Help talk:Standards

From Lyriki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I've written up as much as I can think too at the moment. To try and remove as much ambiguity as possible. If anyone else can think of something that needs to be addressed, please add to the page and/or the discussion here. Thanks in advance --Nanenj 08:16, 20 January 2006 (PST)

I've added a couple non-album/LP's to a couple of the artists that I've added in the past week since joining. One is an EP on the Belle & Sebastian page and the other is a compilation on the Beatles page. Any thoughts? --Nash 08:52, 23 January 2006 (PST)

Various Tidbits

There's still lots of things that need the strengthening of discussion of some sort. Most notable, recently questioning the putting the year at the end of album links. I've gotten to thinking about that and that could be a little bothersom due to when albums are re-released, there could be confusion on what year to use. Also, someone's suggested categorizing songs as well. I see no reason why we can't do this as well. Categorizing songs would give an alphabetical listing of songs, and a 'song' category index where we could see the number of actual songs lyriki knows about and not just 'good' articles. --Nanenj 00:56, 26 January 2006 (PST)

I suggest we use the original date for the actual album page and create redirect pages for identical re-released albums. As for a song category, I'm all for it. --MindlessXD 05:48, 26 January 2006 (PST)
Yeah, original date makes sense. It's easy to figure out by using (all music guide). There will be times though when we'd want to use a re-released album, such as, when they (the artist or publisher) decide to have bonus tracks at the end. If you want to input a song that was a bonus on a re-released CD, then why not have the album twice except that the difference would be at the end of the album name you will need to add "Bonus". Any thoughts? --Nash 06:58, 26 January 2006 (PST)
That, or if the album needs a different track list for re-release, we could use the One True Thing:Finally... (2004) style. --MindlessXD 07:08, 26 January 2006 (PST)
Speaking of which, I was debating whether or not to do that for Coheed and Cambria:The Second Stage Turbine Blade (2002), but the difference there was that the tracks were all in the same order, only with 3 extra songs on the end. Also, in the case of One True Thing:Finally... (2004) there is actually different cover art for the original and the re-release, although I didn't find a picture of the original cover to put on the page. In any case, I think that for re-released albums it would be better to put all the information on the page for the original release of the album. Just my take... --Evelyn 12:35, 26 January 2006 (PST)
not only re-release but albums can be released at different times in different countries. I still dislike the whole year of release thing at the end of the album, in part cause I'm a programmer and we are a lazy lot, and I really don't want to be bothered trying to figure that out so that I can add some lyrics. It also goes against my "Keep it simple" philosophy. saying that.. if thats what people want.. so be it. Bailey 12:41, 26 January 2006 (PST)
Well, a note, just to add lyrics, you don't really need to know that :). As per something you mentioned elsewhere, just to add lyrics, you need artist and songname, that's it ;) We've accomplished simplicity there, I think. One thing I've thought about is we could go back and indeed make seperate namespaces. Artist: Album: and Song: Then there would be no need for the date clarification on the end, and it would still end up looking pretty uniform. However, we'd still have slightly elongated names due to the keywords on each entry. --Nanenj 13:45, 26 January 2006 (PST)

Does anybody else think that Radiohead's "OK Computer (1997)" would be a better article title than the current? Ufundo 03:15, 24 April 2006 (PDT)


What standard should we use for titling song and albums? Also, is there a way to disable case-sensitivity in the wiki so that capitalization would not be a problem? --MindlessXD 04:02, 30 January 2006 (PST)

I've been using whatever AMG has. Of course, sometimes that doesn't correspond with what is on the back of the CD. Sometimes the songs will be in all caps or all lowercase. Do we say somewhere that we should be going by the CD? But I'd swear I remember reading somewhere someone suggesting AMG, and I love that site myself so I jumped into using that. For years I was looking at CD cases while I was listening to CDs that I had owned for years, but since I got an mp3 player 2 or 3 years ago I only ever look at the CD cases when I first get the CD.
So, disabling sounds like a good idea. That would allow what Nan is saying above about all one needs "to add lyrics" is "artist and songname, that's it" without having to come back later and move someone's lyrics page in order to correct capitalization. Do we want a clearer cut standard? It seems like AMG picked one from your standard link:

"The Vitamins Are in My Fresh Brussels Sprouts : capitalization of all words, except for internal articles, prepositions and conjunctions"

--Nash 05:06, 30 January 2006 (PST)

That's the style I've been leaning towards also. --MindlessXD 07:05, 30 January 2006 (PST)
I've actually been leaning towards capitalization of every word regardless of part of speech, simply because we might have foreign users on lyriki where english capitalization and parts of speech might be a very difficult concept. It's rather easy to do, and still looks good.
"The Vitamins Are In My Fresh Brussels Sprouts"

--Nanenj 07:35, 30 January 2006 (PST)

This ways leads madness - I have this horrid vision of people scouring the song titles, moving pages, and then deleting the redirects only to have someone come along 10 minutes later to move them to what they believe is the right form. Everybody has a way they believe the titles should be captialized. Regardless of the final decision of form. I think the following rules of thumb should apply.

  • Creator wins - If I create The Vitamins Are in My Fresh Brussels Sprouts and you believe it should be The Vitamins Are In My Fresh Brussels Sprouts you should make a redirect from your version to the pre-existing version.
  • Redirects are cheap.

Because in the end its about people finding the lyrics they want easily. Bailey 15:28, 30 January 2006 (PST)

As a side note I'm torn. I was taught that The Vitamins Are in My Fresh Brussels Sprouts as the correct form but I spent this last weekend working on a gui for lyriki (similar to User:Nanenjs ) and having it auto format the artist and song as you enter them would be awesome and the easiest way of doing that would be capitalize the first letter in each word. Bailey 15:32, 30 January 2006 (PST)
I'm sure Nanenj could make his bot auto-create redirects for pages that don't have every word capitalized. --MindlessXD 16:00, 30 January 2006 (PST)

I actually think this will be one of the only, at least I hope, cause if I did it often, I'd be burned at the stake, to pull 'calling rank'. I think I'm going to officially recommend entries be made with every first letter capitalized. It's easy, it's clear, and simple. I could do the bot thing, but, at the same time, I could spend my energy better elsewhere me thinks. I believe if it's stated clearly that we're using 'Every First Letter Is Capitalized' it's not that hard to comprehend, nor use. I'm of the mindset that some of the things we should write down as policy, and manage similarly to how Wikipedia handles things. When someone commits a violation, it's usually changed and the reason for the change is linked in the summary. In case of capitalization we could simply put 'Moved in Accordance with Lyriki:Capitalization' or some such. That would solve any dispute that could arise. If there's some very heavy disagreement with this, please do speak your mind, but, if there's no real resistance, this seems like the best idea to me. --Nanenj 16:35, 30 January 2006 (PST)

If there's a possibilty of getting case-sensitivity turned off, I'd go for that first. If that's not possible, I'd go with 'Every First Letter Is Capitalized'. --MindlessXD 16:54, 30 January 2006 (PST)
It does not seem to be a preference in current Mediawiki installations, if anyone knows to the contrary, please let us know. --Nanenj 17:33, 30 January 2006 (PST)
The best solution then might be a programmatic one, where the capitalization is enforced during page creation and thats whats used in the backend on the DB. Search requests would also be capitalized during the search process. As long as the two are syncronized there shouldn't be an issue Bailey 18:09, 31 January 2006 (PST)
For the record, I think most European titles (at least French) only capitalize the first letter of the title, like a sentence. I vote for the "who got there first", as it definitely keeps things simple. --risser 10:00, 16 February 2006 (EST)

I like to follow the capitalization guideline of MusicBrainz. It also describes language specific capitalization standards. --Hurfunkel 07:53, 24 March 2006 (PST)

