FANDOM

2,054,160 Pages

Replacement filing cabinet

useability

Hey, maybe I would rank stuff too, if there was a one-click solution.

What I wanna say: It's too complicated, too much additional work like this.--Speckmade 23:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

When PR was introduced there was really no way around that. Now, thanks to the variable extension, most of it could be automated, but it would require some radical restructuring – variables only work on the same page, so we'd have to do away with the star boxes on talk pages and put a smaller version (a MUCH smaller version) on the content page instead. Frankly, after the huge discussion that resulted when someone suggested a small change to {{Instrumental}}, I'm way too scared to bring something big like this up…
In the meantime, you can still advance pages to Bronze; that doesn't require any additional stuff on the talk page. — 6×9 (Talk) 00:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Scared rfl. That's because someone mentioned the box ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 10:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC) P.S. Hi Aqua! Hope you are not working toooo hard ;)
Actually, one click stuff is quite possible, with Semantic (as long as we use Semantic Forms too). I would highly commend Semantic Forms to this website. There could be a be a link at the bottom of the page that say [Mark this page patrolled] and that would add a section in the wiki-markup: [[Patrolled::true| ]]. This would allow the talk to have a Semantic value to extract, and update the page to Bronze. Similar mechanisms would work as [Add me as a Watcher], [Ask for language help] and [Certify these lyrics]. This could be done. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 09:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi, red. They've actually got me making the wiki at work (using horrid MOSS 2007). I am putting in long hours but they've yet to make me salaried, so I'm making BIG overtime! --207.225.232.131 05:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Aqua I just saw this..so I know who to come to if I need a loan then? hee hee.  Яєdxx Actions Words 02:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Unreleased Songs & Page Ranking

Are unreleased songs and bootleg albums part of page ranking? Can unreleased songs and bootleg albums attain gold status? If they can't attain gold status, how can an artist page with these types of songs listed attain gold? (The post that sparked these questionsЯєdxx Actions Words 21:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to see my comment here which asks the same question. My feelings on this stuff are:
  • Bootleg album pages should be allowed if:
    1. It is a well-known bootleg or an important one (Pink Floyd:A Tree Full Of Secrets (2000) is pretty comprehensive and I think it warrants inclusion. See also Traveling Wilburys:Traveling Wilburys Volume 4½ (1991), JoJo:Joanna Levesque (2001), and others that I can't find/think of right now.)
      • I realize that the "important" and "well-known" words imply subjectivity. But, I feel it is only necessary to have what we need: specific information, but not to be inundated with too much crap.
    2. These pages are used only for reference and as a container page for unreleased songs.
      • There is no point to having the bootleg page if it doesn't contain anything new (unreleased). Also, we shouldn't try to promote these pages too much, so only link to them in the case that we need them. This problem has come up with the Pink Floyd bootleg linked above. We don't need to have its link on every page that appears on that set, but the unreleased material could have a link so that people can check it out as to what the song is. We should also note on the song page that the song is unreleased and is only available through other means.
  • My thoughts on unreleased songs:
    1. These songs are officially unreleased, which means that we technically cannot obtain them legally. As such, we are not allowed to own them, much less be able to certify them by listening to them. That being said, it would be legally impossible to have them get to Gold. If we can't do that, the albums (bootlegs) and artist can never get to Gold, despite a user doing everything (s)he can which defeats the purpose of the system if we can't get our favorite artists to Gold.
That's my rant because I wanna get Pink Floyd to Gold, but I can't until we change the rules. Reply/Comment/Question/Complain below. --WillMak050389 00:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion this page states that the page ranking system is all about 'is there anything to do here?' and the gold star is given for all possible information. So if it's impossible to provide more information, then the page (eg. an unreleased song) is done and it should be given the gold star. But well, I'm nobody important here. Banhurt 12:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Everybody is important here Banhurt and that includes you ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 22:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your points, WillMak, as well as with the general idea of Banhurt's additional comment. Gold should denote that a page is the best that it can be, keeping in mind that some just have limitations that can't be overcome by mere mortals. Unreleased songs are like that. I think having an exception in the system for unreleased and bootleg items is perfectly acceptable. Those items should not affect their higher-up counterparts (Album and Artist pages). I'm a little more shaky about whether such song pages should be themselves made gold, however, if they haven't been certified by someone in some manner. A totally unreleased song, or a song that the artist only performed live (but was not included on an album or DVD) is going to be basically impossible to get certified via audio (unless we get lucky enough that there is a YouTube video). If a song can't be certified in the normal manner, finding a reliable reference for the lyrics, such as the artist's web site should be sufficient. (Some bands have official/semi-official fan site, and some of those might be good? Maybe?) Anyhow, those are my thoughts at the moment....    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Why thanks Will! I can see you got there before me ;) Ok great, you've really given us something to work with, so here goes with my thoughts:
There is no point to having the bootleg page (i.e. the album page) if it doesn't contain anything new (unreleased). Absolutely. In this there should be no argument. However, since the majority of bootlegs are live albums of complete concerts, some might argue that these are "new (unreleased)", because:
  • a) they are unreleased because they are the lyrics to the live versions of the songs and/or
  • b) are new because they relate to a specific performance, etc. .
To which I would probably mutter something like if we were to agree that we could end up with 10 versions of the same song, just differing in "Hello New York", "Hello London", etc.
Also, we shouldn't try to promote these pages too much, so only link to them in the case that we need them.Again, I am in complete agreement. One way of ensuring this would be to only create links on the bootleg album page to the unreleased songs
We should also note on the song page that the song is unreleased and is only available through other means. Again, I am in complete agreement. However if a bootleg album page has been created, or if the bootleg album name is known, I think it should be specified in the song template, (either by linking or by means of the addtext parameter), instead of "through other means". I think we should also allow external links, e.g. to musicbrainz, YouTube, etc. where these exist.
Here's two I would wish to add to the above:
A page should not be created for the bootleg album simply to accommodate one or two unreleased songs. In the case of one or two songs, these should simply be listed under a section headed something like "Unreleased", above the Other Songs list on the artist page.
The page ranking status of these unreleased song and bootleg album pages should not affect their higher-up counterparts, i.e. Album and Artist pages.
I am concerned that to allow unreleased songs (bootlegs) to be certified "Gold" would not only promote their status on this site, but be interpreted as approval. Since unreleased also includes songs not known to appear on any bootleg album, the lyrics will be impossible for all to verify unless, like Kiefer says, a video exists of the performance on YouTube, a site which is accessible to all. I am not a goody goody Will ;) so I will admit to owning a few 1 solitary bootleg albums (tut tut) but things should be made accessible to enable the entire LW community to particpate fully and equally, not just the naughty ones who do own a bootlegs like me ;).
 Яєdxx Actions Words 11:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I'm trying to promote a different style of indenting, expect to see it again from the eternal rebel ;)...Well I mean..isn't all that white space to the left like...a bit like silly? LOL)
I just wanted to clear up that I DO want links to the bootleg in the {{Song}} template, but only in the case that it is the only link. "Interstellar Overdrive" and "Lucy Leave" both appear on A Tree Full of Secrets, but only "Lucy Leave" deserves the link in the {{Song}} because it is unreleased. I do not want a link to the bootleg on "Interstellar Overdrive." That's all I was trying to say.
I would also want to disagree with "A page should not be created for the bootleg album simply to accommodate one or two unreleased songs." From what I know of bootlegs, a lot of them only have a few unreleased songs. Also, most artists don't have a lot of unreleased material (the music industry milks as much money from us as possible). Pink Floyd is a rare exception with so much unreleased material, but in general there is very little unreleased material. So, if an artist/band has only two unreleased songs, we might as well add the bootleg that contains those two. In general we should be aiming for well-known bootlegs and bootlegs with a lot of new (unreleased) material. I'd like to see everything attributed to some sort of release, when possible, just so people know how they can get it if they want to get it. (One of the uses of this site is for people to find how they can get certain songs). The only thing we couldn't help with is unreleased, unbootlegged material, but I feel we should help as much as possible with everything else by giving at least one attribution.
Otherwise, I agree with everything you said Redxx (mainly because you agreed with me) and trust me, it is difficult not to own bootlegs. If I wanted, I could have the whole tree-full right now, but I don't think it's worth it. I've heard of people who get busted with just a few illegitimate songs in the states and the fine is somewhere around $10,000 or so per song. But that's mainly pirated music, I'm not quite sure if there are any loopholes for music that isn't made readily available to the public. I'm kind of looking into it, but I feel the research will be fruitless. --WillMak050389 13:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok thanks Will. Well the only thing we are in disagreement about then is creating album pages for bootlegs. The reason I don't want album pages created is solely because it could appear that by doing so we are promoting the bootleg. Best let Kiefer decide on that one then.  Яєdxx Actions Words 22:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe the policy has always been to not include bootlegs, unless a particular bootleg is in some way special, such as it is widely-referred-to by fandom, is historically significant for some reason, or is a bootleg of an album that was to be released but for some reason never was. So, it's a discouraged practice, but not completely forbidden.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok so what about the ranking part?  Яєdxx Actions Words 06:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The question has been answered already imo:
  • The essence of golden song definition: all available info should be set.
  • Referencing to bootlegs isn't forbidden totally.
  • Ergo, songs from bootlegs may be ranked and even starred to gold
--Senvaikis (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Bronze rating question

