Help talk:Adding New Albums

From Lyriki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I'd like to suggest that we move our "AlbumArt" naming style to one similar to our album naming scheme -- "AlbumArt:Artist:Album". Any objections? We wouldn't have to move all the art that's already been uploaded, since their titles don't generally affect the end user. --MindlessXD 15:16, 4 January 2006 (PST)

Definately makes more sense, not sure why I didn't think of it before. I've thought about the AlbumArt tag itself, but, it should probably remain as there may be other types of media in the future that Lyriki will support.
Looks like images are a bit screwed up :( ... colon's aren't allowed in image names. --MindlessXD 15:47, 4 January 2006 (PST)
Doh, maybe that's why I didn't suggest that :P can't remember if I tried it now or not, but that makes sense. It's a small thing, and as long as most filenames follow a consistent thing, I doubt it'll be much of a problem. --Nanenj 16:09, 4 January 2006 (PST)

What does everyone think of this style of album pages? --MindlessXD 19:04, 12 January 2006 (PST)

Somehow that looks familiar, ;). I think one of the very first attempts looked very similar to that. One of the album templates I like more is with the Artist link above, see Thrice:Identity Crisis (2001). Perhaps lining up 'Track list' looks pretty, but, I'm fairly sure track list is obvious ;). I'm not too sure of it myself, just so much of the text is huge, and only the name of the album is really important info. The words 'track list' being huge seems kinda silly ;) My brain missed a step in there. I meant to say perhaps I'd like a template that used what's currently default, (as per the thrice page) but with Tracklist lined up properly. --Nanenj 19:43, 12 January 2006 (PST)
Hmm? The current artist template includes "== Track List ==", but I suppose it doesn't really need to be there at all, as you said. --MindlessXD 20:22, 12 January 2006 (PST)
I removed "== Track List ==", and I agree it looks better. --MindlessXD 20:28, 12 January 2006 (PST)
Yar, I've neglected putting tracklist above... well, nearly every album page I've done recently ;) I think it might still need a little work (None of the variations are absolutely oh my gosh that's it! perfect.) :) The biggest thing with the album page is because it features the album art it can be made mildly attractive. I've pondered some kind of formatting for the tracks (like a tracklistbox or something, similar to how the userboxes on wikipedia are.), but, at the same time. Lyriki's main focus is having the information available. Presentation will constantly improve. --Nanenj 20:32, 12 January 2006 (PST)
After MediaWiki 1.6 is released, making a decent album template should be quite easy, however I don't know how CPU intensive such templates are -- I don't want to bog down the server. --MindlessXD 20:41, 12 January 2006 (PST)
Evelyn has more info on that, however, I'm thinking it's not exactly easy to bog down the hosting she's got. We can see though. -- 21:00, 12 January 2006 (PST)

General Editing Help

...should go here. For example,

Type this into your address bar: "". Where it says "YourTitleHere" put the name of the album you want to add, in this form:

doesn't really belong here but could be incorporated into the Help:Editing page. If the user does not know how to make a wiki page, that is where [s]he should go. --MindlessXD 18:40, 19 January 2006 (PST)

Then hit "go". When you're at the album's new page you simply click the "edit" tab and then create the page. For first time users and for most others who want to stay uniform, it is a good idea to use one of the recommended page formats.

...more general info. --MindlessXD 18:46, 19 January 2006 (PST)

various artist albums

Does anyone have a suggestion or even know of a rule concerning albums that have various artists? --Nash 13:43, 24 January 2006 (PST)

