2,054,077 Pages


Since you didn't respond to my message under the "Question" header from 10 days ago, I'll repost it here since you probably just overlooked it:

Quote by XxTimberlakexx: "Ah, alright. It's a rather neat cyborg, if I do say so myself. It's cool how it'll automatically search for lyrics if you create many albums with all red-linked songs, and it'll automatically add cover art to albums if it finds one for it. Anyways, speaking of stuff that Lwt does, would it be possible for you to program it to clean up the wanted categories? I just checked and there's over 6000 wanted categories. That's not good. I'm pretty sure there's some way for Lwt to tend to those, but I may be wrong, as I'm not an expert in bots." XxTimberlakexx (talk) 14:27, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

Citing yourself: not to be rude, but you should be very inattentive to have not notice - I'm on vacation (Luxembourg, then France, then Luxembourg again) and going to return to Vilnius only 01/01/03. So, please, show some patience, moreover I don't think you'll enjoy my answer... As i understand, you missed my MC wishes, so - Happy New Year to you! (Sorry for possible errors - writing this msg on Ipad wasn't a simple task)--Senvaikis (talk) 19:30, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

Where did you say you were going on vacation? I am very sorry for not noticing. I don't exactly read everything on your talk page, so if you did say it on your talk page, that's why I didn't know. But I will show patience. Thanks for the New Years wishes though! XxTimberlakexx (talk) 20:06, December 27, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for such a long delay - too many real-life tasks at the start of this year... And one more excuse for such procrastinating - as was intimated above, I really haven't any idea how may Lwt help here. As you should have noticed, major part of Wantedcategories list contains subcategories of Label, Genre or Hometown. Do you know any more or less intelligent algorithm for these categories fixing without any interactive human intervention? I don't. But I'd like to be wrong, so if such algorithm exists - let me know, and Lwt'll be equiped for this task :). --Senvaikis (talk) 10:43, January 7, 2013 (UTC)

From time to time I'm tidying up the wanted categories by correcting at least the typos. I've been doing this for a long time, especially to remove the entries in the mistyped language categories. We could make our own maintenance categories with #ifexists: in the templates and hidden categories like "Unknown Genre" or "Unknown Language". That would at least help to quickly notice the few pages with unique typos in the parameters. - Chris 21:09, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
Heh, I apologize for the overly late response myself - sometimes I forget to check other peoples' talk pages, as I always preferred people using my talk page to say their message, and we go back and forth. Tongue
Ah, I figured. So, we'll just have to let the categories be? I guess we can work on them every now and then, but there's no way in the world we're going to wipe them all out anytime soon.
Nonetheless, I'm glad you are back! Did you have a good New Years? Smile XxTimberlakexx (talk) 14:37, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

Icona Pop

Ni! Hey, thanks for helping out with the Icona Pop page =D Cheers, Solstag (talk) 07:58, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

You are always welcome! :) --Senvaikis (talk) 08:38, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

Cee Lo Green

Hi Senv, could Lwt update the artist parameter of all songs by Cee Lo Green as requested on the LW:JE? I'm sorry I missed the "New Rq: Update Artist" summary there, you probably thought my edit there was about some solved requests or so. - Chris 21:31, January 11, 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that could be done easily by Lwt, if... weren't done already by someone else ;). At least I've found only one page with a link to Cee-Lo Green... :)
Haven't I missed something? --Senvaikis (talk) 22:00, January 11, 2013 (UTC)
Oh Smile After I batchmoved the pages, I corrected all links to redirects but for the "Cee Lo Green:..." pages. Obviously someone has corrected it already. Okay, thank you anyways Grin - Chris 15:49, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

Lwt once replaced songs with album pages

Hi Senv,

can you explain to me what happened here? Lwt replaced an album page with the contents of an album page... - Chris 16:06, January 12, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can. That's just an error :).
Now, when you own a copy of Lwt, you should know, that strictly speaking that's only an alias for Senv, who is just a human, ergo - may make mistakes, interrupting Lwt job.
Just for curiosity: am I right supposing that expression "Lwt replacing songs with album pages" should mean some repetitive nature of action? Then I should ask you to fix other errors too, 'cause I couldn't find them :) --Senvaikis (talk) 16:55, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if the headline shocked you. No, as far as I could see from the contributions, there was no interference of any Senv with any Lwt that day, except for this, maybe? I checked the version history and found you posted the albums a minute before Lwt reverted everthing, maybe by posting back previously loaded contents? You should probably look into that edit. Based on the difference sizes that day, I'd say all other edits were fine though. Smile - Chris 21:48, January 14, 2013 (UTC)


Hi admin Senvaikis,

I'm so sorry for my mistakes. I'm just a newbie and I think LyricWiki is awesome so I want to contribute to make it better. I'll try to edit and post in right format.

Thank you so much! :) — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cuonghp75 (talkcontribs), 19:47, January 12, 2013 (UTC).

