000 have no ns0 artist page. Of course, many of those are name variations of existing artists (with/without article, A feat. B, maybe some Faithfull Mariannes as well), many probably only have 1 or 2 LF pages, and many should never ever exist, like…
University Of Arizona Pep Band
University Of Chicago's Voices In Your Head
University Of Colorado Buffoons
University Of Delaware Deltones
University Of Iowa Marching Band
University Of Kentucky Pep Band
University Of Louisville Open World All Stars
University Of North Carolina At Chapel Hill's Loreleis
University Of North Florida Jazz Ensemble
University Of North Texas
University Of Northern Colorado Lab Band
University Of Northern Iowa Jazz Band One
University Of Pittsburgh Men's Glee Club
University Of Rochester Midnight Ramblers
University Of Rochester YellowJackets
University Of South Florida Jazz Ensembles
University Of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
University Of Wisconsin-Eau Claire Jazz Ensemble
University Of Wisonsin-Eau Clair's Fifth Element
(Not that I'm saying the universities shouldn't exist, just the artist pages.) — 6×9 (Talk) 08:23, August 3, 2014 (UTC)
Wow, hard at work! Do you also check for 1->One, 2->Two etc? If I think of anything that MIGHT be useful I will just throw it at you OK? You can just ignore me if I think of stuff you already thought of long before me ;) Cheers, --MarjonW (talk) 08:43, August 3, 2014 (UTC)
At this point I'm not sure throwing more possible variations into the mix is going to help all that much… It might find a couple hundred pages more, at the cost of drastically increasing the number of pagenames to check (and therefore runtime). Maybe Senv can help with the wanted/unwanted artists, I'm sure there are lots of candidates for batch deletion, batch move or artist redirects there. — 6×9 (Talk) 08:56, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

YouTube to nuke indie music videos

In a few Days YouTube will reportedly start nuking videos by independent artists unless they sign up to be included in their subscription service. That's sheer extortion if you ask me. In any case, expect lots of broken YouTube embed links in the near future. Perhaps it's time for LW to start supporting other video sites such as Vimeo? — McDutchie (talk) 21:44, June 17, 2014 (UTC)

I think that Wikia does support Vimeo embeds already, so we could get our templates to allow Vimeo instead if this does pan out the way they're saying in that article. It kind of seems too stupid to be true though. We shall see!
-Sean Colombo (talk) 22:07, July 1, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic language selection on main page

Yatalu from Wikia Language Brigade wiki showed me a pretty cool system that we could use to have the home-page customize itself to the user's actual language automatically.

The Wikia site automatically detects a user's local language and customizes the menu bars, etc. to match that... but this system would let us have the main-page do the same thing automatically (and also allow overriding by clicking the flag-links, of course).

The trick is to store the text of the page in MediaWiki messages then transclude them to where the text would have been otherwise. The drawback is that this makes the actual text hard to find for newer users, but for our mainpage, that's already the case since we have the texts spread out on multiple language pages. Therefore, I don't think there's really any overhead for us to switch to that method. Here's an example of how it works:

How's that sound?
-Sean Colombo (talk) 00:18, August 6, 2014 (UTC)

I think it's nice, and the mainpage shouldn't be edited by freshmen anyways. I can try to edit the main page.
Come to think of it, this system would also work on our templates, wouldn't it? That means step by step we could possibly localize the whole page! I feel we should start with the smaller step (mainpage) though. Hihi - Chris 07:55, September 7, 2014 (UTC)

Can we finish LyricWiki:GNLF in ~1 month?

Hey, all! I've been tracking the merge and helping out where needed and I think the end is in sight. It has gotten faster/slower based on people jumping in and taking huge chunks of the merge and sometimes when we run out of big groups of pages that someone figured out how to do easily.

I don't know of anything specific holding the merge back at the moment, so it might be a straightforward slog to the finish. We have ~143,000 pages left. If we do 4080 pages/day, this merge could be done by Thanksgiving! Having no annoying duplicate-ridden namespaces would certainly give me something to be thankful for!

Do you (plural) think it's realistic to be done by November 27th? Bots are taking some of the work. I'll jump in when I get a chance to help push it along, but I think we could do it. It goes pretty fast once you embrace that the source pages are useless most of the time.

