FANDOM

2,054,169 Pages
Welcome to LyricWiki.org, Rossetyler!


LyricWiki is a free, editable database that has over 2,054,169 pages of lyrics! Included in that database can be songs from any genre, country, or language imaginable. Whatever you are into musically, there is likely something here for you. And if not...please add whatever you can!

If you need help getting started, check out the help pages. Actually, you might want to check them out anyway, particularly the Formatting Artists, Formatting Albums and Formatting Songs sections, to see which cool templates you can (and should) use.

If you need any assistance, you can ask for help on my talk page. Another good place to get help with specific editing questions is the Help Desk. The Help Desk is on the watch lists of the site administrators, so you are likely to get an answer fairly quickly. If you have a more general site-related question, you could place your question on the Community Portal, which is where much of the discussion about the site and planning goes on.

An important tip for new users: LyricWiki breaks some of the usual capitalization rules for artists, albums, and song titles. Please see LyricWiki:Page Names for more information. These special rules apply to any language that uses Roman-styled letters, whether German, French, English, Spanish, Italian, etc., etc.

Have fun!

   Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:50, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


The Kinks

Thanks for your edits on the Kinks page! I just had one thing that I wanted to mention to save you some time: on the Song template, if the "type" is an album, then you don't need to use the type at all. Like this. Hope that helps, and if you have any questions, let me know on my talk page.
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 19:04, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Fingertips

Just wondered what your source was for the titles of TMBG's individual "Fingertips" tracks. I was the one who originally changed them to "Fingertips 1: Everything Is Catching On Fire" and so on -- that's based on what the tracks are called on Amazon and iTunes, and I assume those titles came from Elektra Records's database. As far as I know, the titles used on tmbw.net and other sites with TMBG lyrics are unofficial "fan-created" titles; some of those Amazon/iTunes titles do look wrong (they don't match the actual lyrics), but they're the only titles I've seen anywhere that could be considered an official source.

Of course, it's possible that I missed something somewhere at some point, so I'm curious what info you have to give the "canonical" designation to what I'd thought were unofficial titles. Trainman 06:57, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

All the titles are from MusicBrainz http://musicbrainz.org/release/46ffd6e9-7cb5-4645-b844-53e2311dc402.html. These are in close concurrance with discogs http://www.discogs.com/They-Might-Be-Giants-Apollo-18/master/25683 and gracenote http://www.gracenote.com/search/album_details.php?tui_id=eccbd705c8808875&tui_tag= . In fact, since LW is now cozying up to gracenote, some gracenote links now automatically appear. Rossetyler 07:08, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
Those three sites all get their data from users, though -- users who have probably just been copying the same titles from site to site. I don't think they're as "official" as the iTunes/Amazon listings in this situation. Which is, admittedly, a highly unusual situation, since it's not like anyone can point to a CD case to find out the actual titles.
Of course, using individual titles is really for our convenience more than anything else -- Elektra needed to write different names on the tape box so they could tell which piece of "Fingertips" was which; iTunes and Amazon need to have a different name for each individual MP3; lyrics sites need to have a way to differentiate the individual tracks. I have a feeling if you asked Mr. Flansburgh and Mr. Linnell about this, they'd say there aren't actual titles for the individual tracks; it's just all "Fingertips." (I just now thought to check the BMI "Repertoire" songwriting database, which shows that there's just one "Fingertips").
Ah, well, it's late and I've already spent too much time worrying about this. (Boy, was it fun to get 42 emails saying that a page I was watching had been edited! And by "fun," I mean I briefly panicked when I saw I'd gotten 42 emails in the 3 hours since I'd last checked.) Trainman 07:32, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
I think you would agree that the Amazon/iTunes titles are obviously wrong. I think it is clear that the MusicBrainz/Discogs/Gracenote titles are much better. I don't see how iTunes/Amazon listings are more official than any one of these three sites. Isn't there a "user" that enters these things there? Probably a single, all-powerful user. I am an open-source kind-of-guy and much prefer the bazaar over the cathedral http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar. And when all three of the sites (and their respective communities) are in close concurrance against the one I think the choice is obvious. As I mentioned, there is also the added benefit of automatic interlinking between LW and like-named Gracenote pages.
I am sorry to panic you. I know you have spent a lot of effort on these pages and I appreciate your work. I did not make these changes without, what I think is, good cause. I hope you agree. Rossetyler 08:09, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
What do you think about this: http://tmbw.net/wiki/Apollo_18 ? Rossetyler 08:19, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
As I indicated up above, as far as I know, iTunes and Amazon get their track listing info from the record companies -- they have too much stuff coming in for any single user to deal with it. (I know a guy who used to work for the iTunes store and was responsible for TV shows and movies, and he was way overworked.) I think the fact that both iTunes and Amazon have the same titles is actually a good indication that those titles are correct in some fashion.
I do agree with you on open source, in general -- it's great when it comes to developing software. However, it may not be so great in the case of incorrect information that gets passed around.
I wonder if the tmbw.net folks have any opinion about the titles. Perhaps I'll bring it up on the talk page over there, if I ever get some time. (Existing discussion there from 2005 seems to be that some of the tracks were mislabeled on iTunes at one point, not about how iTunes has the titles listed.) Trainman 14:41, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure where you want to go from here. I am very much inclined to go away from the iTunes/Amazon tracks as they just don't make sense. MusicBrainz titles happen to make sense to me because, as you imply, they are "convenient" for me (I do all my tagging using MusicBrainz as my authority and their titles reflect the lyrics). However, I see the utility/convenience in adopting the tbmw.net title names (MusicBrainz might be bent to do the same).
BTW, whatever the way forward, some of these song pages will need their fLetter corrected. Rossetyler 15:30, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
After mulling it over, I think it's probably best to keep the MusicBrainz/Discogs/Gracenote titles, at least for now. Those do seem to have a certain amount of authority, even if that authority is only in the form of "the wisdom of crowds." I don't think I'll be able to get around to changing the fLetters for a while, so you're definitely welcome to do so. Trainman 18:18, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll fix the fLetters. Rossetyler 18:21, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

