2,054,106 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 LyricWiki talk:Page ranking
  July – September 2008 October - December 2008 >>

Conversation moved from LyricWiki Talk:Community Portal

Catch the bus
OK, people, I've got something to say. We all agree making this site great is important. We've even talked about having a page ranking system in the past. But I say we get the ball rolling for real. So I'm proposing a system and I want to hear some feedback before we implement it.

Wikipedia puts little stars in the upper right-hand corner of pages to say when the article has reached featured status. What if we used a system of stars (in templates, producing categories) to indicate where a page was on a scale, so people who like to do certain kinds of work (or who don't know anything about the artist) can work on pages they like? There will be slightly different systems for artist, song and album pages, but since album and song pages can't exist without an artist pages (thank you bots), I say we make the main hub of information be the artists' pages.

The pages themselves are already packed and laid out, so they would just have the stars. All the information about how the page is progressing would be on the talk page. If we want, we could even do like they do on Wikipedia and have it fold up in a show/hide banner, so that the "real" talk page stuff can be easily seen.

Taking song pages first... To even get off the ground, a page would have to have 1+ user(s) sign up to say they are watching it. This might be a bronze star. Next, once all the parameters are either filled in or known to be blank (asin, iTunes, wikipedia, album, artist, etc.) the song would move up to the silver stage. Then, when someone confirms the lyrics and all the parameters, the page gets a Gold Star. Only once all the songs on an album are silver and its own specs are alright, can an album move up to silver or gold. An artist page would need its albums silver and no "other songs" section to reach silver itself. Pages not yet bronze might get a hollow star.

If three admins comment enthusiastically, I'll upload all the graphics and make all the templates. If ten user jump on board, I'll start changing pages. ...or you could tell me I'm a hyper spaz. >-( Let me know what you think! --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ

You're a hyper spaz
Ok thank you for your efforts with this Aqua, for I can see you have given the matter much thought. I won't profess to understand it all, for I have never interested myself in such things as page ranking. I just search for a site and go there. End of. But anything that helps make this site better, promotes it, sounds good to me. I like the idea of awarding pages a status according to how well they have been completed. It might give users an added incentive to complete all the boxes! However, since this is a wiki and therefore open to anyone to edit, I am wondering how such a scheme would actually work in operation. By which I mean would a user be presented with a big "Hands off!" sign if they try editing a page that had been awarded a status? Would it be protected so that only certain people could edit it? Because if that was to happen, I really don't think it would be a good thing.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 16:29, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Hey Red. I didn't go into the "why" and since the previous discussion wasn't very in depth, let me after-the-fact write the prelude! If we want this site to be best, most popular, most accurate lyrics site in the world, we need to improve the site as a whole. Sure we all work on what we know and what like, but just as Wikipedia had to start and double-check articles about non-nerdy things, we need to improve all our pages. Sure we could all hit Special:Random all day, but that's not very efficient. "Stars" give people an incentive to see their pet pages do well.
None of this means that pages get "set in stone" or locked. Pages can still be edited. It's just that anyone interested in going out and improving pages doesn't need to check in there. --Aquatiki 21:57, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Thank you Aquatiki. I'll be interested in knowing what others think because, like I say, I'm one of those 'non-techies' and a bit ignorant in such matters. As such I'm not sure any opinion I could give would be very valid.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 22:27, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
Alright, unless somebody has a problem with me moving {{Split}}, followed by {{RequestTranslation}} and {{RequestRomanization}}, to talk pages, I'll go ahead and get started on that tonight. If you need any programming or bot script work done, just let me know. It may take me a bit, but if either there is an actual need or you keep prodding me, it will get done.
- teknomunk (talk,E,,A) 23:10, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Images Uploaded

StarIconBronze StarIconSilver StarIconGold StarIconGreen StarIconViolet These are real easy to colorize in Photoshop and make more colors as needed. On a page they could be this size StarIconGreen as part of a template and include a category. --Aquatiki - T - E 23:37, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I think it would be a good thing. I'm guessing it would require a nomination page(?) and a bit of explanation somewhere. (A link on the Community Portal page, perhaps? <speaking of which, that needs a bit of a re-haul as well>)    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   00:23, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
I like the idea, obviously you've sat on this one for a while. I love the idea of a show/hide banner to keep stuff tidy. I officially vote 'aye'.
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 00:32, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
Would this be a 'add stars as we go' type thing, or a 'update every page right now' type thing?
I ask, because there are 2500 song pages that lack categories right now, meaning they lack songfooters or artist templates. If every page had a category, these 2500 would be lost in the shuffle.
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 00:41, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
I guess my answer would be ... both. As with all implementations, we gonna hit some bumps, so it might be better to role this out slowly, find the hiccups, and then turn the bots loose.
I'm gonna get to work on {{Star}}, {{Song Rank}}, {{Album Rank}} and {{Artist Rank}}. Perhaps we could keep the info on LyricWiki:Page ranking? --Aquatiki - T - E 04:33, 25 July 2008 (EDT)
If three admins comment enthusiastically
If the rest of the guys think it's a good idea..then it gets my vote too! Thanks again for your efforts with this Aqua...sounds like it could be fun :-) ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 09:20, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

First Drafts Done

OK, fellow lyricphiles. I just spent too many hours straight in front of a computer, but the first drafts are done. See the little gold star on 4 Non Blondes:What's Up?? It takes you to the talk page where you can see all the goodness. Check out LyricWiki:Page ranking for the whole scoop. I knew songs would be the hardest, so now that that's all done, albums and artists will be a snap.