I can see a few ways for handling them. One would simply be Album Name (Year). The one rule that would apply globally to various artists would be no artist page, obviously. However, if we wanted to keep the naming of pages pretty standard, could use 'Various Artists' as the name of the 'artist', IE: Various Artists:Album Name (Year). I'm leaning towards designating an artist name like 'VA' or 'Various Artists' and using that as the artist name and using the previously set standard for naming albums. However, that might collide with some witty group that decides to use Various Artist or VA as their name. --Nanenj 16:15, 24 January 2006 (PST)
I just did a search at AMG and found an electronica group called Various Artists and two artists in a sense called VA, except one is V/A and the other is V.A. So, does that mean we should go with your first solution? --Nash 17:05, 24 January 2006 (PST)
Or we could go with (Various Artists):Album Name (Year) which should avoid confusion and keep to the standards. --MindlessXD 17:41, 24 January 2006 (PST)
I think Mindless's solution may be the best. As I was looking at the one added without an artist name present. I don't really like how that looks. As for the artist listed with the song, that's easy enough, because the artist is still the person that made the song. Link it like any other song by an artist. --Nanenj 22:49, 24 January 2006 (PST)

I second that. How do we make that official? Add a section on the actual help? --risser 05:53, 20 February 2006 (PST)

Go ahead an make a section in either the album or song help pages (or both). Also, if a song has no known artist, I think we should use (Unknown Artist):Song Name. --MindlessXD 15:50, 20 February 2006 (PST)
I added a section in album help for using (Various Artists) as the appropriate artist for compilations.--risser 07:34, 21 February 2006 (PST)

Removing unnecessary text in piping

When you have a wikilink that ends in a PIPE and nothing after that pipe... it automatically removes the namespace on that link.

produces the same output. except the second one is a bit easier.Bailey 09:41, 25 January 2006 (PST)

You bet that would be easier. And I've been doing a copy and paste after I've typed the song name in. So that's great that I know that now, but, just curious, what is a "namespace"? --Nash 10:21, 25 January 2006 (PST)
"namespace" is a programming concept which groups a whole bunch of related things together. When a wikipedia article has a colon(:) in its name the words to the left of the colon is the namespace that the article belongs to. The wiki uses the concept of namespaces to allow special things to be done for certain namespaces (an example is Template)and it also allows the system to handle requests for articles in a more efficient manner Bailey 11:41, 25 January 2006 (PST)
I was under the impression that only the predefined namespaces are true namespaces, and therefore "Metallica" is not the namespace for Metallica:Orion because it is not a predefined wiki namespace, but I might be wrong... wouldn't be the first time. :P --MindlessXD 14:32, 25 January 2006 (PST)
You could be right with regards to how mediawiki handles it on the backend. I haven't dug into it. but the effects are the same in the markup language. Bailey 15:25, 25 January 2006 (PST)
I found out the hard way that leaving out what's after the | is basically a shortcut. When the page is rendered, the wiki just puts in the information and saves that. The problem with omitting the extra information comes when the song title contains parenthesis or the artist name contains a colon. --MindlessXD 16:13, 26 January 2006 (PST)

Year at the end of the Album?

I just realized the standard format calls for a year to be placed at the end of the album name. I have a couple of issues with this.

  • Is this really neccesarry? You have the Artist and the Album.. most artists don't release an identically named album
  • Shouldn't that be a category all by itself... as in release date? That would be much more interesting

I would like to propose moving the date to a category Bailey 18:51, 25 January 2006 (PST)

Without the year label, song titles would clash with album titles (for example Metallica:Master of Puppets and Metallica:Master of Puppets (1986)) --MindlessXD 19:11, 25 January 2006 (PST)
Missed that, however whats wrong with following a more standardized wiki approach of adding a qualifier though the parentheses ie [[Metallica:Master of Puppets (album)]] and adding that only when its needed? Bailey 19:30, 25 January 2006 (PST)
Having the year tag makes it easier to distinguish between album and song pages IMHO, especially when looking at a list of pages. --MindlessXD 19:52, 25 January 2006 (PST)
Hrm, the year was indeed added to avoid conflicts with songs that are titled the same as the album. I just chose that cause it seemed relevant information aside from tags that don't add any real information. Definately something to think about. I did make a 'Standards' post somewhere, which is meant for this kind of discussion, we're growing pretty fast and only a few things have been decided. Need to get input on what's right, what's wrong. Personal opinion, having (album) doesn't look pretty :P Silly I know. --Nanenj 21:26, 25 January 2006 (PST)
We should definitely switch to using '(album)' for disambiguation. It's a much uglier kludge[[1]] to use the year to denote albums. Since we're going to run into problems that require disambiguation anyway, we might as well do it right instead of making special cases. (What next? Use sTudLyCaPs to denote compilations?) --Hackerb9 03:31, 13 June 2006 (PDT)
Which format we use makes no difference to me, but how would you propose we handle making SSong decide whether it should add "(album)" or not? It needs to be an easy solution for the user, since SSong was meant to mean SimpleSong. :) --MindlessXD 17:48, 13 June 2006 (PDT)