The Doors:C'mon Everybody - really?

May I ask you to provide any substantiation for this your edition? I'm just curious, 'cause wasn't able to find any evidences, that The Doors have ever covered this song. Yes, I know - there are hundreds of sites with such lyrics (and even video, this time with LZ in the role of The Doors) info; but you know what's the reliability of such info. I do believe you had some more serious info before reverting my edition. Tia, --Senvaikis (talk) 08:25, January 27, 2010 (UTC)

It's been quite some time (> month) since I did this. It appears that I changed a redirect page to a page with actual content. I suppose my objection was that when I clicked on a song on the Doors page that I was taken to a Rolling Stones page and this is not even a Rolling Stones song. This was part of a whole lot of other edits I made that day to clean up many redundancies in the Other Songs section.
I am not sure what you are objecting to.
  • Are you objecting to the lyrics of the page? They are very close to what they were before the redirect.
  • Are you objecting to the fact that it is no longer a redirect?
  • Are you saying that The Doors never played this song? I have no idea whether they did or not. I did not create this page.
  • Are you saying that this is not an Eddie Cochran cover? http://www.history-of-rock.com/cochran.htm
In any case, although I am sure I made this edit in good faith, I am not deeply invested in it.
Hmmm. I said very simple thing: The Doors have never recorded or even performed this song (or at least I did not find any corroborative evidence of such recording). That's why this song was removed from The Doors OS by redirecting it to the first existing page with the same lyrics (btw, I'm not sure about RS too).
Anyway, - you are free to reedit any page. But if previous editor (no matter - admin or not) made some changes, attached by motivating comments, you may revert them only after providing some contra-arguments too. If you haven't any arguments, you may at least ask previous editor opinion. Sad that I must remind you such elementary wiki etiquette basics.
Style of your answer rises some doubts that even now you may not understand what I'm talking about, so here are detailed answers to all your questions:
  • No, I'm not objecting to the lyrics of the page
  • No, I'm not objecting to the fact that it is no longer a redirect (just redirect is the most appropriate way to remove wrong page, avoiding recurrence recreating by bots)
  • Yes, I'm saying that I havent found any proof evidence facts that The Doors ever played this song
  • No, I'm not saying that this is not an Eddie Cochran cover. Before providing me any links proving that, have the kindness to take a look who was the author of this cover list in Eddie Cochran song page. And if you be more observant, then possibly you'll even notice a comment, left here special for you.
And finally. Make one of two: provide some reliable arguments that this song was performed by The Doors or just redirect this page to any really existing one (LZ f.e.).
--Senvaikis (talk) 14:56, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
Please show some me some respect. I am sorry if I didn't understand you and I certainly meant no disrespect to you. I was simply asking questions so that I could understand the situation. Sorry, I don't know any other way to get questions answered but by asking them.
I didn't explicitly revert your edit although, effectively, that might seem to be the case. I simply did what, to me, seems the obvious thing to do. That is, if a song is listed as an Artist's performance (this song was one listed as one of The Doors Other Songs) that that song page should belong to that artist - not another. I never made any assertion that the performance was made by the artist. This assertion was made by the creator of the page and I did not presume to question it.
I have no problem with your assertion otherwise. If you think this then I would think the thing to do would be to delete the page. You seem to suggest that this is a problem and that the workaround is to "redirect to another artist". If this is the case then I will have to claim ignorance. I claim no great skills in editing these pages but am trying my best and appreciate guidance.
If all you can offer is condescending lectures then please do not waste our time - simply undo my edit.
I am sorry that I have caused you such grief. --Rossetyler 00:43, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
If I understand your intent, on 1/4/2009 you redirected this song and removed it from The Doors page. I think you are blaming me for its recurrance but this actually was done by LYRIC-Janitor on 7/15/2009 (along with ~100 other songs). This appears to be the result of aggregating the artist "Doors" with "The Doors". Because I have no life, I spent most of 1/23/2009 reducing these (>100) Other Songs to just one song (you're welcome) - the one you seem to be blaming me for. Again, when I saw (what someone else had purported to be) a Doors performance linked to a Rolling Stones song I did, what I still think, to be the obvious thing - I made it a Doors song. And, since if it were actually a Doors performance it would have been an Eddie Cochran cover, I made it so. Evidently, this edit has nothing to do with its "Other Songs" recurrance as this occured ~5 months earlier. It doesn't seem like your workaround works. Are you sure that page can't just be deleted?
If you would like to have a civil conversation, please, let's have one. -- Rossetyler 02:50, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