The only thing I thought of while doing this, would be to include a star=Green in {{Song}} and {{Album}} and only use {{Star}} on artist pages. How does that strike people? --Aquatiki - T - E 05:52, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Most song pages are bot created. Album pages have to be created manually. As such album pages get a head theory anyhow. Will all new song pages automatically be given a green star when this becomes operational?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 08:27, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
I say aye. This can be mostly handled by bots, checking to see which available fields are filled, and apply initial ranking based on that.
A link on special pages can lead to bot ranked pages, so humans can verify what's not bot-verifiable. A means for the API to read/write ranking data.
imho related artists data need be considered in ranking (dunno if it is there or not). Well done Aquatiki. EchoSierra 08:50, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
All done. All the templates are in place and work. Test cases for my proposed changes to {{Song}} and {{Album}} are up and working at {{Song/Test}} and {{Album/Test}}. For examples in action see Talk:Dave Matthews Band and Talk:The Postal Service:Give Up (2002). --Aquatiki - T - E 18:24, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
I like how things look. However, I've already run into something that could use expanding. I've started throwing thise at one of my favorite artists, KOTOKO, and it is obvious that I will eventually need a spot to put Japanese specific requirements in the info box (all songs translated, romanized, track translations, title translation, etc.). Do you think that adding additional template parameters to allow expansion of the top and bottom parts would be a good idea?
- teknomunk (talk,E,,A) 21:25, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
I thought I'd thought of lots of language stuff, but I guess not. I'll get right on that! --Aquatiki - T - E 21:44, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
This is a neat concept. :) I love the icons you picked too!
I should probably figure out the collapsing-div thing soon though.
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 23:18, 26 July 2008 (EDT)
Can I suggest that this discussion be moved to LyricWiki talk:Page rankings with a link placed here so anyone can find it and comment? I have also had some further thoughts upon this...  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 12:18, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
I like what's been done. You're really efficient, Aqua. The little shining star is neat; I like it! But if I'm new here, it may look like "Add Favorite" to me; I wouldn't know what the icon means. So maybe appending words besides icon or notes on MouseOver could be more transparent.--Tomin 11:03, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
Man, I don't know how to do that! MediaWiki makes it so hard to even link an image. I used {{navimg}}. Do you know how to do that? I guess the fact that it takes you to the talk page where it's all explained will have to do .... --Aquatiki - T - E 19:42, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Timed Lyrics

AQ, you are great! Even images you've collected here are worthy of praice. Thank you for the nice idea and great job. ...And here comes Senvaikis and asks - what about timed lyrics? ;D. Anyway LW is a lyrics site primarily, and TL is a (timed) lyrics after all. So don't you think that having a TL item (with appropriate your-style icon) in song info should be befitting to songs with stared status?--Senvaikis (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks Sen! How about 294px-Current_album.svg.png ? Do you think it should be part of {{Song Info}}?
Wait a minute... let me pretend to be you:
  • Where is documentation??!?
ha ha ha. Seriously, is it all in that template I see you discussing? What is it called? Where is the documentation? --Aquatiki - T - E 01:59, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
LOL - I accept your joke about documentation, though... ok, leave that for another thread ;) I just wanted to thank for a quick reaction - you are sharp and beaming as a lightning.--Senvaikis (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
I changed {{Song Info}} to include the optional parameter {{{time}}}. Try it and see, or look at Talk:4 Non Blondes:What's Up? --Aquatiki - T - E 04:14, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Modest Mouse:3rd Planet

I bring this to your attention because of the extra space that {{Star}} causes that is a little unsightly. would there be a way to fix?
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 21:08, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
Also, in passing, I'd like to propose a compromise, that would allow you to begin applying stars sitewide. have the green star image, documentation, and all, but just exclude the green category (keeping violet, bronze, and up). That way, we would be able to start the project, and I'd be still able to monitor any other pages added without a song footer. Feasible?