No sorries, Cuonghp75 - I'd like all our newbies were such an active and good editors like you :). And I agree with you - LW is awesome and we may make it even better. Feel free to ask any help if needed, and happy editing! --Senvaikis (talk) 20:59, January 12, 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Please sign your messages using four symbols "~" (or click special button Button sig, titled "Your signature with timestamp", available on edit window toolbar). Thanks.
Hi admin Senvaikis,
I'm so sorry for your repeating but I want to explain something:
  1. I edited pictures with the allowed size.
  2. I named pictures in the right format.
  3. I didn't know how to contain mandatory template (not intent to ignore the mandatory info) but now I know the usage so hope you won't have to edit my pictures.
  4. I post the info, lyrics or pictures I know clearly but I don't have much time to complete the whole album info so I hope the others will complete it.
So sorry again and hope I won't fret you!
Thank you so much!
--Cuonghp75 (talk) 05:23, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
Well Done! Nice, - glad to hear good news :). Good luck, --Senvaikis (talk) 08:44, January 13, 2013 (UTC)
P.S. ...and please, call me just Senvaikis, - admin isn't a part of my nickname ;)

Rank Bronze


Kindly check User talk:Arwen4CJ and see if I made a big mistake, Wah!

--EchoSierra 07:09, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

most appreciated
...bowing and existing stage left
∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 18:26, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding editing a song

I'm almost done making one of the songs that I've been working on gold. However, there is one thing left to do on it, which I can't seem to figure out on the site. The song that I'm working on is called All Creatures Number 2. It's the second version of the song that this artist did -- the first one he called All Creatures Of Our God And King. I am assuming that there is a difference between the version I'm editing (the Number 2 version) and the original version that he did, otherwise why call it Number 2?

I was thinking I could redirect one to the other, but then I realized that there might be a difference between the two versions, so it would probably be best to leave it as is. After I save all the information I've been collecting on All Creatures Number 2, I could redirect that page to All Creatures Of Our God And King....but that still might not explain a difference between the two. Would you recommend that I do this?

If I do not redirect, then I will need to know how to do the "this song also appears on album 2 and album 3" with a different song name. I see how to do it if the song name is the same, but I'm guessing that this template may not work if the song name is different. If it does, great...if not, then please let me know what to do.

The artist is David Crowder Band.

It appears on Illuminate (2003) as "All Creatures Number 2"

             Can You Hear Us? (2002) as "All Creatures Of Our God And King"
             Passion: Hymns - Ancient And Modern (2004) as "All Creatures Of Our God And King"

Thank you.--Arwen4CJ (talk) 20:45, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

If two songs of the same artist have different lyrics (as it is in your case), then regardless of their titles we should treat them as two different songs, ergo - they should have separate pages. Then you shouldn't change nothing in these songs current headers - just two different songs from different albums with different headers. If relation between these two different versions is important for some reason, it may be pointed just adding info comment to song#2 page.
But if you don't like such simplified approach, you may make things more complicated (using addtext param), though such approach is more suited for differently titled, but lyrically identic versions of song, thus I'd recommend you to revert my edition, demonstrating such approach. hth, --Senvaikis (talk) 22:26, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

Well, the reason I was asking is because it is the same hymn (song). I don't know how different the lyrics are, as I would actually need to check the version on the other discs. I can do that. There may be a slight difference in lyrics or in the tune or something.

Both versions have the same verses and the same words in the verses -- it's just that the "All Creatures Of Our God And King" version has not had its lyrics checked, so it has "Oh" instead of "O" and the lines in the verses are broken differently. I'll edit the spelling and the verses in "All Creatures Of Our God And King" to make it correct.

So actually, what you did there is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you so much!  :)

I'll copy the code you used for that so that I have it for other songs, and to do that to the All Creatures #2 page. --Arwen4CJ (talk) 02:25, January 17, 2013 (UTC)

Lwt users guide

(moved to more appropriate place)
--Senvaikis (talk) 10:03, January 30, 2013 (UTC)
ty. -- ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 02:00, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Urban Renewal

Hi. I see you've deleted an album cover that I added (Various artists - Urban Renewal.jpg) with the explanation: "Unused file". Did I do something wrong when I added the file, linking it to Urban Renewal: Featuring The Songs Of Phil Collins (2001)? --Jomidi (talk) 03:32, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

That's likely due to a bug I've noticed occasionally: a cover displayed on an album page showing no file usage. For some reason it only seems to afflict compilations (= artistless pages). It goes away when you purge the page.
In this case there was the additional problem that the album link in the {{albumcover}} template was red, so Senv couldn't even check the album page (which I'm sure he normally does, diligent as he is). Either way, all is restored now. — 6×9 (Talk) 07:27, February 2, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, 6's right, but that doesn't mean I couldn't be more attentive, - my appologies, ---Senvaikis (talk) 10:59, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Longfellow (UK)?

Interpunk, cdbaby.

-- ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 06:51, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
Speaking about these bands, there's a serious mess in entire infospace, not only on LW, so I decided to compare info "from the first hands": MS(UK) & MS(CA). I wouldn't be surprised though if these pages were one more piese of desinformation... :)
--Senvaikis (talk) 09:16, February 3, 2013 (UTC)
P.S. That's why disambig page wasn't created yet (London doesn't always mean (UK)...) ;)
Senv, I have been looking at those pages and thinking the exact same thing; just a lot of bot scraped stuff out there being passed around as legit goods. Unless we talk to one of the band members… or back tracking from Sederra :) nice…! Expect to see more Violets, I'm hunting them down!
It is pretty scary when we see all our external sites clumping similarly named bands into one container, even am with all their various IDs can't get it straight. Their API needs a live human on a toll free number for disambiguation.
top of the morning to you!
-- ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 11:04, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Aeturnus Dominion

Thanks for the information, I was unaware of the rules you stated.

