FANDOM

2,054,160 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
<< January - February 2009 March - August 2009 September 2009 plus >>


March

A special Special Page

  1. ER diagram of related artists
  2. Live count of Song pages in the artist namespace (lw has NNN songs by artist) displayed on artist page
  3. Facility to allow viewing of all albums without any tracklisting (like iTunes)
  4. Artist Manifest Button: Show all pages in artist namespace, show all artist redirects, show all pages in the redirected artist namespaces, All song/album pages linked to on artist page (including Compilations etc.). This will compile multiple screens of data in one place and makes the bulk of Janitor's work unnecessary. And it can be accessed at any time to find missing songs/albums/related pages that need to be linked to on artist page. -- Echo, 01:38, 7 March 2009 & 07:57, 22 March 2009
I suppose all of these would be possible with SMW… With our current tools:
  1. Nothing doing.
  2. Requires Cat:Songs by ARTIST for each artist, don't think Sean would like that.
  3. Cat:Albums by ARTIST? An album-list-only subpage?
  4. Ideal for a Special Page. Hope Teknomunk gets some free time soon… No buttons on artist pages though - HTML forms are disabled in MW. A plain link will have to do.
-- 6x9, 17:41, 22 March 2009
All of the information is already available scattered in multiple places, the idea is to bring them to one place. Special pages is a good place for it (the whole output would overwhelm most users) The Song count/listing, and Album count/listing and redirect count/listing can all be gleaned from prefindex/api. There ought to be a better place to hash this out. -- Echo, 06:27, 23 March 2009
What's an ER diagram? (all I come up with when I hear "ER" is "endoplasmic reticulum" :/ lol) -Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 04:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
An ER diagram = Entity Relationship Diagram  Яєdxx Actions Words 04:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OS, one artist at a time

This whole Janitor OS list thing has been going on far tooo long! I have an idea: We need a button displayed on the artist page that does so:grabs the list of all the song/album pages in the artist namespace (not redirects), compares it to the list of the links on the artist page, and the difference between the two lists is shown in a pop up window, the OS list. This would eliminate the need for Janitor, and circumvent lw's existing Orphan definition shortcoming. It seems to me that all we need is the diff btwn the two lists, so if you can access the diff engine that generates the page revision diffs....cheers ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 01:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC) and thanks for the bit on Provincial flags

Dunno whether that's possible at all… Getting a list of song/album links on the artist page is easy via the API. Getting a list of all pages starting with "Artist:" is easy too; that's what Special:PrefixIndex does. Unfortunately the latter has no option for hiding redirects. They're listed in italics though, so if it's possible to not only grab the list, but also the text formatting, they could be weeded out…
Or we could just simply delete ALL redirects :-) — 6x9 (Talk) 01:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me unasked intervention, but the second list is also available using api - just another one - mwapi (see backlinks), mentioned in my discussion with ES about Oblivion. The problem is that such diff (mwapi-API) wouldn't give you desired result for splitted artists - API doesn't collect songs from artist subpages... But I like ES' idea and do believe it must be doable :) --Senvaikis (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
If necessary, we could just temporarily dump the subpages' content on the main artist page with SUBST:, grab the list via API, and then restore the main page. That can be done so quickly, no-one except Red would even notice :-) — 6x9 (Talk) 16:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Collecting songs from all subpages shouldn't be the problem, using the same mwapi (see links), without any 'dumping' - just in memory. The problem is how to detect all subpages... That's why uniformity of formatting is so important, while lw isn't semantic.--Senvaikis (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdenting) Here's a draft for such operation (simplified - for unsplitted artist):

  1. Collecting list A, containing unique songs, having links to them on artist page and all his albums, using mwapi queries of type linksList
    • Clearing given list from non-songs and other artist songs (not starting with "artist:" or ending with " \(\d{4}\)"
  2. Geting list B, containing all pages, having backlinks to artist page, using single mwapi query backLinkList
    • Same clearing...
  3. Taking a diff B-A:

And voilà - for Leonard Cohen, taken as an object of experiment, result will contain such list:

  1. Leonard Cohen:Misty Blue (Outtake From Recent Songs)
  2. Leonard Cohen:To Love Somebody
  3. Leonard Cohen:Whither Thou Goest (From The Book Of Ruth)

You can check them - all are in real Oblivion...
--Senvaikis (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. I hope it's evident that two operations of lists cleaning may be replaced by one - for result :)

Cool! You might want to be more specific with the cleaning-out bit, though, so you don't get rid of songs ending in (Demo) or (Live) as well… You'd only want to weed out those with numbers inside the brackets. — 6x9 (Talk) 22:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Regular expressions pattern " \(\d{4}\)$" correspond to string, ending with space, followed by four digits in parenthesis.--Senvaikis (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I should have known better than to doubt you, sorry :-) Guess I'll have to bite the bullet some time and learn at least the basics of regex, if only to avoid such blunders in the future… — 6x9 (Talk) 02:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to ensure you guys had seen the latest going on on LyricWiki:Community Portal/Upgrade page, so you can contribute... ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 23:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

{{BlockUser}}

For those who haven't seen it yet, there's a discussion about overhauling said template. — 6x9 (Talk) 21:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Move" vandalisms

Don't wanna make too big of a deal about it (kind of a "don't feed the trolls" thing), but thanks for being so quick fixing those automated vandalisms. I'm looking into making this a little easier to manage.
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 01:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Autogen 0.13.4

0.13.4 created pages. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 09:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the latest version(s) of the script (.3 and .4), left a note on Nenika's talk page, and left a note on Attendant's talk page.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   19:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Trusted…

User:Hornean was suggested by Red for Trusted status a while ago… Assuming it was an oversight, here's a friendly reminder :-) I'm also starting to agree with RD about User:Afroditi – someone who puts that much work in surely isn't going to suddenly turn into a vandal. — 6x9 (Talk) 20:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm kind of cautious with regards to Hornean, as he really specializes in SOTD-related items and marking things as B-Hits & #1s, etc. I worry that if he decides to branch out into other realms, his edits might not be as correct as the ones that he's had to work quite a bit to learn. What he's doing now is trusted, but beyond his niche, might not be as trusted. He tends to not clog up the Recent Changes, so I'm not really sure about this nom. Trusted now: yes. Trusted later: perhaps not. Just because his knowledge is highly specialized.
Afroditi's nom, I think, was called for caution because this user was so new. Afroditi's edits appear to be quite good, however, from the perusal that I just took at her(?) contributions. So, I'll mark Afroditi as trusted.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   01:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't nominate Hornean 6x9, Will did. I wouldn't have nominated him for the exact same reasons as Kiefer has given in response. He doesn't do enough general edits to present a problem to patrolling, but more importantly, he doesn't do enough general edits to be assessed. He only ever edits SOTD. I had no objections to Will nominating him though, so I just agreed that he had been here long enough that he should be trusted.
Anyway here's another possible for trusted User:Ignor-the-ant and was User:I need a name ever made trusted Kiefer? Or was this overlooked?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 13:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Check! for Ignor-the-ant. I need a name is very sporadic on the site, and normally averages a handful or less edits. I think I'll hold off, although I agree that INAN is a good editor. If INAN were more regular, I'd certainly reconsider.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   20:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Okey Dokey. Thanks Kiefer.  Яєdxx Actions Words 22:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

One more suggestion for trusted: User:Twomeanings. Long overdue actually, I should think! — 6×9 (Talk) 16:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Check!    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   17:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes for what it's worth I think that was long overdue too.  Яєdxx Actions Words 16:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
And with his recent edits with creative song rankings, I'm immodest enough to point out I was we were right about waiting with Hornean.  :-]    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   17:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
At least he learned from his mistakes and fixed them. Can't say the same for Ignor-the-ant… — 6×9 (Talk) 17:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah alright :P (I've left him a reminder.)  Яєdxx Actions Words 18:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