This is what I think happened. For many (>100) Doors songs, there were two copies. One by the artist "The Doors" and another by the artist "Doors". Out of consideration for all the editors, I took time to reconcile the two versions of each song and chose the one that looked the best. I saved this content in the "The Doors" copy and redirected the "Doors" copy to it. This song was probably different. I suspect that there was only a "Doors" copy linked from the artist page. I probably tried to move it to "The Doors" and discovered your edit when the move failed. I then reconciled the two and picked the best. Since yours had no content and was a redirect to a different artist I chose the other. After all, I had no reason to assume you as the authoritative editor. Do you really blame me? -- Rossetyler 03:24, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
I have no trick to blame anybody, particularly those who helps to tidy up the page of my favorite groups. I just wanted to ask if you have any proof evidence facts that The Doors have ever performed this song. Now I see you haven't. About respect: I frankly believe that simply reverting your edition without any comments would be real disrespect to your job. If it seemed different to you - my regrets. --Senvaikis (talk) 11:19, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
I hope that it is clear that I have never had any such evidence and I have never made such an assertion. My intent was honorable although, apparently, misunderstood by you. Under the same conditions, I suppose I would make the same edit again.
I very much appreciate your initial post and agree that it shows due respect. Thank you. Still, it confused me as you assumed that I had some intent that I did not. That confusion was the driver of my questions back to you for I knew that I never explicitly made such an assertion. Again, I questioned you in an effort to dispel my confusion - nothing more. There was no disrespect towards you.
Your next post is where your respect for me obviously crumbles. Please, knowing my intent, pretend that our roles were reversed and I had written these things to you. I felt great disrepect. Wouldn't you? I would still prefer that you just undo one of my edits rather than to subject me to such disrespect. Of course, I greatly prefer the alternative - a respectful discourse. So, let's have one.
I hope to leave all of this behind us. You are obviously an editor with a great deal of experience. It would benefit me greatly if you could offer me some guidance here and in the future.
Regarding your convention for unlinking a song from an artist page and redirecting the song so it won't come back (to Other Songs on the artist page)... Is this a standard convention? It seems that you expected me to know this. Why/How? Is this documented somewhere? Is this a standard convention used by everyone? It just seems to me that the best approach would be to unlink and delete the song page. Has it been your experience that this is not possible (song page deletion)? I have read the deletion page and, it seems to me, that one could tag this page for deletion and it would be done? Am I wrong? --Rossetyler 19:50, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
I think you'll agree that such a long discussion is slightly inadequate to the dimension of the issue, so let me leave all emotional aspects of it alone :). Much less the final part of your post is exactly what I'm always ready to speak about - just practical questions I may answer without any fear of being misunderstood.
So, deletion vs redirects. Yes, you are right - our help & documentation are still far from being perfect, and Help:Redirect isn't an exeption - you'll not find there any explicit recomendations when and why redirection may be more advisable compared to deletion. So let's take our case as a perfect example. As was mentioned already, most of lyrics sites have a lot of misguided info, usually cloned from some single erroneous source. What'll happen if we just delete such misguiding page? Sooner or later this page will be recreated by some well-meant user (or, more likely - some bot), without bumping into any objections. Redirecting such page to the propper destination leaves an old pagename 'populated', so preventing from recurrent recreatings. Hth & happy editing, --Senvaikis (talk) 22:06, January 29, 2010 (UTC)
I see how leaving the old page populated makes a lot of sense. But as for the redirection target, wouldn't it be better to redirect to a "no such performance" page or something of that ilk? I know that, in this case, I would have been able to make far better sense of this type of redirection than what I saw. A dedicated target for such a purpose might have detailed content describing its purpose. Alternately, is it possible to annotate the redirection page to convey this meaning? There should be a better way to present this intent for editors like me that are not aware of such undocumented LW subtleties. --Rossetyler 23:02, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

(unindenting) The nature of LW content determines that 99% of ivalid info have some valid source, (or valid address for redirect). Plus - don't forget that we are wiki, so noone should pretend to be a final judge (that's why I asked your opinion ;)). So, in most cases you shouldn't declare that such lyrics doesn't exist at all - just it belongs to other artist (our case) or should be retitled for some other reasons. nite, --Senvaikis (talk) 23:32, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Album type in song template

Just so you know why I've been deleting the "types" on the Pixies songs as I was adding the songwriting credits, here's what I said on my talk page when Senvaikis had a question about the same issue:

I feel that it's not necessary to specify that an album is a "live album" on a song page, especially when the word "live" is already in the title of the album -- it seems redundant and over-specific to me. I think it could be taken care of, perhaps, using "type" in the header on the album page -- if someone's on the song page and is really curious about why the song appears on more than one "album," they can click through to the album page.
Similarly, I think I may have taken out some instances of the type "compilation album." Again, since most titles of greatest hits/best-of collections make clear that they are greatest hits/best-of collections, I feel that it becomes redundant and over-specific to say "compilation album"; also, I think "compilation album" has the potential to cause confusion, since the type "compilation" has a specific meaning on LyricWiki, as something that's not a single-artist greatest hits/best-of collection.
So if it were totally up to me, I'd reserve "type" on song pages for things that don't count as albums ("single," "EP," "box set," "soundtrack," and "compilation") and reissue/bonus disc situations ("2003 reissue of the album").

Something else I've been doing is moving "album2" and "album3" so that they come after the artist name and the star; I'm doing this because it makes it easier to drop them down into an AddAlb template when a fourth album gets added. (Which is going to happen, eventually, for many Pixies songs, because of the Minotaur box set.) Trainman 03:43, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

I liked what you were doing by collapsing my use of multiple Song templates into one. I wasn't aware of the artist2 and albumartist2 parameters. Thanks - I learn a lot by watching editors like you at work. I assumed that you removed the "type" parameters as an oversight during the reshuffling. I guess not.
As you probably have guessed, I really like the added information that one can put in the type parameter. Sure, it might be redundant sometimes but it certainly is not always. As a collector, I often avoid compilation albums in favor of the originals. When examining a song page on LW, I like it when it gives me this kind of information. I especially like it when it says "EP" or "Single" instead of a very misleading "album". I usually won't bother inspecting Singles, EPs, compilations and live albums until after the plain old "albums". While I can see how you might not want to enter this information I can't see how it can be considered a bad thing that should be removed.
I know that the meaning of the word "compilation" is overloaded here (on LW) but I can't think of a better one. I didn't invent this use on LW - I saw someone else do it and assumed that was the accepted style. As we have discussed, I am a big Musicbrainz user and that is what they are known as there as well as in the larger music community.
I have no problem with premature under population of AddAlb templates in anticipation of future additions. Thanks for letting me know.
You probably noticed I collapsed many of the multiple Song templates into one - following the model I thought you were suggesting. As I mentioned, I used multiple Song templates on one song page out of sheer ignorance. However, I am not sure that a one-song-page-one-song-template rule is always the right thing to do. Is there some LW guidance for this? Consider Frank Black and the Pixies. Personally, I think it is wrong (at least misleading) to say that Frank Black "covered" any of the songs that he wrote for the Pixies at the the beginning of his career. In most cases, where the lyrics are close, I think the Song page should be named for the original artist (Pixies) and the Frank Black performance should redirect to it. I am uncomfortable, however, with songs like Pixies:Levitate Me. The single Song template rule results in saying:
This song is performed by Pixies and appears on the EP Come On Pilgrim (1987), on the live album Pixies At The BBC (1998) and on the treated disc of the album Frank Black Francis (2004)
However, on Frank Black Francis (2004) the performance is by Frank Black - definitely not the Pixies. How do you think this should be handled? Using two song templates works. Note that the way AddAlb is presented there is no such confusion. As always, I appreciate your input (and edits!). Thanks! --Rossetyler 06:25, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
I know, there are a number of "hidden" options possible in the templates, not to mention a number of templates that are really helpful on the rare occasions they're needed. I can't remember how I ran across the "albumartist"/"artist" options in the first place -- probably furiously searching the help section for something.
My opinion is that the Frank Black performances of Pixies songs on that one disc of the Frank Black Francis album do count as covers -- Frank Black solo (or even Black Francis solo) isn't the same artist as Pixies. Therefore, there should be separate "Frank Black" pages for each of those songs. That's consistent with the way such things are handled on the Second Hand Songs database (link should be to their Frank Black/Black Francis entry), and by the podcast "Coverville." (I think there has been, in fact, at least one "Coverville" episode of "songs originally performed by a group, later covered by a solo member of that group.")
But then songs from the other disc of Frank Black Francis, the Pixies demos, do count as Pixies songs -- which is an example of where the "albumartist"/"artist" options in the Song and AddAlb templates come in handy.
As far as I know, there should never be more than one Song template on a page -- I've found some on older pages that may have been the work of misprogrammed bots, maybe from when the star system was added. (Incidentally, if you've ever got some free time and want to learn more about the inner workings and the history of LyricWiki, I recommend reading the talk pages of the various administrators, including their older archived pages. Turns out things like the colored stars didn't spring fully formed from the head of Sean Colombo.) Trainman 18:10, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
I understand your argument but I guess we'll have to disagree. I consider this site, primarily, a lyrics site. These are all performances by same artist (Frank Black) of the same songs with the same lyrics written by the same author (Frank Black). I think, whether the performance was as the Pixies, Frank Black, Black Francis or Frank Black and the Catholics, these are all Frank Black songs - not f(Frank Black) covers of g(Frank Black) songs. I feel the same way with the many incarnations of Robyn Hitchcock (Soft Boys, *, * and the Egyptians, * & Venus 3).
