FANDOM

2,054,106 Pages

Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current LyricWiki talk page.
LyricWiki talk archive for Administrators Portal
<< November - December 2008 January - February 2009 March - ? >>

January

Happy New Year

Hope it holds all good things for you.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 02:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Happy New Year to all!    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Page Ranking - Certificate on talk page

Aqua, (sorry didn't quite know where to post this) do you remember when I first asked about putting certificate on talk page you told me we couldn't because it would chuck the song/artist/album into every category needing help? Well it doesn't. So why can't we? Especially as this is deterring users from enlisting? And others have expressed their disappointment with having to do this? See Talk:Elephant_Man  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 00:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? {{Cert}} is put on the talk page! I don't understand. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 06:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
What I mean is a template that users can actually use, i.e.
{{Star Box}}
{{Song Rank|Green}}
{{Song Info
|fLetter   = unknown
|album     = unknown
|artist    = unknown
|song      = unknown
|video     = unknown
|audio     = unknown
|language  = unknown
|asin      = unknown
|iTunes    = unknown
|wikipedia = unknown
|credits   = unknown
}}
{{Watcher|}}
<!--{{Cert|Username of certifier|~~~~~}}--> 
|}
__TOC__

as opposed to:

{{Star Box}}
{{Song Rank|Green}}
<!-- Watcher -->
<!-- Cert -->
|}
__TOC__

<!--
The text above sets up Page Ranking info.
If you were just trying to comment on the page, please do so below.
-->
--— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redxx (talkcontribs).
OK, I'm am SOOOO lost. Please tell me what you propose. We should move the star-box-everything to the song page? The plan with Semantic is that the Cert and Watcher will be on the song page and there will be nothing on the talk page except an automatic list of what's needed, which is based on the song pages without taking parameters. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 16:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Rfl@— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redxx (talkcontribs). thanks ;) Now I'm the one who's lost. When I first proposed this (in the early days of PR) you told me that we couldn't put a working template on each talk page because if the parameters were the default "incomplete", this would chuck the page into every "needing help" category going. I accepted that because it made sense. But in actual fact this is not the case. The virgin template with all parmeters "incomplete" does not categorise the song into any category at all. So what I'm saying is why can't we put an automatic list of what's needed on the talk page now? As opposed to a template that's not much use to anyone (and from the feedback from some of our users seems to be more of an annoyance)?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 16:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I get it. Sure, that would be fine. But, like I said, the talk page will consist simply of one template that will automatically readout what's missing from the song page. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 02:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that would be better option and likely to encourage a lot more of our users to enlist. In fact I'd put good money on it ;) Here is another user's opinion that can be added to those I've already seen since the outset of this. >>>Rainbow Dragon's post. It doesn't have to be done all at once (job queue), but seems to me it would be greatly appreciated by many. What say you?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 03:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It should probably be a bot, since lots of talk pages have text already. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 05:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
After sleeping on this, the only problem I envisage is if the certificate is alreay on the talk page it nigh on will double our number of pages. That could be a problem. So could it be done in such a way as it is at present, i.e. click on talk page tab and it creates the necessary gubbins?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 13:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I know Sean could whip that off no sweat. We'd have to get a bot to do the existing talk pages, however. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 14:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Green check 6x9 beat him to it ;) You have to save the first page that appears and then go back in. ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 20:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

new type of vandalism

Undercurrents and Competency. Both of them over 100KB. Might be a good idea to restrict the size of newly created pages to something less than unlimited...

The server is pretty slow, btw. cheers ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 02:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, similar stuff happened on my wiki. Must be a new fad. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 16:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Praise...

I just wanted to extol some praise on whoever thought of Artist header. I believe it was Aqua. Not only do I think it enlivens the page and fills that empty white space by the side of TOC (wasted white space = one of Redxx's pet hates), but by having official site so obviously on the page it encourages a visit and by doing so I am finding more and more that artists often list the lyrics of their songs on their sites. Case in point, I followed Echo today through Bill Withers and found lots of empty song links on his page. I haven't yet finished transposing them all.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 19:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There you go Aqua >>> note the bit about Artist Header at the end  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 18:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks guys. I've been riding on the coat-tails of that one for a while now. ... Wait til semantic comes. You will see me kick @$$ like a three leg man at a smack down! --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 23:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear. Remind me to take an extended break at that time, as you're gonna be a nightmare...Rfl  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 01:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Songs

This is concerning the categories of songs by their first letter: Before I go reverting this, I just want to explain. EchoSierra applied the {{CatAZ}}, with the first parameter filled in. Unfortunately this does not have the desired effect because pages are sorted by their full page name, and therefore the artist's name. So, if the first parameter is specified, the links only go to the artists that have the same starting letter as the song category. For example, see this edit/example. So, again, just writing this here to explain before I revert. --WillMak050389 23:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
PS: Sorry ES...

