Talk:Main Page/Archived 2007 Feb

From Lyriki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Unverified Artists

This subject is actually one for two different discussions, recently 2 artists Killfucker and Anal Nirvana were added. I can't find anything to verify that these bands (and the songs added for them) actually exist and aren't the work of some internet troll.

I was wondering two things, how do we go about verifying questionable artists, fake information most certainly should be deleted, but, second, should we censor inappropriately named bands. I can only think of a few legitamate groups this would bother. I don't really like that option, but offer it none the less for discussion.

IMHO, if you can't Google the band or find it on Amazon, they aren't verifiable and should be deleted especially in cases where the band names are inappropriate. Feel free to mark such pages for deletion. --MindlessXD 18:46, 16 January 2006 (PST)

Short or Long Discography

I'm leaning more towards using short discographies, but, still searching for input on this. Some have suggested that the long discography format does away with the need for the album pages. Which, I really like the album pages, and personally would rather use the short discography version then get rid of the album pages. However, that's just my opinion on it. :) I'd like to find out what other people have to say on this. Thanks muchly!

For the record, short discographies are:

* Year [[Artist:Album|Album]]
* Year [[Artist:Album|Album]]
* Year [[Artist:Album|Album]]

Pro: Short and concise, easy to quickly get to an album, and from there, the song.
Con: Extra click to get to the song your searching for.

Long discographies are:

== Album (Year) ==
# [[Artist:Track|Track]]
# [[Artist:Track|Track]]
# [[Artist:Track|Track]]

Pro: Quick access to any song by an artist.
Con: Some ambiguity when it comes to searches, and very large pages for some artists.

Short is my vote. Another Con for Long is that if there is typo in a song name, it will have to be fixed twice: once in the artist page and again in the album page. --MindlessXD 09:39, 7 January 2006 (PST)
Short is also my vote. --Evelyn 10:04, 7 January 2006 (PST)
Short is my vote. --Enjnan 13:49, 7 January 2006 (PST)
Both is my vote. I'm on 56k and I prefer to see the whole list of songs on a single page, it's much easier to find and loading isn't an issue. So I propose both. Long for what I just said and short album pages should be used to add more information (not just an album image and track listing as it is done now).--268229 17:31, 7 January 2006 (PST)
Short is my vote as well. Simply, there is no point if we have the album page as well; it just repeats information. Granted there's an extra click, but this is all text-based anyway, and for bands like Led Zeppelin we'd be talking huge pages for the long discography (they've got something like fifteen albums). --Freakash 4:32, 10 February 2006 (GMT)
Short. Though, you might be able to do a little javascript wizardry and have both. Present the short, with a small link that says show long. Click on that, and the long one appears below. Although, it'd be nice if it self-compiled, because I wouldn't want to have to type all that stuff in twice. --Risser 11:27, 16 February 2006 (EST)

Recent Submissions

Is there any way to automate "Recent Submissions"? I never update it, and it seems no one else does either, but the main page would be a bit lacking if it was removed... --MindlessXD 19:55, 1 January 2006 (PST)

I'm going to try and edit one of the scripts I have to go through recent submissions and look for ones that match 'lyric' pages format (IE: Artist:Blah with no year and a new edit.) My lack of ability comes in knowing how to write a perl script to interface with the wiki itself, right now I've got a few scripts that generate wiki information from information on my own hard drive, but, all the data still has to be put in manually. If there's any scripting pros out there that can help me figure this out, I'd greatly appreciate it :). --Nanenj 20:17, 1 January 2006 (PST)

Got a script to generate the text there from the recent submissions, but it neither gathers the information to parse, nor posts on it's own :( --Nanenj 20:38, 1 January 2006 (PST)

If you can get it to post on its own, the easiest thing to do would be to include a template in the main page and have the bot update the template. --MindlessXD 22:18, 2 January 2006 (PST)
I have to plead ignorance, can you explain more? --Nanenj 07:19, 3 January 2006 (PST)
Have your bot update this page. That should be easier than updating the main page, since your bot won't have all the other stuff on the main page to deal with. --MindlessXD 07:52, 3 January 2006 (PST)
Ah, good idea. :) I actually got it updating the main page, I think we just kinda clashed as I had it run an update right after you made the template edit :P. --Nanenj 07:57, 3 January 2006 (PST)