incorrectly named album art

what can we do about incorrectly named album art? images can't be moved by normal users (if at all). --MindlessXD 20:21, 7 February 2006 (PST)

If it really bugs you, you could download it and re-upload it. Can you mark it for deletion after that? --risser 06:24, 20 March 2006 (PST)

Extra Info in Album Link; also: DVDs

Hey all, There are a few albums that have been entered that have extra info in the link, like so: Tool:Salival (CD/DVD/VHS boxset) (2000) or Led Zeppelin:The Song Remains The Same (Soundtrack) (1976). My thoughts are, the actual title doesn't include the CD/DVD/VHS or Box Set or Soundtrack or Live in it, and it shouldn't be included in the link. That info should be on the actual page, in the form of Notes or Album Information, but not as part of the link. I think that clutters the links. But before I started changing them, I wanted to see others' opinions.

Also, do DVDs belong on here? My first thought was "no", but then I thought, (a) they have songs with lyrics and (b) more and more we may see things released only on DVD, so they should probably be included. That being said, there may be a potential for something to be released on multiple formats with different tunes. For example, Talking Heads:Stop Making Sense (1984) was on VHS and CD, and is now on DVD and a new updated, extended CD. I think in these instances, the format designation should probably be used to distinguish releases, but only in these instances.

Anyone? --risser 06:24, 20 March 2006 (PST)

If it contains extra songs or different versions of songs that aren't on any traditional album, I think it should be included. Otherwise it's just not needed - this isn't DVDiki or whatever ;P --268229 15:12, 20 March 2006 (PST)

I don't like the idea of included the whole CD/DVD/VHS boxset stuff in the links, no. Cause yea, as you pointed out, it clutters up the page, and results in some lengthy article page names too. --ahoier 04:38, 3 January 2007 (PST)

Wishlist - Script to quickly enter lyrics in an album

If anyone here remember the kiwizer from kiwilyrics then this would seem familiar. In any case, let me elaborate.

I'd like a way to insert the lyrics of a signle album at once, all from the same page. Theoreticaly, the page should have input boxes for Album name, Artist name, Year, Number of Tracks, and then two inputboxes for each track. The first tack inputbox would be the track name and the second the lyrics.
When you fill in the tags a script creates the relative pages in one go. The Album Name, Artist Name, Year, Number of Tracks and the Track Names are used to create the album page and then the Artist Name, Album Name, Year and Track Name are automaticaly inserted in the SSong template while the Lyrics are inserted between the <lyrics> tags. Maybe have two more inputboxes to insert the album and song categorization letter if it can't be done automaticaly.
Do you wiki-script-hackers think is doable?--Db0 14:50, 23 April 2006 (PDT)

I can probably do it if it's in high demand. --MindlessXD 19:06, 28 May 2006 (PDT)

Album external links

Doesn't work for self-titled albums - it directs you to the artist instead of the album. I can't think of any catch-all solution to be included in the standard album external links template, does anybody else have an idea? If not, I'd propose a new external links template specifically for self-titled albums. --notimeless 13:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC+1)

