-> Send to a friend

User talk:Kiefer/Archive 2008

From LyricWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Response

I couldn't find any standards about + sings and other similar characters from the help section. When I submitted the EP cover as ...+-0.jpg it was renamed automatically as ...--0.jpg. I thought that all inappropriate characters are supposed to be replaced with -:s. I hope this was not a big mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arkwright (talk • contribs) .

Not a big mistake, at all. Barely registers as an error, really. It's weird...I didn't know that the wiki automatically replaced + with - at the beginning of a line. When in the middle of a song title, it just removes it. Hmmm. Ya learn something new every day! When it comes to anything page-naming-wise, LW:PN is an editor's friend.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   14:39, 3 January 2008 (EST)

[edit] Question...

Where might be an appropriate place to discuss the Song Of The Day and Album Of The Week pages? Their discussion pages are used for nominations, and it seems a tad inappropriate to place anything else there...

Wanted to get input on some further potential criteria for nominations, particularly that a video or audio be available for them. I think it's a noble cause "to get exposed to some new music", but I'm finding a lot of nominations can't be found on YouTube, GoEar, or other sites. I mean, what's the point in nominating a song or album if nobody can experience it for themselves?

Would also like to see some sort of "seconding" system, or a way that other users could comment on their reactions to the nomination. But won't go into detail about that here. I monopolize your talk page enough as it is.  ;-)

—  jF 02:01, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Right now, I would say that because the amount of nominations we get tends to be exactly what we need to have one a day, that a seconding system or some such might be a bit premature. Right now, WillMak tends to work on AOTW stuff, and I have lately been trying to get the SOTD stuff up to par for the front page. Currently, we're the seconding system.  :-] Perhaps when we start getting a bunch more nominations, then such a thing will be necessary, although I would be concerned with "buddy" votes and other problems. Sometimes it is just better if an admin takes the heat over what is used, rather than groups of users "competing" against other groups to get their nomination used. Some people would take the nominations a bit too seriously, if you know what I mean. I agree that having videos and audio available is more desirable than not, but I also know that there are worthy pages that might not have a YouTube video or GoEar audio clip. Sometimes the lyrics (such as my really old-school nomination for The Kingston Trio:A Worried Man), have to just stand on their own, I guess.
I think that your idea to include YouTube and GoEar whenever possible, however, it a great idea, and should be meantioned on the SOTD nominating page. I love it so much that I have already added the suggestion to the LyricWiki talk:Song of the Day page! Maybe that will get a few more updates when people nominate!
If you want to expound on your ideas for a future system, that would be great. It would be nice if one day we had to have a different method of weeding the list. You can either add it here or e-mail me if you think it is just too long or whatever.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   14:49, 4 January 2008 (EST)

[edit] Song Template alteration

I've added a new comment at Template talk:Song#Altering template about changing {{Song}}. I'd appreciate it if a few of the "veterans" around here looked at my comment and replied before I changed our most used template here. --WillMak050389 14:38, 30 January 2008 (EST)

[edit] Esperanza Newsletter Updated for January

Announcements

Sean gorter is thinking about creating a request-to-be-an-administrator page. Those who have an opinion may post their thoughts at LyricWiki talk:Administrators.

Members' Corner

Esperanza is in need of more collaboration as its members look on being a member as a simple honor. If Esperanza is going to help, it needs to have more participation from its members and other users: spread out the WikiLove, convince more to help the community, and other acts to help LyricWiki through the website and become one of the most visited lyric sites on the internet (google search on lyric ranks LyricWiki as #x>67 {x=unknown})


Signed,
Sean gorter 04:42, 31 January 2008 (EST)

[edit] Um, I hope you are not offended...

I seem to notice that your sig is excessively long. In Wikipedia (refer to page on signature customaries), signatures are limited to 255 characters. The reason?

  • signatures that take up more than two or three lines in the edit window clutter the page and make it harder to distinguish posts from signatures,
  • long signatures give undue prominence to a given user's contribution,
  • signatures which have long HTML/wiki markup and contain no spaces cause other editors' edit boxes to show unnecessary horizontal scrollbars (such signatures may have spaces added to them by any editor),
  • signatures that occupy more space than necessary in the edit box displace meaningful comments, thus forcing the editor to scroll when writing his reply, and
  • the presence of such long signatures in the discussion also disrupts the reading of comments when an editor is formulating his reply (all direct quotes from Wikipedia)

As a rule complier, I have stuck to these rules and adhered to them all my membership. However your signature is 746 characters long. May I try to shorten the signature for you or leave you to deal with it by yourself? Θ Sean gorter Θtalk|Esperanza 10:42, 1 February 2008 (EST)