The Pixies demo disc of the Frank Black Francis album is particularly interesting as the songs on it are Frank Black solo performances in the (pre?) Pixies era. I could argue that the subsequent Pixies performances are actually covers of these original Frank Black solo performances. But I wouldn't argue this; just as I wouldn't argue that Black Francis could cover a Frank Black song. I believe it best to consider these all (qualified) Frank Black performances and that "cover" assertions, if not plain wrong, are certainly misleading. I feel that only non Frank Black related artists can perform a cover of a song with lyrics that Frank Black wrote. --Rossetyler 05:03, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Of course this is primarily a lyrics site, but there's more to it than that, given the attempts to flesh out the lyrics with discographies and other data. In order to "construct" that data properly, one standard here is to have a separate page for each different Artist:Song combination, even when the Song portion of the equation that is the same (that is, the lyrics themselves are identical).
I do agree that (artist with a backing band) is usually equivalent to (artist), as in Robyn Hitchcock's various combinations. However, I don't agree that (artist) is equivalent to (group of which artist was a member) Thus, "Wings" is equivalent to "Paul McCartney" (and, in fact, the compilation album Wingspan is credited to Paul McCartney and contains both "Paul McCartney" and "Wings" songs) -- but The Beatles is a different artist. Similarly, "Frank Black and the Catholics" is equivalent to "Frank Black" -- but Pixies is a different artist, since, despite what Kim Deal may have thought at times, Pixies is not Frank Black/Black Francis with a backing band. Another example of all this, the pages for which seem to be in reasonably good shape here (especially the first two): Neil Young and Neil Young & Crazy Horse, as distinguished from Buffalo Springfield and Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young.
I know it does seem a little bit odd to say that a songwriter is covering a song they themselves wrote, but that's something that actually happens frequently. Note that the definition of a cover song -- a performance of a song by someone other than the original artist -- is only concerned about the performers, not the songwriter. There are numerous examples of a writer giving a song to someone else to record, and then the writer performing their own version later. (One example that I ran across here recently: "In the Sun," written by Joseph Arthur, recorded by Peter Gabriel and released on a compilation in 1997, and recorded by Joseph Arthur and released on an album in 2000 -- so Joseph Arthur's version is a cover of Peter Gabriel's version.)
Now, with the "demo" disc on Frank Black Francis, it's been a while since I've pulled my copy out to read exactly what it says in the liner notes, but I think that disc is presented as being "Pixies demos" as opposed to "Black Francis solo recordings," which is why I'm fine with calling the songs from that disc Pixies performances. (Demos, incidentally, don't count as "originals" for the purpose of determining what is and isn't a cover song; the question is usually who recorded a version for official release first.)
I can't easily pull out my copy of Frank Black Francis to take a look because all the CDs I acquired before May 2005 are stacked in boxes in my closet. I have too many CDs and not enough space for shelving in my current apartment. I'll get to it eventually -- I've been taking out the boxes one at a time, in an attempt to try to get all the songs and albums involved at least up to Bronze here. Alas, the box containing A through Br, including Black, comma, Frank, appears to be on the very bottom of the pile. I just finished up Mi through Po, and started on He through Me -- the boxes aren't stacked in order! Trainman 06:54, February 24, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the first disc in the Frank Black Francis album is billed as a Pixies demo disc which is why I have typed it as such and think such typing is important. I don't think we have an argument here.
I appreciate your approach to this problem. I like having a standard, objective way of approaching problems like this and must admit that your solution has more of these qualities than mine. It's nice for things to be Black (excuse the pun - I couldn't help it) and white but I can't help but seeing the grey here. I just can't imagine that Frank would consider these as covers. It would be interesting, from a subjective point of view, to know what he thinks - not that it should matter objectively.
By the way, I suppose we have the same disagreement with respect to the relationship between Robyn Hitchcock and the Soft Boys. Again, I wonder what Robyn thinks.
I am glad to see that we like a lot of the same artists - I appreciate your work on their pages. --Rossetyler 05:28, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


After long thought, I think I still like the multiple Song template use on a Song page (one Song template per artist page) rather than multiple (different artist pages) in one Song template. By combining all the Frank Black incarnation performances into one Song template we lose information in the presentation. That is, the presentation only states that one of the incarnations (customarily, the first) made the performances. This is obviously wrong. With multiple song templates the presentation clearly states which incarnation made which performance.
So, what is gained by losing this information? Clearly some space on the page but I don't think anyone cares about that. We lose the redundant star specifications and presentations - that is good but, I think, not good enough. I don't see how we are coming closer to some "standard" as you seem to suggest. Where is this standard described? In any case, it seems that by collapsing these templates we are doing more harm than good and no standard (implied or otherwise) should promote this direction. I think, the more (and clearer) information the better - that is why I appreciate your edits so much. --Rossetyler 16:42, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if every "standard" that I've noticed here is overtly described anywhere; some of them are things I've just observed from looking at various pages (and been gently corrected on, especially by admins, when they went back and edited pages I'd worked on). I guess the documentation for editing a song page doesn't actually say that only one instance of the Song template should be used, but to me, it seems to be implied. Might be something for you to post about on the Community Portal, to open it up to wider discussion. Trainman 22:09, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Warsaw

