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
<< 2016 2017 2018 >>



I just added a page for A Capella Science, a singer who makes videos on YouTube. Of course I set to put a link to him on this page. Since Template:ArtistHeader doesn't have a specific line for YouTube I put the link in the "homepage" field. User:EchoSierra then removed it because a YouTube channel is "not a real homepage". I have to say I don't see the point of having a criterion for "homepage" any stricter than "the guy says that's where he is on the Web", and I don't see such a criterion written anywhere. That said I'd be happy to oblige if anybody has any suggestion for better displaying such a link...?

Before anybody points it out, yes technically the link already exists on the page, right at the bottom hidden below a list of mediocre generic links, so practically invisible. This is a bit silly when by contrast the links to his Facebook and Twitter accounts (so, not his main pages) appear in the top template with big logos. --Rinaku (talk) 20:34, March 30, 2017 (UTC)

I am a mere user of the site and not an administrator who can set policy, but my view is that the model for how artists create and distribute their music is changing. I am aware of several musicians who started on YouTube rather than going through the normal “sign with a record label, make a record” model. For many of these artists YouTube was their home page to begin with and they only created their own website later in their career or when they eventually did sign with a label. So, in my opinion, if an artist says that their homepage is YouTube, then why not make it so on LW? As long as the YouTube section of the template on page is also populated in case they eventually create their own website, I see no harm in this practice. DesPhagues (talk) 06:34, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Musical Disneys and the like

Musical animated movies such as Disneys are released in many languages, along with as many versions of each song they contain. The many versions of a song are part translations, part rewriting of the original. Is there an existing pattern for presenting and linking all the songs of all versions of such movies? --Rinaku (talk) 14:47, April 2, 2017 (UTC)

Here's an example: Beauty And The Beast (1991) 03:04, April 30, 2017 (UTC)
See also Category:Lists. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:14, April 30, 2017 (UTC)

Song Translations

The {{Translation}} template has been updated (credit to Bobogoobo): if used with the |lyrics= parameter it will automatically fetch the original lyrics to display side-by-side with the translation; no more copying & pasting. See the template documentation for usage and a link to a working example. (Usage as before without any parameters is still possible.) — 6×9 (Talk) 21:55, April 14, 2017 (UTC)

Dispute about how to handle edits

User:EchoSierra has asked me repeatedly to post here, so I will oblige him: As you may see per my edits to E, my approach to this page was to edit it so that several of the Other Songs were commented out in HTML. I took the opportunity to figure out what those songs were and while I was figuring out which needed to be redirected, deleted, etc., EchoSierra blocked me for a month with the edit summary "Kovafian [sic] edit to artist page, uncommented and unjustified". He later clarified on my talk that his understanding was that this constituted vandalism. He has encouraged me to post to the Community Portal regarding this incident. Do other users have the same perspective that this is vandalizing the wiki? Would other admins suggest a month-long block? Please read the exchange on User talk:Koavf for more information. Per his user page, he also actively solicits suggestions, so I posted to User talk:EchoSierra--do others have suggestions for his behavior as an admin? Thanks for your time and happy Easter. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:09, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

You hid the OS listings without an edit summary; we can't assume that even a good faith edit will be followed up on, as evidenced by many editors' unfinished projects and artist pages full of redlinks. My best advice to editors is to make good use of the Preview function and not use live wiki pages as a notepad. There are much looser guidelines on what anyone can do in their own userspace. Given your edit count and talk page history, I might expect you to be at least somewhat familiar with artist page guidelines. Happy Easter, ~Bobogoobo (talk) 04:33, April 16, 2017 (UTC)
EchoSierra's talk page history is a long, sad list of users trying to contribute and who got their work deleted with little or no explanation. And they are so sorry if only one would tell them what they did wrong, and then sometimes ES will give them the link to the appropriate existing policy, and sometimes there is no such link so he will just make up is own policy, and sometimes there is an existing policy directly contradicting ES' policy and he will ignore it until another admin steps in and tells him he has no idea what he's talking about. Good for me in that case but... *magic*.
When I pointed out a wrong typo fix, the reply was not "Yeah that was a mistake" but that of course I cannot expect his bot to know about such a corner case; what was I thinking? Someone before me got pages deleted because he did not create them in the right order. Sure, ban imperfect work, isn't that the whole point of a wiki, yay. And this recent blog post, and the first comment. Delete first and ask questions later. Then you ask questions about unclear policy here on the Community Portal and someone may or may not care to reply. In my case not.
What a sad state of affairs compared to Wikipedia where you have Please do not bite the newcomers, Ignore all rules, a Deletion process, and documented governance processes. That's the difference between a state of law and being subject to the arbitrary. --Rinaku (talk) 09:43, April 16, 2017 (UTC)

Maximum Image Sizes

As suggested by User:OneTwoThreeFall in the comments section of my blog post (User_blog:DesPhagues/Enhancements²), I am bringing this topic to the community portal for suggestion to change the text on the Special:Upload page of the site.

Currently album image cover sizes are restricted to a maximum of 500x500px and 150kb under the Uploading an albumcover section, supposedly due to “fair use policy”. The same text is not displayed on the Uploading an artistphoto section. Combined with the text below the Source file section Upload button (Maximum file size: 10 MB), this could lead to the interpretation that an artist photo can be of any size (Example User talk:EchoSierra/Archive/2017#Wham.21.jpg).

I am no lawyer, but I did a little googling and read the following articles:


It seems complicated and much of it is a grey area but my bottom-line interpretation is that we are at risk no matter what images we post.

  • “Fair use” seems to refer mainly to items that have fallen out of copyright (older than 20 years with some exceptions where it has been extended).
  • “Pictures already in the public domain” seems to be mainly aimed at use by the news media or academia.

So, not being a lawyer, I am making the assumption that, at some point in the past, someone checked the legality of the terms used on this page.

It is important to have a process for DMCA requests to be filed (which the parent site has Special:DMCARequest and that those requests are acted on promptly (which I have witnessed to be the case with Chad Siwik:Red Flag (2007)). It takes quite a few clicks to get to this page, so it may be prudent to add a shortcut to the dropdown menus.

Seeing as how the site does not really use large images, in the end, I feel like it would be easiest to standardize and limit both album and artist images to the same 500x500px/150kb limit.

