-> Send to a friend

User talk:Kiefer

From LyricWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] End of line punctuation

On my talk page, you said:

Perhaps a clarification: "Lyrics should follow the artist's format, but if this is not known, capitalize the first letter of each line and use minimal end-of-line punctuation." This applies to a new page being created. Hopefully, when a page is created, the user is using some sort of reference, such as lyrics included with the album. Following the punctuation given is best. If there are no liner lyrics available ("the artist's format"), then one should use minimal end-of-line punctuation. This means punctuation where necessary for clarity, etc. If someone comes by later and has a reference for punctuation (liner lyrics, song book, artist website lyrics, etc.), then they can be inserted. The intention of the instructions isn't for punctuation to be removed if it already exists, though. If one is using some reference, and the punctuation differs, then certainly edits can be made. I'll try to add some information to the Help page to make these distinctions a bit clearer without making the instructions cumbersome.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   00:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I believe I've only been doing this on Beatles song pages. As far as I know, The Beatles only included lyrics with 2½ albums: Sgt. Pepper…, The Beatles (aka The White Album), and Side 1 of Magical Mystery Tour. I did not check those for punctuation when I did "… Mr. Kite!", "Blue Jay Way", and "Magical Mystery Tour", among others, so I will go back and check those against the lyrics included with the albums. I will put a note in the edit history that they match the published lyrics, then edit further to match the recordings. And maybe for sense. For example, the back cover from Sgt. Pepper… says, for "… Mr. Kite!" (centre of picture):
Late of Pablo Fanques Fair—what a scene
[...]
As Mr. Kite flys through the ring don't be late
Messrs. K and H. assure the public
. By the standards of normal English, those should be "Fanque's", "flies", and "K.". There needs to be punctuation between "ring" and "don't"; whether to use a comma or a semicolon depends on whether you parse that line as a sentence or as a continuation of the sentence begun in the previous line (as I've always heard it). However, given the pause in the sung words, I'm inclined to put a line break there (which, conveniently, defers the question of parsing to the listener).
But that's not really your point, which I understand as "The guideline isn't rigid. Don't change stuff for the sake of it, especially since a previous user might have had a reliable source".
Hopefully, when a page is created, the user is using some sort of reference, such as lyrics included with the album.
Most of them came from ÜberBot, though, scraped from… somewhere. Regardless of who put them here, though, without a reference, it's difficult for J. Random User to come along and know what the provenance is.
Perhaps an extension to the {{Cert}} template, to certify a specific revision as matching the lyrics included with the album, a specific recording, or whatever. Or sections, like ==Published lyrics== and ==Recorded lyrics== or something. Or subpages for different renderings of the same recording.
But I agree with your gist, that of artistic integrity. The difficulty comes when we try to balance that with
  • The lyrics should always be as sung on the recording, even if these differ from the "official" lyrics or those published in the liner notes.
. Peace,—Dah31 05:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's always a bit of a balancing act. The words should be what has been recorded, but good references should be followed when it doesn't conflict with the recording. Barring, of course, typographical errors and the like. Sometimes it does end up being a judgment call, but as you said, no reason to change stuff just for the sake of changing it. Best wishes on your future endeavors here at LyricWiki.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   01:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] More country-related stuff

Can you make sense of this? Should we use the white region logo thingy as the flag (provided we can find one with a better resolution) or the French tricolore? Or the one that's shown here, which seems to be an unofficial one? — 6×9 (Talk) 00:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What a mess. A lot of unofficial flags hanging around, it appears. File:GuadeloupeFlag.png appears to be the current official flag. Looks more like a cruise ship flag to me, but I guess it is a Caribbean island, after all.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New Warning

Is the new warning at the top of the Community Portal refering to me? If so, sorry for changing things before they were discussed. - ezekiel000 08:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. This refers to discussions on the Community Portal where people are taking one side, and are editing the pages being discussed to match their point of view before the discussion has been completed. (And then there are reverts being made by the opposing point of view and then tempers flare, and so on and so on.) As far as I know, you haven't been a part of those discussions and haven't been editing those pages.
It is perfectly okay to make good faith edits to pages without prior discussion. We'd have a very small "Recent Changes" list otherwise! If something is a site-wide change (policy, template, or page format changes, for example) however, then of course discussion in the Community Portal before making those changes is a wise and good move. And during that discussion, no editing of those items should be made until the discussion was completed and a decision made.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   16:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh good, I have recently been watching the Community Portal and making changes when things come up, like adding the English wikipedia entry for the discussion you started and adding the country for Roger Whittaker. So I was a little worried I got myself blocked twice when I didn't understand the rules, I didn't want it to happen again. - ezekiel000 17:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
No, those are good edits, not relevant to the true topic at hand. No controversy there!  :-] Keep up the good work. The fact that you wrote me a note says a lot about your character.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   17:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


Good good, thanks. - ezekiel000 18:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Spirit of Community

I wanted to clarify the issues you brought up about my edits in the community portal here, ...