An idea for a solution: split Warsaw from Joy Division, as two different bands (that just happened to have the exact same lineup). Does it make sense to you? -- LYRIC-Stormwatch 02:52, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

I think your solution is a good one. This seems to be the way this problem was handled both on discogs and musicbrainz: http://www.discogs.com/Warsaw-Warsaw/release/473141 http://musicbrainz.org/release/f5be4c4d-fabf-42a7-9990-7e88296b956c.html. If you end up creating Warsaw:Warsaw (1994), I suggest that you reference the musicbrainz and discogs pages and grab the discogs album art (http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=473141). Thank you for your cooperation and effort! -- Rossetyler 05:42, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Ultravox:Satday Night In The City Of The Dead

You're absolutely right that the album cover says "Satday". But it also says "TheCity of The DEAD", "Slipaway", "Dangerous XXJXXKX Rhythm", "LOnely Hunter", etc.--numerous intentional misspellings. Considering the picture of the record itself, perhaps the title should say neither "Satday" nor "Sat'day" but simply "Saturday". --Lucius Voltaic 06:32, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

I have the original LP. Yes, there is some artistic license taken on inside gatefold but the disc label takes none such. The LP label also calls it "SATDAY NIGHT IN THE CITY OF THE DEAD".
I also have the 2006 CD reissue where it is so titled (SATDAY ...) on the insert and back cover. -- Rossetyler 07:12, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
It's also sung as a two syllable word: "Satday night in the city of the dead". -- Rossetyler 07:14, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
Okay, you've convinced me. --Lucius Voltaic 07:19, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate you checking up on me. --Rossetyler 07:21, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Album art Sam Cooke 1957

Hi Rossetyler!

Sorry for loading up the wrong picture to this album: Sam Cooke (1957). I think I've found a good solution. I've changed the name for the album art file. If you (or someone else) find the right picture it can be uploaded under tis name.

Greetings from Berlin, --Ignor-the-ant 03:51, August 5, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Before your edits, the album art was correct (see http://www.songsofsamcooke.com/Albums.htm). I just restored them.
Rossetyler 03:55, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
OK, I think I understand what might be an issue of confusion (it was for me).
See http://lyrics.wikia.com/index.php?title=Sam_Cooke:Sam_Cooke_%281982%29&action=history
It seems that you created this page a long time ago as a 1958 release, perhaps you thought it was his first (1957) release. You gahttp://lyrics.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Rossetyler&action=submitve it the album art of his first release. As near as I can tell, this release was first released in 1982. So, I moved your page to Sam Cooke:Sam Cooke (1982) (see discogs reference there). I created a new Sam Cooke:Sam Cooke (1957) for the real first release and re-used your album art. I don't know what the album art is for this 1982 release but I would guess it is not the same as his first so I didn't reference it there.
This 1982 compilation release seems to be a real odd/insignificant one. I had a real hard time finding information on the web about it (see references on Sam Cooke:Sam Cooke (1982) page and http://www.songsofsamcooke.com/outside_usa_compilations.htm). I haven't seen any album art.
Because of the insignificance of this release, I would like to just get rid of it. What is stopping me?
What are your thoughts?
Rossetyler 04:42, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
Well, I missunderstood something. I hope that now I've got it! ;-)
I think, if on the 1982 album is a song that's only there, it should stay. If not, the song had to go to the "Other Songs" list, which should be as short as possible.
Or maybe this compilation album is better: Sam Cooke – 20 Great Hits ? It also contains the song.
By the way, what about this split-album: Sam Cooke - Also Starring Charlie Francis ?
--Ignor-the-ant 14:39, August 6, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have spent a lot of time of moving "other songs" from this page to representative releases and I would hate to step backward in this regard. I suppose the alternative you suggest might be better but it adds 19 duplicate songs. http://songsofsamcooke.com/songlist.htm Darling I Need You Now page lists other alternatives. When I have time I will look further.
Regarding Sam Cooke - Also Starring Charlie Francis, I don't think this is really a 1957 release
-- Rossetyler 05:15, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
How about this http://www.discogs.com/Sam-Cooke-Happy-In-Love-I-Need-You-Now/release/2180714?
(see also http://www.songsofsamcooke.com/singles.htm)
It's a single not an album but it's an original, solves this problem and knocks down an"other song" (Sam Cooke:Happy In Love).
--Rossetyler 05:40, August 8, 2011 (UTC)
I checked with this ebay seller http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=350251055436&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:US:1123 regarding Sam Cooke - Also Starring Charlie Francis and he confirms there is no date on the release.
Hello, I checked the album and cover and could not find a date. I'm guessing it is from the 1960's.
--Rossetyler 14:55, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