thanks for the corrections Will, I was trying to simulate a way to jump to a certain section within the category rather than clicking "next 200", "prev 200" so many times. (thinking of songs as "song", rather than "artist:song"). cheers ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 01:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
That's kind of what I assumed you were doing, so I didn't want to revert without notifying. You'd be like "What the heck?", 'cause I know I would have said the same. But I'm glad you understand. In the future it would be nice to sort by song name too... --WillMak050389 01:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
In iTunes, the artist and song are two separate fields (and indeed never attached together), one can sort by either song or artist, great for finding similarly titled songs (and covers) so I can listen to many versions of "Caledonia" (Woody Herman's, Muddy Waters and forward) or compare lyrics of the same song from one artist to the next. Sounds like something SMW would do (calling Aqua to the stage, drum roll plz!) I have been tempted on more than one occasion to grab the entire lw song list by bot and split it into "artist" & "song" (for my own purposes anyway). great tool for music research. For now we have to live with the limitations of how lw (not "computers" or "software") represents its contents. and again, thanks for the corrections of my hasty actions Will. cheers ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 03:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, one of the small number of pitfalls in the MediaWiki software, but SMW should definitely solve multiple tags for one page (yep, Aquatiki should be chiming in at any second...) Hasty actions maybe, but with the best of intentions. --WillMak050389 03:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If you hit the page-up button a few times (or click here), you'll find that we just recently discussed this. Basically everyone thought it would be a good idea, but no-one did anything about it (me neither, so I can't complain). All it takes is a little addition to {{SongFooter}} and {{Album}}, and we could have song and album categories sorted by songs and albums instead of pagenames. We could even have both – songs by song-title and song by artist-then-song-title etc., in case anyone thinks the latter could be useful. — 6x9 (Talk) 04:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Very very useful. and on a side note on the upgrades to tl|SongFooter, I wonder how long the server will be crushing rocks when that upgrade is applied. the last mods to tl|Artist brought lw to a crawl for a day (for only ~30000 artist pages), with nearly 850,000 song pages (contrary to what the stats page reports as total pages/total content pages)... we can all take a week (or three) off, lol. And then the bots will have to run around bringing up to date the changes that didn't "catch". Looking forward to it anyway ;) ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 04:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I made the required changes in my sandbox. This will make songs appear both in "Songs X" and "Songs by Artist X" (though, if no-one can think of a use for the latter, I'll remove it). If fLetter isn't specified, it now uses {{SONGFLETTER}}, though that produces wrong results for songs with colons in the title, so it's best to keep fLetter as mandatory. (For the same reason I'll probably re-add the NofLetter category, which I removed in a fit of euphoria). The only other change I made was to remove the double "Wikipedia" from the wp parameter, because it said "Wikipedia: Wikipedia article for this song".
PS. [1] The preceding unsigned comment was added by 6 times 9 05:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC) PS: Please sign your posts by placing ~~~~ at the end of your posts..cos you know how easily Redxx gets confused ;)
I don't understand how this will be any different. Category pages will still continue to sort by artist name (due to how pages are titled). Am I missing something?
Wikipedia thing will be nice. Also, I think we could add musicbrainz (as they do have separate pages for songs also and its an easy link, I've already started adding it to song pages). Also, Allmusic wouldn't be too bad either. --WillMak050389 05:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
No they won't. See Help:Categories#Sorting. Good idea with amg and mbrainz – I'll add these. — 6x9 (Talk) 06:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
That's the way! That's it lol. Thanks 6, Category:Hometown clearly shows the improvement. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 06:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I see now, th=anks for the explanation and example. --WillMak050389 15:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) And similar to AllMusic & Metal Archives, a template for fansite, I've seen quite a few thrown here & there on artist pages. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 15:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be terribly stupid to include the option to an alternate youtube link. Currently, the text reads "Music video on YouTube" and should technically only link to an official music video for the song (a lot of these don't). If we could provide an alternative video link for YouTube, we could provide links to videos that contain the song, but aren't a music video. Just a thought... --WillMak050389 18:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I always try to find the official video on YouTube, but failing that if there is a video on there of the song for which the lyrics relate (and nothing on GoEar) I insert the link under video. I do this so users can at least hear the song which I believe, like we probably all do, is of more interest to them anyway), rather than dismiss the link I've found and provide nothing.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 19:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If we're adding a secondary video-link possibility, why not make it wide open? I mean, sometimes it's not on YouTube, just the artist's site, or Google Video or Hulu. If we make a second choice, can we have it just be a URL, please? :-) Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 23:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
How about a generic template for external links? Something like {{ExtLink|full url|description}}, in the style of the other external links (i.e. 16x16 icon on the left)? Anyone have an icon for this occasion? The standard http://lyricwiki.org/skins/monobook/external.png is only 10x10… — 6x9 (Talk) 23:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Tut tut tut..Are you feeling Ok 6x9? No signature..not properly formatting link....You do look a bit red.. (hee hee). Aqua's the icon guy. I doubt commons would have anything but it may be worth looking there. Now if you'll excuse me I have other business I must attend to.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 01:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
No complaining about signatures! You forget waaay more often than me! You just usually notice right away… The link formatting (or lack thereof) was intentional, as I simply wanted to provide the image, not a link to it (which is followed by the image anyway, since it's interpreted as an external link). — 6x9 (Talk) 02:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Once more, just to be on the safe side: — 6x9 (Talk) 02:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
My note pretty much concerned the fact that they aren't really "music videos" per se, at least most that I've seen, they're just a slideshow of pictures with the song playing. I guess another alternative option is to do this which just adds "Unofficial" before the usual text. Food for thought. --WillMak050389 02:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Note that on the youtube page there is a box on the right with "similar videos", which includes several other videos for "What Do You Want…" as well. One entitled "Weed Theme"?!? Maybe inspired by "You can drift, you can dream"… That's why I don't think a second youtube link is necessary. We should make the "Unofficial" thing official though (by adding it to the help pages)! — 6x9 (Talk) 19:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.wrswim.com/imgs/video_icon.gif I checked, and I could find you guys some "external link" icons, and I'd be OK with a generic external link option, but I'd like to keep 'em categorized. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 12:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes all external links have to remain individually categorised but I'm sure 6x9 wouldn't dare dream of doing it any other way ...that is assuming he isn't having a another "bad hair day" of course ;)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 13:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • grumbles* Does this look like a bad hair day??? — 6x9 (Talk) 19:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
No indeed does not! Green check 7.56/ 7.32 ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 21:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Musicfilm Musicfilm2
Dunno which I prefer cos I like Aqua's one too. They could be recoloured of course, LW stylee! These are already uploaded.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 00:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