How about User:Jessicaglynn? Not a bad edit since I-can't-remember-when… — 6×9 (Talk) 23:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Check! (I've looked at her edits in the past, as well. Good edits and she gives good summaries!) Thanks for bringing her up.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Projects page

I have created LyricWiki:Administrators Portal/Projects to house ideas that don't fit anywhere else, but are too good to be lost in the mists of some talk page archive. — 6x9 (Talk) 03:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wondering

Where are all these new pages with escaped apostrophes (\') suddenly coming from? Until a few weeks ago I don't remember seeing even a single one, and now they're cropping up all over the place… — 6x9 (Talk) 15:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

me wondered too, they come from all over....never seen before... ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 15:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

April

[[LyricWiki:Requests for page protection]]

Do we actually need/want this page? It has been set up two years ago by User:Slate, complete with several requests… and not been edited even ONCE since then. There's also a whole host of templates (undocumented) by the same user which are used on this page and nowhere else. So… Keep it? Remodel it? Or just nuke it? — 6x9 (Talk) 01:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Remodel it? Utilise it for something else? Or just delete. If we want something protected we just protect it. Seems a bit silly keeping this page/templates which I am aware of as I discovered it and put templates into Template space. Looking at it again I'd just say delete it. Яєdxx Actions Words 00:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Right, I've deleted the page (as you can see from the red header), along with about a dozen templates and several images that were used on it and nowhere else, AND several more templates that were only used on said images' pages, AND a bunch of categories that were emptied after all those deletions. Doesn't LW feel a lot spacier now? — 6x9 (Talk) 22:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes it was a bit crazy that page and that one and the next and the rest...I just wondered at the amount of time and effort someone had been willing to put into creating what seemed effectively to me such a useless page.  Яєdxx Actions Words 23:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I suspect (s)he copied most of it over from Wikipedia… Do I get bonus points for resisting any dreadful puns about wiping the slate clean? Then there's all those templates that Team a copied over from WP before he vanished ({{ambox}} and all that stuff), and he also left a lot of sandboxes lying around… — 6x9 (Talk) 00:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

RainbowDragon as Administrator?

Hey guys,
RainbowDragon's been here since August '08 and has been Trusted for a couple of months. He makes good edits, is supportive of other users, etc. and I think it makes sense to bump him up to Admin. It seems like a bit of unnecessary for him to have to ask for deletions, etc. at this point. I checked, and he seems cool with it so we won't have to wrestle him into it like Senv ;) haha. Just thought that seeing as we have this fancy Admin's Portal I'd throw up a message first to ask for feedback instead of just springing it as a surprise. Let me know your thoughts!
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 17:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'll second that. He's very supportive of the site and to other users. He is very vigilant too. If there's anything he's not sure about I'm sure he'll ask, but he seems to have got the hang of things pretty well. Good choice Sean.  Яєdxx Actions Words 21:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Has it been that long already? Wow, time flies! I hadn't suggested it sooner because it didn't seem that long since RD came into the community. So, yeah, that'd be good with me. I think RD has become the chairman of the LW Welcome Wagon recently, anyhow.  :-]    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   00:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback guys. Bumped him up.
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 04:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
(RainbowDragon slips in quietly while the portal is empty and checks out the place. Running his hand along the smooth conference table, he stops and admires Sean's high-back, genuine leather executive chair. Furtively looking left and right, he sits in the BIG chair and notices it's soft padding. He decides he'd better hurry up before he gets caught and peeks into Redxx's crystal ball for a moment before quietly shutting the door behind him.) --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   17:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Mmmm...the seat is still warm Watson...Detective  Яєdxx Actions Words 16:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

