Talk:LyricWiki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on December 4, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
Deletion review A deletion review for LyricWiki article was concluded on 26 May 2008. The result of the discussion was closure endorsed.

Contents

[edit] Surprise!

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

It had, it just got deleted. User_talk:SColombo#Lyric_Wiki_Article. 137.229.57.162 12:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
^ that was me. DevastatorIIC 12:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia?

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

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. --WillMak050389 19:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whaddaya do for money, honey?

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

[edit] Removed "Feature list"

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 Webservice [1]
  • Media player plugins and extensions for Winamp, Amarok, Windows Media Player, musikCube, foobar2000, etc. [2]
  • "LyricWiki Challenge" Facebook Application

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

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 webservice API (source: [3]). This API has been leveraged to create plugins for many media players including Winamp, Amarok, Windows Media Player, musikCube, foobar2000, and more [4].

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 [5]. [...]

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)
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.  ♫ Яєdxx ♪♫♪♫♪Talk 02:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Link to site

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).

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)