External Links Federation

Expanding on the ideas from the thread above....

All Music, You tube, goear, meal archives, fansite, all go under the heading of external site. maybe instead of having a specific tempalte for each, we can have one template for all of them. tl|External|Type|URL. The fancy coding can go into type detection, so that for each URL entered a particular icon can be shown.

For simplicity the url would not need to be typed with the "http://" prefix. Type would be kinda like; V for Video, A for Audio, (all one character only). So all anyone has to remember is that one char code. This way we can take care of any future sites and types that may occur. This way we have the possibility of rolling all our external site links into one simple to remember template with a bunch of switch values. It can also simplify the SongFooter by handling musicbrainz, iTunes, Lrcdb, foxy tunes, Hype machine and The Dog that ate my Cassettes. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 23:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yum yum..meal archives..I'm for that!  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 01:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I was trying really hard to resist a comment like that… now I can relax :-) I think Project ELF is a good idea, as it will reduce the number of external link templates greatly. I'd just rather not call it from SongFooter though – while it would make SF somewhat simpler, the template itself will be pretty complex, and it would have to be called from SF *repeatedly* – once for asin, once for musicbrainz, once for video, once for audio, etc. etc. — 6x9 (Talk) 02:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
So this template.."switch"..it could be used for artist and album pages as well?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 02:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
So we totally chop off all the external links related params out of SF,... and we put in tl|ELF which can easily be adopted for Album, ELF calls tl|SF or tl|Album once, grabs the Song & Artist and off to lunch at the meal archives. makes sense? ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 03:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure does, thanks Echo. It does sound a really good idea for several reasons. I hope KingNee will be adding his $2 worth to this idea too, seeing as he's implemented most of the links up til now and therefore probably knows more about linking to external sites than any one of us. He will therefore be able to assist muchly. Because if this idea does get the green light (and I personally think it's got a lot of merit), it sounds like it's going to take some working out ;)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 13:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Dunno… Instead of one template with "video=code1|audio=code2|asin=code3…" you'd like to have "{{ELF|code1|video}} {{ELF|code2|audio}} {{ELF|code3|asin}}…"? Not to mention that to include all ext-link functionalities from SF, AF & Artist tl:ELF would have to be VERY complex and big, and you'd have to call this VERY complex and big template repeatedly, instead of a somewhat less complex and big template once… — 6x9 (Talk) 20:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
No, I meant ONE template, not multiple templates. like this tl|ELF|code1|Audio|Code2|Video|Code3|asin|code4|fansite|etc. They would be named, so whichever comes comes at which position in the template would not matter. Rare cases would have all params, mostly only a few. Similar in Structure to current tl|SF. But it would allow all external links to be removed from SF. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 02:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
But what would the advantage be? The external links in the SongFooter make use of the artist, album and song parameters; these would either not be available in the ELF template, or you'd have to add them to ELF as well (making it even more unwieldy). See here what I have so far; adding all the external link stuff from SF, AlbumFooter & Artist templates would make it several times as big (and as complicated). Or do you propose we get rid of SF etc. entirely? Then we'd have to add all the category stuff as well… — 6x9 (Talk) 03:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)What I mean is that the label text for the external link i.e. ("asin"/"hypemachine"/"itunes"/"fansite"/"goEar"/etc.) becomes a variable, so that in the future when yet another needs to be added (like Allmusic/meTal archives/RockinRarities), it would be very simple (in my simple mind) to add it to the bunch. Recall that all these external sites have a common structure + unique artist:song based parameter: "http://" + unique site address + variable based on artist:song and|or album. I was thinking that if we put all the external links in an ELF template, then one call to the SF (or pagename) would pull in the artist:song info and complete all the external links.
If each individual external link in ELF needs to make a seperate call to SF (or pagename) then it's a no go. If the pagename i.e. "artist:song" can be used as a global variable for the purposes of templates then it is doable, but from what you are stating, no matter which way we cut it, we are going to end up with an unweildly beast, and the addition of each external site to SF will be a "production" ;) but then, looking at your sandbox link above, it looks like what I have in mind! So there is no adavantage in taking all the externals out of SF? the only unique item necessary for external links in SF is album whcih can be had from tl|song, artist and song can be gotten from page name, language & fLetter are not needed for External links at all...... ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 04:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so I can be clear on this...