One-edit users

What do we do with users who only create their user page and then vanish? Especially in light of the recent bouts of vandalism this looks rather suspicious… — 6x9 (Talk) 13:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add a related question. What do we do with users who have made two or three real edits about 2 years ago and never return? I've got a feeling that our user numbers are over-inflated due to hit-and-run folks who got bored quickly. --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   15:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you've raised this issue. It's something that I've often thought about too. Usually when I've been cleaning up.  Яєdxx Actions Words 15:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The user count is def. inflated. Lots of times, I think people just sign up to make sure that they get to reserve their usual username just in case they decide to contribute to LyricWiki a bunch in the future. Now that we have the CAPTCHA at least we can be a little more confident that bots aren't signing up.
I don't see any harm in letting these accounts sit around most of the time. Obviously vandal-detection is an issue, but I think leaving old accounts still registered seems like the right thing to do. I'd probably feel pretty burned if I liked a site enough to sign up for it, then found out my account had been deleted (especially if someone later took my username) just due to inactivity since that's not a normal process on the web. Even more-so if I wasn't very visibly warned about possible deletion when signing up. Actually, even then it's really annoying... did you ever have a hotmail account deleted back in the day because you didn't check your mail for 30 days? I hated that :P
For the curious: a more realistic count of users who are still active and edit while logged in is probably closer to 4,000 (if I did that query correctly).
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 01:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

A new pagetype template.

I became obsessed with vertical lines and threw dogs to the moon. This is a new design for the box you see with new pages. User:Frontway/MediaWiki:Newarticletext - Have at it. Opinions, please. --Frontway 10:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, nice. No offense to Sean's work, but that looks much better. I don't really have an opinion on the wording, but I must admit that it is much more interesting :P
- teknomunk (talk,E,,A) 20:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Cool, a more modern look ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 20:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I like the updated look. The icons are spiffy. Where else can we use them?!? The wording is a bit...creative. It may be understandable for those of us who speak English well, but if not...?  :-]    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   20:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
If we use icons more to convey the functions (as is the case of Frontway's example) it makes the site more usable for non English speakers, beats trying to translate lots of interface text in to (how many?) languages.... ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 20:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I like the updated look too, but I'm also a tad unsure about using such creative wording.  Яєdxx Actions Words 22:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. Typo = immagination.
I'm not really one to be linguistically gifted so... I propose we come up with something fresh, out-of-the-oven-new. Something original yet fully comprehensible by non-English users. Let your ''imagination'' flow. --Frontway 12:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I've taken a shot at different wording. It's more conversational and informal than the original but I think the meaning is conveyed clearer if not as imaginative as Frontway's --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   04:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I think that will be easier for most to understand. Well done. The only word I kept tripping up over was "knowledge" (base). Don't know why. Any other proposals anyone?  Яєdxx Actions Words 05:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(Giving this topic a bump) What do you folks think of Frontway's graphic and are there any more ideas on the wording? Hey Red, I thought you were gonna give it a go. --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   18:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea to use icons, but… while the current text is certainly entertaining, I'm not sure I'd want to see it everytime I create a new page. And people who aren't sure what they're doing and need it for guidance will probably be left scratching their heads. As far as I'm concerned, the current text works perfectly well (as we can see from Category:Songs SONGFLETTER – it wouldn't be there if people didn't click the "New Song Template" link). If we could keep that text and just add the icons (in a smaller size, preferably) I'd be happy. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This is approximately what I have in mind. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
That looks good to me. ~    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   18:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I added a few more ideas. I was just messing. Experimenting with a few more options. I seriously won't be offended if no one likes my designs. I just don't really like the white bit saying "Artist template" etc..and I think maybe now with icons this is unnecessary. Oh and the icons are meant to be centered and equally spaced in case anyone wondered ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 21:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll give you a hint: If you want to center something, using "float:right" is a bad idea. And before you go and try "float:center" instead: that won't work.
And I think the text links should stay. They may not look good, but they're functional. — 6×9 (Talk) 22:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there some way to get rid of the boxes, though? I think the boxes give it an "old web" feel, which is in visual conflict with the "new web" icons.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   00:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean the outer (yellow) box or the inner (white) boxes? Either or both can be removed. — 6×9 (Talk) 00:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll let Kiefer speak for himself but I like the second one down. --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   02:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
I've put an attempt up on the page. The second one is what I was looking for, but it slumps left for Firefox.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
(BUMP!) Where is this at? For reference (I had to dig around in the contribs to find it), several mock ups are here. I also dove in and made a mock up using the elements that I liked in the others on the page.
It would be good to get this resolved soon and get the template up, even if it is not perfect, just as long as it is better.
- teknomunk (talk,E,,A) 03:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
My, but it's gotten quiet in here! Does the resounding silence mean you all like the new look? It can still be changed at a whim, you know – edits to MW messages don't affect the job queue. — 6×9 (Talk) 02:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey...no news is good news!  :-]    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   02:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Weeelll..I was thinking earlier in the week that maybe we should now add a film icon which could link to an album page but set up with film header and footer. It's still slow, but films seem to me to be on the increase. We also have separate pages for films in Help section and in Page ranking. Everywhere it's Artists/Albums/Films/Songs. Just seems that maybe we should squash a film in here...  Яєdxx Actions Words 02:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I've added three new pagetypes… without icons though. (Would take up too much space; three is pretty much the maximum.) Doesn't look too great – maybe someone can think of a better layout? — 6×9 (Talk) 23:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Awesome! (Anything that furthers Films on this site makes me happy). Could you also add a "singles" pagetype option too? Should be same as a regular ablum, but Type = Single Or is this too repetitive? My thinking on it is that some people may not know how to add the single attribute for a release page. --WillMak050389 03:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
"Doesn't look too great.." It's great 6. Thanks and well done!  Яєdxx Actions Words 10:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I've added Single and also split up compilations and soundtracks (since the latter use "SType" instead of "Genre"). — 6×9 (Talk) 14:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