There's no "catch-all" solution, not for self-titled albums nor for non self-titled albums; that's why you can specify the various links with optional parameters. Here's an example. --Attendant 18:10, 2 December 2006 (PST)

the newish song link stuff

Something I'm missing, since the new song link code was added to the adding new albums. I know it's been in a while now, but it just hit me today...Previously, when there was a song that used the pound (#) symbol, I would link to #4 for example. But, with the new

# {{song link|Artist|Song}}

stuff, I don't think this is possible anymore...or is it? I ran into this on Dave Matthews Band:Crash (1996), where track 5 is Dave Matthews Band:#41, but due to wiki/html limitations, it must be written out like Dave Matthews Band:Number 41, but on the Album page, I'd like the link to that song to show up as it does on the cd cover, #44 - is there any work around? --ahoier 04:48, 3 January 2007 (PST)

If you goto Dave Matthews Band:Crash (1996), you will notice what I've done, it doesn't have to stay that way necessary, I just think it makes the album pages look neater when the tracks appear with there proper titles and casing. If you view the page, you'll see I just combined the old link formatting, with the newer link formatting. --ahoier 04:57, 3 January 2007 (PST)
That's exactly what I would have suggested. Perhaps I should add support for such things in the template. --MindlessXD 08:28, 3 January 2007 (PST)
The template accepts a 'disp' parameter now. --MindlessXD 08:50, 3 January 2007 (PST)
Great! That's awesome, looks perfect. --ahoier 04:11, 4 January 2007 (PST)

I wonder why I never think of that before? I certainly never suggested that nor I ever implemented it in a template that was recently butch-- eh... "simplified" ;-)

Now, seriously... I didn't started changing pages before (help pages) because I think rules defining the "official" way of doing things should, at least, go through some minimal discussion first, specially when they affect so many pages in a non reversible way. When we change a template without affecting the way everybody uses it, then it's no big deal, it can be easily reverted if needed, but when we tell people how to write album pages (there are almost 2000 of those) we better get it right from start or we'll end up with a mess the size of LyricWiki...

Let me say this: unnamed parameters suck. They may be convenient in some situations but they easily become a mess.

1st) They don't trim empty spaces so if someone writes {{song link|Mark Lanegan| Museum|2:50}} ( Museum (2:50)) the link will point to an unexisting page even though the page exists. The example artificially introduces an error, however there are valid cases when this wouldn't be considered as such. For example, it's not possible to use this template like we do with other ones

{{song link
| Mark Lanegan
| Museum
| 2:50

or like this:

{{song link
|Mark Lanegan

because the new line characters would still remain as part of the link.
(Note: this can be fixed by wrapping the parameters in the template with another template).

2nd) They don't scale well (actually, they don't scale at all...) when you need to add additional parameters or when you can't know in advance how many parameters the template will receive (Note: the original version of the template accepted various artists).

3rd) They force you to "provide" all unnamed parameters, even if you don't want to. To provide the "info parameter" you must provide the length even if it's irrelevant or unknown (you can leave it blank of course). Song links can be placed in many places, not just album pages. In some contexts it would be desirable to omit things such as the track length (think for example an artist page mentioning a single and linking to that song). Also note how since the template introduction a few days ago (a week?) already another parameter (disp) had to be added: named and thus optional. If it weren't named, not only length but also info should be left blank to provide it (well... there is other way, but it's hard enough to assume it won't be used). This inconvenient only gets bigger as more parameters are needed.

I may seem as if I'm pushing it with this template, that it doesn't require so many parameters, but it's already on the edge and there's another template, va song link, with a related function (meant to be used on Various Artists records) which can't get away with using unnamed parameters. Given that it would be very convenient to use both templates the same way (since it would make things easier for users), it's also another reason not to use unnamed parameters in either template.

I'm not saying that we should adopt my "original" version but I do think we should use it as a starting point to come out with and improved and "definitive" (as in "one that won't change in awhile") template.