Hello. Can you please clarify whether someone needs to be watching a page in order for it to be bronze. I see that someone has to be watching it to be silver, but wasn't sure of bronze.~~~~

Certification

I was getting familiarized myself with the page ranking requirements recently. I was really surprised that the certification, which grants the reliability of the lyrics, is much less important than the typical paper work ( like the external links section with the Amazon, iTunes ... references ). Is it not supposed to be the opposite? It's the lyrics site after all, where gathering the true and exact lyrics for the songs is a top priority.

When I'd been digging through the discussion archives over here, I found a suggestion that the certified songs should have a distinct icon next to the star on the content page of a song. I think it's a brilliant idea! Let's imagine you're looking for the reliable song lyrics and you're coming across this site. How do you know the provided lyrics are actually reliable? The star does not tell you anything about the certification and it's the only icon available ( it's the requirement for the Gold star only and if the song with i.e. bronze star is certified, the star doesn't change. Most of the time ). Switching to the talk page to see whether it's been certified or not might be annoying to say at least ( assuming of course that you know there is any valuable info! How would you know if it's the first time you visit the site? Sometimes the talk page is not even created ). Such an icon ( with a caption or alt text like "This song has been certified!" ) should leave no doubt that the song lyrics are reliable, also it would be much easier for the first-time users, or rather guests, who don't know that the information about certification actually exists.

I really wonder if anyone was working on it in any way in the past. The idea came up over two years ago. --Cheers,  Ͼ Tomalla Ͽ 14:20, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

I think having certification as a separate icon (with the title text that you mentioned) and a link which explains what the means... is a great idea :)
-Sean Colombo 18:00, June 30, 2011 (UTC)

Red link

{{Code Purple}} was deleted but the reference here wasn't. —Justin (koavf)·T·C 22:09, December 18, 2018 (UTC)

Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.