User talk:Kiefer

From LyricWiki

2006 Archives
2007 Archives
2008 Archives
Song of the Day & Album of the Week Archives

Subsectioning and Collaborations

Hi, Kiefer, have two formatting-related questions, both inspired by Robert Cray page (trying to make it real Silver ;)).

What's the best practice in such cases when album is recorded in collaboration with other artists, and collaboration is based on equal participation? I mean Showdown!, recorded by Albert Collins, Robert Cray And Johnny Copeland. So,
1. Was I right creating special 'artist' page for this particular album only?
2. Was I right adding all this album tracks listing into Robert Cray page? (otherwise songs from this album would be invisible to API f-n getArtist)
What is the best formatting strategy to separate official_albums/singles/compilations/rarities_bootlegs/appearences/collaborations etc. in the artist page? I've seen using subsections for that (of type =Singles=), so tried to apply this approach. What I don't like in such approach is that all remaining sections (band members, related, external links etc.) in such case are shown as subsections of last album category section (Collaborations in our case).

So, would you be so kind to cast your eye over this page, when you'll have a free minute, and make your notes for me? Tia, --Senvaikis ^(talk) 05:30, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Was just nosing around and I know Kiefer is quite busy at present so in the interim I thought I'd do my usual "trying to be helpful" thing. Now, I'm not saying I can answer all your queries but...:

1. Yes you did exactly the right thing creating an artist page. However, you didn't create an artist page for the album. You created an artist page for the collaboration. Who knows, they may do more. Where collaboration is based on equal participation, we create a separate artist page. This applies even if it means there is only one song on the page. If it's simply a case of a featured artist, we just insert the *new* parameter |fa = at end of the {{song}} template and of course no separate page is created.
Regarding subsections.

Official_albums and compilation albums should not be sub-sectioned, but listed in chronological order with Level 2 headings.
Singles I don't usually detail these myself. My reasons for this are threefold:

1) We don't aim to provide complete discographies.

2) We don't want artist pages to become oversized.

3) The songs are usually already allocated to an album on artists page. As such it is of course unnecessary to have them detailed twice.

However, I believe I'm right in saying that singles should also be listed, like compilations, in chronological order, in amongst the other albums.

Bootlegs we don't normally list. Most of the songs are on official albums in any event and we prefer to stick with those. For any rare songs on bootleg albums that cannot be found on any official releases, I would suggest creating a separate category something like "Songs from Bootleg Albums" or "Unofficial Releases".
Songs not recorded and only ever performed live? I would also suggest creating a separate category, e.g. "Unreleased".
As for collaborations? Well if these are odd songs, then I would suggest these also be listed under a separate category, e.g. "Collaborations". However, I see on the Robert Cray page you have detailed the entire albums and for this I don't know. Personally, I would've listed these albums not in separate sub section, but like compilations, in chronological order amongst other albums. However, this is only my opinion.

One final point, I'm never too sure myself when it comes to choosing a level for a heading in these user created categories. As such I just go with what seems appropriate. Usually the number of songs determines it for me. That having been said, what goes for one goes for all. If I decide level 2 is appropriate, then all the user created categories become level 2 too. Personally I would like to have level 2 "Other Songs" with all these sub sections as Level 3 but this would present confusion/problems as there is already section for "Other Songs". Maybe Kiefer will have some ideas. Sub sectioning is something I would like to get others input on, since I believe it needs to be addressed and some uniformity applied. Maybe I'll make it my personal quest (lol)!!

Hope this all helps! _♫Яєd_xx_♪♫♪_♫♪^Talk 09:41, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks, Red; now let me make some notes over yours (making no pretension to be right):

Ok, - haven't nothing against listing albums and compilations in the same manner;
I'd not be so emphatic regarding singles (not including them as releases at all): I agree that in most ordinary cases, when all songs in a single have their equivalent in official albums, singles may and even must be omitted. But some artists have a strange habit to record a huge number of singles; to crown it all - some songs (or versions) you can find only on those singles. The best sample of such deviant (from those I know) is The Beautiful South. While melting OS in their page I had no other choice but listing singles; more over - even multiple singles with the same name and year of release. Of course, I could just bundle all those songs in one section "Songs from singles", but agree - some important, or just interesting information would be lost then.
The same should be said speaking about bootlegs - I'd never overcame OS of Tom Waits without including his bootleg "Tales..." series. And again, - if we've wasted our time finding all this information (where from all those songs comes) - why should we mask this info, if we've found it already anyway? Agree - that's not official releases; but on other hand - we aren't selling them - just providing information about lyrics, as it is, de facto. I'm not sure about some possible juridical arguments against such point of view; but I'm sure that any page formatting rules can be treated as argument for such information masking.
Collaboration: the same. You are suggesting to just list songs from Showdown! in a common crowd of songs from all other possible albums made in collaboration with someone else. But here I should remind you that this album was the first one from five Robert's Grammy awarded albums. Would it be fair, if such album was not even mentioned in information, returned by getArtist()?

Resuming: what would you say about such possible solution: list all releases of artist (which must be listed to cover all known lyrics) in a simple chronological order by date, just pointing information about release category (official album/single/...) in album header parameter "releaseType"? That'd solved the second problem at the same breath - we'd have no need for any subsectioning. --Senvaikis ^(talk) 14:59, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Ok. As always you raise some interesting points Senv.