--Attendant 21:30, 4 January 2007 (PST)

I don't know much about the backend/programming stuff of templates/wiki/etc, but yea, I can understand the problem. What was the reasoning for the change? I actually didn't notice it until now, because tbh, I just had the templates typed up into Google Notebook, and whenever I would go to add lyrics/albums/artists, I'd copy the template, paste it into lyriki, and edit from there. But yea, this new template/method sounds like a big can of worms. --ahoier 04:57, 5 January 2007 (PST)
Sorry about the butchering... I don't really have any excuse for that. :(
Yes, the need for disp could be near completely eliminated if redirects were used. (take Metallica as an example, no disp)
The reason for unnamed parameters is to make song links shorter -- as long as the parameters are in a logical order, it should be easy for the average user to understand. If not, the template page itself provides a simple explanation.
1) Extra spaces can easily be edited out, and I can't think of any time that we would want to make {{song link}} multi-line. But as you said, that's fixable.
2) Not really sure what you mean...
3) Not exactly true, if someone accidentally put the info in the length parameter, probably no one would notice until someone tried to add the length. I suppose length and info could become named parameters, but this would start to defeat the purpose of the template. disp was simply an oversight on my part (which need not be used often, as I noted above). What other parameters would {{song link}} need? I can't think of an instance (aside from various artist links) which cannot be handled by {{song link}} as it is now.
This didn't seem to be going anyway, so I just gave it a push. But perhaps I'm out of line again. --MindlessXD 07:51, 6 January 2007 (PST)
Pink Floyd:The Dark Side of the Moon (1973) is what I would consider to be an ideal album. Redirects from the every-word-capitalized titles are in place, but they are not used within the wiki. --MindlessXD 09:42, 6 January 2007 (PST)
Please, note that I was making a general case against unnamed parameters. I'm not only criticizing it's use in this template. I was pointing out things that I believe should be considered generally when dealing with templates.
1) We agree on this. I pointed this out for 2 reasons: first, though it's possible to correct this, it's not done in the current implementation; second, though possible, it's an ugly hack that would probably result in processing overhead on the server. I really don't know how wikimedia software handles templates, so we could be dealing with a negligible overhead or a big (and unnecessary) one. The trade of between it's convenience and the overhead it brings should be considered when thinking on applying this solution.
It's also true that currently it's unlikely to write a {{song link}} multi-line. however, that's also dependent on the complexity of the template: if the template were to gain more parameters it may not be completely ridiculous anymore.
2) It means that you start to realize how much unnamed parameters suck when you need to add more parameters to the template: then their "logical order" starts loosing sense. Same happens when there are optional parameters. Though I agree now that disp is mostly unnecessary (read at the end), same can be told about info and length or other (now inexistent) optional parameters. If "logical order" is already questionable with mandatory arguments, it just makes no sense when applied to optional arguments.
You also missed the point of having both {{song link}} and {{va song link}} use the same parameters. Ease of use it's not the only reason for having both be used the same way. Specifying various artists separately has one potential advantage: it provides more info for the template to work with. For instance, {{song link}} could use this information to build automatically (and correctly) the song artist. Say I want to make a link to "John Parish And Polly Jean Harvey:Girl", if I provide to the template "John Parish" and "Polly Jean Harvey" separately (instead of only "John Parish And Polly Jean Harvey") the template can be trusted to build the link with the correct ("official") connector (whether it is '&', 'and', 'And' or whatever).
For the record, I also like the idea of short song links, that's why I was using mostly one letter names: a (artist, optionally followed by a number for multiple artists), s (song), l (length), c (comment -now info).
3) There's a problem with your reasoning. You're making assumptions on how people will use the template based on it's current implementation. The only reason why people wouldn't note what you point out it's because, currently (and by chance), length and info parameters are displayed exactly the same way (both with small font and between brackets, but I remember not long ago the recommended way was to have the length without brackets). A more likely outcome is that people will start using this 2 fields interchangeably (without noticing it or simply because they like the inverted order better) and it will be impossible to change those parameters' style latter without breaking existing pages. The implementation must be independent of the interface and vice versa.