(...and then update the help pages)..are we doing away with showing individual discs in TOC? I feel I should make clear that I really don't mind either way, I just feel we should all be working along the same lines.

So come on guys, what do we think? Is there any good reason for lengthening the TOC by showing the individual number of discs per album?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 01:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm for doing away with them, but you probably guessed that already, since that's the reason I created {{H4}} in the first place… — 6x9 (Talk) 02:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
You was excused from this yes 6x9 ;) but thank you for acknowledging my post.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 02:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I like your idea. Yes.--Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 13:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


Decision on fLetter

We need to come up with a policy for fLetter. Echo's system (which I think is a good one) is to use "fLetter = Cyrillic/Greek/Hebrew/etc." rather than create a separate category for each letter in these alphabets. This way we avoid having hundreds of categories with only a few dozen pages in each of them (possibly less for artists and albums). Can we agree on this?

Then, there's accented Latin characters – Å, Ç, Ð, Ë, Ñ etc. Do we keep the current system of separate categories for each of them (even though, again, some of these only have a single page or maybe two)? Do we put them up with their non-accented cousins (A for Å, C for Ç etc.)? Or do we create new categories "…s Accented" for them? Personally, I think the last would be the simplest and most elegant solution.

Once we've agreed on a set of rules, maybe we should create LyricWiki:fLetter (and a shortcut LW:FL) to direct people to… — 6x9 (Talk) 14:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait, didn't we already have this discussion (as part of a thread on languages)? Didn't we conclude that we shouldn't be prejudiced against other alphabets (since we were putting everything not-English into Symbol)? I think, given our present volume for some non-Latin letters, what your saying makes since, but how many in a category makes it worth having? (Category:Songs É) --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 15:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
The current setup with (Category:Songs É) included at E makes good sense, rather than "É" being a top level Song cat like "E", so I don't see a reason to change (can you clarify 6?). What is a problem is that lw throws fLetter "Symbol" at all non roman songs artists etc. Until we get SMW, I'll be in charge of clearing Symbol categories from accented, Cyrillic, CJK, rtl, items. What remains is documentation! The docs need changing, people come in and change fLetter Cyrillic to the literal fLetter. We may as well have the docs say: leave the fLetter alone, or explain why we have chosen not to throw everything into Symbol. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 17:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we're all agreed that the magic fLetter words eventually need changing, we just have to agree on what to change them to first. Completely agreed on changing docs, so we can direct people there rather than leaving excessive verbiage on their talk pages.
Categories display 200 pages at once, so all songs with É would fit on one page. I could whip up a template for Cat:Accented similar to {{CatAZ}}, so it would take a user as many clicks to get from the main page to all songs starting with Ö as it does with the current system. (With a fairly limited set of allowed fLetters, we could "instruct" the templates to only recognise the allowed ones and disregard all others, putting the page in "Cat:Invalid fLetter" or something.) — 6x9 (Talk) 17:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I support making an fLetter category for writing systems such as Chinese or Japanese that use symbols-for-individual words, as opposed to purely alphabet-based systems such as Greek or Cyrillic or for accented characters. Eventually for those writing systems such as Chinese or Japanese, it would be nice to somehow have subcategories for them based on the romanized version of the Artist, Album, or Song.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   22:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sen the Man

I'm getting tired of patrolling Sen's prodigious edits. Team A is MIA. Who's for promoting Sen? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 18:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be quicker to ask who isn't. Let's promote him, whether he wants to or not! :-) — 6x9 (Talk) 18:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Heh. I think he read your comment and is now doing it on purpose, just to annoy you. — 6x9 (Talk) 21:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hee hee you know Aqua I was thinking exactly the same thing. And yes 6x9 I was thinking exactly the same thing too. Let's just promote him! He can always pretend to himself that he can't batch move, that he can't delete a page, that he can't ban users etc. if he prefers ;) And btw team a was here today..though he isn't very talkative. As we all know, if ever a user (that isn't already an admin) was more worthy for adminship, it's Senv. We'll have to get Kiefer to do it.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 20:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. In fact you can blame patrolling Senv's edits on me falling behind on my watchlist. And of course it's never necessary.
I know Kiefer has got a lot going on atm, but I've left a message on his talk page pointing in this direction.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 15:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
UPDATE: (Copied from Kiefer's talk page) "As for Sen the Man, he said that when he was ready/comfortable in being admin he would tell me. I'm taking him at his word."  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 15:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Triple J Awards