This limbo has gone on too long... let's clean this up once and for all!
-Sean Colombo (talk) 21:00, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

More like 175,000 pages – ~122,000 in LF (that's what Special:WantedCategories tells me) and ~53,000 in GN. 00101010 is currently moving all LF lyrics for which an artist page exists into ns0; next step is trying to locate (or create) as many artist pages for the rest (and for the remaining GN) as possible. Got a nice list from Senv a while ago that will be a huge help with that… — 6×9 (Talk) 21:11, October 23, 2014 (UTC)
Coolbeans. It seems to be humming along. Your bot(s) are making good progress. I think we can make this happen.
-Sean Colombo (talk) 21:23, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

We must have run out of easy-wins because we dropped 50k pages in 2 weeks, then we've only moved forward by 3k in the next 2 weeks. We did what we could by Thanksgiving... while we didn't get there, most of the already-limited value from those namespaces is probably merged by now.

The manual part of this merge has been going on since June 1st... it's probably time to wrap it up (upstairs doesn't want this to go on indefinitely). I think the best next steps are probably:

  • Delete all remaining GN/LF pages
  • Go through all LW pages that have a {{mergefrom}}, from a GN or LF page and remove those {{mergefrom}}s.
  • Delete the GN/LF namespaces
  • Delete as much code as possible from the GN/LF namespaces
  • Delete any templates/categories that were related to GN/LF and serve no archival benefit.

I'd like to get started on this in the next day or two. Anyone see something I'm overlooking?
-Sean Colombo (talk) 16:44, November 30, 2014 (UTC)

You can get started on LF, but give me a couple more days for GN – currently moving a bunch of pages to ns0 thanks to another list Senv made for me.
If you need help with the first two tasks, let me know – I've scripts that just need one or two lines changed to handle them. — 6×9 (Talk) 17:05, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
Sounds great. I'll hold off on GN. For the first two items, I'd love to just unleash your bot if you're cool with that.
Thank you!
-Sean Colombo (talk) 17:13, November 30, 2014 (UTC)
Belated update: #1 and #2 finished at the end of last week; #5 is done too (unless I missed some template or category; if I did please let me know!) — 6×9 (Talk) 20:16, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
← outdenting -Sean Colombo (talk) 19:27, January 13, 2015 (UTC)

The merge has been done for a while now & the holiday code-freeze is over... is there any reason not to completely delete the namespaces & remove as much of the related code as possible?
-Sean Colombo (talk) 19:27, January 13, 2015 (UTC)

None that I can think of. I'm sure everyone will be glad when this is finally over and done with. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:48, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
The code-release went out today! :D I'm pretty sure they're nukified! *happy dance*
-Sean Colombo (talk) 00:42, February 5, 2015 (UTC)
LF apparently doesn't want to go quietly: LyricFind LyricFind talk — 6×9 (Talk) 09:13, February 7, 2015 (UTC)

I think any lyrics libraries should include these?

c933103 (talk) 18:25, October 27, 2014 (UTC)

I don't. --Senvaikis (talk) 07:07, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
Hi C933103, welcome to the wiki!
What is your question exactly? If you want to add them, add them.
I suggest you ask Umbreon126for some pointers, because apparenty vocaloid causes all sorts of weird things.
Cheers, --MarjonW (talk) 06:59, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
Is it that I can just copy the format of existing pages for a new page? For example, to create a page for the song "Sing ALl Overtures" sung by Yoshitsugu Matsuoka (Kirito/Kazuto), Haruka Tomatsu (Asuna), Ayana Taketatsu (Suguha/Leafa), Kanae Itō (Yui), Rina Hidaka (Silica), and Ayahi Takagaki (Lisbeth), I just need to go to [{{canonicalurl:キリト (松岡禎丞), アスナ (戸松遥), リーファ (竹達彩奈), ユイ (伊藤かな恵), シリカ (日高里菜), リズベット (高垣彩陽) (Kirito (Yoshitsugu Matsuoka), Asuna (Haruka Tomatsu), Leafa (Ayana Taketatsu), Yui (Kanae Itō), Silica (Rina Hidaka), Lisbeth (Ayahi Takagaki)): Sing All Overtures}} キリト (松岡禎丞), アスナ (戸松遥), リーファ (竹達彩奈), ユイ (伊藤かな恵), シリカ (日高里菜), リズベット (高垣彩陽) (Kirito (Yoshitsugu Matsuoka), Asuna (Haruka Tomatsu), Leafa (Ayana Taketatsu), Yui (Kanae Itō), Silica (Rina Hidaka), Lisbeth (Ayahi Takagaki)): Sing All Overtures] and insert the song template, lyrics, and the songfooter template there? but apparently it is not allowed? c933103 (talk) 12:53, October 30, 2014 (UTC)

Preview problems

Hiyall, thought I'd add this issue here, instead of on Senvaikis' user page.