I tend to agree with this. Many people use the capitalization of Musibrainz and this could prove problematic when searching for songs, say by using amaroK. --Db0 12:45, 23 April 2006 (PDT)
I've also been using the MB way of capitalisation for ages since I was always thaught it was the correct way to name titles of works, whether books or songs or movies, or ... This seems to be the case in many more languages than just English. Sure, if it really gets decided from the higher ups that we definately need to capitalise every single word I guess that's what i'll be doing in the future. -- Sneltrekker 15:16, 26 April 2006 (PDT)
I like the musicbrainz capitalization myself, since I do a lot of editting between there, and tend to dislike the every first character capitalized rule, since it looks tacky to have the first letter of words like a, the, of, or, etc. capitalized. Musicbrainz is pretty much on the ball, IMHO, when it comes to naming and such. For example, Queens Of The Stone Age:Songs For The Deaf (2002) just doesn't look right, it's "too much" imo. --ahoier 12:49, 21 October 2006 (PDT)
This is far from tackling the problem...
1st) Presuming that people will check out the proper capitalization of a song at Musicbrainz or any other place is just unrealistic: most people seem to have enough problems following the very simple rule we have know (btw, we do have a rule now).
2nd) It's not just a question of how good or bad it looks but, most importantly, of how usefull it is. The real problem is that the wiki search sucks -and this is the main issue here-. It's bad enough that page titles are case sensitive but the search feature is case sensitive too which makes it hard to find a song if you don't know the proper capitalization of the page (don't take my word for it... go see by yourself or browse the comments about it on the Amarok script page).
Btw, the issue is not necessarily related to automated searches: any user will have troubles finding a page if he doesn't know the used capitalization. The Amarok script (at least) search songs the same way a regular user would: it first looks if a page with the given capitalization exists and, if it doesn't, it performs a regular search and looks at the results (which means that if the script can't find it, a regular user probably won't either).
This doesn't imply that we should refer to songs or albums or whatever with all wordscapitalized but solely that their page titles must follow this rule. For example, song links in albums pages could be written like this [[This Is The Name Of The Artist:This Is The Name Of The Song|This Is the Name of the Song]]. Only problem with this approach is that some of the templates automatically build links to other pages (such as Template:SSong) and they currently have no way to specify the link display name. Still, this could be arranged simply by adding other parameters to specify the capitalization (which would only need to be specified if the page title token doesn't have the proper capitalization).
Hope I made myself clear. I'd like to know what people thinks of this... --Attendant 14:50, 21 October 2006 (PDT)
I'd like to point out another issue I came across lately: page duplication. A lot of users just don't check to see if there's already a page for what they're about to add and end up creating pages we already have, only with different capitalization. Having a clear capitalization rule that everybody knows and can follow will help prevent that. --Attendant 18:52, 17 December 2006 (PST)
The every letter capitalized is really the only standard way to get rid of the problem when it comes to automated searching of a song, specifically when using a plugin like in Amarok, the plugin can know that regardless of how the tags are formatted, every first letter should be capitalized. It is evident that many don't like this however, but, I still feel it's the best solution. Redirects are useful too, as someone else said, they're cheap and most scripts know how to follow those as well. -- 20:24, 26 April 2006 (PDT)

Is there any possibility of making a server-side change or something to deal with the musicbrainz formatting? Or make it so article casing doesn't matter? IE: blink-182 links to Blink-182. It seems not everyone agrees with the casing change, but it does looks better than every first letter capitalized. Other than that, a feature to add "Guess case" buttons to the editting pages would be great too, I dont know if MusicBrainz uses javascript or what though, for that. --ahoier 12:54, 8 July 2007 (PDT)

Just got back to Lyriki after a long abscance and saw that the Capitalisation is no longer "all caps" but rather using the Musibrainz approach. I like that especilly for French as the all-caps approach really hurts my eyes... But going with the new approach will lead to review all my previous entries and tons of stuff to move/redirect/delete... Is there a negative side effect in doing so? If not, I'll just go ahead and clean my stuff -- Raoul 14:02, 6 February 2008 (PST)