  • The advantage of the RA template over the old method is that with the template we can reach all of those artist pages here, this is the reason why in a few instances we differ on the quality of my edits. My judgment was that by using the template, the fact that artist page has related artists can be seen by others than just the editor who used the old fashioned method, and when RA template or it's successor are available all pages can have more info included. On the other hand I updated many pages which only had an artist name indicated in the old fashioned way, and I also added RA information to many existing pages that had no related artist info at all, in addition to new artist pages that I created with RA. What is the sum total of all those RA edits that I did? Damaging & misguided?
  • The relevance of Genres & Labels templates with regards to RA is that they all fail to display in TOC, however it seems that RA is receiving harsher judgment, while it is evident that the removal of RA template will create twice as much work for no gain and is truly damaging, and a step forward will require a template, in or outside the TOC, AInfo box, etc.
  • In my other incarnation, I started a conversation with another admin regarding how/what to indicate re related artist and artist information. In your experience in real life in your community and neighbourhood, is it possible that a few people come together seed an idea and then when it is at least half baked then propose it to the rest of the community? Is the same possible in the lw community? I tried the same discussion again a few days ago. Do you still think the reaction I received in both instances were appropriate reactions and in the spirit of the community? Does prior conversation by individuals automatically receive a negative score?
  • Regarding my edits (flagging of artist pages with Category:Pages Needing Artist Identification), Do you think it's appropriate that I remove those flags (~30) and clear the category, or does the information on the category page needs to be improved? Can any issues with the category be discussed on it's talk page with your participation? I have done my research about those artist pages, but I only flagged them so they can be double checked for any further action. Where is my error? In the one instance that this PNAI flag resulted in a move verified by another admin, was the outcome damaging & misguided?
  • The issue about the NY and NY&CH pages was that even after the split to NY&CH, both pages still contained a mix of both artist tracks, not only against policy, but also against the titles on the art covers (if that is the measure of splitting for this particular artist). See the recent corrections made to those pages. At least now after the recent moves automatic redirects have been created that addresses the problems that existed until recently. I neither practice song page duplication nor do I propose the splitting of artist pages when this action may impede access to the pages.
  • There are still nearly 300 artist pages in the requests for move category, that I flagged and are being reviewed by another admin before any action is taken, and so far the reviewing admin seems to be satisfied with the reasons for moves and consolidations. You can review the requests and bring any errors on my talk page or the category talk page.

