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)
Short. If someone wants all songs on one page we might think about categories for single artists. --Pietaster 11:21, 26 February 2006 (PST)

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)
Bump: Another example of why it needs to be changed. The stats page currently says there 6,029 "song" pages, the most linked to page says 6083 pages. Shouldn't the counter actually be accurate? =P Hopefully doing this is possible :) --268229 02:49, 8 April 2006 (PDT)

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 are these scripts. --MindlessXD 14:46, 13 February 2006 (PST)
Updated link. --MindlessXD 09:41, 29 April 2006 (PDT)
Could you please make the code for those script available? --Attendant 22:31, 2 May 2006 (PDT)
Sorry, I misunderstood what those script were for (I thought they were not only capable of formating the text but also could add the pages). Does anybody knows if it's possible to interface with the wiki so (for example) one could create a script which sits on a client machine and add missing pages when it can? (the client part is very much doable with current amaroK facilities). --Attendant 23:02, 2 May 2006 (PDT)
Yes it's possible, simply post the information much as the wiki does anyways. Similar to how LyrikiBot does recent updates. --Nanenj 23:08, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

-- 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)
It's been on my mind for a while, but while browsing through the recent changes page, it would be great if you could put in Verification in the Summary form. Otherwise it can be difficult to distinguish between a real talk page (where a problem may need to be discussed) and a talk page with just a verification note.--268229 22:51, 8 March 2006 (PST)
I will try that. I only recently just learned what the summary field was for. :) --risser 04:53, 9 March 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 more of a request then an absolute rule. To be perfectly honest, there's very little way to tell on some songs whether you've copied it or written it from listening. I'm not sure if that answers your questions entirely or not. --Nanenj 10:20, 25 February 2006 (PST)
Here's how I look at it. I don't post anything I haven't listened and verified first. A lot of times, I'll use the lyrics from another site as a base, because this is faster than typing in every word by hand. But, I have yet to find one that was close to correct and didn't need at least some major revisioning. As for booklets, again, booklets often reflect what the artist intended, not what they ended up singing necessarily. Also, my understanding is, sometimes, like on GH comps, they employ someone to sit and type out the words, just like we are, and that dude probably has no better understanding than we do. So, verify before you post, if you can. That's my take on it. --risser 13:25, 26 February 2006 (PST)

I also have another question, what about Album Artists? Sometimes a compilation might have a special name for the collective group of artists, something like Various Artists, and each track might have different Artists. How are these classified, and will this database account for such VA albums? An example like Ministry of Sound, or Smash-Ups, would these Album Artists simply be put between parenthesis? -- 11:47, 2 March 2006 (PST)

I think we've decided on using (Various Artists) where it does apply. The actual songs are linked as by the artists that perform the song. If I'm understanding correctly. The album would be something like (Various Artists):Ministry of Sound (Year). Hope that helps. --Nanenj 15:58, 2 March 2006 (PST)

Artist name format changed, how to change it back?

I added Anti-Flag a while ago (before I created my username). Today I came in to add some more lyrics and update my formatting to the standard, and found that the band name has changed to Anti-flag (lower case F). This has broken some of the links from the song pages. How can I change it back? --Meiers3f 17:32, 11 March 2006 (PST)

I moved Anti-flag to Anti-Flag. I assume that's what you wanted? --MindlessXD 19:30, 11 March 2006 (PST)
In the future, if Anti-flag were what you actually wanted, you should do two things. First, create a #REDIRECT [[Anti-flag]] on the Anti-Flag page. Then, anyone who visits the latter will be redirected to the former. Then you can, from the Anti-Flag page, select "What Links Here" on the toolbox on the left, and it will show you all the pages that link to that page, so you can update them if you wish. --risser 19:15, 12 March 2006 (PST)

Thank you! Any idea why the F in Anti-Flag changed to lower case since the last time I was on? I would rather the Anti-flag page did not exist, and everything worked through the Anti-Flag page. --Meiers3f 7:18, 12 March 2006 (PST)


I know this is Lyriki, and not Sampliki, but I've always wanted a place to store Sample references; that is when one song samples or is sampled by another. Would anyone else be interested in seeing this added to the song data page? We could do headings like Lyrics, Sampled By, Samples, Quotes and what not. I know we've talked about having pages for Instrumentals, just for that reason. And we're also slowly turning this into a Discography database as well... Just wondering what you all think.

I posted an example on Will Smith:Wild Wild West and The Sugarhill Gang:Rapper's Delight. --risser 18:32, 22 March 2006 (PST)

I actually completely missed this post, but, this is a great idea for those that want to put the effort in. I myself am horrible with tracking down that kind of information, but I see no reason for it not to be included. --Nanenj 21:28, 29 April 2006 (PDT)

Missing song name?

What if we know the lyrics to a song, but don't know the name?