This is also my first Wiki editing attempt so any help is highly appreciated. Also about HTML coding, what codes are deemed safe to use or have all important ones been replaced with wikiCode?

This is actually my fathers (Demented) band so I will be able to provide accurate information right from the source also. Kharnage (talk) 09:42, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Kharnage, - you are always welcome!
  • Best LW practice recommends to avoid any html coding, if possible, especially in the lyrics body (between <lyrics> tags). Bwt, in most cases you may achieve the same (or better) result, using our standard templates, as was done here :)
  • That's nice to have such (related to artists) editors on our board! :)
Best wishes to your father, and happy editing!, --Senvaikis (talk) 10:04, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

In the name of the merciful

A. R. Rahman <-?-> A. R. Rahman

-- ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 10:16, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
--rahman means merciful in Arabic
I'd recommend to ask wp better - I'm not expert in this.
May I mercifully ask you too - why are you leaving all this merge-donkeywork for someone else instead of making it by yourself? ;) --Senvaikis (talk) 10:44, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
I should have been clearer, I was hoping you'd make the determination, I'm here for the donkey work!
And obviously, I'd rather keep the more complete page! Here I go...
-- ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 10:47, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia kinda contradict themselves here: their style manual says to omit the space in abbreviations, but initials should be followed by a space… Seems they're pretty consistent in following the latter rule for consecutive initials.
At least in this instance MusicBrainz (whose style guide for capitalisation of English titles we unofficially follow) agree with WP, so maybe we should too? I don't like it, but consistency is more important than personal preference…
BTW, does anyone remember what the reasoning behind the "Native Artist (Roman Artist)" rule was? It always seemed kinda unnecessary (with redirects already handling this sort of stuff) and arbitrary (why shouldn't the same apply to album and song titles?) to me. — 6×9 (Talk) 09:11, February 9, 2013 (UTC)
On Consistency, agreed, we certainly don't want multiple versions of same page being created, and we want a consistent order if a dispute crops up. I think (predates my arrival) the romanizedArtist name issue was for accommodating API?
As for song name in native lang, that has always seemed important to me. Do we have a template that allows entry of native lang song name, when the song was neither released in multiple langs or translated? Or should the song name only be indicated in the script used on the album cover? Maybe one of the many extensions added to LW makes this whole issue moot? I hope so. I still have just under 100 Eastern Asian artist to romanize, plus what will come thru after processing homeless songs.
--ES (Talk) 19:29, February 10, 2013 (UTC) (yeah my new sig, shld make everybody happy, esp. Senv)

Awaken thoughts

Let me start from several questions to ES:

  • do you think all the artists, listed in disambig page, should have their pages, even if we can't say nothing about their lyrics? Is that documented somewhere?
  • are you going to fill-in the missing lyrics for all the albums you've added to some of Awakens?
  • do you think any link is better than plain text, even if you know that this link is condemned to stay red for good?
    • So, link to Criss Angel Mindfreak, "ex-band" of Awaken drummer Nick D'Alessandro, hardly ever turn into blue, unless we agree that Criss Angel Mindfreak (2006) was a band, not album
    • link to Dee Snider’s Widowmaker, "ex-band" of Freddy Villano, bassist from the same Awaken, is also "eternaly red". Even if you change it to Dee Snider's Widowmaker, both links still remain questionable imo...

All these questions actually are different forms for the same general question: "Do you like red links?". I hope you don't, 'cause I hate them. And I hate especially artist/album pages, containing nothing but red links.

Why then I'm asking you (all you, not only ES) all these rethorical questions?

I hope there's no need to repeat all those arguments, explaining how LW (as lyrics site) reliability and reputation depends on growing part of red-links to lyricless songs. That's why, with some natural exceptions, I was always striving to ensure that I'll find the lyrics for at least one song on the album before creating a page for this album. But that's not documented in any form on our documentation, thus nothing strange, that some "maniacs of discography" are striving to do something different, publishing almost all available (and unavailable) discography. All my attempts to struggle with this fraction of editors were unsuccessful so far... But now, waiting for a changes in ideology of page creating/editing/checking (T-Line's coming!), this question's turning to become not only rethorical imo.

So, what do you think about Albums-Containing-Nothin-But-Red-Links? :)

Tia, --Senvaikis (talk) 19:07, February 8, 2013 (UTC)


1-I came here, I saw disorder and I stayed. I consider myself the human janitor, I level the ground for current and future contributors, whatever I do is aimed towards expanding LW, clarifying who is who and which is which. 2-ابن سینا is quoted to have made this timeless statement: everybody knows everything, and everybody hasn't been born yet.
3- Imho, heaven is a place run by technically minded BC's, as it is, LW is heaven, and it will become more Heavenly... mark my words...