Ok as you know our Aussie friend Humbug has devoted a lot of time to compiling info about this award, which is apparently the world's largest music poll. Well now he has some ideas to integrate this info into related pages. See here. As you can see I've okayed most of it, but the only thing I'm not in agreement with is the badge idea, for the reasons I have given on my talk page. However I told him I would ask you guys, to see what you thought.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 15:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read the whole discussion, but couldn't we just change the badge template to be similar to our {{Grammy}} template? This should pretty much satisfy both requests. --WillMak050389 18:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
We could...but I am a little concerned about setting a precedent and where this might lead. This badge would be specific to only one country, Australia. Let's wait and see what the others think.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 11:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

February

SongFooter

Just in case some of you might have missed it, I'd like some input on this. — 6x9 (Talk) 15:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Page Ranking (Song) requirements

Since no one has responded to my post on CP, can I take it that what I have written about requirements on this page is OK? I ask partly because I would like to know what, if any, changes are going to be made for album/artist. All we've talked about so far has been changes to requirements for songs. Unless I missed itof course. Which atm is quite possible ;) ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 11:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that at least the relaxing-restrictions bit for Bronze (no watcher required) would be true for all pages and already edited the Artist/Album/Film Rank templates accordingly. (You might want to check them out in case I missed or misinterpreted something.) The help page looks good, except that lrcDB is still listed as optional.
For the sake of consistency, I think we should have similar ranking requirements for all pages. — 6x9 (Talk) 14:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply 6. I haven't given it any thought but yes makes complete sense. (I'll also change the lrcDB bit.)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 14:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Opinions Required - Apply Within!

  • Edited post copied over from Redxx's talk page. Full post can be found here.

I think one of the requirements for Bronze should be to make sure that the lyrics are those for the actual song and not for something else entirely. (Part and parcel of the "lyrics show no obvious problems" bit, though it could be stated more explicitly on the help page… hint, hint.) If a user is in a position to verify that, he'll also most likely know the language the song is in. Conversely, if he specifies the language this gives us at least a tiny measure of reassurance that he actually looked at the lyrics in the first place… Hope that makes sense. — 6x9 (Talk) 15:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the final checklist, so please look and tell me whether it's better or not. I would've preferred different size headers for each section but can't be done.
As for the lyrics relating to the actual song 6x9, I edit a lot of pages but I don't always know the songs. I feel that this might therefore deter some from improving the page by doing the other things required to upgrade the page/partaking in the scheme. So although I do understand your reasoning, I don't think we should include that. Besides, someone can't exactly watch a page if they don't know the song, can they? How are they going to know if an anonymous user comes along and changes the lyrics that they aren't right to do so? And I believe we have enough daily visitors that I think a fan would probably have corrected them. That's partly why we need a watcher of course and why we need to certify for Gold. I also doubt your average user will go out of there way to upgrade a page to Silver when they aren't familiar with the song. I do yes, but as you know I'm not normal average ;) (I will write it in though tongue-in-cheek)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 16:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
While I might yield on the language bit, I won't on the lyrics-are-actually-for-this-song bit. The main reason for the ranking scheme, as I see it, isn't to reward users who improve pages (though that comes in as well of course), it's to add some reliability. And to allow song pages to go Bronze when the lyrics displayed are for an entirely different song completely defeats that purpose. (The language bit would make this easier to check up on by comparing Bronze Songs with SNLI – pages that appear in both would go back to Green – but, like I said, I won't insist. Maybe we should get a few more opinions on this…?) — 6x9 (Talk) 16:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
You fronting me out 6? *shrugs shoulders in a masculine fashion and moves head back and forth in a somewhat chicken-like fashion* *and sniffs* (seemed appropriate to add that). Yes I'm up for that. The only thing you have to bear in mind of course is that despite requesting this in CP a number of days ago, no one has bothered to make any comments on this until today. Which of course could be a n indication that everyone in the whole wide world except you is happy with my interpretation. So that means I win the argument...and in less than 560 words ;)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 17:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to say I agree with Red on this one. If songs are held back in Green any more then it makes it less of a "bot created" category. I want to be able to put Bronze on a song when I remove "Chorus:" from the lyrics and make sure the fLetter param is filled. How often do you get the wrong lyrics anyway? (I think that a lot of "wrong lyrics" would probably fall under an "obvious problem"). (Don't know about others but) I generally listen to a song before seeking the lyrics. I just think its too much effort for too little gain. ♫ LYRIC-Humbug wordsdeeds 02:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
You'd be surprised… It happens almost daily that some user replaces the lyrics on some page with entirely different lyrics – wrong lyrics with the correct ones, but also vice versa. Sometimes, when you upload the lyrics for several songs and have many pages open at once, it can happen (did to me, occasionally) that you paste a lyric into the wrong page, and not all users check their pages after saving them.
I don't think making that a requirement for Bronze will hold us back much. Most people edit only pages to songs they know anyway, apart from a couple of specialists (Senvaikis and NYCScribbler, mainly) and the bots. It would also even out the distances between the rankings a bit more; otherwise Bronze would be only slightly above Green, and then there'd be a huge gap to Silver. I think it's better to have Bronze actually *mean* something, quality-wise, than upgrading as many pages to Bronze as quickly as possible. — 6x9 (Talk) 02:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Bronze would be only slightly above Green