Difference between Silver and Gold

Isn't it a little bit undetermined? Both stars are defined as must have all possible fields filled plus watcher plus certifier (only for gold?). The only one difference I've found was claiming that gold must be "perfect". Who can tell me, programmer, what does "perfect" mean in this case (btw, as in any other field of activity too)?. Let me concretize my question: take for example two songs from the same album (1-st and 5-th). I don't know if I was right, but I decided to give a gold star to the first as having all possible fields filled (but page on wikipedia and legal download link: I treat them as optional - most of songs will never have them). Now take the second song - it doesn't have video and audio links yet. So I gave only Silver to it. But I feel that that's wrong! I'm almost sure that if this song doesn't have it's video or audio links on these 2 services today, it may be so for a good. Is then the song or it's lyrics worse? In other words, I ask you if I can give the same gold star to the second song (it's perfect in my understanding ;)), knowing that lyrics provided correspond to song I've listened myself, but no youtube neither goear may never contain any info about it? Or, more generally - where's the exact boundary between silver & gold? Thanks, --Senvaikis (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Gold is all about the {{Cert}}: someone needs to verify the lyrics in a way better than just checking other lyric sites. Gold means that someone has either heard the lyrics and compared what we have, or else read the official lyric from the liner notes or official website. Silver means all the info is filled in and someone is watching. You have to be Silver before you can be Gold. Does that answer your question? --Aquatiki - T - E 19:13, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
I'm going to drop my two cents in here, due to the "or else" portion above. From my experience in comparing recorded lyrics to liner notes and the official lyrics on sites and such, they are different often enough to be a concern. (Usually not by a lot, but still enough to be a concern.) Because of this, I would personally like to see that certifying lyrics always include a "listened to" component. Checking liner notes and official lyrics are quite helpful when clarifying what words are being heard, and are an important part of the checking process - no doubt about it - but the recorded version should really always be compared to the lyrics.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   21:50, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
I have noticed this controversy here and there. I think we should have policy page on this, maybe LyricWiki:Recorded vs. Written. Do you agree, Kief? --Aquatiki - T - E 22:06, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
Speaking about Recorded vs. Written I'd agree to Kiefer - that's especially relevant to most bluesmans. But what about this: "...Silver means all the info is filled in..." - I do believe you don't treat this requirement literally. Such fields as goear, youtube or even wikipedia will remain empty for most songs. Does that mean they can't be silver or even gold? Imo each star should have some well-defined list of mandatory, 'must to have' fields.--Senvaikis (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
I would definitely agree with Kiefer (and Senv) on the subject of lyrics. Regardless of 'official lyrics', etc. the lyrics given a gold star should be the recorded version off the album in the song footer and as listened to by the certifier. Think about it. People come here looking for lyrics to songs. Why? So they can sing along! As such, what do you think they would rather see? What the lyricist intended they should sing, or exactly how the song goes? I know what I'd choose ;) Further, this will also be simple enough for everybody to understand, because after all this effort, we certainly don't want to make the scheme too complicated or difficult to maintain (which I fear could prove the case if this subject was opened up for wider discussion). And btw the reason I say 'album in the song footer' is in view of multiple releases (which, although I haven't thought it through properly yet, I have a hunch could present a slight problem).  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 05:01, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
Alright! I nominate 'you, Red, to write LyricWiki:Recorded vs. Written. Also, Red, should we change {{Song Info}} to say "album in {{SongFooter}}"? --Aquatiki - T - E 05:45, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Hee hee. LyricWiki:Recorded_vs._Written I also think we need to amend the wording on the {{Song Rank}} template from "had its content verified by actual listening or by comparison with liner notes" to "had its content verified by actual listening" full stop to reflect this and also to avoid confusion. It definitely can't be a case of either/or.
I also think it would be a good idea to provide uniformity to the way the {{Cert}} is filled in. And seeing as we have all followed your lead in this Aqua (yes, even me ;), it would seem a good idea if this was the suggested wording. In fact, I feel it would be very helpful to users (and save them from getting RSI) if "I played the song and read the lyrics as I listened. Verified" was actually incorporated into the {{Cert}} template (we don't actually have to do away with the option of being able to change the wording, I'm sure..?).
With regards to changing the wording Aqua on {{Song Info}}, mmm...I'd say no. Because whilst there isn't any additional "documentation" (hee hee Senv) explaining such things at present, I believe most users will quickly realise from the other options that it is referring to the album in song footer of which there can only be one. It would also spoil the look.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 07:01, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

see Template_talk:Cert --Aquatiki - T - E 08:15, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

All Fields

Some additional notes (sorry if a little offtopic) about "all fields", - just as matter for possible discussion. There are some fields of song information, topical to LW as a lyrics-oriented site, but rarely used here. I mean duration and lyricist. Take for example song "The Thrill Is Gone". There are two absolutely different songs with such title, with different composers and lyricists (Lew Brown;Ray Henderson/Rick Darnell;Roy Hawkins). Field lyricist would be very useful for such song, if it pretended to be gold. Also there is a lot of songs (recorded by the same artist), having different versions with different duration and often - even slightly different lyrics. In such cases importance of field duration is obvious (look for example for all versions of "Ain't Got No.." by Nina Simone).--Senvaikis (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
When I say "all filled in" that can mean "not applicable" or "done" just not "unknown". Not applicable means you've found that it doesn't have a wikipedia page or a goear upload or a youtube video, etc. --Aquatiki - T - E 04:20, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Is progress mandatory?

Could a song be "Certified" before it has all fields completed? For example, I can't use iTunes so there's no way for me to check a song's ID or even if it has one. That song would be a Bronze star according to the page because it lacks info. But I may have listened to it and be positively sure that the lyrics are right. What should I do with it? Leave it at Bronze+Cert or just Bronze and keep a mental note that I actually listened to it? Also, is it OK to start adding rank to all my pet songs? --Aikurn 14:40, 4 August 2008 (EDT)

You can certainly certify a song before it's Gold. That'll just mean it'll skip Silver. As for iTunes, try the iTunes Link Maker. I do a lot of editing during downtime at work, and that's what I use. So yes, Bronze+Cert is cool. Feel free to start adding stars to songs, albums and artists, just kick in on Special:Uncategorizedpages whenever possible! --Aquatiki - T - E 21:15, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Great! Thanks for the link. *bookmarked* I'll start ranking my watchlist and take a look at Uncategorized too. --Aikurn 11:30, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Thank you, that will help us all!  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 12:10, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