So, I would like to propose that the following changes be made to the Special:Upload page:

  • Under “Uploading an albumcover”, point 1, the text is changed from
"Source filename": Licensing and size of the file Albumarts are included under the "Fair use"-license and therefore may not exceed a measurement of 500×500 pixels or a file size of 150 KB. If your cover image has a higher resolution or bigger file size, please resize it before uploading.
"Source filename": Licensing and size of the file Album art is included under the "Fair use"-license and may not exceed a measurement of 500×500 pixels or a file size of 150 KB. If your cover image has a higher resolution or bigger file size, please resize it before uploading.
  • Under “Uploading an artistphoto”, point 1, the following text is added:
Artist art may not exceed a measurement of 500×500 pixels or a file size of 150 KB. If your artist image has a higher resolution or bigger file size, please resize it before uploading.
  • In the “Source file” box directly underneath the choose file button, the text is changed from
Maximum file size: 10 MB (a file on your computer)
Maximum file size: 500 x 500 pixels and 150kb (a file on your computer)
  • In the “File Description” box directly under summary, there is a dropdown box for Licensing. It currently only has “None selected” as an option. If this information is saved somewhere I would propose that the box is changed to include the following:
None selected; Fair Use; I Own the Copyright; I have Permission from the Copyright Holder and Public Domain.

I appreciate that this has been a long read and apologize, it is due to the complexity of this seemingly simple topic.

What are your thoughts on the proposals? Do you have any other suggestions?

Thanks in advance. DesPhagues (talk) 18:06, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of questions here and it is certainly not my area of expertise, but I'll try to answer!
Regarding fair use: fair use is meant specifically for works still under copyright. If a work is no longer under copyright it can already be used unconditionally, so fair use provisions wouldn't be necessary for such cases.
Regarding album cover mentioning fair use, and artist photo not: I dare say this is related to the fact there is not freely-licensed alternative to images of album art; only the actual album art will represent the album correctly. With artist images, however, a photographer can take photos of an artist and release these under a free licence (such as a Creative Commons BY-SA license - this is common on, for example, Flickr), meaning there is an alternative to all-rights-reserved copyrighted images for artists.
Regarding DMCA requests: Wikia, Inc. is the one to deal with those - they're not too relevant to us editors. Any album art used under fair use provisions generally shouldn't be a target of such notices (they're meant for actual copyright infringement cases, which fair use isn't), though if a company does send one (the DMCA notice system is often misused) Wikia'll probably just remove it anyway as filing a counter-notice would be likely considered too much trouble.
Regarding the 150KB/500px² limit: The reason behind these limits is related to the fair use provisions (Wikipedia's template for album art goes into detail on this), and this is why it's mentioned specifically for album art. As Senvaikis mentions, this limit has been de facto applied to artist images too, though there is no legal requirement there (as long as the artist image is freely licensed, of course). I suppose making this a requirement for all images could be done for simplicity, though there's no actual need to do so.
Regarding Source file size text: I'm pretty sure this is a server limit that we cannot control.
Regarding Licensing dropdown: What this box does is add a fixed template to the uploaded image. These options you suggest adding would work alright on most wikis, but here the licensing note is typically handled by the {{AlbumCover}}/{{ArtistPhoto}}/{{Logo}} templates, all of which use additional parameters not possible with the dropdown.
I've revised the Special:Upload text to hopefully be clearer and less wordy. Let me know what you think! - OneTwoThreeFall talk 21:03, July 2, 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a million, it is definitely clearer now, especially that the 500x500px rule does not apply to artists. DesPhagues (talk) 06:56, July 3, 2017 (UTC)
Glad I could help! - OneTwoThreeFall talk 20:03, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

Help Text Clarification on What NOT to add an album page for

The text under the sub-heading "Do not create pages for the following": at Help:Contents/Editing/Formatting/Artists#Album_List can, in my view, be clarified to prevent possible confusion as I have experienced and seen on occasion.

I would also like to propose to add a section specifically for singles.

I propose that the text be changed to read:

Do not create album pages for the following:

  • Bootlegs and other unofficial/fan-made albums
  • Singles, EPs, live albums or single-artist compilations only containing songs already listed elsewhere, or only containing a single song not listed elsewhere, unless they are highly noteworthy (e.g. platinum-selling)
These songs should be added to the following sections of the Artist Page instead:

Any opinions before I make this change to the help documentation?

Thanks in advance. DesPhagues (talk) 09:58, April 18, 2017 (UTC)

That's basically rehashing the content of the section below. I'd rather add a single sentence like "Please see the following section on how to handle these songs" and possibly expand that section instead. — 6×9 (Talk) 10:48, April 18, 2017 (UTC)
So, how about I add the sentence: "Please see the Non-Album Songs section of the Artist Page on how to handle these songs". I could then add "Singles" as the first topic on the Help:Contents/Editing/Formatting/Artists#Non-Album Songs page? DesPhagues (talk) 11:16, April 18, 2017 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added a section on singles. Feel free to edit if you think it needs clarification. — 6×9 (Talk) 09:34, April 19, 2017 (UTC)
And I see that you have also added the text to Help:Contents/Editing/Formatting/Artists#Album_List. Perfect, Thank You ! DesPhagues (talk) 09:44, April 19, 2017 (UTC)


Since the site appears to be down, the SongFooter links have been disabled. Please do not remove existing goear parameters: should the site ever come up again, they will be re-enabled, if not, a bot will eventually take care of them. — 6×9 (Talk) 10:27, April 18, 2017 (UTC)


I have been looking and can't find a template to replace the {cover} template in the case of a mashup[1]. I have created Sam Harris:I Gotta Right To Sing The Blues / Stormy Weather using a {cover} template for each song, but this is not a medley, the lyrics are interspersed rather than following on each other as would be the case of a medley. Any advice would be appreciated. (The same would apply to Straight No Chaser:I'm Yours / Somewhere Over The Rainbow). DesPhagues (talk) 08:41, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

There is a similar template, {{Sample}}, for songs including portions of other songs. Giving the song a quick listen, though, it seems to me more of a cover of the two songs (even though the lyrics are interspersed). Wouldn't a mashup be created from portions of the other songs? - OneTwoThreeFall talk 10:03, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Strictly speaking, it's still a cover of those two songs. I could however add a parameter to {{Cover}} to change the word "cover" to anything else, if people would find that useful. — 6×9 (Talk) 10:05, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
I think that using the following might just do the trick for me:
{Cover |song1 = Lillian Shade:I Gotta Right to Sing the Blues |addtext1 = blended with |song2 = Ethel Waters:Stormy Weather}
I have applied it to Sam Harris:I Gotta Right To Sing The Blues / Stormy Weather, is this OK with both of you ? DesPhagues (talk) 10:27, April 20, 2017 (UTC)
Fine with me, probably the simplest solution. — 6×9 (Talk) 20:53, April 20, 2017 (UTC)