Since a while, something has changed on the wiki. Most of the discussion is here.

The preview option in songs is not working in songs that have a lyrics tag (no problems on a redirect page). You have to press Leave Page twice now to get out without losing your work.

I also noticed the "Photos" thumbnails in the sidebar of a song page are not displaying properly. I seem to remember this was reported also by someone else somewhere earlier.

And finally, I am an avid user of MLyrics and - again - it is not displaying any Lyricwikia lyrics (see an earlier discussion on this page, "LW lyrics no longer displayed in Songbird / Nightingale"). (Why is no one using this fantastic tool? It does google translate and everything, saves the lyrics in the file, it is the swiss army knife of lyrics display tools! But I am digressing)

This all happened around the same time that those hideously large adverts appeared for the first time.

Hope this will be fixed, cheers, --MarjonW (talk) 07:23, October 28, 2014 (UTC)

Let's hope, - see Seans msg at the bottom of mentioned discussion :), --Senvaikis (talk) 06:39, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Sean, and thank you Senvaikis for the info! :) --MarjonW (talk) 06:53, October 29, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for this info that couldn't be more useful for me. As a new user on LyricWikia, of course I thought the problem was me! I kept posting without being able to preview for a while (I used Chrome). Special thanks to Senvaikis for correcting my edits. I can only promise you that I'll do my best to post properly from now on... although I'm still struggling to find out how to create my own sandbox and how to post messages at different places. *blush* Can you believe that I'm a very active user on many other platforms? :) --Jbfan132 (talk) 13:21, October 30, 2014 (UTC)

I can help with sandbox, you just write proper address, for eg. "" and that's whole philosophy. :) You can add things in your sandbox by "". I hope I've helped. :) Ozpl (talk) 14:29, October 30, 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Ozpl. :) --Jbfan132 (talk) 02:24, October 31, 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for customized badge system

I've been thinking of creating a set of customized badges for the wiki. For example, someone who contributed every day for 365 days could receive an Elvis Presley badge, "The King of Rock and Roll." And someone who made 500 edits to articles could get the Michael Jackson badge - "Thriller." They could even be themed, like a different version of Jackson for each of the different article number milestones. Those are just a couple of ideas. If this sounds like a good idea to people, then let me know. Also, of course, assuming it's okay with the admins, though I've already had one admin's okay. And if anyone has any ideas for badge titles or images, I'd welcome those as well. ProfessorTofty (talk) 01:15, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

Youtube links: what to do with denied links?

Hi all. There is an issue with quite a few Youtube links that have been published so far. Senvaikis found out that some half of them are denied in 1 country or even more. To be more precise: if you'd count out DE (Germany?) it would be just a minor 1 per cent. If more countries deny a link it's most of the times not more than 5 countries.

What to do with this issue? So we've arrived at a time to make a 'decision' on the denied-links. I'd say that DE should not be taken seriously as far as it goes for this subject. My suggestion to you is: let's set a limit to 5 denyals. If a link exceeds that number it shouldn't be published.

Please feel free to put in your opinion on this, guys/girls. -- Markcoutinho (talk) 11:26, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