"Related" in Artist template

Could you explain exactly what we mean by "Related Artists" here on LW? Since I confess I am still a little unclear on this. By which I mean it's obvious if an artist is a member of a group that we should include the group under such a heading on the artist's page (and visa versa), also if they are known to have collaborated with another artist (assuming the editor actually knows of the existence of the same) but how far do we take this? The reason I am thinking to ask this now is because of the "related" in the artist's template and because I feel we need some guidelines so as to help us know what we are being asked to do in order to check this off as "done". Many thanks!  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 12:24, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm sure this features owes its existence to the fact that artists on Wikipedia have the same-named section. I think the definition is a little vague, but could include
  1. other bands which members have been in
  2. band which this band spun out off
  3. band which spun out of this one
  4. students of the band (members)
  5. teachers of the band (members)
  6. bands often confused with this one
Like I said, the definition is vague, so use your own judgment. In terms of scope, the number of related artist should be something like [All artist fulfilling 1, 2 and 3] + [Artist's popularity / a made-up constant]. ha ha. As long as you've given it a go, you can count it as done! --Aquatiki - T - E 12:38, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
In addition to the above list, I have, in the past, included artists that collaborate on a fairly regular basis (ex. KOTOKO, though that list probably needs to be updated to only include regular collaborations).
- teknomunk (talk,E,,A) 13:31, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
I got a head  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 17:19, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Aquatiki's list is a pretty good one. My inner, mental definition is any artist that has a close relationship with the main artist. Collaborations is where it gets a bit blurry where the line is, especially with all of the rap/hip-hop featured artists and such. So I like "collaborates on a fairly regular basis" that teknomunk mentioned. Help:Contents/Editing/Formatting/Artists#Related Artists could certainly have that list added to it. I'm off again in mere moments, so perhaps if no one has done it I will when I return later tonight.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   17:55, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
Thanks guys.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 06:44, 6 August 2008 (EDT)
Maybe you should link to this page on the template (just for explanation). Same for "Other Songs" - I figured this out by now (that no other songs should be listed) but at first I didn't know what to do. So what I actually wanna say: I little more documentation on the template page itself would be much appreciated. Firehawk 00:41, 23 August 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the feedback Firehawk. It's always helpful to know the areas our users are having difficulty with, so we can improve the service we provide. Whilst we are encouraging our users to participate in the new Page Ranking Scheme, it isn't fully operational as yet and this is why you have hit on a few problems. In view of this I have endeavoured to provide a temporary solution which I hope you and others will find helpful >>>> Template_talk:Artist_Info#Additional_Info. Any problems just leave a message on my talk page.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 20:28, 23 August 2008 (EDT)

Silver-Gold / cert

I think the page ranking system as it is, may be good. But since I wasn't here when you guys figured this all out, I still have to learn a bit how it all works. I already have an important comment though. Usually I won't be able to fill all the fields (for example, I know nothing about iTunes) and I don't think it is very relevant to have the ASIN and iTunes number filled in (it is a lyrics site, after all). So as far as I'm concerned, the page could get Gold without them (of course, the info and classification fields would have to be filled in). On the other hand, when I add lyrics I usually know them or check them by listening. Or it may even be a bot added page for which I quickly fixed the lyrics without adding all the fields and rankings, etc. So there might be pages which are otherwise ranked something like Bronze, but would have the lyrics certified.

Then I have this dilemma: if I have checked the lyrics, but not all the less important fields are filled in, would I have to rank it Bronze or Gold? Bronze seems too low, because the lyrics (which it's about, after all) are correct, but Gold seems to high, because it's not (almost) perfect. And Silver is not an option, because if it would be silver but the lyrics are checked that would make Gold, right? --Mischko Talkicon EsperanzaIcon 14:45, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Also, for non-English lyrics, would including a translation count as a condition for getting Gold? --Mischko Talkicon EsperanzaIcon 14:49, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
You can certify a song at any time, but it shouldn't be Gold until it's "perfect". The thing is, "perfect" is a level we should all agree on. The current requirements seem good to me, and I'm not an iTunes/GoEar/... user either. I think if there's a Song/AlbumFooter parameter for the info, it should be completed. --Aikurn 15:39, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
These ranks which I created are not indicative of the worth of a page, nor are they perfect. Gold means everything is there and the lyrics have been double-checked by listening. The {{Cert}} could be there anytime, but it's the combination of having all the details right and the verification that means "done". All the details are required for Silver. Bronze just means someone is watching it. This is the beginning because there are morons out there who don't listen and just change songs. Plus, there's spammers. Soon I'll be going through and marking everything as Green, but first every album needs an {{AlbumFooter}} and every song a {{SongFooter}}. Violet means that help is needed, usually in the languages realm. (Technomunk had me make {{Song Info/ja}}, but he's the expert on non-English pages).
The pages are still there and the same, whether they get a star or not. It's just a system to help us see what needs improvement in whatever way. When you put {{Song Rank}} on a talk page, the fields you can't fill in make categories happen, so people who love iTunes can work on that and people who love Amazon can work on that. It's not a perfect system, but it works. --Aquatiki - T - E 16:31, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Changes in Requirements

I submit that the following changes be enacted:

  1. That the Song Info template have the Download requirement removed, as this requirement is rarely applicable to most artists. Currently we have Amazon and iTunes links, which are legal download sites. Adding a third required download location is redundant and an unnecessary burden.
  2. That the Song Info template have a Credits requirement added, as all songs should have their creators properly honored. (Credit where credit is due.) So far the site has been lax in requiring this for each song page, but if we are to state that a Song page is an example of excellence, then it really should include the proper credits.
  3. That the Artist Info template have the Pedlr requirement removed. While the parameter is helpful for those who are looking for Pedlr artists here on Pedlr's sister site, for a huge majority of the artists that we are dealing with, this is going to be a "Not Applicable" parameter. The parameter should still exist in the Artist template, but its inclusion in the Artist Info template is unnecessary.

   Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   23:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)


  1. Approve
  2. Approve
  3. Approve

   Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   23:40, 14 August 2008 (EDT)


  1. Approve
  2. Approve
  3. Approve

--Aquatiki - T - E 00:34, 15 August 2008 (EDT)


  1. Approve
  2. Approve
  3. Approve

 ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 05:42, 15 August 2008 (EDT)


  1. Approve
  2. Approve
  3. Approve

FWIW :) --Mischko Talkicon EsperanzaIcon 07:23, 15 August 2008 (EDT)


  1. I agree with this proposal. Wow, these are so well thought out an written, I am having a hard time avoiding the standard Approve that everyone above me has done. :P
  2. Exactly, credit should be given to the artists, producers, etc. Otherwise, we will end up being like all the other lyrics sites on the internet.
  3. I think that this argument should be applied to all the parameters; if only a tiny minority of the songs will ever have the parameter included, it should not be listed in {{Song Info}}. In addition, its inclusion in {{SongFooter}} should be considered (if it is the case that it is currently included).

- teknomunk (talk,E,,A) 10:04, 15 August 2008 (EDT)


That ... was some kick-@$$ democracy in action! I feel much better. I have made the download parameter optional (like the timed parameter). pedlr was made optional too. Both 'download' and 'pedlr' we removed from the default templates which users are instructed to transclude. Thank you everyone for voting and articulating so well. --Aquatiki - T - E 13:14, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Credit goes to Kiefer I think. *Round of applause*  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 18:51, 15 August 2008 (EDT)
That was cool indeed. Very well done Kiefer. And Teknomunk, I had no problems with the standard "Approve" because I hardly had anything to add. --Mischko Talkicon EsperanzaIcon 04:04, 18 August 2008 (EDT)


  1. Anyway, now that we've agreed on making the credits part of the requirements for the page, there should also be a way to make it clear that they should be there. I suggest incorporating them into {{Song}}, {{SongFooter}} or a separate template ({{Credits}} perhaps?).
  2. The credits should definitely include a Lyrics and Music part, and possibly other fields (things like "Arranged by" or "Rights sold to" come to my mind at the moment...).
  3. Do we want the artist name as default value, possibly with a warning that the credits haven't been entered and are temporarily given to the artist (and if you can change them, please do)?
  4. Or do we want to display a big warning / include the page in a category if the credits aren't (fully) filled out?
  5. Also, will it be necessary to include the credits section on a Cover page, which is tagged by {{Cover}} already? For some pages, it probably will, because the cover is significantly different. Perhaps for covers, only the "Arranged by" field should be required, instead of the "Lyrics by" and "Music by" ones...
  6. Finally, how are we going to do this with all the page we already have? Gold pages should be downgraded to Silver until the credits have been added :).
Anyway, I think giving credits is very important (I have thought about it from time to time ever since joining this site) and will likely gain us more support from the music industry. So AFAI'm concerned, this is a priority (even more than ranking the pages and including ASIN numbers and YouTube links).
Wow that has become a long post. Just my 2 pennies though :) --Mischko Talkicon EsperanzaIcon 04:04, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Ok Well I'll add my two pennysworth now. I'm just going to type the thoughts that came to my mind in reading the above Mischko, as briefly as I can (makes a change guys huh? lol).
  1. Good idea. Credits up to now however have always had their own separate section with a level 2 heading. Maybe now this section should actually be built into the default song page?
  2. The danger is that if we make this scheme overly complicated, people will be deterred from participating. As I also know, from attempting to complete credits section on my mp3 collection, credit type information is sometimes difficult to establish. As such a lot of conflicting information exists out there.
  3. No, because this information would likely be wrong and I think people seeing the parameter filled in would be more inclined to leave it, thereby making it harder for us to spot which pages need attention. Kiefer raised this point in answer to a suggestion I made with regards to default values.
  4. Yes definitely. And this would seem to be the appropriate category to include the page in if the credits aren't (fully) filled out Category:Requests for Help. That way, if anyone has a special interest in obtaining this information, they could go through all the songs in this category and add the credits.
  5. The {{Cover}} template links back to the original page. I personally think that to detail the original composers, etc. on the original song page should be enough. See also my comments re point 2.
  6. I don't think there's that many at the moment. I'll redo all of mine.
 ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 07:56, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

I know I'm probably being totally thick here...