No thank you.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   12:19, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Is that really that big a deal? In all my time here, I've never seen it cause problems...
King_Nee1114lyrics 19:22, 1 February 2008 (EST)
 :-) Nah, it's not really a problem here. If someone started adding links to their top ten favorite song pages or some such weirdness in their sig and made it super long, then I could see it being a problem. Mine is a bit long, admittedly, but it's all no-frills linkage. I basically adapted it from a long-time Wiki editor, as I recall. I have, however, removed some excess coding that I think/hope is basically unnecessary and therefore have shortened it, though. Ta-DAH!  Kiefer  talk  contribs  admin  23:13, 1 February 2008 (EST)
If Kiefer doesn't gripe about the length of my posts, I'm certainly not going to complain about his sig code. ;-)
—  jF 23:16, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Just remember...it's not the size that matters...it's what you do with it that counts. ;- } (My apologies, but I just couldn't resist any longer.)  Kiefer  talk  contribs  admin  23:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
If worse come to worse, you could just create a template (protected of course) at for instance User:Kiefer/Sig and have that be your signature. Then it wouldn't be that large :P
- teknomunk (talk,E,歌) 03:52, 2 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] Page redirect snafu

Kiefer, long time, no talk to. I've got a small problem in the Nena section. In the Nena#Bongo Girl subsection there is a link to a page for the title track of that album (Nena:Bongo_Girl). Unfortunately, it is erroneously redirecting to the individual page for that album Nena:Bongo_Girl_(1992). Do you have a suggestion as to a solution?
Thanks,
--Megahexe

Fixed that for you, Megahexe. Just drop in some lyrics and whatever else needs adding, and you're ready to go.
—  jF 19:36, 3 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] SOTD nomination

Wanted to bring your attention to the nomination for a "Stone Rosetta" song recently added. That should probably be moved to pending, as the correct artist is Rosetta Stone. Would have moved it myself, but I note that there are two bands with that particular name, and this nomination refers to the 1990's UK goth band. As such, not quite sure how to handle things without making a mess.  ;-)

—  jF 19:59, 3 February 2008 (EST)

Thanks, I'll look into it.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   15:11, 4 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] I wanted to share something

I turned your whole signature into a template. All you have to do is replace your current signature with "{{User:Kiefer/Signaturetemp}}" on the prefs page. It was teknomunk's idea, and I figured it out for my own sig. You can use it, or you can not. Except I'll be shattered if you don't.
King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 02:17, 4 February 2008 (EST)
I am kidding about that last bit though. here it is, and happy editing.

   Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin  
Thanks!    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   15:11, 4 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] "extra notations"

Did you get consensus to define what makes up extra notations and the right to delete them without any debate? -Lwc 13:43, 6 February 2008 (EST)

What I mean is - I left other lyric sites because here I thought a group of people would decide together on how the lyrics would look instead of "decisions from the sky". -Lwc 13:48, 6 February 2008 (EST)
I understand. The decision to remove notations seems arbitrary (which is exactly what it was, arbitrary) Lwc, what would you suggest be done about notations? Personally, I don't like the notations and don't really want to see them cluttering up the lyrics. But that is just me.
We will try to do whatever is needed so that things work for users, but we also need to take into account the fact that a lot of our users access the site by media player plugins, so whatever solution we come up with will need to function for these guys as well.
- teknomunk (talk,E,歌,A) 14:03, 6 February 2008 (EST)
As said, the lyrics should be as close as possible to how they're actually sung. I'm all for writing lyrics full-out no matter what, partly because of the reason teknomunk mentioned with the media player plugins too. Some lyric viewers scroll automatically, and when the song is near the end, you probably will want to see the lyrics, and not [Chorus] five times. In my opinion, lyrics should be just that – the words that are sung, and nothing else, like the structure of the song. --MiSP 14:09, 6 February 2008 (EST)
I have to disagree with the use of the word "arbitrary", however. One meaning is that it was decided by a judge or arbitrator, but the common usage usually has the meaning of "capricious; unreasonable; unsupported". As you mentioned, the use of the site for plugins and such means that flip-floppin/scrolling/scanning for the appropriate substitution for these notations is often not as simple or friendly as it may be for the web. I recently received an Amazon Kindle (e-Book) and the site translates pretty well on it, but only a small portion of lyrics are visible at one time. Flipping "pages" to re-reference the lyrics would be a pain to say the least. So, there's a real-life example for you.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   14:23, 6 February 2008 (EST)
As the Help page for Song pages Help:Contents/Editing/Formatting/Songs#Lyrics states:
  • It is best if the lyrics displayed reflect the lyrics as they are found on the recorded version.
  • The use of extra notations within the <lyrics> tags, such as "chorus", "verse", or "repeat" should be used only in rare cases, such as for clarity or to shorten what would otherwise be a long list of a repeated phrase at the end of a song.
So, yeah. Long time ago this was decided.  :-]
Seriously, though, every site has to have its own formatting standards. Things morph and change here, but nowadays it is generally with additional information on pages and template changes and the like. Having what is between the lyric tags being equal to what is spoken is a long-time site standard. (This also goes for not censoring language that may be offensive.) Some exceptions do exist, such as: horribly repeated sections at the end of a song can have a (Repeats to end) or (x 15) notation or some such thing, duets and musical lyrics such as for High School Musical, or rap songs with multiple rappers tend to have the speaker added with their appropriate section. Things like "Chorus" should have the actual words placed instead. (Especially since some times the chorus has minor changes in the song.) "Instrumental" just means that the listener has to wait until the lyrics resume, so isn't necessary.
Hope this helps.
   Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   14:13, 6 February 2008 (EST)
Yes, now that I read it again, it was not quite the correct word. What you just said is what I meant, there needed to be a standard and that is the one that was decided on. It could have been a different one.
- teknomunk (talk,E,歌,A) 15:12, 6 February 2008 (EST)
Alright, but I don't think "chorus" and "instrumental" are the same case. While I learn to accept what you say about "chorus", without the word "instrumental" the listener is sure something is wrong ("where are the words I'm supposed to hear now?"). Also, without "instrumental" you fake continuity between possibly unrelated verses. -Lwc 09:51, 8 February 2008 (EST)
I agree with MiSP wholeheartedly. The lyrics should reflect every actual word sung (or spoken) in accurate fashion. As I mentioned in a post elsewhere, the lyrics are every bit as much of the artform of a song as the music itself.
Lwc makes a very valid point about a notation of "chorus" as well. A chorus includes sung (or spoken) words, not music only (which would be more properly referred to as an instrumental break, interlude, or bridge). Since our site is dedicated to the lyrics, not the music, those extra notations are often pointless. And using a notation of chorus can overlook subtle yet important changes from chorus to chorus. Gimme time, and I'll find a perfect example of how such a tiny change can alter a song's meaning.
When I transcribe lyrics, I generally use the following rules:
• Transcription of every sung/spoken word.
• Inclusion of only actual words—nonsensical scatting, melisma, and the overuse of things like "ooh" and "whoah" is eliminated. (I break this rule when such embellishment is significant to the song, such as Ronstadt's "Ooh Baby Baby" or Tina Turner's famous first note in A Fool In Love. Or more notably, the "ba da da" refrain from this recent Song Of The Day winner.)
• Inclusion of backing vocals where they are not sung using the same melody/rhythm as the lead vocal(s), where they appear alone, or where they otherwise significantly differ from the lead vocals.
• Transcription of lyrics during fades, to the absolute point that the lyrics become inaudible.
For me, accuracy is paramount, but so is completeness. A good set of transcribed lyrics should fully document what is going on in a song, and as precisely as possible. Don't believe me? Watch the most recent round of American Idol auditions, and see how many people still get some of the most well-known songs terribly wrong. I find it unnerving to hear a rendition of "Lady Marmalade" coming across as something incomprehensible like "Itchy bitchy baklava ma, witchy scritchy ha ya gear..."
But I digress.  ;-) As far as extra notations, I would suggest removing them only if you intend to replace them with the actual lyrics. If anyone disagrees, they are most welcome to discuss it on the relevant talk page(s). But no "decisions from the sky" here—this is a community with a shared goal of accurate, complete lyrics. And you'll find many of us welcome any challenge to our opinions.
—  jF 23:56, 8 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] foxytunes