I do however rescue something from what your wrote that I think it's a really good idea (now I seriously wonder why I never think of that before :) ). Until now I was convinced that the only way of handling the capitalization/search problem was to create pages with all words capitalized, optionally creating redirects with the correct capitalization (anyone can verify that I've moved tons of pages for the sake of that...)
It never occurred to me doing the exact opposite (which I must admit, seams a much saner approach): create the pages with the correct capitalization and then create redirects with all the words capitalized (the last part solves the search problem). Only thing needed to make this work would be a guide on how to form these correctly capitalized titles (we could even tackle the problem with capitalization in other languages). I'm all for it.
--Attendant 15:55, 6 January 2007 (PST)
1) I would expect that we would create a separate template for more complex links before adding a confusing number of parameters to {{song link}}.
2 & 3) I see your points. I can't think of a more graceful way to handle "Various Artist" links than that which you have already implemented. However, I don't think that should have to affect the way that {{song link}} is used (e.g. all parameters are named). I do now agree that something should be changed regarding length and info. Perhaps only info could become a named parameter? That would be the most agreeable solution from my point of view. --MindlessXD 22:47, 6 January 2007 (PST)
As far as the length and the new formatting as a whole, what was the purpose of it? I know when I first got here, I had a little time grasphing the whole capitalization stuff, since I'm used to musicbrainz capitalization rules, but after having it explained; it all made sense to have every first letter of every word capitalized, due to wiki search methods. But yea from what I saw, the old # Artist:Track... etc worked fine before, using small code for the time, and Italic text or whatever to note a bonus track, (equivalent to the new info parameter?), etc. But yea, I could probably go along with the whole thing of having redirects point to the Properly Capitalized Title Of A Song. --ahoier 05:22, 7 January 2007 (PST)
@ahoier: using templates has advantages over writing the link directly: first, it allows us to automatically change the style for all links created with it by simply changing the template code; second, it makes it easier to write them since you don't have to write the formatting yourself and you don't have to enter information repeatedly (if you do it manually you have to write the song title twice).
@MindlessXD: I generally agree that we could create a new template if we want to add fancy stuff, but that's not what I'm talking about. When I said that disp was mostly unnecessary I didn't mean it could be taken out of the template. Changing the way we capitalize letters it's not going to help with cases such as the Dave Matthews Band song that started this discussion. You still need a way to handle those cases where the limitation comes from the wiki itself. Now, disp does the trick for the song title but what about the artist? Is there any reason to believe this can't happen with the artist too? Obviously not. We would need to add another parameter to handle this case. Can you see where I'm going? You don't need to be doing unnecessarily complex things to found yourself dealing with many parameters. The result is this: there is only 2 parameters that could be left unnamed: artist and title (length does not make the cut as it's optional).
Now, perhaps you can explain me why you think having to specify the artist as a= and the title as t= (that's 4 more letters) is such a big burden. Consider what you allow by having the artist be a named parameter: you can handle multiple artist separately (again, specifying multiple artist separately is better that doing it all as one!). I've already mentioned some reasons why I thinks this is a good idea (such as having the template correctly link the artists), now consider the possibility of one of the multiple artist having a # (or some other invalid character) in it's name: instead of rewriting all the artists you can just specify how to display that particular artist. An unlikely scenario, I know, but what's the cost of having this? Almost none.
Is this: {{song_link|a=Mark Lanegan|t=Kingdoms of Rain}}
that much harder to write than this: {{song_link|Mark Lanegan|Kingdoms of Rain}}
to overlook it's advantages? Or perhaps you just don't see any advantages?