Future albums

How should we mark albums that are scheduled to be released in the future, if at all? At first I didn't create them until release, but they got created anyway. Later an admin added a note above the tracklist on the artist page, but another admin removed it the next time I used it. The latest suggestion (from ES) is a page notice on the album page, but yet another admin is against it. Right now I'm thinking of a template to display such a notice and add the album to a hidden category for "Albums to be released" or some such. To alleviate the latter concern there could be another category for templates needing removal, or it could just not show the notice past the release date and it could be cleaned up later. That is, if we need to differentiate such albums at all. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 01:46, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

I just don't see a point to doing this, personally. It adds an extra thing to deal with when the album comes out, and what if it gets overlooked and stays there months after it gets released? We'd be both inaccurate and behind if it stayed there longer than it needs to be. I know you're saying we could possibly set the release date on the template, and then when the album comes out, it removes itself by way of bot, or is added to a category for removal. But to me, this is just an extra step that doesn't have much of a purpose, and it's easier to simply cut out the middle man.
The way I see it, the album will get released eventually, and when it does, the other songs from it can get created. Until then, it serves as a placeholder, or a "home" for the singles from it that have been released so far. After all, most people can figure out whether an album is released or not. I create future albums quite often and I never feel the need to make any indication that they're a future album. Good examples are The Weeknd:Starboy (2016) and Depeche Mode:Spirit (2017). I created these pages quite some time before they actually got released, and someone eventually created all of the songs on them when they came out. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)02:01, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
The History of this artist from Feb 2015 up to Feb 2017 may illustrate the necessity for a template. Bob's album page is on solid ground with multiple external refs, an infobox/template is for those who may overlook the external links to verify, while the album is still not in the market. A template that expires like {{RealityCheck}} and flags the content page for attention may have merit, in case nuclear war indefinitely delays the release of a solid album and we need to remove it, The Day After. --ES (talk) 02:45, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't create pages for future albums unless a) the full tracklist is confirmed and b) there's a set release date. In the vast majority of those instances I've seen, that means the album is indeed getting released. But then we have special cases like the infamous Tha Carter V that has been continuously getting pushed back for years. Albums that only have a partial tracklist confirmed are the ones I don't create, which is what that example seems to be. I only list partial tracklists on the artist page itself (with asterisk'd tracks instead of numbered tracks), leaving the album page red until the tracklist is confirmed.
If there's a need for such a template, though, then perhaps we can make it work. If there's a definite way for the template to remove itself on the actual release date, I might be okay with it. I just can't see this being used on every single upcoming album since there's already a bunch of them out there. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)02:52, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
Not exactly remove itself, but you can hide the notice once the release date has passed:
{{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{#ifexpr:{{#time:U}} > {{#time:U|{{{1}}}}}||(page notice)}}
~Bobogoobo (talk) 03:02, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
So then what? Would it be added to a category to be checked on? XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)03:09, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
Yes, category. But I admit I'd prefer if album pages weren't created before release, or at least until release and final tracklist are beyond doubt, in which case there'd be no need for a template. — 6×9 (Talk) 17:12, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on use of ndashes etc. in templates/info

Continuing on my quest to clarify help documentation as suggested by User:OneTwoThreeFall in the comments section of my blog post (User_blog:DesPhagues/Enhancements²)...

There seems to be some confusion about the uses of ndashes (or other special characters) in templates as can be seen from this User_talk:Koavf#Undoing_admin_edits discussion, hence I thought I would bring it to the community portal to gain clarity and update the help docs if necessary.

At issue is the fact that Help:FS#Lyrics and LyricWiki:Page_Names#Common_Misspellings.2FIncorrect_Tagging requires that ndash/emdash/ellipse etc characters be converted to the normal ASCII equivalent, but the template documentation and examples use ndashes at:

i.e.|members =<<Member 1>> <<Instruments played>> (<<Membership years>>) and <<Former Member 1>> <<Instruments played>> (<<Membership years>>)


|members = George Helper Guitar, keyboards (2005current); |fmembers = John Helper Saxophone (2005)

There may be more examples, I am just using the those from the above discussion.

So the question is: Does the requirement for character transformation apply only to lyrics and page names, or to template contents and song and album title as well?

Any official guidance on this would be appreciated, thanks in advance. DesPhagues (talk) 11:34, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it should be obvious that my preference is that we use typographically correct characters. It's 2017 and inputting an ndash is not difficult to do. If someone inputs a hyphen, that's fine but it should be changed when someone else notices it and has the opportunity. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:56, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
There are good reasons for not allowing them in pagenames and lyrics. I don't see any real-world reasons for the rest of our content, and use ndashes myself in ArtistInfo and CreditBox. — 6×9 (Talk) 17:07, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
I don't see what those reasons would be: can you explain them? For pagenames, I can see how that would be tricky to insert and consequently, we would need to create a lot of redirects. That I see as a potential nuisance but fairly solvable by bot. But in the lyrics themselves, why would we prefer only ASCII characters...? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:44, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it, it is to make searching standard (and therefore easier for users), so plain ", ', - etc. characters are used DesPhagues (talk) 18:06, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
MediaWiki search is hardly perfect but it's smart enough to know that if I'm searching for "she loves me--but she broke my heart" it can return results that include "she loves me—but she broke my heart". If that's the only concern, it's misplaced. I think we should conform to proper, standard typography. The big exception might be file names where there is very little to be gained with the form File:Artist – Album cover.png (versus using a hyphen) and a huge pain to have to maintain. Note, of course, that we have tens of thousands of non-ASCII titled pages, e.g. Si*Sé:Slip Away or 宇徳敬子:あなたが世界一 or Cali≠gari. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:22, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
There are also reasons related to external site's use of the API if I understood correctly.
Also, as per User:OneTwoThreeFall's comment on my blog mentioned above, have a look at the LyricWiki:Scripts script? It's added as a button on the editor toolbar, and clicking it will attempt to tidy the lyrics (doing everything you've mentioned). Not ideal for your other points, but it has worked great for me so far. DesPhagues 2017-04-21T15:49:03

So, to close off the topic then I am going to assume that there is no change needed in the documentation. The special character replacement rules apply to pagenames and lyrics, but these characters can be used (optionally) elsewhere (like in the info boxes). DesPhagues (talk) 06:47, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

so all i did here was wrong: Madison (SE) (and other pages). I always used - never knew about ndash. This need to be written in some part to clarify. Songsbr (talk) 16:16, April 22, 2017 (UTC)
I believe that it is optional to use ndashes etc. The normal ASCII characters are absolutely OK to use, this topic was just clarifying when using 'non-standard' ASCII characters is OK... So you have done nothing wrong, your edits should be fine if you have used standard ASCII and not ndases etc. I have added the term (optionally) to the closing paragraph and hope this clarifies things... DesPhagues (talk) 17:10, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts

Evidently, User:EchoSierra wants to discuss this here. Why are you reverting dozens of edits such as this? Is there something you know about Michael Stipe whispering "last date" on this recording that I don't? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:44, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

As I already explained on my talk page; The need for such a category (or any number of similar categories that anyone may think up) has not been explained. And per past experience, we keep manual categories to a minimum and only those that we need. And I see no explanation yet for such a need. --ES (talk) 21:41, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
You actually said no such thing on your talk page but I didn't create the category: I'm just populating it. It's been here for seven years, so I don't see why it's controversial for me to add (appropriate) entries to it. If you think it should be deleted that's a different story but it's not at all what you suggested on your talk. If you have no more reason than that and no one else objects, I'm going to continue populating it in 24/48 hours. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:47, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
The need for such a category = "Adding the category to the pages". --ES (talk) 21:55, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
And as I said there, the need to add it is self-evident. The addition doesn't need any further justification per se--although there may be specific incidences that do. Either we keep the category and populate it or we delete it but there's no point in having it for the better part of a decade and then one person stonewalling on actually fleshing it out for no apparent reason. Either make a justification for deleting it and thus emptying the current contents or stand aside--why remove just some of them and then complain that you don't understand why someone would add an article to a category when it clearly belongs on that category? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:03, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
From my talk page: What is the purpose of your edits? not clear what you mean by such edits. Never discussed anywhere.
Example: In the above thread Future albums a possible need for marking pages and possible categorizing of such pages is discussed. A rough outline of a template (instead of manual categories) is displayed. The template has not been applied on any pages, yet. --ES (talk) 22:10, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
Okay, but that is prospective. Again, I didn't make this category--it's been here for seven years and no one else has seemed to have a problem with it until you and now. So again, if you think it should be deleted, go ahead and propose that. Otherwise, there is no point in it being partially filled but only new additions to it are removed. What is the purpose of that? What value is there in retaining a category that you know is deliberately underpopulated because one person is responsible for mass-reverting? This is my question and in this case, it is you that needs to justify your behavior, not me. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:22, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
Please note above: Discussion about Marking pages, before actually making such edits. hth --ES (talk) 22:29, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
PS: And per past experience: example of such edits being removed (my own edit): here, was removed here. --ES (talk) 22:44, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused about what is supposed to be relevant at the above section: #Future_albums asks, "How should we mark albums that are scheduled to be released in the future, if at all?" It is about an album page, not a lyrics page and is clearly about something relevant to a potential reader--namely, "This album is not yet released, so expect some content here to change". Other users responded with their concerns, etc. Individual songs are not going to have their lyrics change to include the title, so what would be marked? How would a lyrics page be marked? You'll have to be more explicit for me to understand what you're aiming at here. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:39, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
Re: your personal examples... Category:Artists born in 1944 and Category:Harmonica players are redlinks and as best as I can tell never existed. They are also outside the scope of a lyrics repository. Again, this is a category which has existed for several years without any particular problem and is actually related to lyrics. So my question remains: what is the point in having it partially filled but disallowing new entries after seven years of it being here? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:47, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
I hope you have understood the difference between marking pages to become members of a category (example of your and my edit that I illustrated above) and...
the category page itself, created or not. cheers. --ES (talk) 23:14, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
No. Also, what is the point in having it partially filled but disallowing new entries after seven years of it being here? If you have no answer for that and no one else objects to continuing a project that has been ongoing here for the majority of the site's existence, I'm going to keep on doing what I was doing (as I said above). -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:22, April 21, 2017 (UTC)

Back on track...there are only 13 songs in the category right now. Unless there were hundreds to thousands before this week, then I think the category's deletion was simply overlooked until now. As said above, we try to keep manual categories to a minimum, and the same with lyric-trivia categories. They really don't serve much of a purpose on the scale of LW, other than to add unnecessary work. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 00:33, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

No, there were not previously many other songs. I happened to come across it as an accident. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:54, April 22, 2017 (UTC)
Just nuked the category for you. While we're on the subject, should we clean out One-Hit Wonders and Top 40 Hits in the United States? Both are manual categories I've seen around a little bit. The former only has 60 songs in it, whereas the latter has over 400. Like Bob said, on the scale of LW these categories are just unneeded work (and will basically be perpetually incomplete), so I don't see a use for them since they're not tied to a specific template (e.g. Billboard Hits). XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)01:48, April 22, 2017 (UTC)
See also Category:Dis. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:05, April 22, 2017 (UTC)
Just cleared out Dis, and looks like ES cleared out the other two I mentioned. I also cleared out the Christmas Songs category, so hopefully that was the last of them. Wouldn't be surprised if there's others floating around, though... XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)02:46, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

Request for GooglePlay Store Link in AlbumFooter Template

Would it be possible to add GooglePlay store to the Template:AlbumFooter Template (and perhaps also add a {GP|<albumid>|<extra text>} template like Template:IT) ?

From what I can see, the link to albums on the Google Play store is quite straight forward:<GooglePlay Album ID>

For example:

I personally prefer to purchase my digital music from GooglePlay as it is generally at near-CD quality 320kbps vs. Apples' 256kbps and, well, it's not Apple. We already have a link for Amazon, so it seems only reasonable to have one for Google also ? Thanks in advance for any thoughts DesPhagues (talk) 09:52, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

I can't imagine no one else uses GooglePlay… Downside for songs is that apparently you need both album and song id; at least I didn't manage to get a working link for this song using just nsl76nmzwnx7qiy3lh7m2hpk74. You'd think that 36^26 would be enough… — 6×9 (Talk) 15:59, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
Seems very complicated for songs and may add an extra level of stress for reviewers to go to song level, though it would be nice to have the album option at least (even if the album is also at song level, it seems, just like itunes, to show the album info when viewing the song anyway). Thanks for the work! It's much appreciated. DesPhagues (talk) 16:22, May 1, 2017 (UTC)

Question About a Remix Album

Specifically - Let It Be... Naked, The Beatles, 2003 [2]

I have some questions about this album, and perhaps other remixed albums. I recently purchased this album and carefully listened to all tracks, comparing them to the certified, Gold category lyrics posted here. I heard many differences - the most significant being there is, with one minor exception, no spoken material on intros or outros of these tracks. There are also a few minor differences within actual verses. I checked on track by track info on Wikipedia, and was able to confirm that all studio and rooftop dialogue was removed, and that in some cases, different takes were used.

I am confident that the certified lyrics here are quite accurate - for the 1970 LP and later CD releases of it on CD. But they are not accurate for Let It Be ... Naked.