For a while now, a web extension called Foxytunes had a widget that used LyricWiki's site for lyrics (which is actually the way that I found my way here, a long time ago). In the last week, they have removed it, cutting us off from a lot of people. Assuming we do want our site on Foxytunes, I suggest that anyone who has Foxytunes to tell them that it's unfair. They seem to have replaced our page with Yahoo Lyrics, which hasn't worked for any songs that I tried to find (ironic), and I've seen Yahoo make some other great apps into crapheaps.
King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 20:43, 6 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] We don't need no steenkin' batches...

Übes apparently is forgetting to drop SOTD badges on a number of songs. Noted "Ghost Of A Texas Ladies' Man", "Alive & Kicking", and "Diamonds And Pearls", but there are several others in there that didn't get badges nominated by various people.

If this needs to go on ÜberBot's discussion page instead, let me know. Figured you'd want to know, in any case.

—  jF 00:13, 9 February 2008 (EST)

Lovely. Must have an early case of spring fever or something. I'll have to check on things, thanks!    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   00:00, 10 February 2008 (EST)


[edit] Phew...

I feared all my hard earned efforts may have been in vain (hee hee)

No, but seriously, immediately prior to reading your message on the Oasis track, I hit upon the section on covers contained within the pages for new users that you kindly directed me towards. I have noted all this and whilst I would ask for your forbearance while I get to grips with this whole Wikiing (?) thing (lol), I will at the very least commence my editing (and rework those pages I have created/spot along the way) by inserting the relevant 'cover' reference coding. I research all these tracks anyway, I get the original artist, the composers, the dates, links, etc., oh and I painstakingly annotate the lyrics too so it won't be a problem. And yes, my pursuits do somewhat reflect the fact that I am a bit of a perfectionist. A person who likes to get things right.

Unrelated I know, but I had a right chuckle to myself when reading the guidelines for capitalisation (i.e. capitalise the initial letter of ALL words in song title), since I was recently persuaded by a mod at Lastfm to change the way I have tagged my music for years and adopt the guidelines as set out by MusicBrainz. These, as you no doubt know, do not advocate the use of capitalisation, save for the initial letter of the first and last words..

Oh, what is a girl supposed to do???

Regards,

Red

[edit] Hello

Thanks for your welcome note.

I stupidly have started to clean up the Hawkwind Page - it has over 100 'Other Songs' on it, most of which are actual album tracks. I'm going to ignore the three or four dozen live compilations and concentrate on the 'core' albums. Nothing like starting at the deep-end!

[edit] Thanks for your help...

but it would be helpful to me to know which song you were refering to when you wrote 'I did see that you removed a song from an Other Songs list that you didn't first redirect or add to an album somewhere...' because I can't seem to locate this in my 'Watchlist'.