I hope I cleared up a few issues without cluttering up the CP ;] Thank you. Night Owl 00:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You have no idea how happy I am right now. Seriously. This is clear and concise and understandable. It does sort of cut through a few different discussions, but it's got its own, new topic header, therefore: so what?  :-] Please don't take this the wrong way, but I can understand you when you talk by yourself with 6x9, but when you get in the Comm. Portal...I don't know what happens. What comes out is often disjointed and enigmatic and I just often can't follow your meaning. I know that you have been much less aggressive in this incarnation, and have also taken care not to get personal in your comments, so I am definitely appreciative of your efforts. But, on to the points:
  • Bringing up the point that templatization allows all those pages with Related Artists to be linked by the template itself is a good point that is certainly on topic for the Another Template Change Suggestion discussion. I don't know how big a plus it is that one could use the What Links Here function in order to update the various Related Artists lists, but it certainly is a point in continuing to use the template's favor. I originally had no thought or inclination of not using the template, though. I merely wanted the old functionality back. The sum total of your edits is probably about even. I'm not sure who latched on to that template first, whether it was you, WillMak, or one of the others that I saw using it, but the only problem that I had with the template or anyone using it was when I saw that a page that I had on my watchlist was edited by you to include the template, but in doing so the extra information about the artists connections was removed. I don't believe I reverted the change, but I did want a way to keep that information with the current template. So...the topic was added to the Portal.
  • The Genres & Labels comments may be relevant to one aspect of the RA template, but not to that Another Template Change Suggestion discussion. It's relevant to the TOC conversation. Don't mix the discussions. Too confusing. "...while it is evident that the removal of RA template will create twice as much work for no gain and is truly damaging." There you lost me. You need to explain how its removal creates twice and much work and why there is no gain. As I said in the previous point, I originally had no thought or inclination of not using the template. My comment in the Comm. Portal was "...if the template doesn't serve a purpose for future automation of the ranking system, then we should go back to the original method...". It can easily be adjusted to read "...if the template doesn't serve a purpose, then we should go back to the original method...". Basically, if the template has a purpose, let's keep it. If it doesn't, let's get rid of it. I was, and am, betting that the template can be useful. I'm just hoping that in order to be useful it isn't forced to be burdensome and a nightmare in its use.
  • "...with another admin..." Might as well have named names.  :-] I'm not sure what conversations you are specifically speaking of, which is okay. I'll speak in generalities. Talking among yourselves (you and 6x9, usually) is fine. You can come up with ideas together, just like in a real life community. In the past, however, admins got talking on their talk pages or in the Admin Portal and forgot that the site isn't supposed to be run by an admin cabal. As long as items are brought out to the public forum before they are implemented, then there isn't a problem. If Redxx, myself, Ezekiel or GarfieldCollector2009 want to comment, give our suggestions, or praise, or objections, then we have that opportunity. Your recent discussion (which may be what you are referring to) where I brought up a point and a reminder that when the two of you had things ironed out to bring it to the Portal was just that, a "keep talking and when you figure it all out get community approval" reminder. Redxx came in and rambled a bit off-topic and later admitted as much. Hey, we've all been there. As for if previous conversations automatically receive a negative score - often times, yes. You, yourself, tend to bring up a comment in one thread as if it was said in another. ("personal choice?"  :-] ) Unfortunately, that's just part of human nature. We may forgive, but that forgetting part...that's hard. That was probably part of the reason why a certain editor was asked to have a vacation...to let those negative vibes die down on both sides. But a new incarnation was back in what...a day...day and a half? Like we all didn't notice the editing style....  :-] And I think that it only took about a week before the new incarnation was back being vocal. Now as I said, other than the still-confusing nature of some of your comments, the new incarnation is an improvement. If only you could talk as clearly to a group as you do one-on-one. (Also, sort of related to you and 6x9 getting together with ideas. Is it possible to solve the current situations before starting on new projects? That also might help everyone be able to focus on what's going on, if there weren't 10 balls up in the air at once. That's kind of been a concern since you, 6x9, and Team A came on. A little less of a frantic pace would be nice, because I think that in the long run more things would actually get accomplished and fewer projects would find themselves in limbo. Just a suggestion, though...something to keep in mind.)
  • As for Category:Pages Needing Artist Identification: Leave it for now. There are only a few dozen in there. Just don't add to the category for now? Make notes for later, perhaps. The problem with the category is as I wrote in the Community Portal, so I don't really want to reiterate it here. I don't want to discuss things on the category's talk page, because the real discussion about this issue is taking place in the Community Portal. That's where the situation, problem, and (hopefully) solution or guideline should be discussed. This same exact conversation (regarding what to do with songs with multiple performers on soundtracks and musicals and Disney songs and charity or tribute pieces) gets brought up at least once a year. And it always goes round and round and round and finally an "editors have to use their best judgment" decision is reached. (I know, for instance, that two years ago our absent admin JeffASaul and myself tried to hash things out a bit with regards to these.) It's imperfect and can be sloppy at times, but in the end, there are so many exceptions to any rule or sets of rules that it just doesn't normally end well. But I'm willing to go over things again each year in the hope that maybe at least some points can be clarified for everyone and perhaps some progress can be made. I'm always hopeful for a "Eureka" moment.