Nope, move/redirect/delete is the correct approach, so go ahead. :) --MindlessXD 12:36, 7 February 2008 (PST)

Multiple Versions of Lyrics

I know that people seem to like having the lyrics as sung in the song, but is there a place for the booklet lyrics or live versions? For example something like Eminem:Shake_That but for booklet and actual versions. The booklet lyrics could also have there own page. --Bpot 09:46, 24 February 2006 (PST)

This would go on the same song page, as it's specific to the song. I like to think of the actual lyrics as the 'preferred' version, and be listed at the top. If there's alternate lyrics, they can be listed underneath. --Nanenj 12:10, 24 February 2006 (PST)
Lately, I've been using the song lyrics booklet to 'confirm' the lyrics that are sung in the song. I'll start out with what's in the booklet, listen to the tracks, and then modify the lyrics as I see necessary. Especially for Chorus and such, I like having all the lyrics linear, without bouncing back and forth between lines and such. --ahoier 06:12, 20 May 2006 (PDT)

Non-Album Tracks

A way to denote singles, EP or live albums is using parentheses like in the ÜberStandard. See the artist page of Heather Nova for an example. --Hurfunkel 08:00, 24 March 2006 (PST)

was this response under the wrong category? since Non-Album CDs are a tad different than Singles, EPs, etc. I like the notation of whether an album is a single, EP, or Live, but as long as it's not part of the actual album name, IE: Nirvana:Unplugged In New York (Live) seems extraneous to me. I think the album name should be what is present on the album cover/art, and sure, off to the side, feel free to note that it is a Live album, for example:
* 1995 [[Nirvana:Unplugged In New York (1995)|Unplugged In New York]] (Live)

And really, shouldn't this be "Non-Album Tracks"? :P Non-Album CDs sounds weird hehe, since a CD is an album ;)


Any thoughts on how to do multi-artist soundtracks? Also, if an artist does one song on a soundtrack, how do we list it on the artist page? - Troy34 20:07, 30 March 2006 (PST)

I think it would be okay to list the various artist release on the artist page/discography. Maybe we could append a (VA) to the end of the album name, to distinguish that it is a Various Artist compilation that the artist appears on. And well, this might get more complicated with multi-disc compilations, if/when the multi-disc standard is decided on. --ahoier 09:55, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

Lyrics Format

Will we have specific format rules for the lyrics themselves? In Kiwilyrics I had created a formating guide (which took me a long time to write grumblegrumble) for the lyrics themselves for rules such as Instrument Solos (Bolded in brackets []), Backing Vocals (Italics), Fading Vocals (Variable font size, increased margin) etc. The reason for this was to show, in the text, how the part sounded. In the end, an album that followed that format to the letter was considered "Kiwified" which was a way to lay it was almost perfect. Can we have something similar here as well? I'm already using this format on the songs I submit but it would it nice to have it official. What say you? --Db0 12:53, 23 April 2006 (PDT)

I'm not using a standard atm since none is defined. Would support this one though if it was written out so I know what to follow exactly. Any standard is better than no standard. -- Sneltrekker 03:45, 27 April 2006 (PDT)
How complicated do we want this to be? :) When I'm listening to a song, I will try and make out the lyrics, and jot them down. though yea, sometimes there are some background and/or screaming vocals that are hard to pin point. But yea, I can understand where you are coming from here. Eventually through time as more and more people contribute to lyrics, they will become clearer and clearer, and then these fancy additions could be added. Lately, I've been using parenthesis within the lyrics to note a background sound/lyric or whisper (maybe even a scream of some sort, ya know :P). I know for some Atreyu songs, I was using <screaming> and other such variations to note any vocals that were screamed, and hard to decipher. I guess this would be the time when the album cover/booklet would help ;) Then again, even the artist might not have been documenting that type of minut details ;) --ahoier 10:01, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

I think we also need to consider how to include choruses and such. Do we say "Chorus" or "(Chorus)" before the start of the chorus and then use something like "(Repeat Chorus)" further down the lyrics page or should every repeat of a chorus be included inline, in its entirety? I've seen both systems used here, I think. I personally prefer the whole thing inline, repeated as many times as necessary because when I view lyrics through something like Amarok I don't want to be scrolling up and down to see what the chorus is. What's the group consensus? --Kisholi 03:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Multi-CD Albums?