Also the page you were referring to when talking about Footer/links. If this is Robyn with Kleerup: With Every Heartbeat then yes all the external links in the footer work because this is in fact the correct artist name for that particular song, i.e. it is NOT in fact attributed solely to Robyn. Nor is it 'featuring Kleerup'. It IS 'Robyn With Kleerup'.

Which leads me to your question as to whether the Robyn with Kleerup artist page should be deleted. Well, as indicated above, that particular song was very much a collaboration between these two artists, so no I don't think it should. An interim solution would be a redirect to the Robyn page but seeing as it was an equal collaboration between these two artists I really don't see that as ideal. Maybe it's me, but I could find no template for collaborations. I could only find guidelines for 'featuring ARTIST NAME', which this track is not. That is why I decided to use the old style formatting, so I could at least seperate the two artists and display it correctly on song page. Although as you can see it did work, is there in fact a template to be used in such instances?

As for the pages I have edited thus far..well I am indeed very grateful to you for looking at them since I would like to know that I'm doing things right. The pages I was primarily concerned with however are those on which I have attached external links/links to Wikipedia pages. I was concerned because I haven't seen any links on other pages, other than those default links incorporated in the footer and I didn't know whether I was breaking some law or other (lol).

Finally, I would also be most grateful for your thoughts on the following:-

1. Why not simply delete page if it is mis-spelt and therefore duplicated? In other words, why clog the site up and retain it (somewhat confusingly) under 'Other songs' on artist page (only partially remedying this by redirecting it)? For example Stereophonics: Hurry Up & Wait

2. When is it appropriate to request deletion of an existing song page, as opposed to redirecting it?

Oh and btw, everything I know I have taught myself. As such I sometimes get a bit lost on terminology. Please forgive my ignorance on such occasions.

Regards,

Red

Hopefully I can cover everything....
The item removed and then re-added was on the Take That page: Never Wanna Let Out Go. No big whoop.
As for the Robyn/Robyn With Kleerup situation.... You would know better than I would, I imagine, what the differentiation is between the two. Amazon lists it as a Robyn album. (Amazon is usually half-baked with the album information, so isn't really trustworthy, however.) Last.fm seems to have Robyn feat. Kleerup almost as often as Robyn with Kleerup. The "With Kleerup" is prominent on the album cover, but I don't know if that is more of a special appearance thing, such as Neil Young & Crazy Horse albums, which is really and essentially a Neil Young album with his backing band mentioned, or a true duo/collaboration between the two artists. If it's the former, with it being essentially a Robyn album with Kleerup as a special appearance situation (like Queen & David Bowie doing "Under Pressure"), then the album should be listed under Robyn's artist page. If it is a true collaboration, then it should be listed under Robyn With Kleerup. Personally, I have a feeling it's more of a "Robyn" album, due to the use of "with" as opposed to "and". But as a fan, I'll let you make that decision. If another fan disagrees later, then who knows where things will end up. It just appears to me like a Robyn album with Kleerup mentioned on the cover to appeal to Kleerup fans. But once again...that's just my perception from waaaaaaay on the outside of things.
If you decide that the album (and songs) should be moved to Robyn With Kleerup (which means all album songs should be moved to have "Robyn With Kleerup" as the artist, as opposed to just "Robyn") that would eliminate the need for the hard-wired header (Song) template on those pages. Then, each page should have a "Related Artists" header, with each linking to the other. Also, the Robyn with Kleerup page should redirect to Robyn With Kleerup.
When it comes to redirecting vs. deleting misspelled pages, basically if the pagename is just horribly and hideously mangled, then deleting is perfectly fine. Especially if the page was created by a user, as opposed to the site Überbot. LyricWiki:Deletion shows what items are effortlessly deleted by the admins. The sticky situation comes, however, from Überbot scraping Lyrics from the web that have been mis-titled. If these mis-titled pages were merely deleted, as opposed to redirected, then the next time the bot grabbed lyrics there, the page would just be re-created and then deleted and so on and so on. The fact that the page was mis-titled originally also might be a clue that if someone was searching for those lyrics, that they might (perhaps...maybe...) search under that misspelled title. A lot of ifs there, I know, but in the end, a redirect takes very little server space, server power, etc., and might alleviate more headaches and hassles in the future.
No problem with the terminology. I'm no techie, just a dude with a sick need to sort and organize.  :-] You're a perfectionist, I'm an anal retentive analyzer and categorizer, we all have our little crosses to bear.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   00:40, 23 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] Haa haa

This made me curl up...'As a rule complier, I have stuck to these rules and adhered to them all my membership. However your signature is 746 characters long....' In fact, I'm still laughing now ;)

Redxx 21:46, 22 February 2008 (EST)

746? $*#@!, I coulda sworn I didn't go a bit over 729.  :-]
Ah well, I'm at 25 now! Yes, fit as a fiddle - thank you, Mr. Apollo!
(You do know of the Bonzo Dog Band, yes? Most in the States haven't. Most of it is pretty strange stuff, but I once cranked this song through some pretty wicked speakers, and it seriously shook the place up. I wasn't expecting it to be so clear for a recording around 40 years old. Plus, my secret desire is to have a t-shirt with "Five years ago I was a four stone apology...Today I am two separate gorillas!" on it. There, I've said it. :-] )    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   00:40, 23 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] Deletion Upgrade That You Missed Out On