but I was looking to find the new parameter for credits, by which I mean how exactly to enter this (which I assume is |credits = ). Anyway, I went to the template page. I looked at this in edit mode but the info wasn't there. Then I thought I'd try just entering {{Song Info}} on the talk page, save it and go back in to find the parameters had magically appeared and were all there ready for completion and that way I'd know. Duh! So...I think you know what's coming...yes, a number of questions (lol). Ok I really don't think I need to say much more about that, 'cos I reckon you know the questions I would be asking. (Btw I know it's a transclution or whatever [like my signature] and I understand a bit about how they work.) However, I tried to view all this as a novice user and I figured that if they can't work out how to get the parameters to show in edit mode in order to complete each one, they will likely give up. I also happened to notice that although the template has been updated and an option for credits now appears on each song's talk page that is part of the scheme, this parameter isn't showing in edit mode and needs to be added manually.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 20:08, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, I can't make credits = appear on existing pages. What I did was change {{Song Info/blank}} which is what the Bronze rank tells you to transclude. If you type {{subst:Template:Song Info/blank } } you'll see all the parameters which new pages will get. One of the reasons I was reluctant to make this change was because it would screw over songs already gone. Also, the workqueue is over 4 million, so it'll be days (weeks?) before changes trickle down, unless you're in edit mode. --Aquatiki - T - E 01:23, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
Aaah I think I get it. If I am understanding this correctly you are saying that it should never actually be necessary for anyone to try to find parameters (or even apply the {{Song Info}} template?), because when this becomes fully operational the parameters will have already been transcluded onto all song pages? Because all song pages are going to be ranked starting with green and therefore you just build upwards from there.. right? It's just that I happened to choose an unranked song page?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 14:32, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
You have grown strong in the ways of the Force, young padawan. --Aqua Yoda 22:00, 16 August 2008 (EDT)
Haa Haa Well I've got the best teachers ;)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 22:54, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Watchlist Feeds

Do you think we should mention the option of watchlist feeds Special:WatchlistFeed? The only thing is that whilst I have now subscribed to 100's of feeds and they show up in my Google Reader thingy (hee hee), I can't get this one (the most important one) to work for me :( I just get an error message. 50px Anyone else having similar problems?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 07:44, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Works in Google reader for me. Don't try to surf to your watch list, just add it to your RSS reader. I went ahead and added to the Watcher section. --Aquatiki - T - E 09:44, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
What error message are you getting? I don't use Google Reader, so I won't be able to test it directly.
- teknomunk (talk,E,,A) 10:20, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
This is error message >>> 50px  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 17:20, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Ah, that error. Right now I am not sure where the extra space is coming from; I'll look into it after classes tomorrow.
- teknomunk (talk,E,,A) 00:55, 18 August 2008 (EDT)
Thank you teknomunk :-)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 06:45, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

Uncategorized Pages

Aqua, do you remember this post ?? Well....


  • 29th July 2008 = 1950 uncategorised pages
  • 17th August 2008 = ....

Can I have a round of applause now please? (hee hee)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 18:43, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

Just a quick question

Well, technically a couple of quick questions.

1- Methinks this should have been linked in News or Current Events at some point- I looked there the first time I saw a green star and didn't see anything.

2- So I assume the green star replaces the old "Review Me" category, and the violet star replaces (or at least augments) the various Editing Help categories? My home page is the "songs with accented characters" page, so you can guess what I've been working on, along with language identification. NYCScribbler 10:40, 7 September 2008 (EDT)nycscribbler

2) Yes and yes. Review me is supposed to go Green and Violet is supposed to do away with the other template. LW will soon upgrade to a new server, so I've kinda waiting for that before I go full tilt! --Aquatiki - T - E 14:58, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Status for "Checklist"

I'm posting here rather than on the {{Song Info}}, {{Album Info}} and {{Artist Info}} pages. I noticed that among the three options for the completion of a task on these checklists (unknown, done, not applicable), there isn't an option for "incomplete." I imagine that unknown should probably be the default state, as when something hasn't even been checked to see if it's right or not. But what if it's checked and wrong, but the user doesn't plan to fix it right away, as when one doesn't have iTunes? I don't know if I should flag the page for editing when it doesn't really require "special" attention. It would be much easier to have "incomplete" so I don't have to check many times if the link is working or not when editing many songs at the same time team atalkctrb @17:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