You can probably Google the song lyrics to find the song name. --MindlessXD 20:20, 26 March 2006 (PST)
Enter the first (or most unique) line of the lyrics into google using quotes "", it'll give you the exact result of the lyrics on lots of other websites, then just read the artist name and song title from one of those sites ;)--268229 23:14, 26 March 2006 (PST)
It would be a cool thing to do it here though too, ie. search that would identify an actual string in the article text rather than at the moment when it just picks out words, you know Ufundo 03:20, 24 April 2006 (PDT)


This may have already been discussed but I can't find where if it has. It's about the categories. Is there a way that we could change it so the Album comes first in the Album category and ditto for the Song category. It gets confusing to me, especially in the larger categories looking for a particular Song or Album and having to read through the Artists names. For example, try going to the Songs:N category and looking for the Beatles song "The Night Before". If "Night" was the first word on the line instead of the middle it would be much easier to find. - Troy34 11:54, 31 March 2006 (PST)

Sorry, but I don't think that can be done. --MindlessXD 05:22, 1 April 2006 (PST)
I'm a programmer, i've never come across anything that can't be done. - Troy34 07:49, 1 April 2006 (PST)
OK, it probably can be done with a MediaWiki mod of some sort... --MindlessXD 13:39, 8 April 2006 (PDT)

Template or not?

Hi all. I'm confused about one little thing: Is there a consensus to use the SSong template at the top of a song page, or the non-template thing which folks have been adding to my recent submissions?

Right now I don't know which style to use, so I've not been putting anything. -- Mark 05:30, 7 April 2006 (PDT)

Welcome to Lyriki. It's best to use a template as it will make the pages easier to organise and categorise. I suggest you choose one of the two templates that you think would suit best and use that. If you choose the SSong template, I'd recommend for you to edit the pages that I've re-formated for you already (so the lyrics pages don't lose their consistancy).--268229 19:59, 7 April 2006 (PDT)
So the choice is being left to the contributor? Shouldn't there be an attempt to find a consensus? -- Mark 00:45, 20 April 2006 (PDT)

Extremist Ideas

Just some radical thoughts to be critiqued:

  1. find case-insensitive wiki software (ex. DocuWiki)
  2. develop (PHP?) tools to interface with adding content to wiki software
  3. determine page standards
  4. archive this wiki db and start using the new wiki (and tools)

These are just some thoughts due to the inconsistency of content added to this wiki.

The reason I mention DocuWiki is because:

  • pagenames are AFAIK case-insensitive
  • when the account management is set up, you can dis-allow certain users from creating pages in certain namespaces
    (So, for example, all users could be allowed to create Help pages and such, but dis-allowed from creating other pages, which would be created by using the tools. They would still be able to edit all pages, though.)

The major problems are that:

  • most people are comfortable with MediaWiki
  • DocuWiki lacks some of MediaWiki's functions

Thoughts will be appreciated. --MindlessXD 15:40, 10 April 2006 (PDT)

Case-insensitive wiki software is low priority, easier tools probably somewhere in the middle, it'd be great to have some tools that make adding and verifying data a cinch. Page standards are very high up there. I think we've got a very good base, it just needs to be cemented until we find need to make additions. Archiving the wiki db actually should be done fairly regularly, so should we ever choose to move to another wiki system, that's taken care of. Now, all that being said. I'm not sure how much switching would improve things overall? The biggest thing showing up right now is just that Lyriki is very high maintainence, and without the efforts of you and 268829(?) it'd be a chaotic mess. You guys definately get a cookie :P. Which, hopefully, once we get some tools developed for certain things it'll be much easier to maintain and some of the current problems won't be as noticeable. --Nanenj 07:22, 11 April 2006 (PDT)
Case insensitive article titles shouldnt be a real priority because there should only be one proper capitilization for every song, album etc. - the one that the artist gives to it Ufundo 03:23, 24 April 2006 (PDT)
Off-topic: MediaWiki 1.6 has been released. --MindlessXD 15:12, 11 April 2006 (PDT)
And I'm being very impatient about upgrading! --MindlessXD 17:55, 15 April 2006 (PDT)
*poke poke* Hello? --MindlessXD 16:46, 24 April 2006 (PDT)
Meep, sorry :). Will poke Evelyn and see if I can get her to do the upgrade. :) --Nanenj 19:28, 24 April 2006 (PDT)


I believe we need to promote this site more. There are still too few songs in the database. For this reason I have created a new page to discuss this and have some suggestions. Promotion. Lets see what we can think of. --Db0 13:33, 23 April 2006 (PDT)

Song Meanings

This is actually something I posted elsewhere in the early early days of lyriki, more when I was advertising for lyriki there was a post on another wiki (wikicities I think) asking if there was a wiki for song meanings and I suggested that lyriki could fit that role, this could be another possible use for the talk pages on songs, or there could be a namespace made. Input welcome. --Nanenj 21:29, 29 April 2006 (PDT)

Foreign Languages and Soundtracks

As an example, how would I go about entering the lyrics for an anime series? AFAIK, there’s no procedure for entering soundtracks let alone multiple soundtracks under a single subject. Also, entering lyrics for a Japanese song would require 3 sections: one for the native script, one for the Romanized script, and one for the translation. IngisKahn 07:53, 2 May 2006 (PDT)

They'd follow the same rules for everything else. A soundtrack would usually fall under various artists. Perhaps if it's needed an (OST) tag can be applied, something to discuss anyways. As for three entries per song, that's really a bit much. I think I'd prefer romanized versions of the natural language as the default, but, the biggest problem with that is differing systems of romanization. The reason for not really wanting to support native script is two-fold, it not working as the title, and it would require an extra download to support. The translation would be optional, although some foreign language songs already do have the language then the translation. If there's overwhelming demand for it then it can always be added later. --Nanenj 10:09, 2 May 2006 (PDT)