I suggest to add a guideline forbidding the addition of lyrics URL with no lyrics inside (be they placeholders, or instrumental / no lyrics).
I’ve already seen both:
What’s wrong with adding a link to Genius on instrumentals? I see nothing wrong with that at all.
It is cluttering. It contains no data and never will. It occupies resources in MBS for worse than nothing. You get doubts about it really being instrumental or not, so you click, and you waste your time.
For the sake of linking external sites, I think it should be allowed. Instrumental pages on lyrics sites are still the same work, since works can be marked as instrumental on a relationship anyways. Perhaps lyrics site links could have a second relation type allowed for specifically instrumental pages ‘other databases’ or similar. Personally, it’s not a huge issue for me since most instrumentals on genius end up with -instrumental in the slug anyways.
The links are still valuable to have IMO, since it still links data from one site to another, and it’s not like there’s many other links that be applied to a work.
This topic addresses two kinds of apparently useless work-URL relationships:
@reosarevok already requested to not add these:
Please do not add empty lyrics pages. Those are entirely useless, and they might never be filled. The pages can be added once the lyrics exist.
@tigerman325 and @Lioncat6, thanks for your answers, but I did not read any benefits with these empty pages, yet.
I think every bit of extra information is welcome. (I’m not talking about the empty pages I agree with you there).
Please elaborate which extra information?
Extra means additional.
The work edit history should already contain proof/reference to back up the visible work [No lyrics] attribute.
The Genius link confirms it’s a instrumental, so that is extra information. So I think it’s worth to put the Genius link there
Genius sometimes includes a fair amount of extra information nowadays rather than just the lyrics, so it could potentially be useful in some cases, I guess.
Genius sometimes includes a fair amount of extra information nowadays
From my experience recently with interacting with a bunch of genius moderators, the site has been attempting to add a lot more metadata, notably with the addition of some basic artist relations and more advanced track and album level relationships.
If nothing else, they do provide some additional information for works and it allows linking the two sites which is beneficial for several use cases I’ve come up with.
Just to clarify, the features and relationships that @Lioncat6 mentioned are already live on the site, not just planned (although I don’t know what un-implemented features remain). Of course, there are also “song bios”, user comments, embedded audio/video, Q&A and such, which have been features for years. The Q&A sometimes includes remarks from the artist about the work or performance.
For what it’s worth, I also agree with the point @Tiske_Tisja made about positive assertion that a song is an instrumental. Here’s one of the uses for this: Some EDM tracks are long, and have only a few words in an 8-minute mix. The presence, absence, and placement of sparse vocal samples can be an identifying characteristic if you don’t know the name of the mix you’re looking for.
Genius is potentially more precise with the “instrumental” designation. LyricWiki used to label songs “instrumentals” if they were sung entirely in vocables, and they forbade lyrics sung in an unspecified language. Genius has no such restrictions, so if a song is labelled an instrumental, it is more likely to be so.
Ah… Genius sounds like 
hot stuff in this topic.
But In my experience, Genius contains no useful info, has many typos in the lyrics (especially in French) and its user comments are mostly dumb.
Typo’s are no reason, I’m spending days fixing typo’s in MB. No website is without typo’s