  • If you didn't call for multiple pages for the Buffalo Springfield item on the Neil Young retrospective album, then I apologize. I was somehow under the incorrect impression that you felt that such a thing broke the API and therefore needed to be fixed for the API to be an Neil Young track on that Neil Young album and that Neil Young page. Another instance of a communication breakdown, I guess. Consider it forgotten. I see that you've made a comment about the API with regards to splitting Artists, though, which I have a question about...but I'll ask it there.
  • I don't mind pages being moved, except if the reason for the move is something that is currently being discussed and mulled over in the Community Portal. Hopefully that other admin is taking that into account. Because if all hell breaks lose because of such a move, that editor will get a day's break. This is for everybody. Yes, colorful everybodies, too. I don't feel the need or have the desire to review 300+ requests. If something goes awry, it will likely be noticed, though.
Hopefully this covers things? It took about 2 hours to compose, so hopefully....  :-]    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Your 2 hours were well spent :] I am delighted that we can have a conversation without third parties telling me what it is that I think! So I'll try to clear up what's left.
  • I & Herr 6 latched on to the RA template since we both realized that by using the template, our work of indicating RA info won't disappear in +30,000 artist pages. All artist pages using old style non template RA are only findable by inspecting every artist page (lot's of work). This is the main reason RA and any other meta data that needs to be easily retrievable should use templates. We have a discogsArtist/iTunesArtist/mbArtist categories and we need RAartist category just the same.
  • The reason I stated that removal of tl|RA will create twice as much work for no gain, was this: The direction of discussion was going towards a non template solution, which would mean removal of tl|RA (wasted work 1), then sometime later on everybody else will catch on that a template is necessary so the current or another template will have to be put in (wasted work 2). I think we should keep the RA template or update to a better template instead, and stepping back towards a non template solution will be a big negative (loss of access to RA artists). As it stands now, all RA artists need further work, but the non template RA artists are needles in a haystack, while the ones using the current inadequate template are at our fingertips! Hope that is clear.
  • My first attempt at discussing RA artists with Herr 6 (my other incarnation) was pretty much snuffed out by one bureaucrat and another colored admin :) I won't bother digging up the convo out of 6's talk archive...but I found that reaction rather aggressive and unnecessary. Technical discussions don't require policing and shutdowns. Discussing complicated issues on CP where the details fly over everybody's head attracts more dissent & confusion rather that useful contribs.
  • Category Pages Needing Artist ID was just flagged for further research. I intended to leave them alone until they are dealt with after further discussion, one by one. Since I come across artist pages daily, I flag such non artists so they don't disappear again.
  • The NY / NY&CH issues were my objection to to incomplete/inappropriate artist page splits, left in shambles for months. There are similar case in the Requests for Moves category, and any dubious split by others or any dubious Move requests by me will be double checked by Times, he has got the hang of the issues involved.
This conversation has been great help. I apologize for my late reply to your last post. I hope we can discuss issues more often without clutter. And I will comment further on various issues and your recent posts in CP. <Virtual Handshake> Night Owl 14:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
(Since I only have a couple of comments, I'll forgo the bullets....) I agree with your points about keeping the RA template. 100% logical, and what I always thought. Really it's just a question now of implementation. I'm also still a little weirded out by the implications of the PNA category. I'm all for you making a personal list of links in your personal User space, but this is just a little too public, I think. Trust me, the suggested implications are more than I think you see, considering past issues. Regarding the NY/NY&CH splits left in shambles: I don't know the entire history of that. There seems to be a history of conflict over those pages, and whether that began before or after the page was in shambles, I don't know. I could research it, but generalities are fine for what I'd like to say. Pages sometimes don't get finished. I find Artist pages all the time that I start updating with Album Art, checking featured artist references, spelling of titles, adding missing albums in the discography, etc., and often I don't get finished before I have to go offline and do other things like eat and sleep.  :-] Sometimes I come back, sometimes I don't. It's a wiki, and others are welcome to come along and help complete the page. Sometimes a page is in such a state of disarray that I just don't even try to fix it. I realize that I just don't have the time necessary to undo the chaos. If I ever get a chance to do an updating of the main Community Portal page, I'd like to have a link there to a page where we can add pages that we find like that. An "OH MY GAWD, WHAT A MESS!" cry for help page. Don't know how much of this addresses the NY situation...perhaps none of it...but I thought I'd share. Just stay focused when talking in the Comm. Portal, and I think we'll all be much better. Use logic and explain things even if you think we already understand or should understand what you're saying. Over-explaining doesn't cause problems, but under-explaining can. Personally, I work well with logical reasons why something should be done or not done. Sometimes one reason may trump other good and logical reasons, but all-in-all when you slow down you're much more likely to get your point across. Communication is hard in the cyber-realm. It doesn't have to be two hours hard, but.... :-] Since I only have a couple of comments.... Yeah, right! Yeesh. <Virtual Handshake returned>    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   15:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Covers