The Blue Aeroplanes

Hi Ross
Is there any point to creating all these lyricless albums for this artist, or any artist? We are not a discography site. One lyric page is more useful. --ES (talk) 05:00, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Although this is not a discography site, an Artist/Album discography structure is still used to place all the lyric pages. I have created such a structure here in anticipation that it be used to place such lyrics. When a bot or novice user creates such lyric pages they will automatically have a home and not go in the "Other Songs" bin. Too much effort on LW is spent trying to restore structure to this heap.
The most technically challenging part of editing on LW is the creation of the Artist/Album discography on which to place lyrics. Creating and editing lyric pages is not challenging once you have the lyric content. I have done the hard part and am inviting others that have the lyrics to simply click on the song and paste the lyrics into the song template. I will be doing so myself when I get the chance. --Rossetyler (talk) 22:37, April 18, 2013 (UTC)
@Rossetyler:Sorry, but should sadden you - creating of full discograpy definitelly isn't the most important task for really good LW editor, let alone the "technical challenging" of such job - any bot with average abilities is able to do that in a few seconds. The most challenging part of tremendous job, making Lw really #1 lyrics site is trying to make it the most rich and reliable lyrics site. Creating such "empty placeholders", which "possibly-one-day-may-be-filled-in-by-someone", would be not a such bad idea, if not one essential factor: that impairs LW, as lyrics site, reliablility. It's not enough even to say that such job isn't most important - actually it's harmfull. Every empty album created here, on most search engines results in additional fake search links to our site, as having a lyrics for all those songs. Try to google for these songs (this f.e., with /"Ghosts" "The Blue Aeroplanes" lyrics.wikia/ as search pattern) to understand what I'm talking about. Declaring (for search engines) some lyrics available and showing some "sorry..." or other stupid page instead of promissed lyrics definitelly isn't an attribute of rich and reliable lyrics site. --Senvaikis (talk) 17:01, April 19, 2013 (UTC)
Anyone that can point, click and type can enter lyrics into LW — even my wife! — as long as someone takes care of the tedious structural things. Entering the structural things (artist, albums, links, etc.) is tedious by hand. My wife is not going to bother. Of course, it is not my wife that I care about here, it is Blue Aeroplane fans. I suspect, however, that the majority of these are also not interested in spelling W I K I, much less learning the nuances of constructing structure on LW. They don't know what a bot is and won't be constructing or employing one any time soon. It is this majority of people that offer the most opportunity for improving LW. Anybody can do it! In fact, it was this spirit that drew me to LW in the first place. The openness of the bazaar as opposed to the close-minded dogma the of cathedral. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar
You bring up a good point about failed web searches. I hadn't considered this before because I don't use LW this way. Why would google resolve anything to an empty page? Perhaps because a template is offered? Anyway, I see more value to having hooks in place to hang new meat rather than the old and new meat rot together on the "Other Songs" floor. I am afraid that we might value things differently. I value inviting the participation of more (albeit inexperienced) LW editors — resulting in much needed content and well constructed artist/album pages — over the disappointment of a failed google hit. --Rossetyler (talk) 03:25, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

noinclude

Artist/Album pages should be categorized as Album Lists pages but the categorization must be qualified so that it does not further categorize pages that include it via the Album List macro. Do not use the GUI Categories editing helper, rather just type the following at the bottom of the page. The noinclude wrapping will later be hidden from an editor. One just has to remember it.