YT restrictions
For those who aren't regular visitors of my talk page, where this question has been discussed:, - here's a chart, which may be useful for your decision. --Senvaikis (talk) 13:19, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
I completely agree with you: just ignore Germany-denied links. The GEMA Wikipedia16 is just nuts, see the own Wiki article here Wikipedia16 about the problem. I think a limit like 5 denies sounds reasonable. The widget on the right side of the song pages tries to find sources on YouTube or other music sources, even if no video is embedded. So it's not a big deal. I would like it if you both could ensure that there are no dead YT links embedded anywhere :) Thanks for your work!
Greetings, --Fassbrause (talk) 13:47, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
I'll approach from an oblique angle ;)
If the point of ytvids is a means of listening to the song, then I think there is a much lower maintenance alternative available via spotify, and User:Senvaikis recently populated most of the pages on site with spotify links (Artist/Album & Song pages), and I hope he will in due course make available a chart of any restrictions/failures/404s associated with that +1.5Mil insertion activity.
But then there are songs whose only reference and proof of existence is on youtube and pretty much no other place like (mb/dg/am/asin/iT/rn/sc/etc.) and for those we pretty much have no choice but to provide a yt link.
ES (talk) 14:00, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
Well, sometimes the video is part of the art and I'd like to watch the video, this goes for classic songs (pretty much the gold rated ones here), so I prefer to see the official music video above the No1, WP, banners etc. So yes, for me at least it is about the video, while I like to listen to songs via Spotify or other sources (SoundCloud, another topic). The spotify link insertion is really nice, of course! I took it for granted and never said thanks :) A small request Senvaikis: Could you rerun the spotify bot for Rammstein? Their archive was only recently made available there :)
--Fassbrause (talk) 14:35, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
@FB:done--Senvaikis (talk) 15:30, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree with SE and ask you not to hasten removing geo-restricted YTs, based on some simple "arithmetic" criteria. :Let's take the same stats, but "looking from particular user's point of view". So, if you decide to make the boundary=5, then 1276 YTs should be removed. But wait - 503 of them were available for Senvaikis (LT), 510 - for Markcoutinho (NL) and so on. Why should I or Mark loose all advantages of direct yt link or even video on the page just because this video was blaclisted in some countries, terrorised by Gema or its followers (or just by mistake or for fun). Here's the best illustration of the situation: does geo-restriction "make a big difference" for you, viewing a video, denied in... Antarctica (AQ) only? :)
And one more note: even restricted yt may be more usefull compared to nothing - it may lead you to other, less-or-even-not-restricted video.
So, even if you decide to "draw" some strict arithmetic boundary for allowable geo-restriction level, I'd vote for a higher its value (20-30). Actually that's not an arithmetic task, thus hardly may be solved arithmetically. Otherwise this task could be easily solved by Lwt (as has been done already with "forbidden", "unembeddable" and "not found" YTs)
@ES:You may take a look at brief Spot/Album marketplace restriction stats here: Excel file & chart
--Senvaikis (talk) 18:43, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
The issue of who can access what song in which country is really controlled by the right holders of the music, and not by utube or spotify etc. So no matter what we do, some spotify and utube links are going to be legally denied for some users some of the time (I recently came across an album on spotify, some of it's tracks unavailable to users in Canada).
So instead of inserting utube links in pages...something similar to the Song Footer search lookup widgets could be clicked that will take user to youtube with a hit list. IS that too outlandish? Certainly having spotify links in pages is a great idea, and in a few month or a year even, we can analyse and see how many of the links have expired, a la utube. I don't see anybody hankering for chasing after spotify links just yet.... ES (talk) 10:23, December 13, 2014 (UTC)


A spotify parameter has been added to the {{SongFooter}} template. If the parameter is left empty, search links are shown. Lwt is currently moving all previously added spotify IDs to sf.spotify; until that is done, don't be surprised if you both song links and search links on a page… Once Lwt is done with song pages, {{AlbumFooter}} and {{ArtistFooter}} will follow. — 6×9 (Talk) 16:45, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

Semi-related, I noticed Help:Page ranking/Songs#Gold has been updated to list Spotify as a required (where available) parameter. Does this mean those who don't have, or don't want, an account there can't rank a song Gold any longer? - OneTwoThreeFall talk 17:59, December 18, 2014 (UTC)
Bad/lazy wording on my part; the actual idea was to require at least one, not both. Updated H:PR accordingly. Of course that still leaves those pages where goear is n/a, they'll need to have spotify checked to advance to Gold. The whole thing is both too restrictive (only yt for video, only 2 at least more than just goear now sources for audio) and too lax (too many videos with just still image of album cover or stuff). We might as well set audio=done if yt of studio version is available, and maybe only allow video=done if it's an *actual* video… but who's going to check that? — 6×9 (Talk) 18:11, December 19, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification! Spotify checking is OK - Senvaikis did a great job of adding so many links, and they show title/artist without logging in, so can be at least checked. Agreed, I always thought Youtube funny to add when it's often just album picture/lyrics videos available... - OneTwoThreeFall talk 12:38, December 20, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.