Agreed. But isn't that exactly what we want? To encourage people to look at as many pages as possible and rank them as basically OK? Bearing in mind that many are bot created. To eliminate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 11:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Eliminating wheat from the chaff? That explains a lot about British cooking… Like I wrote above, most people* will only look at pages for songs they know, so quickly checking the lyrics won't hold as back. And, like I also wrote above, we shouldn't take quantity over quality.
(*) Other than NYCScribbler, and he/she does more than well without encouragement. — 6x9 (Talk) 13:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"Trusted" and "Patroller" user groups

There is a new user group called "Trusted" which can be assigned to users. The only difference being that their edits are automatically marked as patrolled. I threw it on User:RainbowDragon to make sure it works. There are probably a few other good candidates we could jump on right away.
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 16:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

One I mentioned right above this section: User:NYCScribbler. He does mainly one thing (adding languages to song pages and correcting many accents along the way), and does it very well (and in huge quantities). Good thing this comes too late for Senv, or he might have declined the Adminship after all :-) — 6x9 (Talk) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure this works, though? Because RD's most recent edit still shows up as unpatrolled… Or does he have to change it in his settings first? — 6x9 (Talk) 16:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops, we had it set up wrong. Accidentally gave that group permission to DO patrolling rather than to be auto-patrolled. Should be fixed now. Since these are two separate permissions I added another group called "Patroller" which lets users patrol the edits of others. They can be assigned separate from each other, but I'd imagine that all Patrollers are going to be Trusted.
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 17:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Trusted User:NYCScribbler and added made Rainbow a patroller. As we go on, I'm probably not going to make a note in this thread of every change, lol; I doubt the other Bureaucrat's will either, but felt like it now. -Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 17:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
These are some nice additions, thanks Sean! If anyone comes across anyone else that should be Trusted, please let me know.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes thanks Sean. Great idea!
Here's one Kiefer: User:Humbug and I'll be sure to let you know.
Also, I personally feel that we should have allowed User:RainbowDragon a bit more time to get used to our ways before giving him permission to patrol the edits of others. He is very trustworthy yes, and is an excellent contributor, but he is also very new and he is still learning the ropes. I don't have any problem whatsoever with self patrol of trustworthy editors (whom we nominate here for your attention Kiefer), but I do think we need to exercise due caution and allow more time for users like RD to gain more experience before allowing them to patrol the edits of others. You know I'm right chaps ;) ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 17:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's a problem – RD seems to know his limits, and I doubt he's going to hit "Mark as patrolled" if he's not sure whether the edit is beneficial or not. Unless he thinks I was serious about those 250 required patrols a day… You know I'm right too! Agree about Humbug, though.
PS. Ropes? Didn't know you're the kinky type… Ah well. Glad you two found each other. — 6x9 (Talk) 18:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agreed on Humbug (you listening, Kiefer?) – actually he seems like a good admin candidate for the near future… Another one I'd promote to Trusted is Hs. — 6x9 (Talk) 17:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Humbug...check. Hs...check.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   02:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I think User:Hornean has been here long enough to be trusted. --WillMak050389 03:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you in the running for rival user or something Will ? ;) Yes I concur. Andrew should be trusted.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 03:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Surprisingly, I'm not a rival user. I guess I've gotta nominate a few more SotDs. 11 < 127. --WillMak050389 04:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

What about User:Backgammon? Anyone know of a reason not to give him/her Trusted status? — 6x9 (Talk) 20:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Backgammon good candidate too yes.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 22:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Backgammon...check.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   02:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Kiefer  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 00:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
User:I need a name for Trusted?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 08:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oyez! Oyez! New LyricWiki Administrator...

Okay..well since it seems like maybe some of you may not have yet heard the gossip on the underground, we have a new administrator...Senvaikis has finally been persuaded (*cough*) to join our ranks. (About time indeed - lol) I'm sure I speak for all of us in welcoming to our extremely dysfunctional clan!  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 17:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Artist Subpages

I know this issue kind of died away, but I thought I'd present this idea. I created {{ArtistSubpage}} to place on artist subpages. Please take a cursory glance at it and tell me if need to be changed, or if I can go applying this to artist subpages. Thanks! --WillMak050389 18:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A Plague of Subpage Templates? (Look at the Community Portal…) — 6x9 (Talk) 18:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, how did I miss this? --WillMak050389 18:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Rflmao@"Will anyone who hasn't made an artist subpage template please raise their hands". Note that Sean isn't raising his hands >>> Template:SplitCatalog.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 18:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't count, because it's not for subpages. So, before I get to work on this, can we first agree on how we want it to look? (Preferably on the C.P.?) (And yes, Red, I was going to include the category. Do you have no faith in me at all? *sulks*) — 6x9 (Talk) 19:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I have every faith in you dear boy, as well you know. Although I can't speak for Daisy Cow01 who kept moooooing at me because she was a tad uncomfortable with my lastfm widget stuck up her bum...until Humbug took pity on her. He sorted my little grey box out for me too ;) Here have a br
and a   nbsp just for good measure ;p
I did the category thing when I created the template, which was obviously before I knew Humbug was in his own little corner of the world Australia busily adapting my i.e. nicked from Wikipedia {{ArchNav}} template and working towards the exact same thing. I do know a thing or two about templates and categories and stuff ("Do you have no faith in me at all?") That having been said, I will admit I do do an excellent excellent impression of stupid Wink3  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 21:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. Sean's looks not dissimilar to Will's was the point I was making..
What!? How are the two similar? I only copied the entire template and changed a few minor details to fit the subpage purpose, making them completely different. ;) My emoticon quota was already met today: one --WillMak050389 22:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Miser-Mode" and Special:RefreshSpecial