Yeah, I found out that Teknomunk can get Janitor to ignore categories that he deems suitable. Good to know, huh?
By the way, what have you been smoking tonight? You've been as queer as a clockwork orange. Do please be careful editing in this state!
King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 02:49, 23 February 2008 (EST)

No smoking. (If only it could be blamed on that!) I've just got a strange sense of humor. (See my Britney limerick on my Pedlr page from a year ago. The link is on my User page.) I just don't get to show it that often here. All business and no time to chat...that sort of thing. Plus, it frightens the natives. I don't think Redxx is easily frightened by a dose of weirdness, though.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   12:00, 23 February 2008 (EST)
Nice... If you have an IRC client, you may stop by the channel for our site, we could always use a little life. (Shameless plug, I have no life, etc.)
- teknomunk (talk,E,歌,A) 14:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)
No, I'm not ;) In my book it's a definite plus!    Redxx    talk   17:19, 25 February 2008 (EST) <<< (hee hee - hope you don't mind..I'm not clever enough to change the style) Oh, and btw The Bonzo's (great band) - I had some album covers, etc. so I thought I would assist you on editing that page. Ok, you will no doubt find some errors, but I did my best x

[edit] Yeeeeeaaaa

You checking up on me? ;) No seriously thanks. I've been doing a lot of work on the Daniel Bedingfield page..It's proved quite challenging but a good learning experience.    Redxx    talk   00:23, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Just going through my Watchlist...that's all. shhhhhhhhh, there is no Big Brother you have seen nothing you have heard nothing
   Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   00:39, 27 February 2008 (EST)
Btw...don't know if it's your bag, but I would prefer a different style for my signature that incorporates the 'talk' link but differs to yours, but like I say I'm not clever enough to change the formatting myself. Besides I haven't quite done it right. So if you ever find yourself sitting there bored up to the eyeballs, twiddling your thumbs, maybe you could help me out...?    Redxx    talk   10.46, 27 February 2008 (GMT)

[edit] New Song template

I had a look at the page and I thought the new information was good, but I was somewhat dissatisfied with the overall layout, so I changed it. Have a look at it and tell me what you think. Also, I changed the main template page so that it includes the documentation from a separate page so that changes to the documentation don't cause all the pages that include {{Song}} to be updated (which is just about every page in the wiki).
- teknomunk (talk,E,歌,A) 03:12, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Looks good (better than before) and a good idea with how to handle the documentation. I'm thinking that all of the "official" templates, such as SongFooter, Album, Hometown, etc. should have this. Then, under the Help:Template information, the documentation page could be linked to, instead of the actual template.
I had a question about the compilation parameter, however. What should be done about "jukebox"-type albums, that are a complete mix of artists and don't really have an Artist to file things under? (The "Wow" series, for example.)    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   17:02, 28 February 2008 (EST)
I have used the type 'soundtrack' as there is no artist attached to the album, but if there is an artist (say, "Wow") that can be specified using albumartist (at least I think...). I can't seem to remember if this type of series has been discussed yet or not, but if so, another line can be added to the quick reference section for such a type of release.
- teknomunk (talk,E,歌,A) 17:39, 28 February 2008 (EST)

[edit] Oasis songs/possible covers

"All You Need is Love" is the only song on that list that I've seen Oasis play. If I search for their performance of that Beatles song on YouTube, it displays multiple results/videos. But, say I search for "Oasis Mrs. Robinson", I get absolutely nothing. So that's why I'm a little skeptical on if they ever actually played it. Now, I'm not saying that if it isn't on YouTube, then it doesn't exist, but I feel that YouTube, in some way, helps determine if songs are actually real.

I made a list for "Extra Songs" because apparently they're unreleased demos by the band. I personally never knew they existed. I just wanted to separate songs that I knew Oasis sang against songs, (such as "Mrs. Robinson") that I'm not sure they ever did. I'll change the title to "Demos" just to make it a little more clearer.

KirbyMaster14 20:59, 28 February 2008 (EST)