I was just wondering how to deal with albums with several CDs (such as "The Wall" by Pink Floyd) using the "Album" template. Any suggestions? --JustusvV 05:25, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

I think I would like to see the musicbrainz format in use, using some identifier such as (disc #) in the album name. It makes the album categorization and listings a lot cleaner than figuring out, from a long list of 20+ tracks, which belong to what disk ;) --ahoier 07:26, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

Metallica:S&M (1999) is an example of what I do with multi-CD albums. --MindlessXD 18:43, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

Several release dates?

And yet another question: How to deal with albums that have several release dates, for example UK and US, as for example The Final Cut?

Perhaps, put the country name in Parans () or Brackets []? Or, just a dash 19xx - Month - Day - US or 19xx - Month - Day (US)? I think the paranthesis looks 'cleaner'/sets it apart from the date (and it's dashes). --ahoier 07:29, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

Like that? Pink Floyd:The Final Cut (1983) --JustusvV 08:26, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

I'd use the first release date, and perhaps put (US) or (UK) etc. at the end. --MindlessXD 18:46, 19 May 2006 (PDT)

Yea, I think I can agree to that format. it's clean. --ahoier 06:15, 20 May 2006 (PDT)

songs from multiple CDs?

Ok, well, I just got done listening to, and documenting the lyrics from Sum 41:Go Chuck Yourself (2006) and, was just wondering how lyrics that appear on multiple albums should be created. For that album in particular, it's a live album with the majority previously released which eventually will share lyric a page with another album (Chuck, No Killer No Filler, Does this look infected?, etc). On the current lyric pages for that album, I used a sort of italic/bold to distinguish the live lyrics (and well, it's kind of obvious, some of the songs were cut shorter, some dialogues added, etc). But yea, figured I'd post it here for discussion, as I'll probably be working on the other album(s) tomorrow. --ahoier 22:50, 6 June 2006 (PDT)

For an example, check out Sum 41:Never Wake Up. Don't know if a new template should be created? Or just use that solid black line to split them apart? And then another thing was brought up on that page, which lyric should go first? :P I'd have to say the Original version would go first (from All Killer No Filler), followed by the live lyrics version. But of course, it's all up for debate ;) I really am looking forward for a better solution for songs on multiple albums though, as more albums are added, stuff like this will happen, where the lyrics between two albums may not be exactly the same. --ahoier 22:59, 6 June 2006 (PDT)

Instrumental songs

The standards say instrumental songs get pages, but what to put on their pages?

Currently it's a mess: most instrumental songs just have "(Instrumental)", some don't use the parentheses and some put that in the < lyrics> tag. Wouldn't a category or template be useful here?

Also, should karaoke versions etc. include lyrics for the original song? The lyrics aren't really there, but they're especially useful in this case so I think they should be on the page (and easily retrievable by a script, too). --Encukou 11:50, 18 July 2006 (PDT)

The idea of giving them pages is because there may be information to attach to that song in particular. Even though it's instrumental, it still has lots of tidbits of information that can be attached to that specific song. It's more for completion than anything. If all there is to put there is that it's an instrumental, then that's fine.
I think putting the (Instrumental) within lyrics tags is necessary for some of these lyriki "Plugins" to work properly though. I've just been using <lyrics>Instrumental</lyrics>, alongside the "recommended page formatting" ofcourse. --ahoier 07:23, 23 October 2006 (PDT)
wiki-lyrics.rb uses <lyrics><tt>(Instrumental)</tt></lyrics> when the Instrumental checkbox is clicked, so that's what I use. --Dhraakellian 12:41, 23 March 2007 (PDT)