All Songs/Albums Progress

For an artist, is having all songs/albums at a certain star level required for every step in advancement, or just a requirement for gold? In other words, is adding the checklist for an artist and watching the artist's page sufficient to rate the artist Bronze, or would I have to rate the artist Black if there are a few missing songs for that artist? team atalkctrb 18:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I will admit to still being a little unsure about some of this myself, but I believe that completing the checklist for an artist and watching the artist's page is sufficient to rate the artist Bronze. This is my interpretation anyway. It may help to look here >>> LyricWiki:Page_ranking#How_To_Rank_Pages Hope that answers some of your questions.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 21:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
1. I reread the page a few times. Looks like watching a page and "working on" {{Artist info}}(i.e., creating the checklist) are the only requirements for bronze. A bronze artist could, say, have no lyrics or albums. Then, when the artist's checklist is filled in, such as home town, etc., the artist can be silver, regardless of album/song pages. However, the field for "all songs" and "every album" still has to be filled in for silver, but the value filled in can still be "Black". The "all songs" and "every album" checklists only need to be gold for the artist to be rated gold. At least that's my understanding right now, I don't know if it sounds right though. However, I noticed near the bottom that "other songs" needs to be dealt with before bronze... so I am still a little confused. team atalkctrb @16:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
2. I think that the artist pages (and maybe albums) are supposed to have different requirements for stars, but the part of the help page about requirements for stars, which is the same one as for songs and albums, was copied into the page from elsewhere when the page was first written, which might be the cause of the confusion. Is there a place where the policy was decided before the help page was written, like a comprehensive policy page? team atalkctrb @16:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, looks like I better step in about now Hi, I'm Aquatiki and I came up with 90% of this mess. The article (for which this is the talk page) is the only policy which was written out for the page ranking system. In general, A, you are right. 1) Bronze does indeed only require a watcher and the checklist started. "Other songs" doesn't need to be done except to reach Gold. "Black" means albums and songs haven't even been marked Green yet. This is a temporary problem since we will eventually be marking all unranked songs and albums (and artists) Green. 2) When I wrote all of this, I didn't come up with the Help pages. I've been hanging back to see if what I wrote here was clear enough. What would you like to see different on the Help page? --Aquatiki - T - E 20:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Aqua - In general, this seems like a good idea, and I like this concept. I think it mostly makes sense, and in general I think the help pages are useful. I would like the help pages to centralize the requirements for different stars, but maybe those requirements may need discussion first. There are really only a few things that frustrate me in this whole process:
1. By requiring filling out the info as a requirement for silver star, but editing/fixing the actual lyrics only for gold, the focus is taken away from the actual lyrics and put on the peripheral links, when the focus should be on the lyrics themselves
2. I like the checklists, but it's annoying to have to edit the same "status" (i.e. done) for all the songs in an album, then work on the "status" for the next item on the list. It's a much more efficient use of time to work on the wikipedia link for multiple songs at once, then the artist/album/song info in the header, then in the songfooter, etc. Even with multiple browser windows, which each have a dozen tabs open, it can be hard to keep track of all this data at once. If i just examine one page at a time and fix its data, then move on to the next, it takes forever. It would be nice to have a centralized way to manage this, like collating the checklist data for all songs on an album into a chart, rather than have a chart on each song page. (at this point, I've only spent much time with songs, but I imagine that albums don't really need their checklists to be centralized) I have more I can add to this, but I don't want to make it sound too complicated or too much work to implement.
3. A lot of the data already exists on the pages, or can easily be found by a bot. I imagine that it takes time to figure out what exactly to have bots to do, and doing things like coordinating a page's star rating and its talk page star rating will come with time. Or, checking the "fletter" in the songfooter, and if it exists, checking off its box on the checklist. team atalkctrb @03:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree entirely. See here for my mock up of what is my proposed solution. We ought to be able to just ask the software if the language is filled in on a song, or what star songs on an album are. This kind of approach to wiki's is called Semantic Data and requires the Semantic MediaWiki extension to MediaWiki. Hopefully, we'll be doing this within the year. --Aquatiki - T - E 06:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I like that the new watcher and certified templates appear on the bottom of the page. This way, Category:Watched by Team a won't be entirely filled with talk pages. Also, if I understand correctly, stars are "automatically" set. Does this eliminate the checklist entirely? I can imagine a lot of troubleshooting problems that might result from this, and I wonder if there could be a protected version of the checklist that's automatically generated to see what needs to be done. Also, I imagine that "not applicable" could be set from directly in the new templates, rather than in the checklist, which would be great. Could "unknown" be set this way too, so that any required parameters don't have to be fished around for and copied into the header/footer ({{Infobox Song}} replaces both the header and footer, right}})? This way, the parameters could be added to all existing artists/albums/songs with an unknown value, and nothing would appear on the page, but it would at least be clear what needs to be done. Also, it seems that the artist's page is, for the most part, automatically generated... is this correct??
Artist pages and album pages are automagically generated in my model. When a parameter is not present, it is automatically called missing. However, you just have to type "NA" in for it, and that means it's marked done. Stars are automatically generated. I have another system (not yet implemented) to make new talk pages automatically be filled in with a hidable table to show what needs doing.
I know the checklists here seems like a lot of work, and that's why I want them to go away! However, until that time, there's no way of know what needs doing without them (other than re-pouring over songs other people have done, everytime). --Aquatiki - T - E 22:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This sounds like a really good idea. Adding the track number and release year to the new song infobox was a good idea, too. Will songs/albums be automatically generated, and will there be a way to override any of the automatic listing of songs/albums on an artist's page? I know it's still in progress, but I'm really looking forward to how it turns out. team atalkctrb @18:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want to have an album auto-generate, simply don't use the {{Infobox Album}} template, just type it by hand, like we do now. Why would you not want to have all songs and albums on an artists' page? --Aquatiki - T - E 23:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I was about to post about automatically generated, incorrectly spelled songs that are redirects, or songs that should be put on a bootleg/mixtape page, or songs that have some kind of parenthetical comment in the song title or page name that should be changed somehow when appearing on the artist's page. Then, I realized how the parameters in the new song template probably determine what artist/album it is assigned to, which makes sense. The song page itself determines where it's automatically generated, right? I don't know why I didn't make that connection. However, I do want to know about albums. Can there be albums like mixtapes/bootlegs that have parameters that prevent them from appearing on an artist's page? team atalkctrb @21:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Reseting indentations You would still want them to appear on the artist's page, just at the bottom in a section labelled "B-Side and Guest Appearences" or something. This could easily be controlled by songs having a compilation "flag" or being titled "Compilation/Song_Name" or such. Speaking of which, did you notice the slashes instead of colons? Also, all song names are redirects (i.e. Title And Registration redirects to "Death Cab For Cutie/Title And Registration"). If there's ever a conflict, then that page becomes a disambiguation page, a la Wikipedia. Unless that page is an artists name. --Aquatiki - T - E 03:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