So does the community feel that it's appropriate to consider editing these lyrics to match the actual 2003 release, or does the 1970 release take precedence over any later remixes/edits by a record producer?

Thank you --Pastafazoo (talk) 03:17, May 1, 2017 (UTC)

If someone is looking at The Beatles:Let It Be... Naked (2003), then he wants to see the actual lyrics of that album. Some kind of disclaimer that links to the previous studio version is certainly appropriate but there's no reason why The Beatles:Let It Be (1970) is some definitive version of lyrics which trumps this release. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:24, May 1, 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps Help:Contents/Editing/Formatting/Songs#Multiple_songs_with_the_same_title gives us an option for to how to deal with this instance. So you could create a new song page called The Beatles:Let It Be (2003 Remix), which would allow for your lyrics to co-exist with the 1970 version? You could list the songs on the album as The Beatles:Let It Be (2003 Remix)|Let it Be on the album/artist page to retain the track titles listed on the 2003 remix album but point to the correct remixed lyrics... DesPhagues (talk) 05:44, May 1, 2017 (UTC)

Input needed for possible help documentation update

This is (hopefully) the last of the saga of The Beatles:Let It Be... Naked (2003)


About a month ago, User:Pastafazoo purchased and carefully transcribed the lyrics to this album and found that this remix album was different to the original The Beatles:Let It Be (1970) album. Firstly, all the studio banter was removed and secondly the tracks were remixed resulting in small differences in lyrics on some of the tracks (see for more detail on differences). Pastafazoo the set about trying to submit the correct lyrics in several ways:

  • Changed the lyrics on the 1970’s version of the track – result: changes (correctly) reverted as they had been certified to match the 1970 LP / 1987 CD release of the album.
  • Commented on the various lyrics talk pages asking for resolution – result: no response
  • Posted an article in the community portal LyricWiki_talk:Community_Portal#Question_About_a_Remix_Albumresult: two responses, both from normal users (one being myself) advocating for the fact that the different version of the lyrics should exist, but not at the expense of the original lyrics. This has been there for more than 20 days now with not one single admin disputing the advice.
  • In order to illustrate how we could do this with both versions co-existing (User_talk:DesPhagues#Response_to_Let_It_Be_..._Naked_.282003.29), I created The Beatles:Get Back (Naked Version) which excluded the studio banter and changed one small lyric to match the 2003 remix album – result: Page redirected to the original 1970’s version instead by User:XxTimberlakexx with the note that “Anyone who was listening to the Naked version of that song could easily just look at the original page and the lyrics would match. They could simply skip over the studio chatter bits.” and “in most cases, we hardly create pages for remix or live versions of a song unless the lyrics differ a lot” (see User_talk:XxTimberlakexx#DesPhagues_Jumping_in_here_as_well.)

The Point

Obviously I disagree with the sentiment “in most cases, we hardly create pages for remix or live versions of a song unless the lyrics differ a lot”, and would rather allow for both approaches to be valid. If someone has the time/will/energy to create the perfectly correct lyrics for the remix version of the song, then why not allow them to do just that? But as XxTimberlakexx is an admin I will defer to his judgement on the matter.

Which (finally) brings me to the point. I interpret help Help:Contents/Editing/Formatting/Songs#Lyrics and LW:RvW to mean that the lyrics should match the song exactly and can find no reference to a different approach to remixes anywhere in the help documentation. Today [3] 6_times_9 suggested that the text for live versions of songs (Help:Contents/Editing/Formatting/Songs#Live_Versions) should be read as including remixes as well and that help should be updated to reflect that. As I committed previously to work with admins on updating help where it is confusing for new users [4], I am suggesting the following:

What do we need to do?

If the bureaucrats/admins on the site agree, then I would propose that we add something to the help documentation to specifically address the fact that small? Differences on remixed versions of tracks are not supposed to be posted, and tracks should be redirected to the original instead. This would avoid someone wasting a month of their lives on work that is ultimately for nought.

We would need to find solutions to the following as far as I can think (Please add more as you see fit):

  • Re-assess and agree that it is still appropriate for this rule to exist, or if co-existance is reasonable?
  • An agreement on what constitutes a small difference (number of words, or will it be subjective?)
  • How to handle disputes, or is the rule that if one administrator determines that the difference is not large enough then that's that?
  • What to do with something like Radiohead:Creep (Clean) which is a remix that has only one word different and would likely need to be redirected to the original version of the song under this policy? (Or should there be a specific exception to allow for new pages for explicit vs. clean versions of songs)
  • How to deal with timed lyrics in these instances
  • Define when to use Remix/Remixed instead of Cover/Covered for a song
  • Where and how to incorporate this into the help section?

I am happy do do the actual updating of the help, just need the guidance and agreement of at least two admins on the points mentioned above.

Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated, thanks in advance… DesPhagues (talk) 08:14, May 22, 2017 (UTC) Updated for readability and new information DesPhagues (talk) 11:35, June 5, 2017 (UTC)

Comments and Suggestions

For what it's worth, I appreciate your and his efforts in this. Yes, we should definitely include lyrics that are different for different versions--that is helpful to readers. Also, when it comes to policy, virtually every discussion I have ever seen amounts to, "We don't do that here" or "We do [x] in [y] manner" with no documentation. Just coasting on sheer inertia for no reason. I'm glad that you're bringing up this conversation for that reason, which is broader than the narrow example given above.
Right now, timed lyrics and annotations are very doable and the only things stopping us are time and willpower.
I think that for this site to really be useful in the future, we'll need to further incorporate these features, (which will obviously not match if there are differences in the recordings). We will probably need some interface to choose between alternative recordings or display differences. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 08:27, May 22, 2017 (UTC)

Reissued Albums

I have recently started listening to more of Lonnie Mack's music, and realized what a great singer he is, although he's more known for his work as a guitarist. I also noticed that there are very few songs by him on here (likely because a lot of his songs were instrumentals, including "Memphis" and "Wham!", which were two of his biggest hits), so I'm going to start adding more of his music as I have time. I've already added his first album, but am wondering what to do about re-issued albums. His first album, The Wham Of That Memphis Man! was reissued in 1970 under the title For Collectors Only: The Wham Of That Memphis Man!. In addition to having tracks in a different order, it also featured two additional songs. Does this fall under the same rules as compilations and greatest hits collections? I haven't yet checked to see if the two additional tracks appeared anywhere else prior to that. Oldiesmann (talk) 07:00, June 16, 2017 (UTC)