The YouTube check is a nice idea! That certainly doesn't help the cause for Mrs. Robinson, but I still find it hard to believe that someone somewhere along the line mistook Simon & Garfunkel for Oasis. (Not as bad as Simon & Garfunkel for Metallica, perhaps, but still....) Others that you requested for deletion I deleted, but that four that are left are songs that are often covered by other bands.
Extra songs to Demos is a very good solution. Makes the list a little more clear as to what is being listed.
   Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   23:11, 28 February 2008 (EST)
I just wanted to add my two-pennyworth to the aforementioned. I have spent many a long hour researching Oasis/Noel Gallagher. I also have a lot of their stuff (official and unofficial). I also use a variety of sources, including YouTube, fan bases and bootleg sites to verify the validity of all the music I obtain. I haven't looked at the list in question, but I have never come across either Noel or Oasis covering Mrs. Robinson. That is of course not to say they never have.    Redxx    talk   07:15, 29 February 2008 (EST)
It's probably the Lemonheads version as that's the one that ends up on most versions of the Oasis 'Covers CD' that have been kicking around since 2001.    Redking    talk  
Hey Kiefer this is weird. Why hasn't Redking got a Userpage? I left him a message and flicked to his Userpage and just got a blank template. Is a userpage only created if/when we create it ourselves? Another thing, unless we have two active Redkings, I think he may have inadvertently created another account when creating his signature, i.e. Redking without a capital 'K' and RedKing with a capital 'K'. I'm on the case tho' so don't worry about it. Just thought I'd bring it to your attention is all.
 ♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪Talk 11:01, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Userpages are created only by the User. Wikiquette is generally that only the User should edit that page. That's the User's public face on the wiki. That also makes it easier to spot UserPage vandalism on the Recent Changes page. I'm guessing that RedKing has accidentally linked to Redking. I put a note on his page.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   15:21, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Yup, I managed to over-reach myself with the mark-up. That'll teach me to steal / borrow / imitate / homage (delete are required) somebody else's work. DOH! :o)
I've fixed it to point to 'RedKing' and I've no idea with regards to the 'Redking' version. I'm going to follow Redxx's comprehensive instructions to try and ensure I don't mung it up again. Thanks for the help. RedKing

[edit] K....so what d' ya think??

 ♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪Talk 13:20, 4 March 2008 (EST)

Improvement or what? Reckon I must be cleverer than I think I am! But me thinks that maybe until I get to become a real expert (like next week or something...hee hee) I should drop the 'Contributions' link. I mean...do I really want to broadcast how many mistakes I make in a day? (lol) Regards.

Rflmao...After I posted the aforementioned message I happened to notice our friend Redking's signature (hee hee) but I'm a great believer in that 'Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery' Charles Caleb Colton. And no doubt you'll also be pleased to know that I finally figured out how to do signature right i.e. so as to display in the edit box without the lengthy code...just can't figure out how to get it to do the date..  ♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪Talk 20:01, 4 March 2008 (GMT)

Looks spiffy! Somehow I was expecting something a little more "hardcore" from a metalhead, though.  :-] I don't think the contributions link is all that necessary, personally. Like you say, why broadcast your swath of destruction? If they want to know where you've sacked & pillaged, let them make that extra click to your User Page!    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   22:02, 4 March 2008 (EST)
Nah, I'm mellowed out now (I believe all that funny green stuff I had in my youth contributed to that..I mean, look at James Taylor..hee hee). Yes good comments about my signature. As I say I might well ditch the contributions link. I'm certainly ::::::considering it. Until, as I say, I get the real hang of things.
Thanks for pointing me in the direction of Archives btw. I have set mine up now and moved some messages to there.
And apologies, I know I didn't explain it very well, but what I meant with regards to the full stops is that they are built into the templates (for example the song and cover templates), and these templates are not designed in such a way as to take into account that an editor might just want to include a few additional words before ending the sentence. For example "This song was performed by Stereophonics." One might wish to add "on the 14th of December 2007". Ok, a minor annoyance I know. And yes, I could simply adjust my composition to overcome this problem. I'm just hoping that someone will consider amending the template to allow the editor the option of deleting this full stop. I hope that makes better sense now (lol)
Oh and you'll no doubt be pleased to know that you won't have to suffer all the html code on your page any longer when I leave you a message because someone took pity on me and helped me out with my signature problems (3 guesses as to who - lol) All in all a good day's work I'd say. And on that note I think I'll go to bed. Regards
 ♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪Talk 22:33, 4 March 2008 (EST)
Are you implying that James Taylor was once hardcore? Sweet Baby James?!?!?!?
As for the added stuff to the template, probably that is something that can be bulleted above or below the lyrics. You know: * Recorded December 14th, 2007 at Sound Slave Studios, New York City.
Yeah, a template is nice for longer, more complicated sigs, ain't it?    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   22:49, 4 March 2008 (EST)
Rflmao@JT and "hardcore" No, I meant the exact opposite. Not a good analogy I know, since to be honest JT did one hell of a lot more bad stuff in his mis-spent youth than smoke a little green. (Unlike me I hasten to add - lol) But you gotta agree - the guy does write some real mellowed out tunes! "When this old world is getting me down..." Actually, I think Carole King may have written that. 'This song was performed by Redxx and is a cover of "Up On The Roof" by Carole King FULL STOP' (hee hee) Just be thankful you can't actually hear me sing ;)
 ♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪Talk 06:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)
On a somewhat related note, James Taylor, Bonnie Raitt, Elton John, Linda Ronstact, & Don Henley performed on Randy Newman's "Faust" album. I think it was written to be an actual musical, but was only performed briefly, or perhaps only for this recording. JT plays God, Don Henley plays Faust, and Randy Newman plays the Devil. The ballads are the better songs on the album - especially "Feels Like Home" by Bonnie Raitt, which I heard used (although not her singing) on a TV show last year. "Relax, Enjoy Yourself" is hilarious with JT playing the God part totally sunny and bright (so anti-hardcore!) with Randy Newman's Devil soooo over the Pollyanna attitude.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   15:21, 5 March 2008 (EST)
I've been a fan of JT's since the 70's and have most of his albums but I must confess I never knew of his involvement in this project. So thanks for the heads up! I reckon I might just have to seek this album out now.
Lol@JT playing God. All the funnier since he's publicly declared himself to be an atheist...or is that an agnostic? Oh what the heck! I'm sure a belief in 'him upstairs' wasn't an essential requirement for the role. Lol.
 ♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪Talk 19:10, 5 March 2008 (EST) <<<<< note NO 'Contributions' (hee hee)