How do I note on a song's page that the song has been covered? I've added a few covers, but these were on a template that was already added. I just want to know how to start a template. Usually I try to learn these things on my own, but if I am confused, I try to get advice. Brambletalon 21:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Help:Contents/Editing/Formatting/Songs#Covered - ezekiel000 21:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Brambletalon 01:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks Ezekiel000! Good job at getting that so quickly!    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   02:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Columns

I was wondering if it is possible to use two columns (like Skinny Puppy) but have the album art stay on the same level rather than being above the columns? - ezekiel000 18:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's possible by using a simple wikitable, like 
{{Album Art|...}}
{|
|style="vertical-align:top; width:50%"|
# '''[[...
|style="vertical-align:top; width:50%"|
# '''[[...
|}
Unfortunately the columns get rather cramped if there are only short song titles (because the table only takes up as much space as it has to), but if you set the table width to 100% it gets bumped below the album art… — 6×9 (Talk) 18:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. - ezekiel000 19:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't use such a thing. I'm not sure what the repercussions would be. I'm not even very happy with the Skinny Puppy page using it, but since Night Owl was editing on the page, I figured he'd probably clean that business up eventually.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   23:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I've used it for albums that were re-released as it allows you to easily see side by side the differences between the releases. It also keeps the space between the album headings on average the same, which I feel is more aesthetically pleasing. But it can be easily reversed if it causes any problems. I've used it on Feeder, Imogen Heap & Harvey Danger - ezekiel000 23:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm neither dissuading you from using it nor supporting its use. Just letting you know that it's an unofficial formatting style. So, use it where appropriate, but don't go overboard is my advice. Usually we just use a {{h4|1995 Re-Mastered Version}}-type header above the new tracklist. It is easier to compare the two this way, though. And it doesn't appear to muck with the API.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   23:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Mmmm...intersting idea, but personally I think it is unnecessary repetition (of links) when the bonus tracks can just be added on at the end under H4 header. However what I think this format could be very good for is instances such as Feeder:Polythene_(1997), where the order of tracks on the reissue differs from the original. Because it certainly makes it easy to see the variations. ♫♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪ Actions Words 08:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right the only ones that really need it is Harvey Danger:Little By Little... (2005) and Feeder:Polythene (1997) as they have a different track order rather than just having bonus tracks. - ezekiel000 09:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Ezekiel/Red/AnyoneElseListening...if you do find that this is something that is useful fairly often, then bring a note about it to the Community Portal and we'll see about making it an official formatting choice.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   14:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] One for your collection

[1] — 6×9 (Talk) 04:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A Cut-and-Paste Bomb went off, didn't it? Nice...!  :-]    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   16:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Jeff Healey Band

Hi

Regarding your edits to the artist page, see this from Help:Redirect
Locating an artist who uses more than one name, such as "Johnny Cougar", "John Cougar", and "John Cougar Mellencamp" all getting you to the artist's modern name of John Mellencamp.
What did I miss? How come John Mellencamp page and it redirects are fine but Jeff Healey pages are in need of a remedy? thanks Night Owl 18:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Who says the John Mellencamp page is fine? I don't believe that I said so. That wasn't edited to be that way after the discussion that we just had in the Community Portal, was it? If you are asking if I can fix the John Mellencamp page, since I am a John Mellencamp fan and have nearly his entire discography, then I'll be glad to. Provided I'm not distracted by other problems, of course.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   20:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The redirects you will be leaving on the Mellencamp page and his song and album pages will be reverted by Janitor, as they will all be links to redirects. Please see discussion on 6 times 9's talk page. Than ks! Night Owl 20:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
What redirects? I'm going to link to the correctly-named pages. At any rate, if Janitor is doing something it no longer should, then Janitor should basically not do it any longer.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   20:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Redirects from the four different variations of the artist name, which are all the same entity, Here is Teknomunk's note on that:

In particular, I would suggest that #3 was instead: If an artist's discography is under a wide variety of names, but is essentially the output of a single entity with perhaps minor variations, then it should have one main artist page, with redirects to this page from the various incarnations' pages.
Night Owl 20:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be linking to the redirects from Johnny Cougar, John Cougar, & John Cougar Mellencamp, so you've still lost me. As long as we're digressing, don't confuse what teknomunk is saying in his #3 as to mean that he's speaking of the Jeff Healey situation. He's speaking of the John Mellencamp situation, actually. Notice how the Jeff Healey albums and the Jeff Healey & The Jazz Wizards intermingle with the The Jeff Healey Band items. They aren't a single entity. They share a single entity, the focal point of Mr. Healey, but they are fairly different (from what I understand, style-wise, musician-wise, etc., although I was a 90s Jeff Healey fan, I stopped after then.) Also, if one was to consider them all a single entity, then that situation revolves around Jeff Healey, and so the Artist page should most likely be at Jeff Healey. But then, that would be something that would likely get discussed on the talk page. I'll be back later tonight.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
No Problem, I didn't think this matter will be covered in 15 minutes :]
The reason all the pages are in The Jeff Healey Band name space is because most of the works were released under that name
  1. TJHB:1988, 1990, 1992, 1995, two in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2005
  2. Jeff Healey (2002, 2004, 2008),
  3. JH&TJW in 2006.
So TJHB was the name most often used, hence the name space.
Mr. Healey is the key artist of all the three artistic works in different genres (which included other individuals)
What name the albums were released as is already indicated on the artist page. We have the alias parameter for Song & album headers to correctly display the performing artist (which I had already used on the artist pages and the album pages). As was mentioned in CP, such matters are to be discussed on the artist talk page (which I have already started on TJHB talk page), and In the ArtistInfo box I have also indicated that all pages were filed under TJHB. It doesn't appear that any policy or guideline is being broken by keeping all of his works under one roof and in one namespace. to be continued... thanks Night Owl 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Highest Number of Releases does not necessarily equate to what the main Artist page should be, though. As I wrote, if Jeff Healey is the Sun around which the other entities included on the page revolve, then Jeff Healey should be the Artist page location. True, The Jeff Healey Band has the most releases, but would you consider Jeff Healey & The Jazz Wizards a derivative of The Jeff Healey Band, or are they both a derivative of Jeff Healey, himself. As the Jeff Healey and the Jeff Healey & The Jazz Wizards are jazz albums, and The Jeff Healey Band is a rock/blues ensemble, they are really not related as teknomunk meant anyway. They are not "essentially the output of a single artist with perhaps minor variations." But that was a digression. If I wanted to push the topic myself at this time, I'd bring it to the talk page. Another Jeff Healey fan might want to move it, for the reasons I gave, and I may decide to pursue it later if I run across the page in the future, but for now...there are bigger fish.
Speaking of which.... An album by The Jeff Healey Band should be in the The Jeff Healey Band namespace. An album by Jeff Healey should be in the Jeff Healey namespace. They can all be listed on The Jeff Healey Band page (or the Jeff Healey page or whatever), but as their correct pagenames. To do otherwise does break pagenaming policy.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
And I have already opened the discussion on the existing artist page so that it can be discussed. Only today another admin decided to start moving the pages without discussing it on the artist talk page.
The idea was to have specific cases discussed on the artist talk pages to avoid edit wars and UserWarnings, and to inform future editors of why certain decisions were made, as was indicated by teknomunk. Night Owl 03:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Once again, pagenaming policy isn't a discussable item on Artist pages. How to split/merge - yes. What to name pages - no.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you please provide a link to the relevant policy page that describes how/where it is decided what is minor/major variations of artist name, and where I have made an error as you seem to be implying? As I had stated on CP, whichever course of action is taken, it can be labeled as personal preference edit by subsequent editors. Thank you Night Owl 04:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
LW:PN.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing on LW:PN about artsit name variations etc, which is the main issue of discussion with JHB or Mellencamp, and no indication on what is the policy on handling these cases! This is where we need clear policy! Similar situation with Delfonics/The Delfonics, there are plenty of artist pages whose editing will be labeled as stirring trouble. Night Owl 05:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not discussing this matter with you any more. I have made the situation clear. You see or don't see what you want.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   06:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
There is nothing on artists using name variations on either LW:PN or in the entire Policy category, even after the CP discussion. Night Owl 06:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] This page...

LyricWiki:Privacy_policy it's linked to at the bottom of every LW page but it hasn't actually got any content..and just keeps getting deleted?  ♫♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪ Actions Words 23:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. It's a common spam attack target, but Sean never wrote a site policy, and he's really the one that has to do it. You could always add it to his platter....    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   01:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Nah, I figure he's got enough to do ;)  ♫♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪ Actions Words 07:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Do you recall?

...there was once a page that looked like this?

Well..."There once was an ugly duckling...": Eurovision Song Contest

And how's about this for a truly 'orrible and flaw ridden page: 尾崎豊 (Ozaki Yutaka) It's almost frightening!