I had an example that matched this scenario almost exactly not too long ago (See Amanda Strydom:Kerse Teen Die Donker (2008)) where the artist had issued the same album in The Netherlands with tracks in one order and then later in South Africa with a different track order and two bonus tracks mixed in between.
So I would suggest:
  1. Add the album with tracks in order of the original version.
  2. Add {{H4}} with the text: For Collectors Only: The Wham Of That Memphis Man! Bonus Tracks.
  3. Add the 1970's re-issue bonus tracks, but instead of using a hash where track number would go, use an asterisk to indicate that the tracks did not follow the existing tracks but were in a different order.
If in doubt refer to my example above... Good Luck. DesPhagues (talk) 14:12, June 18, 2017 (UTC)
Re-issue tracks should indeed be added to the original album page, not a separate one, though I'm not sure there are solid guidelines on how to handle alternative track lists. Listing them as DesPhagues mentions is an option, but adding the full track list is also common (Eno Moebius Roedelius:After The Heat (1978), The Rutles:The Rutles (1978), and Bee Gees:Best Of Bee Gees (1969) were the first few I found with a search). - OneTwoThreeFall talk 20:15, June 18, 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I prefer User:OneTwoThreeFall's approach on this one, seems cleaner, though you are of course free to go for whatever floats your boat... DesPhagues (talk) 07:45, June 19, 2017 (UTC)

Remixed/Live Lyrics Poll Input

Hi, as I have not managed to obtain any responses (except for Justin) on here regarding LyricWiki_talk:Community_Portal#Input_needed_for_possible_help_documentation_update, I am planning to post a blog asking for community input on the issue of allowing different versions of remixed songs to exist on LW. Out of respect I am posting the contents of the blog here first to get any feedback on the contents and/or recommendations for changes to wording etc. here before I do that.

This is the proposed blog entry:

Currently live versions of songs should be directed to the original version of the song unless there is a substantial difference in the lyrics (See Help:Contents/Editing/Formatting/Songs#Live_Versions). As per 6_times_9 (See User_blog:Thineshire/"Remixed"_Template?) we should read this rule to also include remixes.

This means "If, and only if, the lyrics are sufficiently different (more than just a few single words changed and/or lines repeated or omitted), they should get a separate song page".

The same page name rules as those currently in place would continue to apply, so, the Original page name would be:

Artist Name:Song Name

And, if the remix has it's own lyrics page, the Remix page name would be:

Artist Name:Song Name (Remix)

I would like to get your input on this policy by asking for you to vote in the poll below. (Please read remixes to mean remixed OR live).

When you vote, please consider the following:

  • The site has the ability to enter synchronized lyrics - which would potentially not sync up with the current rule in place.
  • This will potentially increase the number of lyrics pages on the site and may be confusing when looking for the lyrics of a song.
  • What should happen to Clean vs. Explicit lyrics? (Currently they appear to be treated as an exception to the rule and a new page is created no matter how small the difference).
  • Would we consider certifying a remix song when the lyrics differ even slightly, or does this not matter?
  • Current rules specify that the accuracy of printed liner lyrics are not reliable enough so we need to use the lyrics as sung when certifying a song, but we follow a different set of rules for remixed songs.

<poll> Remixes with minor differences from the original should

  • a) be allowed (but not required) to have their own page with correct lyrics as sung on the remix (this would allow for the current rule to co-exist with the new rule) 3 votes (100%)
  • b) be required to have their own page with correct lyrics as sung on the remix
  • c) be directed to the original version of the song (as it is now)
  • d) keep the existing rule for live but use (a) for remixed
  • e) keep the existing rule for live but use (b) for remixed
  • f) other (please provide feedback in the comments section)


Thanks in advance for your valuable input. DesPhagues (talk) 10:55, June 25, 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, I have now posted the blog with the final poll for voting at User_blog:DesPhagues/Vote:_Remix/Live_Lyrics DesPhagues (talk) 11:12, June 30, 2017 (UTC)

Hate speech on LyricWiki

Per, we cannot host hate speech here. Presently, there are several songs by artists such as Johnny Rebel or David Allan Coe which need to be deleted and locked from recreation. I've edited a couple myself lately and marked with {{deleted}}. If admins can please assist in this, that would be helpful. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:10, June 26, 2017 (UTC)

How about reviewing the old threads regarding this same subject? --ES (talk) 16:36, June 26, 2017 (UTC)
What about them? We aren't allowed to host gore, porn, or hate speech--it all needs to be deleted. We were told this several times by staff. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:50, June 26, 2017 (UTC)

DMCA take-downs

Per Gorgoroth/Letter, we need to remove all of their lyrics. I tagged all but one page which is an instrumental. We should lock Gorgoroth so that it can't be edited and maybe make an abuse filter tag to see if anyone tries to upload their lyrics. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:12, June 26, 2017 (UTC)

That letter is not a DMCA take down; such letters would arrive via LyricFind and they will also apply the appropriate unlicensed categorization, which would not be deletion. hth --ES (talk) 17:32, June 26, 2017 (UTC)
The definition of a DMCA takedown is that the rights holders request deletion. They can do that thru Wikia in general or I suppose LyricFind or directly to the administration at this site--either way, we are hosting their copyrighted content and they requested that we don't. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:34, June 26, 2017 (UTC)
Please see Category:Unlicensed_Lyrics/LF --ES (talk) 18:02, June 26, 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so what is the purpose of linking me this? The rights holder asked us to delete them. We need to delete them. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:05, June 26, 2017 (UTC)
There is a procedure for DMCA takedowns. If Gorgoroth want their lyrics taken down, they can follow that procedure. A 10-year old letter that found its way by unknown means to LyricWiki is hardly legally binding. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:15, June 26, 2017 (UTC)
The site was independently hosted then. What was the DMCA process at and how did they not follow it? Also, note that they are notorious for asking lyrics to be taken down: -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:10, June 26, 2017 (UTC)

Albums containing only a single Blue song states under the heading - Create album pages for the following:

  • All officially-released studio albums and EPs, containing at least one blue song

and under the heading Do not create pages for the following: states

  • Singles, EPs, live albums or single-artist compilations only containing songs already listed elsewhere, or only containing a single song not listed elsewhere, unless they are highly noteworthy (e.g. platinum-selling)

These two appear to contradict each other and can easily be misinterpreted when it comes to a normal album containing only one blue song (unless I am misunderstanding something, or the second section specifically excludes normal, non-compilation albums).

So, if I have a normal (non-compilation) artist album that has only one blue song that is not listed elsewhere (with the rest being red), do I need to delete the album? And under which section of the artist page should I then place the track (Other Songs Perhaps)?