[edit] A Question

Kiefer, do you by chance have Mozilla Firefox?
King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 18:38, 4 March 2008 (EST)

I have Firefox, as well as IE, MSN Explorer, & Opera. I tend to use IE7 with the site.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   21:51, 4 March 2008 (EST)
Ok. The reason I ask is Firefox has an addon called Textcomplete. You do a lot of formatting and this has shaved tons of time off editing for me. I wanted to recommend it, and so far I haven't found that sort of thing for IE.
King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 22:19, 4 March 2008 (EST)
Cool, I'll check it out. Might be a reason to use Firefox more. (IE7 just makes the site look prettier for some reason.)    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   22:51, 4 March 2008 (EST)
I must warn you, once you go Firefox, you never go back. There is so much more available under the hood you'll forget what IE7 is. Of course, I might be biased a little... (insert grin here)
King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 03:26, 5 March 2008 (EST)
I'll second that Kingnee! Once you commit to using Firefox you realise what you've been missing and you never want to go back. I had myself been recommending to all my friends to use Firefox for donkey's years but although I have always installed it on all my pc's, until very recently I wasn't using this myself. Knowing it is supposed to be far better, safer, etc. than IE, I had of course tried on a number of occasions over the years to convince myself to use it. Regrettably however, I was simply too used to using IE. I recall that I preferred the favourites/bookmark system in IE. I also found it a tad frustrating (and still do!!) that you can't send a shortcut link to your desktop as you can with IE.
Another reason I continued to use IE was because of it's integration with the Microsoft Office applications such as 'Word'. I still find it very frustrating, when creating links in 'Word' documents to pages I have browsed on the web, that 'Word' doesn't pick up/ignores the sites browsed in Firefox.
The advantages to using Firefox however, greatly outweigh the disadvantages. For example - all the add-ons you can obtain that assist and make browsing a more pleasurable experience. Also the fact that you can easily add a lot of our favourite sites to the search bar, e.g. LyricWiki, Wikipedia, Musicbrainz, Discogs, AMG, etc. and directly access their search facility without going to the site first (a definite time saver!).
With regards to IE7 - I have heard of a number of people having problems with IE7 and also having great difficulty uninstalling this (those who don't image their drives of course - lol) and though I agree that it does look more streamnlined, I think I still prefer all the knobs and buttons of IE6.
As for the add-on Kingnee - I have downloaded it. I haven't got the foggiest how to use it mind (lol), but I'm sure it will prove itself a welcome add-ition (hee hee)
 ♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪Talk 08:12, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Yes, Firefox is wonderful. The main item that is better with Firefox at the moment for me is that it doesn't have the button to close your current tab actually on the frickin' tab. The number of times that I've accidentally closed the next tab over by lingering too long with my mouse click is astronomical. But, this site is sooooo much prettier in IE7. So, it's all LyricWiki's fault! But I think that there's been an update of Firefox that I haven't grabbed yet, so perhaps your gentle pressure will "convert" me once again to the magical world of Firefox. I seem to recall that I once grabbed an addon that would "animate" Wikipedia changes. I wonder if that would work here...?    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   14:41, 5 March 2008 (EST)
No button to close your current tab in Firefox? No problem amigo! Try this 'ColourfulTabs' Developer website >>> I certainly wouldn't be without this particular add on and guess what? It is also very pretty (hee hee)
My next recommendation is not simply useful, but essential for any Wikipedian 'Wikimedia+'
And this one is also useful but I confess it did kinda got on my nerves after a while 'Googlepedia'.  ♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪Talk 17:38, 5 March 2008 (EST)
No, I think you misunderstood. (My sentence wasn't very clear, unfortunately.) I like Firefox because it doesn't have the tab-closing button on the tab itself. It has it in a relatively safe location. IE7 has it right on the tab, and when I close one, the next one takes its place and if I lingered too long with my click or accidentally clicked twice, then bye-bye second tab! Really dumb. As usual, Microsoft added something to make things "easier", that instead caused more problems then it solved.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   22:50, 5 March 2008 (EST)
AAh..No my fault..I didn't read it properly ;)  ♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪Talk 07:19, 6 March 2008 (EST)
I'd like to know how it looks different, I checked that out, and I could not really tell! You'll have to tell me what I am missing out on. Granted there are quirks, but 99% of the time, someone else has thought the same thing and made an addon to augment it.
Have fun with it, and happy editing!
King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 19:28, 5 March 2008 (EST)
PS. I even found an addon called IE tab, which uses IE page renderer, so you can flip back and forth in firefox with a button on the status bar. So there, you can have the cake, and eat it too!
I think that my version of Firefox doesn't anti-alias the text, while IE7 does. (My sig also goes to a rounded box in Firefox, while in IE7 it's a straight-edged box.) As for the wikianimator, I did have it, it does work here, and the download is at http://phiffer.org/projects/wikipedia-animate/. I'm going to test it on a page that lately has been having some edit wars, I think, to see what it shows. Do you know of a way to allow for tabbing like in IE7, where the new tab goes to the immediate right, as opposed to the far right? Now that I'm using Firefox, that's an annoyance. I don't want to hunt for the new tab that I've opened; I want it right next door!    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   22:50, 5 March 2008 (EST)
The Wikianimator is quite nifty. I tested it out on some pages I was just working on, and it works pretty well. It adds a nice touch
Tab Mix Plus will do what you are looking for. Options -> Events -> Tab Opening -> select to open new tabs next to old one. Tab Mix will do a lot for you, I'd say that it is one of the more powerful addons, along with the All in One Sidebar, Session Manager, and Toolbar Buttons. If you wanted, I could probably send you a single .xpi that has several addons that I would recommend (there is even an addon for that!).
I hope that I am not sounding like I am beating you over the head with this stuff.
Last thing I swear: the reason that firefox rounds your signature is you have several -moz- tags in the signature. I actually thought that you knew it looked rounded, I guess I never checked when I made your sig for you.
King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 23:10, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Thanks for the info. You sure know your way around Firefox! I "borrowed" the basic code from another wikisite, and I figured that the -moz- tags did something, but I thought I tested it in both when I was trying to simplify things, and didn't notice any difference. I must not have looked very close! I am also currently downloading the latest version of Firefox. I was at a pitiful 1.0.7, I guess. 2.0.0.12 coming my way! (I had to do this to try out the TextComplete add-on.)
Just thinking here: perhaps a page here at LW with a list of Firefox extension suggestions and descriptions might be nice. If you're willing, just set one up at User:Kingnee1114lyrics/Firefox_Extensions. If it gets really groovy then it can be copied or moved to a more mainstream location. If it helps me, then it can certainly help others. Wading through add-ons and figuring out what is useful and what is junk isn't always that simple. The description on some of these add-ons about what they actually do is pretty sparse/pitiful, too.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   23:24, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Trust me about the -moz- thing: I was winging it. Most of the stuff I do is of the same thread of "if I twiddle with this, what happens?" Half the time that ends up as a mess, such as an attempt of making a template with switches the first time. A funny thing: I did a very similar thing with Firefox. Back when it was really new, and was basically Netscape with a palette swap, I tried it, hated it, and only re-found it about a year ago, when my brother forced me to try it.
I think I will do that extensions page. I'll try to make a little to-do about different addons. I will agree that the addons page for each is a lot of the time really lame, but for right now, I will provide a description to the best of my skills, then a link to the page. Text Complete will be at the top, considering how much easier it makes things.
So I will post a few links for now (probably you, redxx and I will be the only ones who will even know it exists right away)
King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 23:51, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Great idea! ♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪Talk 07:19, 6 March 2008 (EST)