With those points in mind, I'll answer your excellent questions

  • artists on disambig page: (and disambig pages as a whole) I think it is good practice to have them listed on the disambig page (black placeholder entries). As for creation of artist pages when we have no lyrics for them yet, and I have made a few myself; I consider it good practice: That is fertile ground for future contributors (including myself) it's a stub, we have a category for that. However I see that may be deemed over the top. If one song lyric suffices to create an artist page for (per janitor) then I'd rather make a much better artist pageand then try find lyrics for them and stop janitor from making (gray flag) pages. I have a list of such artist (incomplete, lifted from 6's list, Orphanage) so it is on my (ever expanding and undocumented) to do list, just like the homeless song pages, which is the same problem coming from the song direction, rather the artist direction.
  • fill-in the missing lyrics plz see Avecinna Wikipedia16 quote, I don't have them right now, I can't promise anything, I trust eventually the community will fulfill that wish, for every valid artist and album page on site! I am of the opinion that such expansion starting from the top level (artist page) is cheap and useful, Given that now we have a Category for pages with broken links, it is no problem at all. Great place to keep the artist's ID card (AH/AI/AF). If I see a contributor create a valid artist page without lyrics, I will try to find lyrics for it, especially if it is a long forgotten artist who passed away, rather than some of the carefully constructed spoof pages that we all experienced recently (thanks to the mult header artist page detection, was Lwt involved?)
  • do you think any link is better than plain text... (artist links): not in every instance, time will tell. I have edited pages when I have blackend red links, and I have edited to red the blacks (artists indicated in AI). I don't think trying to apply an all encompassing rule on red linked artist is going to be worthy of mercy. In select cases on artist pages like Joe Satriani, I have red linked a former black link because I intend to make an artist page (his band members). On red linked tracklists on artist pages in general, good practice imho, ploughing for the future generations.
  • So, link to Criss Angel Mindfreak... it will be corrected, I have many cases like that on my to do list, the entire Awaken pages are Green, certainly more work lurks there. But we have vey respectable pages there, imho.
  • On the subject of red links as a whole: Seeing a red link on an artist page is a Neon sign that work needs to be done there, I am the fish and that is water to me! Specially if the red link is in the AI box, I love blueing those reds. takes time and patience. I am still trying to bring the bottom pages of the site up (unknown hometowners, ~50% of our artists)
  • link to Dee Snider’s Widowmaker, "ex-band" ... "eternaly red". Even if you change it to Dee Snider's Widowmaker, both links still remain questionable imo..
please elaborate, I am not seeing something that is visibly obvious to you, must be my home made eyewear Smile unless you mean it should be changed to a just Widowmaker.
  • On the subject of album pages: I hardly ever make album pages, I think album page without any lyrics is plain silly, (adds no information), contrary to my opinion of entirely red artist pages. (shoot me! show no mercy Wink)
  • On Discography Maniacs: I think that is counter productive, though I am sure there are instances where I have participated in such practice. In general I think we should avoid duplication in every area. discogs & mb are for the DiMan'ted, not LW. So some all blue album pages may be condemned, I'll shed no tears for them.
  • Hope to hear more of your questions and hope to hear from 6 & chris and others too. -- ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 14:28, February 9, 2013 (UTC) (apologies in advance for any redundant redundancies above)

Hi there. Just to be upfront with it: I don't want to disfigure LyricWiki's images with unrelated pictures, so I've uploaded two pics I need for my similes on my own webspace. Please don't be distracted by that. That said, here is my actual post:
I live in a town that has only known one resize type since I can think: expansion. Since I've been born, my hometown has become bigger and bigger, and I remember the time when I was a child, where I could walk three streets from my house and stood at the border of a wheat field. Now please take a look at the satellite image that was recently made of my hometown's northern border: Image 1.
The lower part below the road is a former new housing development area that is populated by now, the upper part is the latest one. And although a few houses are already there, you can clearly see: the roads were build first, now come the houses, one after another until the area is crowded.
Sometimes I see LyricWiki as a town; and I compare our song pages to those houses and artist and album pages to the roads. Of course you could live in a house that is not connected to the town by a road, but it would be very uncomfortable to get there. So creating the artist pages before the song pages is an absolutely understandable way to create a new part of the LyricWiki town. And I agree with ES that it's likelier for somebody new to the town to settle there if the roads are already built, because opposed to building a road (artist page), it's a fair bit easier to create a house (song page). Besides the latter is YouTube Icon documented.
But: I also have to agree with Senv. Usually, roads are only built where it's likely that people will settle in the near future. That is: there is no point in creating tons of discographies for bands that only a bunch of people in the world have ever heard of, unless you're going to add the song pages yourself afterwards. Don't just build roads for settlers which you hope will arrive at some uncertain point in the future. Otherwise, many parts of the LyricWiki town will eventually end up like this image, depicting a part of the UAE, 20 miles east of Jumeira (the famous palm tree shaped island): Image 2.
When I saw this area for the first time, I thought: "gosh, what a scary but also sad picture. All these roads were built with money that could've been invested so much better in more useful things. Now all of this is built, forgotten and slowly covered by sand. There are so many regions in the world where people were happy if they had roads at all." (N. B.: the picture only shows the south-western part of the whole area, which has a total outline circumference of 11.24 miles and covers about 6.1 square miles. The nothern part, which is located right when seen from the image's perspective, is already covered with sand in large part; the first covered aisle can be seen on the picture, several are following on the cropped right.)
In LyricWiki, we also have many artists that could do with some help, artists where plenty of the song pages already exist. Maybe it was better if we put more efforts in finishing the discography of these artists than creating all new construction sites. These needy artist pages are mainly found in Category:Split/Severe, some might also be in Category:Split/Moderate. Let's rather tar the roads of existing villages than wasting resources for endless roads in the desert. Smile
I hope you all know what I mean and forgive me for wrapping my opinion and perception of this issue in a little story. Greetings, Chris 01:09, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with both essays :). Just hope you haven't thought I'm against red links at all. Seems I wasn't clear enough while formulating my rethorical questions. The final question could sound like "Do you like cheating lyrics sites?" Usually they declare having almost all the lyrics you are looking for, but most of their search links end with something similar to: "Sorry, but the lyrics are temporarily unavailable..."

