Talk:LyricWiki

This article was nominated for deletion on December 4, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion review on 26 May 2008. The result of the discussion was closure endorsed.

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 May 2009. The result of the discussion was keep.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance).

Songs

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Surprise![edit]

I'm surprised that no one else had put this article up yet!!!! Sr13 02:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It had, it just got deleted. User_talk:SColombo#Lyric_Wiki_Article. 137.229.57.162 12:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^ that was me. DevastatorIIC 12:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia?[edit]

Why doesn't Wikimedia have a lyrics database? Would it be possible to start one?Sirmadness 12:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem they have is it's hard to figure out all of the legal copyright issues, and WikiMedia, I'm guessing, just doesn't want to deal with it because of the difficulty of legal rules. --Will Mak 050389 19:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource hosts free content lyrics. —Piet Delport (talk) 2009-10-16 07:10

Whaddaya do for money, honey?[edit]

Is Lyricwiki a for-profit or a nonprofit outfit? Thanks, Maikel (talk) 19:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And do they plaster their pages with adverts and ring tones and other sorts of crap that slow it down for those with low bandwidth connections and/or slow computers? Or is it clean, and hence the go-to source? 78.147.62.12 (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "Feature list"[edit]

I've removed the whole "feature list" section, as it was a listing of unsourced claims. Anyone should feel free to re-add this statements in the form os sourced prose. Please, understand that links to their official website is not considered reliable sources.

Over 666,000 content pages^[1]
"Song of the Day" & "Album of the Week" featurettes
Originally a no-banner, no-popup policy, but since April 2007, the site has been forced to include banner ads due to financial problems^[2]
Feed of top iTunes songs for quick access on Main Page
SOAP Web service [www.lyricwiki.org/LyricWiki:SOAP]
Media player plugins and extensions for Winamp, Amarok, Windows Media Player, musikCube, foobar2000, etc. [www.lyricwiki.org/LyricWiki:Plugins]
"LyricWiki Challenge" Facebook Application

^ [www.lyricwiki.org/Special:Statistics Statistics - lyrics from LyricWiki]
^ [www.lyricwiki.org/LyricWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive/2007_March_10_-_2007_March_26#The_Good_News..._is_The_Bad_News LyricWiki advertisement talks]

Of course, an extensive "feature" listing is not necessarily encyclopedic.
--Damiens.rf 17:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The article seems anemic (and is thus a stub now) without any of this information. Here's a crack at sourced-prose. I'd appreciate feedback/help before adding it:

[...] The site allows programmatic access to the contents of its database through a web API (source: [1]). This API has been leveraged to create plugins for many media players including Winamp, Amarok, Windows Media Player, musikCube, foobar2000, and more [www.lyricwiki.org/LyricWiki:Plugins].

LyricWiki has also released a Facebook application called "LyricWiki Challenge" which is a social, competitive game based on identifying lyrics from popular songs in several genres [2]. [...]

It seems to me that the only other data from the bulleted list that should go in prose might be the "Song/Album of the Day/Week" part, but that's up to debate. It seems as though the number of pages - aka: size of database - would be information for the infobox if anything, but I doubt that's in the template.

I do disagree on one point: I think the official site could be a source on several encyclopedic things. Obviously things such as statistics they could counterfeit if they modified the MediaWiki software, but resources - such as the list of plugins - or features - such as the iTunes list - can easily be proven to exist just by linking directly to them.

208.40.188.83 (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts with the above. So far as I am personally concerned, LyricWiki is the best lyric site on the web. And due to it's ever increasing popularity, I certainly believe that it's article page should remain on this site. Although I often find myself questioning the thought process of some of the senior editors on here, I can only but think that the reason this article has been flagged for possible deletion is because the afore mentioned information/feature list has been removed. As such it could now be considered that there is insufficient content on the page. Whilst many of these stub pages do appear to exist undisturbed on this site, I have nevertheless frequently seen this "flagged for deletion" template on stub pages. I could be wrong, but if you have the expertise to restore the information in the correct format then it might just prevent the page from being deleted. _♫ Яєd_xx_♪♫♪_♫♪^Talk 02:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of WP:BOLD, I'm going to move the attempted more-prose-like content above onto the page (and try to expand upon it). If anyone is more eloquent, I'd love the help. It seems a shame (and inappropriate) for this article to languish as a stub.

-SColombo (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to site[edit]

In above mentioned deletion review concerns were raised about the link to the Lyricwiki site violating either the letter or the spirit of Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works with the suggestion to at the least enclose it in "nowiki" tags. While the idea garnered some support, it isn't really the realm of DRV so it should be settled here--Tikiwont (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Not to split hairs, but the policy advises "do not link to that copy of the work". The spirit of this, for example, is not editing the Indiana Jones article to add a link to an illegal download of the movie on BitTorrent. It is not a blanket ban on links to sites that somewhere on the site contain copyrighted work, perhaps against the yet-unstated wishes of the copyright holder, otherwise we couldn't link to YouTube or even Google. So in other words, I think we're fine leaving the link up. --Rividian (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki[edit]