New MediaWiki item

Is anybody else as happy as I am that we can now sift patrolled pages out of our Watchlist? I'm sure Redxx is absolutely freakin' giddy. Of course that could just be from the party over at 6x9's place....    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   20:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I am on both counts I'll change the music in a minute Although I got to confess that I still find myself having a peak... Яєdxx Actions Words 22:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Another new item: Picture files can be MOVED!! Swweeeeeeet! Now I don't have to drag-and-drop, re-upload, and delete the original file. I can be nice and anal-retentive obsessive...errr...fix things in a easier and more efficient manner now. Now I'm absolutely freakin' giddy. (Yeah, it doesn't take much.)    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Review of an OS X application?

Hi guys,
User:Scaramangado contacted me and asked if any of the admins who use OS X would be willing to review his application which works with iTunes & our API. If you're interested, it would probably a fun way to get a link to your user page. It's called Skeiron.
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 02:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Sean I don't have iTunes, nor does 6 (he uses 98 anyway).  Яєdxx Actions Words 03:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Works fine here OS X 10.5.6, iTunes 8.1 ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 03:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I'd rather write a review of all the Mac iTunes lyric widgets and put them up somewhere here on lw, else it might seem biased! ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 06:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a great idea Echo! I think a lot (probably most) of them should be on here already: LyricWiki:Plugins. If someone does decide to review a whole bunch of them, that might be a good candidate to put a mention of in the Editor's Corner and either have it on the blog or link to it from the blog.
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 04:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Special:Search