That's why I like Chris' allegory very much, - just let me slightly develop it to show what I'm concerned about. If our sites were only the system of roads, then it would be only our problem, if we had no better use for our money (time) than building streets for towns/villages which will never be populated. But we aren't only road builders. We are also postmen, publishing the addresses of all these streets' inhabitants. So, bad lyrics sites would correspond to a map with a poor road and addresses system. A good one should look like a map with a rich network of roads with addresses, where each address is actually populated as declared on the map. But if you drove a long way to an address given by a postman, only to finally discover an empty street - you'll call this postman a cheater. Inet is full of such "cheating postmen", hunting for visitors' clicks. Lyrics sites are no exception - if you notice a link to or at the top of your lyrics search results, you can be assume your search has failed. Now we may make an experiment - let's google for some lyrics of Awaken (UK):The Child & The Fury. Insert "The Child & The Fury" Awaken lyrics as a search text and you'll get the list of matches with... two links to our site on the very top of it. Luckily we aren't heavily cheating postmen, as two mentioned above - their clients will drive the entire way to every particular address just to find it's unpopulated. Our clients may know that when arriving in the "post station" (our site), unpopulated addresses are marked red, and that's good :). But wouldn't it be better if such unpopulated addresses weren't exposed at all on the public map (google search) then? I'm not keen on that, but maybe it would be possible to hide our red links from the scope of Google robots?
--Senvaikis (talk) 13:09, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know for sure but I'm afraid it's not possible to hide only parts of pages from Google, just all or nothing. - Chris 19:26, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
Agree on every point with Senv & Chris (can't wait to hear from 6!) The issue of API returning red links to the world was bashed around 5 years ago, no cure was available then. I wonder if commenting out the albums of Zero song count artists will help hide them from search engines. If necessary I will just delete them and back up on my computor until at least one song is found. The road building to nowhere (Chris's excellent examples from home & UAE, or the Chinese freshly built ghost towns in Angola & China) is just a tiny bit of an exaggeration in our LW world. The number of All Red pages is not even 1% of the number of Grey flagged pages. Artists I want represented (which are not/were not) are from the past century (not anybody we'd find on facebook, twitter, myspace or band camp and the like). Everybody who showed up on The George Mitchell Collection like Cecil Barfield, everybody who Alan Lomax tracked down and recorded, Wynonie Harris, Bob Neuwirth (thanks 6!) and oodles like those, some may only show on compilations, cowboy & bluegrass artists of first half of last century, the likes of Othar Turner, or newer Long John Baldry, not to mention artists from all corners of the world. Now back to Senv's concern on red links. Let's say we have every song for Artist X, except only 2. Anybody looking for those two last songs will get a bogus response from google that we have it. What to do? I dislike instalyrics and lyrics dot com and the other dozen dozen like them as much as the next man, but we end up cheating some of the time, it's a matter of degree. There ought to be a technical solution to this. LW should return results to search engines from an index of existing song pages, not listing on artist pages. Is that acheivable? I am sure with some performance cost and added latency. Let's hope 6 is busy cooking up some magic! I wonder if transclusion of albums (Chris's brew) can do what we want. It's great to be back at LW! --ES (Talk) 14:11, February 11, 2013 (UTC)
I've tried to find out about technologies for Google Optimization. I haven't found anything to exclude a visible part of a website yet, but I wanted to tell you about two other interesting things: "nofollow" for links, and microdata like here. However I recommend to continue this topic on the admin talk page, because we're drifting away from a Senv-specific topic to a debate on principles (which I think is a very good one, in case this term has a negative connotation); I agree with Senv on that we shouldn't enforce lists of red links, ideally. We could easily make a template to tell Google not to index a page. We could make a flagging template to mark an artist as "red songs only", that'd also put a noindex meta tag on the page, and then teach Janitor to remove this template when he adds the first OS, maybe?
@ES: I'm afraid also transclusions cannot hide red links for bots, because links are MediaWiki stuff, they have nothing to do with templates, and that's what the T-Line is all about: smarter templates (which are also designed to allow transclusion, as a side effect). - Chris 23:59, February 12, 2013 (UTC)


