2,054,077 Pages

Cover songs

I just thought I'd tell you that when yu use the {{Cover}} template, you should not replace the entire page with that template. Some artists cover songs, but add their own nuances to the music or lyrics. To see a good example page of where a cover template has been used, see The Beach Boys:California Dreamin'. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. --WillMak050389 19:24, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, but the lyrics should remain no matter what, even if they are the same. It is easier to reference the lyrics if they are on the page themselves because most pages contain links where the song can be heard (such as iTunes or Goear). This way a user can reference the lyrics while listening to the song without haing to go to the primary artist's lyrics page. --WillMak050389 19:29, 13 January 2008 (EST)
Ok, makes sense. But the downside is, if some error is in the lyrics, it has to be chanded on dozens of pages.
I don't think this is true because the lyrics pages should not have been directly copied from the original page. That way if there was an error on the original page, there should not have been the same error on the other pages. --WillMak050389 20:09, 13 January 2008 (EST)

Also, the {{cover}} template shouldn't be used for songs such as Fergie:Fergalicious that use music samples, beats, etc. from other songs. It should only be used for when an artist actually re-records another's song. If the cover has lyrics, it should have essentially the same lyrics. (So, "Weird Al", for instance, does not do covers, he does parodies, etc.)    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   00:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but then: how can we give this info, that it is a covered song? It is not very known, and JJ Fad deserve that credit. When I first heard Fergalicious, I was like "Hey, that's that old Supersonic Track". And what about the sample? Isn't it usual on lyricwiki to mention samples in the credit section? I definitely read that somewhere on the help system, unfortunately I don't find it again. So, why delete that one too? Btw: in the "real world" there are not so harsh conditions, what is called cover and what not. So, how do You call it, if there are changed only some words in the lyrics? And, btw: Supersonic is not sampled at all (as the wikipedia article says), it is rerecorded.--Gauner 08:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, the sample note was removed by accident. I edited the previous state and then didn't restore the note. It should have stayed. Sloppy editing on my part. So, yes, all such information should be placed under the lyrics as you had it. Even if Supersonic wasn't strictly sampled, it's still not a cover of the song, because it has completely different lyrics. Just like Vanilla Ice:Ice Ice Baby isn't a cover of Queen:Under Pressure, even though it uses the same bass line throughout it. (First example that comes to mind.) I'm not sure what term would apply to this situation - a "borrow", perhaps?    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   18:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, that Ice Ice Baby example isn't too good in this case, because that was simply sampled, which "Supersonic" wasn't. Hmm, but how define that? Wikipedia is not helpful, because it (falsely) says, it is sampled. But actually, there is no original audio material used from "Supersonic". Call it "Inspired" - is imo too feeble for that. "contains musical excerpts" sounds again too much like sample. I put in now "recreated". - Ok from the native speaker side? ;-) --Gauner 22:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. As an aside, I thought that good ol' Vanilla got sued by Queen and the defense that was given was that one beat was missing, so the song wasn't therefore infringed upon copyright-wise. Yeah, like anyone believed that...!  :-]    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Gnarls Barkley:Crazy

Are you sure that there are two versions of the lyrics? Because I've spent the past hour and a half trying to find some sort of definitive answer and can't find any evidence of this. In fact, in an interview they did, they mention how the vocals were done by Cee-Lo in one take. Makes it hard to have two versions if there was only one take. Also, having those two words changed for a radio version just doesn't make much sense, as they are not words that can't be said on the radio. I listened to an acoustic version as well, and he says those same things. If you're absolutely sure that the single version is different, however, then feel free to create a new page at Gnarls Barkley:Crazy (Single). (And if you have a link where this version can be heard, I would love to hear the other version, because now it's driving me a little bit "Crazy" myself!  :-] )    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   17:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very sure that there are two versions, I have now both of them here as an MP3. The one You know wasn't the one I knew before, that's why I first thought, the lyrics are wrong. After searching the net I found the version You know (with 'place' and 'possibly') spread wider. But still the other version exists. I don't know where it was released. On other lyrics pages I found that version labeled 'radio version'. So, I don't know how to figure out, where it comes from. The "single version" in all these MP3 download shops is also the one with "possibly", as their prelistening function shows. So, I suggest, we make a second page, named Gnarls Barkley:Crazy, until we know better.
I also layed the 2 versions over each other to check, if it is the same recording, and beside these two words it seems so. And also: The word "probably" isn't taken from the last chorus to the first one - it is sung slightly different, as putting these pieces over each other showed.
I agree with You, that there is no obvious reason to change these two words. But sometimes You simply have different versions of a song leaking. It happens. And if it is true, that the one of them is the radio version, it still must not have happend intentionally.
And btw: I don't believe any legends telling 'one take studio stories' beside John Lennon's Give Peace A Chance. :-)--Gauner 19:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! That is really weird. Danger Mouse having a little bit of fun, perhaps?  :-]
P.S.: I agree, from what you've said, that the (Radio) notation is probably best. Also, a note of some kind on the new page emphasizing that two versions do indeed exist would probably be good. Otherwise, it is likely that at some point the (Radio) page will be redirected to the album page. (You might also want to add yourself as a Watcher.)    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   19:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Html & wiki-style formatting in lyrics