[edit] Bonzo Dog...

When you got a spare minute could you have a look at the 'song' in the other category for me please and tell me what I am doing wrong with this. Only I've redirected a few albums before, but this one just keeps coming back and I just can't figure out why. All I know is it doesn't look quite the same on the album page as the others I've redirected. Thanks  ♫Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪Talk 20:02, 5 March 2008 (EST) <<<< currently watching R.E.M. Live in Dublin on TV

I checked it out, and it is fixed. (it was showing up as "1.redirect [[]]", which is odd)
King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 20:07, 5 March 2008 (EST)

[edit] User:Kingnee1114lyrics/Firefox Extensions

This thing is off the chain! I can't imagine the traffic when I actually tell people about this. And thank you, I am glad that it is appealing. I think what I will eventually do, as this seems to be going somewhere, is break it up into several pages with a central point. I do have it broken up a bit now, between LyricWiki oriented, firefox-greenhorn (the Kiefers :D ) oriented, and then the User_Defined spot where the user recommended ones will go if they don't fit with the first two, or the 3rd, advanced, group I have planned.
This is definitely very early, and I was planning on going the direction that you just mentioned, but I do want to keep some of the more 'general purpose' add-ons too. King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 02:00, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Also, I should ask: How has Firefox been treating you? Are you hooked yet?
I think things are going really well, also! I like the divisions (Kiefers, huh? *sigh*  ;]) and the "Recommended by" lines. Although, I notice that my Wikipedia Animate 1.0 from the link above isn't on the page. (It requires Greasemonkey, which should be mentioned.) Even greenhorns like myself have good stuff!
I actually haven't had much time on the computer (and therefore with Firefox) yet this week. So I wouldn't say "hooked", but I'm circling the line! (Seriously, I think all of these extensions and the program's versatility are what put Firefox as the #1 browser. It's all a matter of how one pimps their ride.)    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   22:42, 7 March 2008 (EST)
I am getting there. I was not sure whether I wanted to recommend that, with a note that it requires Greasemonkey, or have Greasemonkey with a note about that too. I took a break from it for a bit, because I wasn't getting much done around the rest of LW (I start to feel to vain if I work all on my own things too much, I know, I'm probably nuts). Also, you can post anything you'd like on that page. I limited it to admin only, just to keep things organized...Also, I cannot take credit for the "Recommended by" line, that was all Redxx.