And before you ask, NO, I'm not going anywhere near it ;)  ♫♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪ Actions Words 17:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

All I see is a beautiful swan. I applaud your artistry. And 6x9 took care of that other page. It was a nice cut-and-paste-from-Wikipedia job. He nuked it with a redirect. Sometimes the simplest solution is the best one, eh?  :-]    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed.. I was sorely tempted but I chickened out..Good on (yer) 6! Will would've assisted us in our endeavors I'm sure, but he's a bit tied up at the moment assisting a user on my talk page  ♫♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪ Actions Words 12:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{caption}}

Since that template is meant to replace L1 headers, wouldn't it be better if it appeared in the TOC like a L1 header? — 6×9 (Talk) 20:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It certainly could. Are you thinking of using it somewhere?    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   20:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
It could be used for all those artists where various incarnations/name variations are listed on one page, like Beefheart (one section for His, one for The). A TOC entry would be useful in those cases. — 6×9 (Talk) 20:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
From following the "What Links Here" bit to my archive page, one of the concerns about L1 that inspired the template's creation was that L1s mucked with the API. At the time, I didn't think that it was possible to insert the Caption into the TOC. If you can do it...awesome! See what happens. Although the Beefheart usage is probably not the best, since the various names are scattered, and not in groovy, contained eras. Probably would be good for John Mellencamp and the Jefferson Airplane-type pages, though. Which is, I think, what it was sort of for in the first place. Let me know how it works out. Any "prettying up" you want to do, feel free, too. It was a quick creation on my part.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   21:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually Beefheart is split in two eras, at least as far as studio albums are concerned. Everything up to "Trout Mask Replica" is His ("Mirror Man" was released later, but recorded in '68), everything later is The. Things only get messy when you want to include compilations… Dunno how important it is though – the change from "His" to "The" was neither marked by a strong stylistic change nor by a radically different line-up. Guess I'll leave it alone for now. — 6×9 (Talk) 22:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Foundation (band)

Banner says Due to technical restrictions, "Foundation" is filed under "Foundation (band)". AFAICT the only technical restriction is that bots had trouble with "Foundation" (from the talk pages in WLH), which I doubt is a sufficient reason…? Just thought I'd ask before moving it back. — 6×9 (Talk) 20:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why ES moved it. Perhaps it was part of a disambiguation project? Go ahead and move it.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   21:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Songs in multiple languages

There has been no recent activity on this thread. Unless somebody has an objection, I'm going to go ahead and update the help pages and start work on pages that follow to reflect the discussion sometime Friday. As you were part of the discussion, I thought I would let you know.
- teknomunk (talk,E,歌,A) 22:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] One last question…

…then I'll leave you alone, promise! If an album and its songs should have the artist part of the pagename as it appears on the cover, no matter what the artist page is named, wouldn't that also apply for disambigued artists? So if we had "Artist (UK)" and "Artist (US)", shouldn't all songs still be "Artist:Song Title" (unless both recorded a song with the same title)? — 6×9 (Talk) 01:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Would be nice if it could be done but I think it could get very confusing and messy link wise. I detest disambig pages with a loathing, they are so blinkin' ugly ;)  ♫♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪ Actions Words 02:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Not messier than this, certainly. (Look at the Song template in edit mode. Then imagine how it would look with more than one album.) — 6×9 (Talk) 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Hrm. I'm trying to think about what was discussed in the past with regards to this. My personal inclination is to have all "Artist (UK)" items have "Artist (UK)" as the Artist. Just as some albums and songs have disamb. add-ons, so too do some Artists. I'm not sure if there is a functional reason why Album and Song pages would have to have the add-on, though. I guess that it would make that Song template a little easier, wouldn't it? I not a super-strong proponent either way, so if you have thoughts.... (That Song template on the Beefheart page is a bit of a mess, but it wouldn't be quite so bad if we allowed a link to a redirect to the assigned Artist page in it. It's complex because of an interest in making it as "neat" as possible visually and functionally, if not code-wise.)    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   02:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Basically what I'm trying to say is, if we want album and song page names as correct as possible, even if that means an artist prefix that differs from the artist page name, why shouldn't we extend the same courtesy to disambigged artists?
The problem with links to redirects is that they get in the way of finding semi-lonely pages (those with only a redirect linking to them). Though that will only become an issue once Sean or someone actually produces a method to find them… — 6×9 (Talk) 03:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Sounds logical enough to me. Perhaps there is a problem, but I don't see one. Redxx...is that you lurking around the corner? Any thoughts before the Comm. Portal?    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm really understanding this this is borderline technical so my brain starts switching off. All I will say is that whilst this automatic updating of redirects may be a great idea, I wish there was some way we could make redirects remain redirects (I'm sure you know what I mean). That would reduce the number of names needed on the Beefheart song page (I think).
As for disambig song and album pages, I would prefer not to have to add the disambig part, i.e. (UK) to the song and album pages. If we made redirects that remained redirects this shouldn't be a problem. Regardless of this it is hardly likely that there would ever be two identical pages, i.e. the same song performed by both disambig artists, they both release an album entltled the same in the same year, etc. Sorry I know that's not much help.  ♫♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪ Actions Words 20:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] in reference to Catman listing