<noinclude>[[Category:Album Lists]]</noinclude>

Do not restore red links without adding lyrics

The removed red links have been there for much longer than a year now. Nobody has bothered to add lyrics to them yet. If you feel that the lyrics should be listed here, please go ahead and add the lyrics. Otherwise please leave the editing to someone who is willling to make the effort. Thanks,  · Lichtweber talk service  05:41, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with "red links". They are, in fact, better than no links as they are an open invitation for anyone (that can type) to click and add the lyrics. Without them, one needs special LW editing skills that many/most don't (care to) have. Removing them is destructive as it removes this pool of users from contributing. See User Talk:Rossetyler#The Blue Aeroplanes for my discussion with site administrators on this topic. Their decision was to let this stand. I will be reverting your edits again to restore my work as they have accepted. --Rossetyler (talk) 15:05, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
  • Dead links are deceptive and therefore not appreciated - the admins pointed that out for you
  • As you can see, your dead links haven't invited anyone in years. (But they have disappointed me, and who-knows-how-many others, hoping to find lyrics and just finding - nothing!) This site obviously does not work the way you hope it would.
  • Those skills are not very hard to obtain. If you're motivated, you'll learn it fast. And there's help.
  • I can't find any approval in the admins' statements. The fact that they haven't edited the parts in question yet does not necessarily mean that they approve.
  • Nobody stops you from adding the lyrics. If it is that important to you: why don't you do it? If not, please leave it: please stop reverting without adding content. Because content is what this site is about.  · Lichtweber talk service  16:52, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's really funny: how could my reasonings about negative impact of your "red contribution" on the reliability of the site be interpretted as "decision to let this stand"? Sorry, Rossetyler, but you've misunderstood something again - my opinion was opposite, and I'm still sure that creating entirely "red" discography pages, condemned to stay lyricless for a long years, isn't useful for lyrics site, moreover - actually it's harmful to its reliability. So please, don't dezinform and disregard Lichtweber, - he's asking you for the same thing as two admins have kindly asked you already. --Senvaikis (talk) 17:25, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
P.S. One additional note: Any, even the best idea/recommendation/instruction may be brought to a complete degeneration if turned it into a dogma. Yes, I'm against creating absolutelly lyricless pages when it's obvious that they'll remain untouched for good. But Lichtweber, for a God sake - that doesn't mean that I'm against any red links in artist page! Finally that goes in contradiction to our policy, - album tracklist must be full. So please, both of you - try to be free of any dogmas and start enjoying collaborative creative work instead of regrettable editing wars. Happy & peaceful editing for you! --Senvaikis (talk) 20:44, August 29, 2013 (UTC)
Understood administrator acceptance was, of course, implicit based on my unrebutted last word in the conversation and the obvious decision by administration to let the content stand.
Sigh, this is all exclusive talk amongst the high priests of the cathedral (knowledgable LW editors) regarding what is best for those lowly commoners in the bazaar (your average BA fan and potential LW user/contributer). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar
As I have said, to remove these links is to exclude the *vast* majority of BA fans that have absolutely no interest in becoming a high priest let alone an altar boy. This exclusion is what is really/truly bad for *content* as you drastically drain the pool of potential contributors. The true beauty of LW is (should be) that we graciously accept all-comers and not subject them to some LW catechism.
I see value in your arguments. I hope you see the value in mine. It just seems that we weigh these values *much* differently.
So where do we go from here? I am all for reconciliation and I abhor edit wars. Senvaikis seems to suggest restoring albums lists that have at least one song with lyrics (Senv, please correct me if I am wrong). Is that OK with you? --Rossetyler (talk) 00:32, August 30, 2013 (UTC)
I don't like dogmas either. I just think this is a good opportunity to clarify things for future editing.
Ross, I agree with you that it is a good thing to have a well built album / artist page. So we're on the same page here. My understanding is that anyone is free to contribute. Now this can be just adding content, or getting deeper into it and also organize this content. I see no exclusion here. We can see it every day: Some anonymous user adds a lyric page. Often it is not according to the policies. So Lwt or an admin or an experienced user gets in there and fixes it. In this picture, everybody can get as deep into it as they like: content comes first, and then there's the organizing.
I can see no harm in OS as long as the lyrics are valid. And when the time comes, there's the opportunity for you to get this content straight. But I - and others - do see harm in make-believe content (i.e. red links)for the reliability of this site. Of course, if dead links would not show in search engines, we would not have this discussion. Maybe there is something that can be done about it?
Senvaikis, I agree with you: Not every red link is a bad one. I mean, wiki is work in progress after all, right? That is why I usually kept albums with at least one blue link untouched. As long as the page hasn't been around for more than a year, that is. Because at one point, I think we have to assume that there will be no more contribution from the person who set up the page.
So here's my proposition, not to be understood as a rule, but more like a code of conduct:
  • Remove lyricless albums, when there has not been added content for more than a year
  • When albums have more then 50% of the songs with lyrics, leave them untouched
  • When albums have less than 50% and have been around for more than a year, remove all red links
This way, we can keep the fake content lower and at the same time give contributors enough time to finish their work. What do you guys think?  · Lichtweber talk service  14:15, August 30, 2013 (UTC)
"I see no exclusion here": Huh. If we are seeing something different we must be looking at something different. *Every* music fan that I know would not contribute to LW if it meant learning how to spell W-I-K-I (of course, that is hyperbole, but you get the point). Many would, however, if they were looking and stumbled on a page that invited them to contribute by simply cutting and pasting lyric text. I imagine that there are much more such "delta" edits than "creation" edits because it is much easier to do so. Anyway, I feel like I am beating a dead horse.
If I understand Svenaikis correctly, removing red links and rendering an incomplete album list goes against LW policy so what you are suggesting is not an option (unless, of course, this policy changes). [BTW, where is all this policy documented and where does it come from? I know, the cathedral - in tomes commoners aren't privileged to read. Sorry, I had to get in another dig.]. Emptying the album list and retaining the lyrics as orphan "Other Songs" is another option but I don't like that either.
I believe that one thing that we do agree on is that if web crawlers could be persuaded to not index such lyricless songs that we could retain these red links. Well, isn't that what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robots_exclusion_standard#Meta_Tags_and_Headers is for? It seems to me we could put the <meta name="robots" content="noindex" /> directive in the lyrics block on such pages and ask the user to remove it when adding lyrics. I like that idea the best. --Rossetyler (talk) 17:55, August 30, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.