Would it considered appropriate to put in the article that LyricWiki is in the InterWiki Map? It seems relevant to wiki'ers but not to encyclopedic browsers in general. -SColombo (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that all interwiki links are reverted as links to a copyright violation, I don't think so. I'm surprised that the interwiki function hasn't been disabled yet.—Kww(talk) 00:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them would be copyright violations. For example, public domain lyrics. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that there is a vanishingly small percentage of non-infringing materials. Pirates occasionally steal things that were free anyway.—Kww(talk) 14:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History, Operations, etc.[edit]

People have mentioned that the article could use more history or information about how it is run (possibly the server architecture, etc?), but how can that be sourced? Does a site just need to make a post on their blog about their history or architecture or would that be considered a bad source since it's primary. The confusing part is that the only way this information would ever be able to come out is somehow through the source itself. For instance, if someone interviewed people in charge of running a given site. -SColombo (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs and other self-published sources are generally considered unacceptable unless your work related to LyricWiki has already been published by a reliable third party publication, and even then it has to be used carefully. If you got interviewed by a reliable third party source reputed for fact-checking and accuracy, then we could source that with no problems. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No API anymore?[edit]

Got the following message, when trying to download lyrics with Quod Libet:

Unfortunately, due to licensing restrictions from some of the major music publishers we can no longer return lyrics through the LyricWiki API (where this application gets some or all of its lyrics).
The lyrics for this song can be found at the following URL: http://lyricwiki.org/Razorlight:Wire_To_Wire

(Please note: this is not the fault of the developer who created this application, but is a restriction imposed by the music publishers themselves.)

--80.130.215.178 (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full story. --Will Mak 050389 05:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, would it be possible, that LyricWiki forced this? So that their ads get displayed? --80.130.186.226 (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LyricWiki migrated to Wikia[edit]

Please update article with this info. --201.223.71.86 (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://lyricwiki.org/index.php?title=LyricWiki:Copyrights&oldid=1870076
Triggered by \blyricwiki\.org\b on the global blacklist
http://lyricwiki.org/index.php?title=LyricWiki:Plugins&oldid=4188961
Triggered by \blyricwiki\.org\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting page move[edit]

Hey, I'm not 100% if page move suggestions go on an article's talk page, but I would like to suggest that this page be moved to "LyricWikia", according with its new name. It has been renamed I think a couple of months ago (April). That it is now LyricWikia can be seen from their Special:WikiStats and their wordmark. Since these wiki stats are afaik automatically generated, this would be an objective source for them having a new name.

YATTA ヽ( ° ヮ° )ﾉ {wikia} ☆ |　2014年07月16日、05:45:39

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on LyricWiki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061231020800/http://www.webuser.co.uk:80/sites/site_review.php?rev_id=3139 to http://www.webuser.co.uk/sites/site_review.php?rev_id=3139

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC) – Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 17:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 January 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by page mover) Simplexity22 (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrically → LyricWiki – It isn't clear to me where the title "Lyrically" comes from, though I'm guessing it was called this at one time or another. I think the article's title should be LyricWiki per WP:COMMONNAME. ^Falling_Gravity 07:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. After checking the page-move logs:

...it seems that input from editors Singularity, PrimeHunter and Superdadsuper would benefit this discussion. At this point, knowing that the website continues to sport the COMMONNAME, "LyricWiki" as proposed by the nom, I tend to support reverting back to the title that has been stable since 2006 (even a "no consensus" decision would require reverting back to "LyricWiki"). Where is the evidence (reliable sources) that the website's common name, LyricWiki, should not be used as this article's title? Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 17:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 19:08, 22 May 2017‎ Superdadsuper moved page LyricWikia to Lyrically: Renaming to promote official name)

It's hard to say this ever had an "official name" when the name can be boldly changed at any time. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

<heh> Used to do some lyrics work here and I always knew them as "LyricWiki", so I get a "gut feeling" when I see two "official names" boldly changed to: first "LyricWikia" and then "Lyrically". So still wonderin' what's up with all that. Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 17:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Everything on their main page [3] has said LyricWiki since the page was protected January 5 so that should be the name. Their magic word {{SITENAME}} also says LyricWiki. The Internet Archive shows three different names on their main page when the article was moved from LyricWikia to Lyrically: "Lyrically", "LyricWiki" and "LyricWikia". At least they got their act together. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lyrically. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC) – Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 17:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lyric Wiki is not closed[edit]

I'm seeing that the wiki is not closed. Can somebody edit this? Baris6161TURK (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sad News...[edit]

So I went on the LyricWiki recently, and I just found out that it will be closed by Fandom on September 21. I've checked that wiki a lot during my childhood. Now it's going to be gone forever.--2601:194:480:C790:54D7:A062:9DE6:27CB (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the admins there really ran the site into the ground, deliberately breaking the terms of service repeatedly. They made it so that many persons contributions are totally wasted. A sad situation all around but it's totally avoidable. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

LyricWiki Logo 2014-present.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [www.lyricwiki.org/Special:Statistics Statistics - lyrics from LyricWiki]

[2] [www.lyricwiki.org/LyricWiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive/2007_March_10_-_2007_March_26#The_Good_News..._is_The_Bad_News LyricWiki advertisement talks]

[1]

[2]