I still think Page Ranking is a great idea but I confess I am still very confused by all the different requirements. As such it is not surprising that this section of the Help pages that I wrote isn't clear, or is in fact wrong (for which I apologise). I originally wrote the help pages to assist other users who, like me, were having problems understanding certain aspects of the scheme . As Aqua says, when he designed the scheme (LyricWiki:Page ranking) he didn't write the Help pages, wanting to see if what he wrote on the Policy Page was clear enough. In view of the errors I came across, and the number of posts I have seen since implementation of the scheme seeking similar clarification, it didn't seem that it was, so I just did my best to try and help users by fulfilling this need. Whilst someone came along afterwards and improved upon some of the help pages I had written, I don't think this included the Artist's Help page. However, in view of the above, I now understand that some of the information I provided was wrong, so I have today attempted to correct this. Apologies once again Team a for adding to the confusion. I was well intentioned.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 12:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I do appreciate the help section very much; without it, I would never have had anything to do with rankings in the first place. Also, I thought the distinctions between artist, album, and song were mainly helpful, especially this chart team atalkctrb @21:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

However, all this does seem to beg the question...Does the scheme really have to be this complicated? If the different requirements were made easier for everyone to understand it would ensure that we were all working along the same lines, instead of to our individual interpretations as it seems we are doing now, and which it is clear from the above, from the errors contained in the Help pages (as mentioned above), from the pages incorrectly categorised, etc. etc., that many of us are getting wrong. If more users were able to understand the requirements, more users might also be willing to participate in the scheme. I also think that due to the requirements (and maybe also the confusion over the same), some page ranks will likely become more or less redundant, e.g. the Silver and Gold for Artists. You are unlikely to ever get major artists, e.g. Pink Floyd, Frank Sinatra or Johnny Cash as Gold are you? In fact of the two artists currently in Category:Silver_Artists only one should be there. The other is only there due to another user's confusion with the Page Ranking scheme (I have since informed them of this)...  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 12:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If the stars start being assigned automatically, that should take care of some of the complications. There could simply be a list of what needs to be done next, and only actually providing this data would allow a new ranking to be reached. ALso, perhaps the stars could appear next to song titles in the artist page, although this might add way too much clutter. Even so, this would make the star at the top a bit redundant, because anyone could clearly see what parts of an artist's page are completed and which are not. The stars are supposed to be an indication of the level of completeness, so showing some of the actual completeness might be better. team atalkctrb @21:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Artist Ranking - Silver

Whilst as I say I remain somewhat confused (and a little frustrated), one thing I do understand is that an artist can't be ranked Silver on the basis of filling the artist's checklist in and regardless of album/song pages, since it is clearly stated on {{Artist Rank|Bronze}} template: "Remember, this cannot proceed to Silver until every album and every track is Silver!".  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 12:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw this, and it was one of the reasons I thought that I had misunderstood the scheme. There might be a few other places this is stated as well. However, I didn't want to start editing the help pages for anything significant, especially since I didn't understand the policy, but it seems that you've already fixed it. Thanks! team atalkctrb @21:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Other Songs

Also, whilst it seems I originally misinterpreted the requirements for Other Songs and thought that these needed to be dealt with, allocated to albums, etc., before an artist proceeded to Bronze (something I thought was a great idea and would personally want to encourage), it is nevertheless clear from the above that an artist cannot actually be ranked Silver until all the songs in the Other Songs list have actually been dealt with, allocated, etc. As such it will remain at the Bronze rank. Please correct me if I am wrong.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 12:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the policy for dealing with Other Songs? Some of the songs I have seen listed there sometimes appear to be from obscure mixtapes, and I don't know if they warrant categorization. What should I do? team atalkctrb @21:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
All songs in Other Songs lists need to be allocated to albums. A lot of songs are misspellings of songs already allocated to albums, in which case these songs should be redirected to correctly titled page and then removed from the OS list. Some songs however have never actually been officially released and only appear on bootlegs and fan based compilations (like the mixtapes you have mentioned). If these are valid songs (and depending how many there are), I would suggest creating a separate section on artist page entitled something like "Songs from Bootlegs", "Bootlegs", or more appropriately perhaps with the artists you are dealing with, "Unofficial Mixtapes". However please note that we don't list bootlegs and unofficial releases. Nor would you make album pages for these types of albums. I hope this answers your question.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 23:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. You seem to be doing a very good job ranking the pages you have been working on. Thanks for your contributions!
Thanks for the response. By "we don't list bootlegs and unofficial releases" do you mean that LyricWiki doesn't provide lyrics pages for them, or that they aren't listed as "albums" under the artist's page? I am going to guess that you're saying the latter, because listing all of them (with mostly red songs) is the last thing I want either! Also, a few of them are "clean" or radio edits of official songs. Most Hip Hop/Rap artists release both explicit and clean versions of albums, so they're part of official releases, but it doesn't sound like a good idea to list both. Besides trying to find a place for them on the list, I've also had to create one when a user replaced the explicit lyrics here with "clean" ones, which I moved here. Note that I added the {{B-Hits}} template to both, which might be bad, but the explicit one is probably going to be the one most often seen. Also, I don't think there's a template for the link I put in the top of the page, so I may need to learn how to make one... team atalkctrb @00:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the latter. We don't delete the lyrics but we don't list the albums on artist page (or anywhere else). I think you may also need to familiarise yourself with these templates {{Pa}} {{Parental Advisory}}  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 01:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Well you certainly did that team a ;)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 14:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm a vaguely familiar with those... I might have heard of them somewhere. team atalkctrb @02:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.