Not sure if you guys noticed, but every couple of days the site has tended to get backed up a bit. This was because Yahoo! spiders kept hitting Special:MostLinked and Special:WantedPages a few times in a row which would cause some really gnarly queries to be run which kept the database too busy.

I looked into how to fix this, and apparently the solution is to turn on something called miser-mode which makes it so that certain SpecialPages only use the cache. We update the cache daily right now, but in case someone wants to refresh the cache for specific SpecialPages on demand, then there is an extension called Special:RefreshSpecial which lets admins refresh those pages. It's only admins because doing too many refreshes can quite easily crash the database server.

-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 21:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Variables extension

I don't know how much hassle it is to install a MW extension, but this one seems dead useful. If it works as advertised, we could use it to find pages with Song but no SongFooter template (and vice versa, and same for artist and album pages), reduce doubled information (e.g. album and artist parameters in AlbumFooter, which are usually the same as in Album), and (are you listening, Kiefer?) automatically disable the wikipedia search in ArtistFooter if there's already a link in the header.

Also, unlike Semantic, as far as I can tell this extension wouldn't put much (if any) additional strain on the servers. What do you think? (Apart from Aqua who probably hates me now because this extension would give Sean yet another reason to put off installing Semantic.)6x9 (Talk) 05:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

and takes care of duplicate wiki links on album & song pages without double entry of params. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 05:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention finding pages with multiple Song templates. And making language parameter unnecessary for pages with {{Instrumental}}. — 6x9 (Talk) 16:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll get it for you for your birthday 6 Present And where is Aqua? Mischko..? Are we frightening everyone away?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 23:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. It's not Kiefer you need to nag, it's Sean
Thanks, but by then we might have Semantic already… I know you were just trying to get me to tell you when my birthday is! I actually wasn't trying to nag Kiefer (for once), I was just referring to the discussion on the comm. portal. Aqua mentioned he'd be rather busy in the near future… which is probably why I have escaped his wrath so far. — 6x9 (Talk) 00:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Darn! Foiled again! Here have some Spam2 Spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam... ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 00:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, he's teasing me about the discussion about the Wikipedia link in the External Links section of Artist pages. I don't find it a problem, but some people appear to find a quick Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V to be a horrible bother....  :-] (P.S. Spam-Man is my hero. Fights crime and is a tasty snack, too.)    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Yuk! It's disgusting stuff! (That and corned beef). It's almost as bad as those awful wurst our German friends are so very fond of. ;)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 05:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Alright, it's installed... but it doesn't seem to do anything (I tried it out on my sandbox a little). Can anyone else figure out how to use it? :/
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 18:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! It works like advertised in my sandbox (scroll all the way down). Looks like it doesn't like the iTunes extension in yours, because if you delete the xml tag and everything inside it, it works. Since AFAIK none of our templates use the XML extension, this shouldn't be too much of a problem, though maybe we should let the authors of both extensions know that their kids don't like each other.
Oh, and it only works "forwards" – so while e.g. SongFooter can use variables set in Song, the other way around unfortunately isn't possible. — 6x9 (Talk) 18:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There's another problem though: when retrieving the value of a variable that hasn't been defined earlier with {{#var:variable}}, it should output nothing at all. This only works flawlessly as long as NO other variable has been defined, though. So if you put

{{#vardefine:some|1}} {{#var:other}}

on an empty page, the layout goes all wonky (like a couple days ago with that help page) and you get the error message "Notice: Undefined index: other in /var/www/html/lyricwiki.org/extensions/Variables/Variables.php on line 33" at the top. We could work around this by giving unused variables "0" values instead of leaving them undefined, but that would make things rather complicated… — 6x9 (Talk) 20:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've tried it out in my sandbox, using it to improve both ArtistHeader and -Footer (with the workaround I mentioned), and tested it on a few artist pages, and so far it works flawlessly. (There aren't any artist pages that use the XML tag, are there?) One useful feature I added is that ArtistFooter can now detect if there's an ArtistHeader present on the page or not. (Unfortunately, the same the other way around isn't possible.) So Kiefer can have his wikipedia search at the bottom (I've even thrown in a myspace search for good measure), and if there's a link in the Header, the search link will be removed automatically. — 6x9 (Talk) 02:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Aah.. ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 02:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The bug I mentioned above (with the error message) appears to be fixed, probably thanks to the upgrade. Yay! — 6x9 (Talk) 15:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Album of the Week