Good.
I agree wholeheartedly. Don't get me wrong, if I was presented with 3 songs off a single that I couldn't allocate to an album, I would also list the single. I have just never found myself in that position. I can usually wittle the 3 songs down to 1 (which I then put in a sub-category). And like I have indicated above, I always try to allocate songs from OS lists in this way for the reasons I have given above (i.e. page size, listed on album so unnecessary to list twice, etc.) I guess the point I was trying to make is just that some think of artist pages as discographies and attempt to list everything, every single, every compilation, etc. (even when there are no lyrics...lol) They do not think enough about what they are doing, or why and therefore they are not selective in their choices.
Don't know what else to say about bootlegs. I am just telling you what I was told by an admin when I came here and asked about myself this. Because they are illegitimate I just accepted this. However, whilst this is discouraged, if there is a valid reason to list a particular bootleg, by which I mean none of the songs can be found on any official releases (which is somewhat unusual...), then I would say it's Ok. In saying this I note how you have decided upon including the same, i.e.

I'd never overcame OS of Tom Waits without including his bootleg "Tales..." series...

As such it seems that you are being selective, i.e. not just listing a bootleg for the sake of it. Of course another problem with listing bootlegs is album cover art. Not always so easy to find is it, eh? ;)

4. And no, you have misunderstood this:

You are suggesting to just list songs from Showdown! in a common crowd of songs from
all other possible albums made in collaboration with someone else

What I said was "if these are odd songs, then I would suggest these also be listed under a separate category, e.g. "Collaborations"." But when it comes to collaborative albums like Showdown!, "Personally, I would've listed these albums not in separate sub section, but like compilations, in chronological order amongst other albums, (i.e. See 1). I apologise, because on re-reading that sentence I can see that I should have omitted the word 'seperate' as I believe this is probably what caused the confusion, but I trust I have explained myself better now and that what I'm suggesting in fact raises their importance.

As for your final point. We all have our own way of working. We all do this voluntarily, none of us get paid and therefore it is up to each of us what we choose to do. I have never received any computer training (is why I get lost sometimes in terminolgy, API etc. etc.). I am self taught. I learn from watching others, researching and problem solving. My particular speciality is research. As such I put this to good use on LyricWiki allocating songs in OS lists. I find this quite challenging. I also think it's the best place to start when I hit on a page. Once the songs are all allocated I move on. There is no point in listing albums if we haven't got the lyrics. We don't want to inflate artist pages detailing the same songs twice. And as I said before, we do not aim to provide complete discographies. So I don't really see that what you are suggesting is really any different to what we are already doing. Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you. _♫Яєd_xx_♪♫♪_♫♪^Talk 17:49, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Okay, I visit briefly, and I have this posted on my talk page?!? :-] Let's see if I can quickly answer some of the questions, although pardon me if I duplicate Redxx replies or cause more confusion by not agreeing.

1. Sounds like you did the right thing. If it's a true collaboration, list the participants as listed on the album. New artist page for the album is fine, and the album is okay to be listed on the various participants' solo pages. (So, including it on the Robert Cray page is fine.

2. Studio albums, live albums, and major greatest hits compilations should all be listed chronologically. I see that you have H1-headers for Albums, Compilations, and Collaborations. H1 headers shouldn't be on pages. The page title (Robert Cray, in this instance) is the only H1 header allowed. (Wikipedia standard, and something we're trying to follow as well to keep things as uniform as possible for the various applications that use the site database.) Subsections for albums (using a normal H2-header with two equal signs) can be made for Rarities and Singles, but should really only be a link to the actual album itself, without a track listing on the artist page. This is an attempt mostly to keep the Artist's page from becoming overly long and difficult to scan for the necessary information. Usually these items are of less interest than the major releases. A shorter page also helps ensure that when the page is edited that it gets saved without any glitches. Songs pages can also be given special headers, such as Collaborations, Songs as a Featured Artist, Unreleased Songs (usually songs that were written for an album but were unused but perhaps released to fan club members or on the artist's website or songs only performed live - often cover songs), or Songs On Compilations (tribute albums or other multi-artist releases). None of these headers are written in stone, but those are the guidelines that seem to work best. Bootlegs, as Redxx mentioned aren't normally listed, but as you noted, sometimes bootlegs have songs that aren't on other albums but that we do have lyrics for, and so noting these under "Unreleased Songs" with a note about the song's origin is a perfectly appropriate thing. If the bootleg is well-known and often referenced to by an Artist's fans, then I can understand why it might need inclusion on the page.

3. I know...you didn't have a 3, but I want to clarify perhaps what Redxx is saying about not aiming to provide complete discographies. While it is true that the site aim isn't to include every small-press "best-of" compilation or artist bootleg, we do aim to have every major release. With singles, I personally think that having that information is a good thing, but I also don't really think that the main Artist page needs to have all 20+ singles listed with a track listing of B-sides (since there really isn't such a thing anymore, technically!), which is why the single link to the album page. It's a balance between including the essential information, but not making the pages so overwhelming that a visitor can't find anything with an appropriate amount of ease.

Hopefully this all made sense. As Redxx stated, I'm currently a bit busy, but I still try to stop by on a daily basis to answer notes and do a few things to keep from getting too rusty. :-] So, this was written fairly quickly.

Happy editing to all - Kiefer talk contribs admin 23:50, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Kiefer

From LyricWiki

Contents

Subsectioning and Collaborations

The Fab Four

Revamping eh?

When you got a minute...

Already SOTD

Just wanted to ensure...

Psssst..over here...

SOTD August 19, 2008

Just wanted to say...

RE: Userboxes

Wiki-Lyrics

SOTD August 21, 2008

Re: Ich Und Ich

Weird pages I've seen tonight..

Agraceful apage

SOTD August 23, 2008

Sorry about my Slipknot edit

Weezer

fLetter

Refused

Lordi Lordi Lawdy Miss Clawdy

SOTD September 01, 2008

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

sponsors - (info)

plugins

Search Lyrics

LyricWiki Challenge

Toolbox

Friend spotlight (info)