Maybe it's a silly question, but so far, I've seen various apostrophe's in usage here, lol. ´ and and well, the one I always use '. Is there a difference in usage between the three? On my US-English keyboard, next to the [Enter] key is where my ' is. And so that's what I always use. Don't know if it's just due to a difference in users' geographic locations, and/or Operating System. Figured I'd ask it here. And well, in my journeys of other lyric sites, I've found other use the same variations. --ahoier 21:14, 20 July 2006 (PDT)

There's also `. :D Part of the problem is Microsoft's idea of "smart"-quotes, replacing normal quotes (') with quotes that look nice around text ( and ). It's more than likely that the wiki won't display these smart-quotes correctly. --MindlessXD 09:31, 22 July 2006 (PDT)
So, should "other" apostrophes be changed to the normal style; (well, for my keyboard/Operating System language settings anyways) '. I personally like them better :P As far as the <size=6>`</size>, I've always thought that was an accent-sign (from my Spanish teacher(s) anyways), and definately shouldn't be used in place of an apostrophe. --ahoier 10:16, 22 July 2006 (PDT)
Yeah, ` and ' are used to accent vowels in Portuguese, Spanish, and French (I guess it's used in Italian too). It's used with á, é, í, ó, ú (') and à, è, ì, ò, ù (`. Spanish don't use it, and Portuguese use rarely in the à) -- 16:47, 22 July 2006 (PDT)


Well, I've noticed a few different sorts around. I personally think we should have a vote to which we should use. I vote for how The Living End's is. It's nicer and doesn't require the user to click through multiple times and allows to see everything on all the albums with minimal effort.

Though, looking at Bob Dylan's, the page itself could get rather large. Any suggestions? --Suspchaos 03:14, 30 September 2006 (PDT)

Ah, perhaps I should look before leaping, seems there's already a standard. Whoops. ;) --Suspchaos 03:21, 30 September 2006 (PDT)


Is there a rule as to whether or not words commonly considered 'inappropriate' by a reasonable majority of people should be included? For example, the Maroon 5:Harder To Breathe page has contained both 'funkin' and 'fuckin' in its history (currently, it's in its obscene form). In the CD version of the song, the swearword appears; in "clean" versions, it's replaced. What to do?

There's no such rule. If the song says fuckin' (or fucking), then that's what you should write. --Attendant 01:15, 15 January 2007 (PST)

song name format (feat. artists)

Any concensus regarding "featured" artists, on a track? For example, I stumbled across Tim_Armstrong:Into_Action, on the page itself, it mentions "Artist: Tim Armstrong feat. Skye Sweetnam", I think it would be more appropriate to note any "featurered" artists alongside the song name (or, in the case of track/song pages, in the Credits area...). I know it's not that big of a deal...but figured I'd post it. This is the same way MusicBrainz (and handles it. And another thing, for the article/page titles, should the featured artist be a part of the title? Which would make Tim_Armstrong:Into_Action, Tim_Armstrong:Into_Action (feat. Skye Sweetnam). -- 13:23, 20 April 2007 (PDT)

the featuring artist should go with the artist because... well... it's part of the artist, not the title. the fact that musicbrainz/lastfm list them like that is just because it's easier to do it that way. in the case of lastfm, their content it's generated from the user files metadata, so whatever that says, ends up in the database. in the musicbrainz case, the reason is that you can't specify the artist for a song unless it belongs to a "various artists" album (which is not exactly what you would want when there's one main artist and another one just collaborating in one song) so there's no other place to put that information. songs with multiple artists might be harder to manage, nevertheless it makes no sense to mix the artist and the title like that. The wiki-lyrics script already works around that, our album pages can work around that too. i see no reason to dishonour the artist:title song page rule. --Attendant 00:12, 21 April 2007 (PDT)