Senvaikis - can you or someone else please review the actions of admin 6 x 9 in his massacre of many hours of user labor on the Depeche Mode page, please? He feels Singles should not be listed unless they contain exclusive content, for redundancy purposes supposedly. Can you please weigh-in on how a thorough page warrants being stripped of its content and left a mangled mess of inaccuracies? For instance, he deleted Singles of "Dreaming of Me" and "New Life", which even according to his own standards, contained non-album tracks. I would appreciate any comment, as I do not feel it is right to undo so much legitimate content because one mod wants it that way. I know I will not be participating in this site anymore if so many hours of work can be undone on a whim. Thanks for your opinion. Condemned82 (talk) 07:22, February 20, 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Condemned82
Let's start by quotation from LW:Help:
Album List
  • Include the following:
    • All officially-released studio albums and EPs
    • Noteworthy officially-released live albums, especially those containing songs not appearing on other albums
    • Noteworthy "greatest hits"/"best-of" compilation albums/box sets, especially those containing songs not appearing on other albums
      • TIP: Live and compilation albums with a Wikipedia page may generally considered to be noteworthy.
  • Do not include the following:
    • Bootlegs and other unofficial/fan-made albums
    • Singles (as separate listings) -- those that have Album pages may have their titles listed and linked to within the track list for the appropriate album (marked red by me)
Now take a look at singles mentioned above (using mb & dog for refs):
  • "Dreaming of Me" contains songs "Dreaming of Me" and (on some releases) "Ice Machine" - both available on rereleases of Speak & Spell (1981)
  • "New Life" contains songs "New Life" and "Shout!" - also available on origin and later releases of the same album.
In other words, both singles don't contain any song, unavailable on studio albums, thus, following above quotation, should not be included into artist albums list as redundant info. Keep in mind that LW is lyrics-, not discography-oriented site.
So, that wasn't neither some 6's "feeling" nor "whim" - just such is "LW Artist Page Formatting Policy".
--Senvaikis (talk) 19:49, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
While I understand that, I also don't see what is the harm in having TOO much information. To me, it's beyond conceivable that someone could hear a single on the radio, Pandora, or even physical CD and go looking for the song lyrics categorized by single (i.e. they hear "Heaven", DM's new single, and find it on the list of singles, not knowing what album it appears on). Likewise, each lyric page has that "Also appears on..." section that is being harmed by these edits. Again, it's more than plausible that someone looks up the lyrics to a song and wants to know what format they could buy it in. Again, I don't see what the problem with having links that allow more ease of access. Not to mention lots of hours of user contribution.Condemned82 (talk) 22:29, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
I would also add that the "whim" part is true, as the majority of these pages have existed for years now... only now, on his whim, are they being removed and unlinked. There was a precedent set for many years that this was acceptable, and my edits followed the format already laid out. As mentioned, what is being undone is hours and hours of research and fact-finding, then hours and hours of editing. I'm someone that believes in following rules, but I also believe that rules should be interpreted in-context and with some subjectivity. I appreciate the community's consideration of these opinions.Condemned82 (talk) 03:38, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
Hi Condemned, as much as I am sorry for your hours of work were reverted, I think I have to agree with 6.
Please note that LyricWiki is a place for lyrics; discographies are not what should be put much efforts in: we use them to provide quick and easy access to the songs, because it's more convenient than a pure alphabetical list. But if a song is already available from an album, there is no need to have its single linked on the page, because there is no benefit from that in context of providing access to the song page.
In times where almost every song is released as single some time before the full album is out, we'd have every song link twice. In order to keep pages small, we try to reduce the number of sections to a minimum. Unfortunately, many people don't know this and put one single link after another on the pages, because they think if a single was released it was automatically meant to be on the page. But our rule is clear: first only albums, and then all the singles that contain tracks which were not available otherwise, i. e. singles which include non-album tracks. Otherwise, we'd have ultra long "Singles" sections, especially if the group was active for over 30 years like DM.
I see that it's bad luck if one gets the impression we'd include all singles just because someone else formerly put far too many of them on the page. But rather than refering to that drawback to fortify the adding of even more singles, the hours of work should've been spent to assert our rules by removing the unneccessary singles from that list. - Chris 18:05, February 24, 2013 (UTC)


(posted through Lwt - can't edit) Lwt (talk) 21:02, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

Prakeiktas! --ES (Talk) 02:21, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

Prakeiktas Oblivion Prakeiktas!

PI: Union compare to Union OS list.--ES (Talk) 03:09, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Other half is on Union (UK). — 6×9 (Talk) 08:45, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
As 6've pointed, this case has nothing to do vith Oblivion, but if it had, - dont forget about a gun for hunting in Oblivion :) --Senvaikis (talk) 10:22, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
I figured my false alarm, after I noticed an editor had created a Union without disambig!
Take this as flattery in disguise: There is more than plenty of power under the hood of lwt, but the interface is daunting! I'm a little bit scared of experimenting with it. I tried dealing with the few songs in SNLI a few hours ago, couldn't figure it out. btw: Any luck retrieving my bot pw? and one more item: after your recent touch of C:Song, now all songs should show in all categories that they belong to... Our Orphaned page count is 99.9999% accurate? --ES (Talk) 10:39, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
  1. Regardless of Oblivion, disambig should be applied here imo
  2. Agree about interface, sry. My only excuse is very simple - Lwt wasn't ever intended to be used by anybody else but me...
  3. Sry, but no luck, - maybe 6/Chris can help?
  4. Don't think so. Touching (even total) can't resolve Oblivion under current Orphaned page definition imo (masking effect of redirs).
--Senvaikis (talk) 11:04, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
The learning curve is steep, but it's certainly worthwhile, and I have the time. Your efforts are most apprecaited over here!--ES (Talk) 11:29, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

Bug or Feature

Senv plz try batch move K-Ci And Jo Jo --> K-Ci & JoJo... why fail? ES (Talk) 15:13, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

"The page ... already exists, marked for manual merge" – BM can't move over existing pages (unless they're redirects). — 6×9 (Talk) 16:18, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
I was using LWT, not batch move! I think the problem was an invalid token...another job that needs 3 admins and a bot :))ES (Talk) 16:30, March 3, 2013 (UTC) p.s. thanks 6!
 :)--Senvaikis (talk) 16:43, March 3, 2013 (UTC)

The question was...