Albeit might be undergoing a name change, it appears to be working pretty well. I've got a few small hacks in there to keep it from posting the wrong type of submissions. So, it might occasionally do something odd, but, otherwise, seems to be good. --Nanenj 08:05, 3 January 2006 (PST)

A peculiar thing I've noticed, it's only picking up your edits ... Lyrikibot likes you. :o --Nanenj 08:15, 3 January 2006 (PST)

There, I think I've got it fixed >D. All should be good with it doing those updates now ;) --Nanenj 08:55, 3 January 2006 (PST)

I'm interested to know what you did so that changes to the Template:Recent Submissions page don't show up in the Special:Recentchanges. --MindlessXD 21:17, 3 January 2006 (PST)
LyrikiBot is tagged as a bot account, bot edits are usually hidden by default. --Nanenj 23:14, 3 January 2006 (PST)

Recent Submissions - Part 2

Two things I'd like to talk about here. First, I think the script that retrieves the amount of 'good content pages' should be changed. I don't know if it's possible or not, but if you can get the number for the "Template:C:Song" page from the Most Linked To pages, this will allow the stats to be more accurate (instead of using the Statistics page as the source).

Also, I think it would be best to limit the recent submissions to about 20 or 30, whenever people do a lot at a time, a lot of pages are put into that recent submissions, making it look long and unnecessary--268229 18:10, 3 February 2006 (PST)

Windows image bug

Is there any more information available about this bug? I can't find anything similar to it on the MediaWiki bug tracker. Unless, of course, you mean the WMF bug? --MindlessXD 18:33, 4 January 2006 (PST)

The WMF bug is the exact one being referred to. It's possible to exploit through -ANY- image. A malicious user could potentially upload an image to Lyriki and then exploit anyone that viewed the page their image is hosted on. --Nanenj 19:01, 4 January 2006 (PST)
Foolish Microsoft: "It's not a bug, it's a feature." I've unregistered the DLL that allows the exploit, so I'm not vulnerable. ;) --MindlessXD 19:06, 4 January 2006 (PST)
Same solution I've taken until Patch Tuesday. We should re-enable imagines soon after that (perhaps will wait one or two days to allow the patch time to get out.) --Nanenj 19:09, 4 January 2006 (PST)
MS released a patch today. --MindlessXD 14:16, 5 January 2006 (PST)
I'll update the main page to let people know, and then re-enable uploading on Saturday, to give people some time --Evelyn 14:56, 5 January 2006 (PST)
  • How about putting an alert message on the main page about WMF vulurability and perhaps provide a link to the available patch! A lot of people are out there who wouldn't even have heard about it or know nothing about WMF so it'll be safer to let everyone who use this to know about it.

New Logo??

I take it there would be no problem with the submission of a new logo for lyriki?? Bailey 18:25, 22 January 2006 (PST)

Nope, no problem at all, logo submissions would be grand ;) --Nanenj 01:41, 23 January 2006 (PST)
Great Logo!!! I like it! --Nash 18:37, 25 January 2006 (PST)
Credit for the new logo goes to MindlessXD. I'll put a little note at the bottom of every page saying he created it, just as soon as I figure out what file I have to edit to do that --Evelyn 12:46, 26 January 2006 (PST)
Err... IMHO "a little note at the bottom of every page" would be overkill. --MindlessXD 12:02, 28 January 2006 (PST)

removed confusing wording

I removed the following:

It's meant to be used for any songs, whether commercial released or songs you've written yourself.

From notes, comments, and actions, we are now verifying that the lyrics belongs to a song that was actually released and the above sentence could be construed as "the lyrics to a song I wrote when I was 13."

Erm? If it's because of my unable to verify it's because some songs were submitted and not clarified as to origin, I'd left talk messages on the IP that submitted them asking for their origin with no response. If it -is- a song self-written and non-commercial, it should have applicable information and not present itself as a commercial release. --Nanenj 09:33, 28 January 2006 (PST)
I put more clear wording there, however, if it's the general consensus that even properly formatted non-commercial releases do not have a place at Lyriki, my change isn't law by any means. --Nanenj 10:25, 28 January 2006 (PST)

Featured Artist

Maybe a randomly selected artist of the week? With a picture and and selected trivia. Might be useful to a target for people to flesh out and finish. Bailey 18:09, 3 February 2006 (PST)

got an idea for improvment

im just writing the John Frusciante artist page and it taks allot of time to write the code any time, its seems pointless to write " ((artist:title|title))" this site is all about lyrics any way so you should build a script that needs only the name of the album and the songs withen it and the site will set things up it self... it will be way more easy