Apologies to you, I thought "related artists" meant "artists similar in lyrics/music" and did not realize it literally meant "relatives of artists." Thank you for correcting the embarrassing error.

A Levine

No problem...it's a common misconception that the Related Artist section is a "Similar Artists" section. But "Related Artists" aren't those that artists that are "relatives of the artist", although they can be. They are merely other artists that have worked closely with the artist in question. For example, on the Paul Simon page, there should be a link to the Art Garfunkel page as well as the Simon and Garfunkel page. Paul McCartney should link to Wings, The Beatles, John Lennon, etc. John Lennon should link back to Paul McCartney, as well as to his son Julian Lennon. Dolly Parton could link to Kenny Rogers, because they are well-known as collaborators. But The Who shouldn't link to The Rolling Stones just because they are both British rock groups. The Genre categories, etc. should help with that.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   16:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] one final question about Catman listing

Thanks again.

I am supposed to complete one final task then will have completed the listing -- but again, do not know how to do it. The Catman's first two albums are on iTunes (see below) but do not know how to find proper codes to place them here at LyricWiki. How do I find the codes and what am I doing wrong?

See: http://www.apple.com/search/ipoditunes/?q=catman+cohen

A Levine

Try using the Linkmaker and use the album column...it's a lot easier. (At least I think so. Quicker for me, too.) The first album's link is i=57789253&id=57789491&s=143441&uo=6.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   01:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
You may find this section helpful too Help:Contents/Editing/Formatting/Songs#iTunes  ♫♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪ Actions Words 03:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


Kiefer:

Think I finished the LyricWiki listing, thanks to your assistance. Also applied for a Discogs listing, so not sure how long that will take. The artist is listed on WikiMusicGuide but may not conform to certain criteria required for Wikipedia listing, although it's been more than three years since application for a Wikipedia application, denied at that time. Would probably be helpful if some third party made the application rather than the artist agent.

Final question: at what point will the LyricWiki songs show up in a Google search?

Thanks again for your very useful guidance, learned a few things.

A Levine

@Kiefer: and one final note....a 100 buck donation has been made to LyricWiki on behalf of the Catman. Thought you should know. Thanks.

A Levine

I'm not sure how often Google spiders through the site. I just checked Google and nothing much shows up, does it? Hopefully soon. (From looking at the cached version of this page, it appears that the last time Google came around was on June 21.)
On behalf of Sean and all of the users on the site, thank you for the donation. I don't know how many ad-clicks that donation is worth, but I'm sure it's a bunch!  :-]
I'm not sure if you want your phone number here. I've removed it, because essentially a wiki is a permanent record of everything. If you'd like to automatically sign your posts, you can use four tildes (~~~~) to do so. There's even a way to make your signature a little more individualized, like mine is, if you're interested.
Best wishes, and happy editing!    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   12:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: Showing on Google now :-)  ♫♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪ Actions Words 16:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you have the new-and-improved Google? Because I still get the same five items, none of which are the actual Artist page or any of his Song pages. England must be much more awesome than us here in the States.  :-]    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
That'll teach me for answering posts when I'm tired. There isn't a link to artist page in this post and I just saw "Catman" with links to LyricWiki and thought those must be the ones in question. Sorry. So no, same as you.  ♫♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪ Actions Words 05:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://lyricwiki.org/User_talk:Kiefer"
 
 
Personal tools
sponsors - (info)
LyricWiki Challenge
LyricWiki Challenge + Facebook App
Try the LyricWiki Challenge
Facebook App!
Friend spotlight (info)
Transformers Wiki