I feel that {{song link|Artist|Song}} is simple. I hope you don't think I'm being irrational when I say that I'd rather see disp removed and have a separate template to handle technical restrictions than have more parameters added to {{song link}}.
I like the way the unnamed style looks. Artist will always be the first param, song always the second, (and if length stays unnamed, like I hope it will) length will always be third. Beyond that I don't care what order the parameters (or lack thereof) are in. --MindlessXD 15:31, 8 January 2007 (PST)
<quote>I feel that {{song link|Artist|Song}} is simple.</quote>
I'm guessing for your elusive comment that you don't consider {{song link|a=Artist|s=Song}} to be simple...
<quote>I hope you don't think I'm being irrational when I say that I'd rather see disp removed and have a separate template to handle technical restrictions than have more parameters added to {{song link}}</quote>
Well... you don't leave me much choice, since adding disp to another template will solve no problem at all, being that it's only function is to solve a problem with THIS template. We would need to recreate the exact same problem on another template just to have something to fix. What puzzles me is why you'd think that having an optional parameter would complicate the template: it would still be {{song_link|artist|song|length}} except for those rare cases where it's technically infeasible which would became {{song_link|artist|song|length|disp=disp}} (same as now). Perhaps the confusion is due to an error I made in my previous post where I mentioned the need of a disp equivalent for the artist: we won't because we don't display the artist in regular links (d'oh!). Sorry, I got mixed up thinking about {{va_song_link}}...
Before this discussions ends up in nothing I'd like to propose an idea that should left everybody happy. Pretty simple actually: the template would be used the same way it is used now, optionally allowing specifying multiple artist separately (this can be done easily by mapping the unnamed parameters to named ones). To make it more clear here are some use cases:
  • One artist, no special considerations (simpler and most common case):
  • One artist, invalid symbol in the song title (very rare case):
Changed disp to songdisp to reflect the fact that it only affects how the song title is presented.
  • Various artist, no other special considerations (not so rare case):
Both forms would work, the first one links artists automatically, the second one threats the multiple artists as one (the way it works now).
  • Various artists, invalid symbol in the song title (very rare case):
Both forms would work as the previous case.
Info would remain as an optional parameter to specify instrumental songs, remixes, etc. (the same as now).
--Attendant 21:31, 9 January 2007 (PST)
"Perhaps the confusion is due to an error I made in my previous post..." Yes.
Though I don't understand what's wrong with using {{va song link}} for various artist songs, that proposed format would be acceptable.
As a sidenote, you do know that templates don't need to be called with underscores, right? :P --MindlessXD 14:52, 10 January 2007 (PST)
" I don't understand what's wrong with using {{va song link}} for various artist songs, that proposed format would be acceptable."
{{song link}} and {{va song link}} serve different purposes... You'll use {{va song link}} when creating (Various Artists) album pages (soundtracks albums for example), where the different songs are performed by different artists ("va" stands for verbose artist, not for various artists as it may seem). {{song link}} is for regular album pages where the artist is the same for all the songs so you don't need to make it explicit for each track. Which template should be used depends on the context: there'll be cases where a song is performed by more than one artist such as Revolver by Mark Lanegan and Isobel Campbell but where you'll use {{song link}} and there'll be cases where the song is performed by only one artist (such as Perfect Day by Lou Reed) but when on a (Various Artist) album you'll use {{va song link}}.
"As a sidenote, you do know that templates don't need to be called with underscores, right? :P "
Yeah... sorry about that. I tend to see (and write) templates as programming functions (which can't contain spaces on their names). I know templates can use spaces though, and I think is how we should use them since most people would probably prefer it that way. --Attendant 19:19, 10 January 2007 (PST)

silent tracks

What does everyone think about silent tracks? Yea, they suck :P But I figured, I'd note them on Korn:Follow the Leader (1998) - does not give mention of any "track name" I just left it blank, and used the info parameter to note that it's a silent track...I don't see a need to create actual track pages for these...since they couldn't really be classed under Instrumental cause they are simply silent :P On musicbrainz, they have those first 12 tracks titled as simply [Silence]...any thoughts? :) --ahoier 06:01, 20 April 2007 (PDT)