Right now the best I've got is this script. --MindlessXD 14:46, 13 February 2006 (PST)

-- well thats quite good enough for me :] Doitch


I'd like to see somewhere in the template for verification. That is, if I listen to a song and watch the lyrics, and they are correct (as far as I can tell), I can add a note saying, "I verify, on such-and-such a date." Then, as songs accumulate verifications, you could be more and more sure that they lyrics were correct, versus a song that someone might have entered and not been very careful about. What do you all think? -- Risser

I've thought about this before, the problem is that people may just pop on and say that they verify the lyrics of a song, but really they have no idea whether they are correct or not. Perhaps we could have a template for verification that says that the user has checked the lyrics against the lyrics on the CDs lyrics booklet or from the artist's website. On the other hand, if you think that the lyrics of a song are incorrect, you can always mark it for {{accuracy}} verification. --MindlessXD 14:35, 16 February 2006 (PST)
Yeah, I thought about that, but at some point, this is all about volunteers anyway. Back when AudioScrobbler was still voting on Mods, you had a few dorks who just "NO" voted everything, which was a royal pain in the arse. But, this is a Wiki, and we have to trust that most people are here for the good of it. Anyway, I think if you tag it with a sig, we'd soon see who was worth listening to and who was just tagging for giggles. I also agree that it should have a note about what it was verified against (artist site, cd book, by ear, etc.). --risser 05:52, 17 February 2006 (PST)
Also, I think that if we have verification messages, they should go on the talk pages, as to not clutter up the actual song page. --MindlessXD 15:25, 16 February 2006 (PST)
This makes sense. I may just start doing that. I'll start with Desperate Guys by The Faint. See how it looks and let me know what you think. Also, I think it's important that we stress that the lyrics need to reflect how the song sounds, not what it says in the book/site, because these are often abbreviated and occasionally wrong. --risser 05:52, 17 February 2006 (PST)
I've decided to tag any new page or update I make in the Talk page. For example, here's one I did where I got the lyrics from a site, then verified them by ear. I think putting the source is helpful. --risser 07:26, 17 February 2006 (PST)

Search plugin for Firefox

Yesterday I made a small Lyriki search plugin for Firefox. It's the first one I've made and I would appreciate if someone who knows this stuff would rewrite it. But it works to me, so I thought I could tell you about it. Do you think there is any use for it?

Download it here. --Lime 03:10, 17 February 2006 (PST)

Year Category

How difficult is it to set up a new category? It might be interesting to have a year category, divided maybe by decades... --risser 07:02, 20 February 2006 (PST)

It's fairly easy, but I'm not sure if we want year categories. If we did, we would probably only categorize albums and not songs. (Genre categories have also been suggested.) --MindlessXD 15:45, 20 February 2006 (PST)

A few questions

I have a few questions. First off, is this the place to ask questions? If not, where? Second, the main page says not to copy from CD booklets and I assume this means that we also cannot copy lyrics from other lyrics sites or band pages. Is that right and if so, is typing out the lyrics ourselves legally any different from copying them from another site? I'm not a lawyer but I would think that the lyrics themselves are copyrighted, rather than the particular typed out versions, so this requirement doesn't do anything for the site legally and just creates unneeded work. I think other sites justify having copyrighted lyrics by appealing to "fair use" rather than claiming that they typed it out themselves. Third, I noticed some bands have an "Artist Info" with a link to the band website and only the band website, is that it or can we add descriptions or links to other pages (e.g., their wikipedia page)? Chiok 21:24, 24 February 2006 (PST)

Fair use is a large part of Lyriki's legal beliefs. Because we're not making any profit via advertisements with Lyriki. We actually have a larger claim to 'fair use' then some competing websites. The legal difference from copying other sites and books is not much, but, it's more to avoid possible legal hassle. If this site is built on a community of users passionate about music so much that they're willing to listen to the songs to post the lyrics instead of simply scraping other sites. As well with the non-profit nature of lyriki, it seems awful assinine to bring legal action. It's minute, and merely a request. I'm not sure if that answers your questions entirely or not. --Nanenj 10:20, 25 February 2006 (PST)