Senv, my original question was...

Six, please take a look at Jay-Z And Linkin Park collab page, then at each individual artist page. In addition to the actual Album page Jay-Z & Linkin Park:Collision Course (2004), the track list is indicated on 3 other pages (on collab page, on Jay-Z and on Linkin Park...) Is this how it is supposed to be done?

And your answer is? --ES (Talk) 13:19, March 8, 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you certainly know - I do remember your question to 6, thus there wasn't any need in reposting it here, ES. Should I understand this repost as expression of some dissatisfaction, caused by my answers to the questions, addressed to me? Sad then - that mean I've spent a lot of time in vain, while writing them. --Senvaikis (talk) 15:47, March 8, 2013 (UTC)
There is dissatification alright! Every question I ask (and you sure know I ask a lot from you & 6) is because I find something unclear; there is a fork in the road and whichever way I go I am going to hit a wall.
lw is like a hardware store that has many unique instances of different tools, that an editor may use but it is not clear under what circumstances each tool may be used.
So I ask you to please with sugar on top explain it all as you see it, so we have your ideas as the foundation for a heated discusion, not mine! Lay down the definition of Artist, Artist Collboration, Release, Song Collaboration, and how they all relate together and to the api, and throw some text on the consequences of implementation of transclusion as it relates to everything. I'm all ears!
You've been too busy with Cover songs and making tables, maybe this will give you a respite! cheers --ES (talk) 01:39, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, I should be accustomed to attaining dissatisfaction instead of gratitude, so let me leave this part uncommented, just reminding once more that I always used to answer every your question or ask for a help.
  • Strange to hear that - I always thought (and still think) that lw tools storage is very poor...
  • Wow! Are you serious? Asking me to provide almost comprehensive LW description, with definitons, relations etc.? Let me treat that as just a joke, - you perfectly know that it's an impossible mission for any single person, especially one with broken English, vasting more than hour for writing even such a simple message as this :). Have you ever checked lw docs edition history? Then you possitively noticed my "tremendous" contribution to it :) Just that's not a kind of activity I'm strong at, and you perfectly know that. So, take it easy, but that'll be the first your ask I just can't satisfy, - sry. But as always, I'm still ready to answer any your specific question, or join to any particular discussion.
  • Hunting covers, discovering a new relations between artists, making tables, templates, etc etc, - that's a real respite for me, compared to writing such messages :) But if you still think I was "too busy" with that, I may stand up, noticing that a lot of artists, albums and songs pages were created/replenished as a "side product" of this "game". In addition, now I know how does cycling work in template. So, now template {{Covered}} may be easily extended to support almost unlimited count of covers, but that's a job for 6, I think :). Unfortunatelly, even that wasn't enough to digest enormous size(102 currently) of Ain't No Sunshine collection ...:)
--Senvaikis (talk) 18:15, March 14, 2013 (UTC)


Hi! Thank you for your edit of my contribution to the Einstürzende Neubauten page. I'm not a complete Wiki n00b but there's still lots of FAQ-reading and reverse engineering to do, so I didn't quite know how to handle a compilation album with so many different artists. Live and learn. :) Dramacrat (talk) 10:59, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Song Page Ranking Clarification