Thanks in advance, DesPhagues (talk) 11:53, July 1, 2017 (UTC)

Studio albums aren't listed under the second heading, so I don't think there's a contradiction there. There was a contradiction regarding EPs, though, so I've clarified the statements. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 18:45, July 2, 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! DesPhagues (talk) 07:07, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

I recently had an album with several blue links including covers and one original deleted. Is that supposed to happen? —Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 07:19, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

6x9's note at User_talk:Koavf#Instead_of_cryptic_notes:_.28RTFM.29 was what prompted me to post this question in the first place. As I understand the help text, no, unless it was a compilation and the tracks were listed elsewhere, it should not have been deleted. Perhaps your incorrect use of directing to another artists version of the song instead of using {{cover}} caused the admins to decide to delete your album. You definitely seem to have a "talent" for rubbing them the wrong way... I can empathize, my constant insertion of myself into conflicts with the aim of improving help to reduce conflict alas seems to be leading me to the same level of popularity with some admins DesPhagues (talk) 07:58, July 3, 2017 (UTC)
Well, far be it from me to accuse an admin of deleting something out of petty revanchism and personal preference, so I won't explicitly say that here. —Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 08:19, July 3, 2017 (UTC)
@K Far be it from you to misrepresent the facts, please see deletion log. --ES (talk) 09:32, July 3, 2017 (UTC)
Correct--I didn't. Taking a look at the deletion log, it reads "Bad pageform" which is not at all helpful and you deleted a page that should not have been deleted. —Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:53, July 5, 2017 (UTC)
deletion log link? --ES (talk) 01:14, July 5, 2017 (UTC)
The page was at Scott McCaughey:Spain Capers (2015) and you can see your own deletion log here with the following entry: 2017-07-02T19:32:43 EchoSierra (Talk | contribs) deleted page Scott McCaughey:Spain Capers (2015) (Bad pageform: content was: "{{edit|plz see Help:Redirect}} {{AlbumHeader |artist = Scott McCaughey |album = Spain Capers |genre = Indie Rock |length = |cover = Scott McCaughey - Spain Capers.jpg |wikipedia = |star = Green }...)". Note that it was right before you erroneously deleted the songs that were covers from this album (why?) and then restored them. The album had several blue links. And if you're going to claim that covers need to have the same lyrics on the user page for every artist that performs them, that is not what Help:Redirect says and contrary to what a bureaucrat did for several lyrics for pages I have created. So--again--this is an album with several blue links and you deleted it, which you should not have done. Please let me know if you need more help finding the things that you did wrong--it's a lot of work but I'm willing to do my part. —Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:08, July 5, 2017 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, another misrepresentation. However; Deleted items that you created and inserted on the album page were:
And after reverting my edit note, "Yeah, they're good tracks. What do you want?..." @ here. Undo an edit note? {{Cover}} = redirect? Blue link does not mean it's good, you may wish to click your "Good Links" A Page packed with redirects is bad page form. The only valid page linked on the album: To Right All Wrongs.
Tip: documentation, preview, oversee your own edits, and finally Help Desk. hth --ES (talk) 05:16, July 5, 2017 (UTC)
"All officially-released studio albums and EPs, containing at least one blue song". This had one and then valid redirect links for the covers. Please undelete. Thanks. Nothing on Help:Redirect says that you have to use {{Cover}} and--again--there are other pages that admins have redirected if the lyrics were the same, so which policy is this page supposed to have contradicted (since we have one that explicitly says that it's allowed and you deleted it anyway)? —Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:24, July 5, 2017 (UTC)
Subtle point #1: A miscreatied release page with one blue link and 4 miscreated redirects is still a miscreation. (Bad page form)
Subtle point #2: An unresolved redirect on a page is a totally different matter.
I trust now that it has been brought to your attention, you hopefully will not confuse the two in the future. Feel free to ask at the Help Desk. All the best. --ES (talk) 05:46, July 5, 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anywhere that "miscreated pages are subject to deletion". This is a wiki--you can edit pages. —Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:07, July 5, 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why despite multiple warnings you continue to revert edits that you have failed to understand. --ES (talk) 06:11, July 5, 2017 (UTC)
Please restore the deletions, as they should not have been deleted in the first place. —Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:36, July 12, 2017 (UTC)

To Change...or Not to Change

....continued from response regarding help text to Senvaikis at User_talk:EchoSierra#about_Rocket_League_X_Monstercat_Vol._1_.282017.29_and_LW:PN

The fact of the matter is, however, that i tire of constantly feeling like i have to fight to make things better. why is it this hard to improve on something that everyone seems to feel needs to be improved ? yet the tone that i am constantly met with (by just a few admins) is completely disparaging. if you truly wanted to improve you would help not fight. Perhaps you are so used to being "attacked" by users that you automatically go into defensive mode when presented with this kind of scenario?

Contrary to yourself, I was in fact a professional programmer for the first 16 years of my career. this diminished over the following 17 or so years as i moved into management (though i continue to dabble in programming for fun on my own time). So I have some experience with both logic and managing change. And I can clearly recognize resistance to change when I see it. i recognize that i have thrust change upon you as i can see clearly that the site needs it in order to move to the next level as, at least through my eyes, it is stagnating and struggling to take the next step up. i shall cease to do so.

improving help is an important step. establishing a process for decision making (like a formal committee) is beginning to look like it might be even more important to be able to proceed forward.

it would appear, however, that the ever shrinking pool of stakeholders do not recognize the need for that change as yet so my apologies for trying to push my ideas for improvement on you.

I forgot one of my own cardinal rules "sometimes, if it is too difficult, it is not the right thing to do"

my sincere apologies DesPhagues (talk) 14:15, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

Very useful rule, it's a pitty you "sometimes" forget it. --Senvaikis (talk) 14:46, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
Rhetorical Question, are you proud of that response as the Number 1 representative of the site? DesPhagues (talk) 14:57, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
I'll be fair: no, I'm not proud. Are you? --Senvaikis (talk) 16:38, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
At failing to improve help on 7 out of only 14 topics identified so far ? No.
That I applied myself sincerely with integrity in the hopes of being able to make a difference ? Yes.
The bottom line is that I knew that I had set myself a difficult task: Improve help in areas where it is causing conflict. I suppose it is because I knew that it would be difficult that I hung on too long to realize that it was not merely difficult but in fact unwanted. And therein lies the crux of the matter. No one asked me to intervene, I just assumed that it would be helpful and I never stopped to ask if this would be wanted, I just assumed. Normally I would say that I am not proud of myself for that, but that would be a lie, because I am proud that I at least tried to make a difference.
DesPhagues (talk) 17:07, July 11, 2017 (UTC)
At the very start of this project I mentioned in my blog [5] that i had the opportunity as a "new" user to the site so see things in help that as an "old hat" you might not spot. It was the reason I embarked on this project so early on. a comment from user 6x9 just reminded me of this. if ever someone is brave enough to take on the help challenge again, know that some of how you read help will read differently to a newcomer - they don't have the experience you do. This is very important when developing your help. i wish you the very best of luck. DesPhagues (talk) 17:44, July 11, 2017 (UTC)

This is a cover song ... but not quite

I create a lot of pages for blues songs and the problem with them is that a lot of them are constantly covered/reworked by different artists.