In a similar request as to my Christmas one, I want to OK this with the admins. I added a new nomination to the queue. My father (a part-time DJ) is a huge music fan, Electric Light Orchestra being his favorite band. Over the past week, Kelly Groucutt passed on and my father asked if I could get his solo album Kelly up as AotW. I told him to get me a nomination reason and lyrics (which I'm working on typing up). I just wanted to make sure no one had a problem with this (I don't like to seem like I'm abusing my authority around here, but I get the feeling that people don't care that the AotW is followed like clockwork). Thanks for the feedback! --WillMak050389 22:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with it. Maybe we should make it official that nominations can be moved up the queue if the occasion calls for it, so it doesn't seem like an admins' privilege? — 6x9 (Talk) 23:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT If there is a particular reason, like this, for an album to be album of the week, then I think it most definitely should be. I can't imagine anyone objecting to this either. I only wish now that I had spoken up about Eartha Kitt. Someone nominated a song of hers at Christmas, to mark the fact that she had passed away, but it didn't get to be SOTD until last week. "Santa Baby" also didn't seem very appropriate in mid February....  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 23:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
We definitely need to look into making sure time-sensitive nominations are taken care of. (I noticed the Santa Baby as SotD the other day too). Any suggestions on how we can make things like this more visible? --WillMak050389 23:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No I accept full blame for that one. I saw it and didn't do anything. It was very remiss of me. It came back to haunt me though, when it became SOTD, so I won't be letting that happen again. I got that page on my watchlist and I go there most days just to check formatting, typos, links etc.
We should include a short note like 6x9 has suggested in the main info on both SOTD and AOTW pages, but I don't think it's necessary to do anything more than that. If someone is nominating for a reason, such as an anniversary, they usually indicate this in the nomination. It's up to whoever processes the nominations though to ensure these are processed on the appropriate days/weeks. I know you take care of the albums Will and if I knew how I would take care of the songs, but I don't. I am a bit reluctant to guess it as I remember team a tried doing it once (for Humbug) but something went wrong and it got a bit mucked up. Maybe if I ask you next time you could show me how?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 00:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but I would be too lazy to read through each nomination that comes in. I do read through each nomination before I put it on the main page. But I know I wouldn't have the stamina to read every nom that comes in, when it comes in. This is why I asked if we could get it more visible. --WillMak050389 00:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Visible..how? Do you mean include another parameter asking if a particular date applies which we could just check on nominations pages? Or something like that?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 00:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
How about adding "Special Occasions" sections to the nomination pages? (Possibly with a better title though.) — 6x9 (Talk) 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Re Redxx: As to visibility, I wanted something that makes the nom stand out from other noms. As for how, I'm not too sure, I'm open to as many suggestions as possible. 6×9's suggestion might work, but I'm not sure everyone would be perceptive enough to see that section (most people can't figure how to format their nominations by creating internal links (two square brackets people, no url needed! Wink3)). Anyway, not sure how to do it. --WillMak050389 01:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes I get where you're coming from (in view of what you said earlier). In which case another bolded type parameter at the end of each nomination asking if it should be applied to certain date/week..or something like that might work. Well it is very K.I.S.S.able. We could give it a shot and see if it works out?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 02:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I didn't want to discourage 6×9's idea, I think it's a valid way to go about this, I was trying to see if it would be foolproof (unfortunately, there are some fools on the internet). I was also trying to see if there were any other suggestions. We can definitely try either of the suggestions or both. --WillMak050389 03:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
As someone once said (or wrote): "Technology is a constant battle between manufacturers producing bigger and more idiot-proof systems and nature producing bigger and better idiots." So trying to make this foolproof is actually counter-productive; you know we can't win against nature :-) — 6x9 (Talk) 03:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Well I'm giving it a go: Template:SOTDNom and on page. I wanted to make the parameter optional but I'm too tired to figure it so if anyone wants to improve on this (and wording etc. ) please do. It would also be nice to know exactly when LW went live. That was closest I could get for now.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 05:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool, cool, cool. Looks good. I know I had it in the nom template before, but whenever it was subst'ed on the nom page, it left some nasty code that was unnecessary for anyone who wasn't putting a preferred date. But, as long as it doesn't mess with Uberbot, that's cool. Since I take care of AotW manually, any extra code won't mess with how it is processed, so I'll look into what I can do for AotW. BTW, for whoever was complaining about it, I've removed the italics from the archive (well, I think I've eliminated all of the italics). --WillMak050389 22:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
PS: everything should now be updated for the AotW. BTW 6×9, love that quote!
That was my thoughts too Will...Uberbot so I've left a message Sean's talk page.
I guess that parameter could be removed after song gets approved and moved to the queue. There's a song Andrew has nominated in tribute to someone from Boston who died on the 9th of March last year which seems appropriate to be SOTD on the anniversary of his death. I counted forward and moved it into the correct position to be SOTD on that day, so it shouldn't really matter now if the parameter is there or not. And it was me who was complaining about the italicsed text on both song of the day and album of the week pages. Sean fixed SOTD page and I asked him to sort AOTW too, so thanks for sorting that.
And thank you 6x9 for making "Preferred Date" optional.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


(Pagesize = 66,797)

Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.