I wanted to thank you for looking over what I've done. I'm still new on this Wikia, so I'm not sure on all the policies. I did look over the page ranking for songs and I'm not sure what's missing from the Ashland High songs I promoted to Silver star status? The credits are messing, but according to Help:Page_ranking/Songs that's only required for Gold star status. And the other criteria are legitimately not applicable (I wasn't being lazy). What else are the song pages missing? Thanks for your time. Piathulus (talk) 3:59, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Piathulus,
Let's look once more at H:PR/S (though if you said it's far from being perfect, - I'd agree):
"Song pages ranked Silver have at least one 'Watcher', all the important information has been obtained, checked, corrected and completed".
Have you noticed a bit marked bold by me? Now answer yourself - what makes this song page silver? Yes, it have all mandatory elements, lyrics is checked and watcher is declared. But that's only minimal boundary of requirements for a Bronze page. (Declaring a watcher isn't any additional information, is it?) Hope you agree, that at least album info and credits (info about music & lyrics authors) would be highly desirable, 'cause any other info (wp, mb, amg, amz, iT etc) for this song is not avilable at all. I do not insist that my opinion has been considered as mandatory requirement, but hope you agree, that at least some logically evident difference between bronze and silver pages should exist :).
regards, --Senvaikis (talk) 15:23, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to apologize and clear up the situation. I didn't downgrade it because I was stubborn or ignorant. In fact, I was planning to immediately work on it to get it up to Silver standard, so I wouldn't have to downgrade it then immediately upgrade it. Instead, recently I became rather busy and wasn't able to do so promptly and I forgot to downgrade the songs. Also, I forgot to post a thanks for your previous advice. I took it to heart when I was working on other page rankings.
For instance, this one. I hope you would agree that it is worthy of a silver rating...
Anyways, just wanted to let you know that I am serious about contributing and to let you know that I'm sure that will be a one-time mistake. I hope you won't think too poorly of me. Piathulus (talk) 09:43, March 20, 2013 (UTC)
Now, when album info was added to the song header, it's really silver :). And don't forget to always synchronize info page and it's owner contents: - if info page says that album info is "done", the song page should contain that info.
Good luck, --Senvaikis (talk) 12:04, March 20, 2013 (UTC)
Oh I'm sorry I misinterpreted what the "album info" meant. I thought it referred to the song being properly listed under the Album/Artist page... I think I can confidentally now say that I understand the page rankings; and if not I have a good example to worth it!
Just wondering though, what does "sh" mean? (In your edit you noted "sh.album") Piathulus (talk) 00:51, March 21, 2013 (UTC)
Song Header (Song template). --Senvaikis (talk) 05:49, March 21, 2013 (UTC)
Ahhh, thanks. So what is holding back this page from being gold? Piathulus (talk) 08:48, March 22, 2013 (UTC)
Nothing :). There's only one essential additional requirement for golden songs - certifying. --Senvaikis (talk) 09:01, March 22, 2013 (UTC)
Lol, you are really obsessed by a gold-rush!:) Yo've asked me about one particular song, and... applied my answer to entire artist?.. :) I'm not going to argue against ranking GH totally gold - though that seems, to put it mildly, "slightly overweighted" to me. Finally, - it's up to you, but please, try to conform at least minimal technical requirements - how may labeless album be ranked gold, when its info page is... about song?! --Senvaikis (talk) 12:38, March 22, 2013 (UTC)
that was embarassing. took care of it now, thanks for pointing it out. and what do you mean labeless? like the label the album was released by? what is the tag should I use for it? I found out that Kiss was all Gold, so I looked at that page to make sure I filled in everything.
That was a good idea to compare with some really gold artist (PF would be a better choice, 'cause Kiss still needs some fine-tuning to be really gold). Strange you haven't noticed any differences between such titan as Kiss (with all imaginable info about them available on Inet) & GH :).
  • Yes, speaking about labeless albums I meant they are all self-released (Independent isn't any recording label actually)
  • Are you sure GH is a band? I'm not an adept of GH, but according to all (sparse) info sources, it's just performance mononym of Grant Harris
  • if above is true, then
    • Grant Harris should go into ai.realname, not ai.members
    • Breathe Electric should go into ai.fmemberof instead of ai.related
And even then I'd ranked such artist as bronze maximum, but that's only my humble opinion. Once more - I don't insist you should accept my opinion. Truth to tell, - I don't treat Lw ranking very seriously ;).
Good luck (and don't forget to sign your msgs), --Senvaikis (talk) 11:12, March 23, 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, whether or not it's a band I guess is a bit questionable, considering there is only one member...
In general, if a "band" consists of one member? on lw, is it most common to use ai.realname? I would like to conform to the general established pattern. I'll admit, I didn't consider that because I thought it was intended for pseudonyms ("Madonna", real name: Madonna Louise Ciccone).
I'm not sure how to apply the ai.fmemberof because it updated to say "Goldhouse was a former member of...". I'm not sure that's very clear. Piathulus (talk) 06:24, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

A Tribute To Jens

'A Tribute To Jens' is a music project we're starting right now. The lyrics are the starting point, now we are getting into the music, we possible need to adapt lyrics during this work - so wiki is perfect for this. Hope we're making a good Christian Rock song out oft this!--User:Icecubeyt 08:10, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Icecubeyt,
that's always nice to have here any info "from the first hand", i.e. - author of the song, and I agree with you - lw is the best place for that :). Thank you for your contribution and hope one day your project will grow to be represented here by a rich, multialbum page. Now should notice only, that term "album" means officially released album, and only such, de facto & de jure existing albums, may be represented here as separate pages. If your album has been actually released, it would be desirable to provide any kind of info about that. If that wasn't a single, then I should remind that album page should contain a complete, not partial album tracklist.
And please, start your new messages with a new section ==<msg subject>== declaration and don't forget to sign your messages to avoid possible misunderstandings, as happened with your message, treated by me initially as part of previous Piathulus' posting :) (this time I've done that for you).
Happy editing, --Senvaikis (talk) 17:21, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Senvaikis
I checked different lyrics sites and I appreciate this structured approach! Now I feel like in my early *Unix days using the vi for the fist time! Not all options are visiable, you just need learn how to do it right...
OK, I understand this album/legal issue, so it would be OK just to delete the album in this case? You're right this is not released so far. For me it's important to get the lyrics right, because I want to link this to Facebook and I think a lot of guys will have a look on that.
Thanks for your support, I saw my entry was mixed with something else but I did'nt how t fix it... --Icecubeyt (talk) 17:37, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Traditionally sad statistics from CYS

Here are agregated results of last Lwt's round of eyt (embedded youtube) validation:

Category Count Comments Eyt stat
Total checked30568
No restrictions17837
Unembeddable67Moved to
Not Found998Removed
--Senvaikis (talk) 09:50, March 21, 2013 (UTC)
Sadder still, for me, that most restrictions are probably thanks to Germany's beloved GEMA… — 6×9 (Talk) 12:50, March 23, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.