So, as a practical example: I have this CD from Fiona Boyes, "Blues in My heart (2000)" and one of the songs on it is a cover of Lead Belly's "Pigmeat". The lyrics are fairly close to the original, but even after listening a few times, I can only verify out about 80% or so. With LyricWiki's policy to only publish what is actually sung (not what is published on the liner notes or - even worse - on other web sites), I am reluctant to create a page for this song when I don't have the correct lyrics as sung by Fiona Boyes.

What I would like to do is create page without lyrics, but a link to the original song (if the page exists) or alternatively a textbox that says something like: "This song is a cover of ..." and the available meta data. This is definitively more useful information than having no page at all.

Has this been discussed before? --Vssm2004 (talk) 00:35, September 27, 2017 (UTC)

A page without lyrics will likely get deleted very quickly. I think the best option is to put up the lyrics you have, mark the bits you aren't sure of or replace them with "????????" and tag the page with {{partial}}. — 6×9 (Talk) 06:56, September 27, 2017 (UTC)
Ahh yes, thanks 6x9. Unfortunately that was the answer I was expecting, but not the one I was hoping for.
Actually, your suggestions are exactly what I have done for the last year or so. However, since I'm not a native English speaker (although I think I'm pretty good at it) transcribing the actual lyrics for a song takes me about 15-30 minutes/song. Creating a page pointing to the original song and giving some meta data will take me maybe 1-2 minutes.
My thinking was that giving some rudimentary information for a specific cover version by pointing to the original and adding some meta data is much more beneficiary to people searching for lyrics than simply leaving the song "red". So, I've got to make a decision how best to use my time ...--Vssm2004 (talk) 23:18, September 27, 2017 (UTC)
The issue of RvW comes into play when lyrics are certified and when editors remove sung lyrics and replace with booklet version (at any rank), without verifying whether the booklet is as sung (sometimes it is).
Lyrics ranked Green are assumed to have missing parts, single instance of repeated verse/chorus, typos etc. even if {{partial}} is not present. And we certainly want your partial lyrics, because it saves the next editor lots of time. So I'd say <50% correct is a keeper.
One tip: Instead of marking missing parts with "?????", please mark with "_____" because our cleanup script replaces runs of "?" with one instance. Underscores are safe and not likely to be used except for this purpose. --ES (talk) 11:22, September 28, 2017 (UTC)

Country, State and Hometown

Once in a while I look at the hometown info on an artist page and I think: this is just wrong. Not that the info given is wrong (well, sometimes it is), but that it is just not a very useful and sometimes even misleading information.

Take George Moustaki for example. The given hometown is Nice in southern France. In fact, Moustaki was born in Alexandria/Egypt, lived most of his life in Paris and died in Nice. So, in my understanding, his hometown is Paris/France.

Another example: Alexis Korner. Yes, he was born in Paris/France, but spent most of his life in London/England, which I would consider his "hometown".

Another one: Jackson Browne. The artist page gives Los Angeles as his hometown (which is correct in my understanding), but he was actually born in Heidelberg/Germany.

I could go on and on ... but my point is: I can see some value in giving the "hometown" for a group, but choosing the place of birth as "hometown" for an artist is quite often just silly.

Any thoughts? --Vssm2004 (talk) 17:18, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

Where would be the hometown of an individual born in Germany but living in Canada? --ES (talk) 17:23, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

Notability before song lyric inclusion into LyricWiki

How notable does a song(or its artist) need to be to be part of LyricWiki? Also can editors add their own songs or must they be inserted by independent fans? Internetofdata (talk) 11:05, October 30, 2017 (UTC)

An artist doesn't need to be notable to be included here, and artists can add their own lyrics if they so wish, however it would need evidence that it exists, e.g. iTunes, Spotify, MusicBrainz, Discogs, Bandcamp, SoundCloud are all fitting sources to ensure a song stays here uncontested. Hope that helps :) - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 13:37, October 30, 2017 (UTC)

"Artist1 & Artist2" vs "Artist 2 (feat. Artist1)"

The past few days I've been working on adding lyrics for the various Sons of Anarchy soundtrack albums and found an interesting situation. The song "Blue Angel" appears on the album Songs of Anarchy: Vol. 4 as well as on the Forest Rangers' album Land Ho!. As far as I can tell, the two versions are identical. However, they're credited differently on each album. On the Songs of Anarchy album, the artist credit is "Billy Valentine & The Forest Rangers". However, on the Forest Rangers album it's just "feat. Billy Valentine". Lyrics pages exist for both versions (I added lyrics for the first version before realizing that the second existed). Should I create a redirect for one to the other, or are we fine with having both versions exist? Oldiesmann (talk) 16:39, November 3, 2017 (UTC)

I think that if it's the same recording, there should be one song page. I'd keep the one that came first and redirect the other. Neemu (talk) 09:55, November 11, 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for deletion

While checking a few Joe Cocker songs, I came across Joe Cocker:Satisfied. As you can see, it was just cut/pasted from LYRICSFREAK. While this is a wide spread habit on all lyric sites, the creator of this page should at least make sure that the lyrics match the song. A quick check on all the other major sites showed the same error on all of them. I have no idea which song the posted lyrics belong to; they certainly don't belong to Joe Cocker's song. If I had the correct lyrics, I could just overwrite the page and be done with it. Since I don't have them, I would suggest the page to be deleted. Unfortunately, being the wrong lyrics is not a valid criterion for deletion. Shouldn't it be?--Vssm2004 (talk) 19:35, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

If the lyrics are wrong to the extent that they are incorrect then no--they could be easily fixed as this is a wiki. If they are just completely off-base, then yes: otherwise, every redlink we have could be turned blue with nonsense. —Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:19, November 29, 2017 (UTC)


This page is running long, so unless someone has some compelling reason in the next few days, I'm proposing archiving threads older than 90 days or so. —Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:58, November 29, 2017 (UTC)

Song titling

Metallica:Vulturous/Metallica:Vulturus is also evidently referred to as "The Other New Song" by the band on setlists. Since there is no clear name for the song, does anyone have feedback on how the page should be titled? —Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:37, November 29, 2017 (UTC)

E.g. (koavf)·T·C·M 23:39, November 29, 2017 (UTC)
See also Metallica:Death Is Not The End/The New Song. —Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:41, November 29, 2017 (UTC)
Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.