Hi, Gauner, thanks for your contribution to LW; I have only one note regarding one of your last editions - it goes in contradiction with our lyrics formatting policy (you may take a look at HP, particulary here). Regards, --Senvaikis (talk) 09:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, thnaks for the hint, but I don't know exactly what You mean, what went wrong?--Gauner 11:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, wasn't it clear enough? I'm speaking about wiki-style links of type 'My Name Is'. They look good while browsing LW site, but ugly for those, who are using API. Read once more HP. Hth, --Senvaikis (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, ok. I couldn't know, what You mean, when You link to an article, which speaks about various topics, and about HTML-Tags and fancy formatting. I did neither. So, what would You suggest to keep up that useful information for the reader without linking to it? Make a comment on every one like "'Guilty Consciense' (song by Eminem)"? I think, this would rather destroy the reading experience of the lyrics. The question would be: What do You win and what do You loose? I don't know about script plug-ins and API. Are You sure, they have problems rendering the lyricwiki-syntax concerning simple article links? They obviously have no problems with article links on artists pages and on the header of song pages - why should they inbetween lyrics-tags? I intentionally did NOT use HTML!--Gauner 16:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It would be a shame to revert your edit, 'cause it contains usefull details, but if you don't correct it yourself, I'll be forced to do that for you. I'll leave it untouched for a while just to let you check how your wiki links look like in API response .--Senvaikis (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I surely WILL correct it, but I don't want to loose these infos for the reader. So, any suggestions how to keep these? By the way: the API also doesn't render italicized letters, the instrumental template, doesn't form correct links to articles with spaces in the title etc. So, how binding is what the API does anyway? It is not a proper representation of the rules You mentioned above (here). So, it obviously cannot be used to check, whether an article is according to the rules. In my opinion, this article conforms with the rules: it does NOT contain HTML, it does NOT contain fancy formatting. In general, I think, it is counterproductive to interpret the rules (which at large are important, to me as well!) to the detriment of the articles useful content.--Gauner 18:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
You can include the links in a section below and Outside the lyrics tags. FYI the api is a pure ascii interface so those links inside the lyrics actually become part of the lyrics as Senv's example shows. cheers & hth ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 18:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, and (recommended) formatting tags like italicized also become part of the lyrics. So, You have to see it that way: it is a downside of the API that it only shows ASCII. And it should be changed to output links only with their link text. But anyway, the main bunch of users will se the pages in the browser, not via API, right? Why not concentrate on the usability for them? If someone reads the undrendered output of the API, well, there he goes, he is allowed to read tags. It is the same, if I read a webpage-source: I cannot complain there about reading ugly tags. Shall we change the web back to ASCII-pages to please these few users who want to read ASCII-sources? And if a the api or a plugin doesn't render or correctly ignore the links (i.e. shows only the link text), it is not a fault of the lyrics page, but of the programming of the API or the plugin, is it?
If I put the links to the footer, how should I make the connection to the spot in the lyrics? Are footnotes allowed? How are they to be formatted? Actually, I still don't see, where I broke the formatting rules. Shouldn't this discussion be made here, where these things in a bigger circle get decided? And until then I stay with the rules - no HTML, no fancy formatting? There is no rule about internal links in the Help page, is there?--Gauner 19:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
That's meant to be a guideline more than a rule… So far there is no official policy about what is and what is not allowed inside the lyric tags. I don't know how many users see our lyrics through the web and how many through plugins, but considering those plugins are available for many widely-used software players, there might actually be more of the latter than of the former.
Obviously, sometimes plain text isn't enough, and some formatting is necessary. For links (internal or external) it's best to put them in a Trivia section below the lyrics though. (Footnotes wouldn't help much, because their code doesn't look any prettier than that of a wiki link…) — 6x9 (Talk) 21:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, then still the question: How to make clear, to which line in the lyrics the link in the trivia-section relates to? Are comments on lyrics welcome at all (i.e. explaining, what a special line/term/metaphor relates to)?--Gauner 00:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
If it's not lyrics, it doesn't belong in the lyric box ;) Notation & trivia and backgrounder can go under the lyrics and in extreme cases it gets it's own page..(we have a 45KB annotation page for a 2KB song, and 99% of our artist pages are under 32 KB!) You can also put the linkable text of the lyrics in the talk page or a separate annotation page. You can enjoy your links without inconveniencing tens of thousands of people who will have to edit those links out of their digital media players. hth ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 00:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


the pages are to be filed under Artifact, not Artifact band. cheers ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 10:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I have not time at the moment to fix that, especially as I don't know this band at all and didn't do anything with them, except to pull the Artifacts-Songs out of their page...--Gauner 10:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
My apologies, hopefully the nuclear plant is in capable hands while you enjoy LyricWiki:Page Names ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 10:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Whoops! That's me...crazy! I forget what I was doing that caused me to go there and redirect. Ah, yes. It was edited by an editor that constantly makes damaging edits and when I saw it, I stupidly redirected it. Thanks for correcting my error!    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   18:31, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.