For more information about searching LyricWiki, see Help

Oh yeah? Seems like someone needs to do a small section on searching in the Help pages for this to be true. I was searching NOBOT. Now I know that this exists, but whatever search I tried I got no results. I am definitely not the best person for this task.  Яєdxx Actions Words 06:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found any help articles on LW about the NOBOT command, however I did find this. --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   14:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you RD! That's even better than if I had actually found what I was searching for!  Яєdxx Actions Words 14:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Note that the template itself doesn't do anything – it's actually empty! So it only works if all bots are trained to notice it, and in that case we might as well use the NOBOT command instead… About the redirects though – we don't really need actual links, do we? So simply wrapping them in nowiki tags would solve that problem. — 6x9 (Talk) 16:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. NOBOT should do just as well if all bots are trained to notice it. And yes, if you're talking about the rare occasions that we may deliberately want to put a link that redirects on a talk page, no wiki will do just as well too (which is exactly what I was thinking). "In Hertford, Hereford and Hampshire, hurricanes hardly ever happen."  Яєdxx Actions Words 16:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
But after seeing Janitors recent edit wars (rfl), it would be better if talk pages were completely omitted from his search. tek?  Яєdxx Actions Words 15:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Problem is, the special page only shows the first 1000 links, and if Janitor ignored talk pages it would soon be clogged up with them. It would be better, if the link to the redirect is intentional, to either wrap it in nowiki tags, or (if you absolutely want an actual link) to use an "external" link instead (i.e. the full URL). — 6x9 (Talk) 15:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree, in the future that will be best, but I was thinking more of existing links. I'm not quite sure if he's finished yet or how far he's got.  Яєdxx Actions Words 17:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Janitor is going to take a long time to clear out Special:Linkstoredirects, on the order of a few weeks. There are still over 50,000 links to be changed and even with optimizations that group edits together, it is going to take a while.
As to the issue of intentional links to redirects, an external link as mentioned above or the NOBOT specification would probably have the least side effects.
- teknomunk (talk,E,,A) 19:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks tek  Яєdxx Actions Words 22:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

May

.lrc files?

A number of these are still floating around, some uncategorised, most (or all) unused… Do we keep them? Delete them? — 6×9 (Talk) 21:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

delete 'em.    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   21:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Wonder if Senv could upload them to lrcdb and then we delete these files and update the links..?  Яєdxx Actions Words

Pagesize warning

Since we pretty much agreed to ignore the >32kB warning for pagesize, and since I found the warning a bit annoying, I (sort-of) removed it by creating a blank MediaWiki:Longpagewarning. If you want it back (for nostalgic reasons, or as a reminder to occasionally archive old talk page messages… *cough cough*), simply deleting the message should restore the default. — 6×9 (Talk) 16:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

K well since you are in a position to know how valid or useful this warning was and you didn't seem to feel it held true, certainly not for IE6, it is probably good that it's gone. It seemed to cause more problems than it resolved anyway, by being taken too literally.  Яєdxx Actions Words 17:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Batch move and redirects

It seems batch move is rather picky about skipping redirects. If they're lowercase (#redirect) it wants to add a merge instead, after I changed one to uppercase (#REDIRECT) it got skipped as usually… — 6×9 (Talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting that 6. So good idea to ensure we always use #REDIRECT then? I'll endeavour to ensure this on help pages Яєdxx Actions Words 22:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
A better solution would be to make the script's redirect-detection case-insensitive… — 6×9 (Talk) 23:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

July

Trusted

User:Ezekiel000 – I've been wanting to suggest him for quite a while now, but somehow always forgot, or got sidetracked… He's pretty familiar with our rules, and always asks when he isn't sure. — 6×9 (Talk) 20:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree,--Senvaikis (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep worthy candidate.  Яєdxx Actions Words 16:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Check! Done.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Album list on album pages?

I know this has come up before, but I just thought of a way around one of the main reasons against it (the amount of work with updating lots of pages)… What if we create an "…/Albums" subpage for a given artist and have {{AlbumFooter}} display a pretty box below the ext. links only if such a subpage exists? Would be nice to jump to any album without having to go through the artist page (which, depending on size, connection and/or cpu, can take pretty long to load). — 6×9 (Talk) 23:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :-) What colour will the pretty box be though? ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 03:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Chris-Green. Because (1) he made it, so we have to use it somewhere; (2) if we want to go with the colour-scheme thing, Green is for album pages; and (3) I like it. — 6×9 (Talk) 03:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Chris-Green sounds good to me :-)  Яєdxx Actions Words 03:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I envisioned optically. This would go to the very bottom of the page, right above the categories. That means that my original idea (of having AF add it automatically) won't work, because sometimes there are more ext. links below the AF, and then the box would sit inbetween… but we could add {{Album List}} to the bottom of album pages. — 6×9 (Talk) 23:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks neat! What about major artists with lots of albums? Ah...I guess chronological order showing the next and the next...?  Яєdxx Actions Words 23:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Chronological order: yes. It will show all albums though. Remember that there's only one "master list" for an artist, and the template simply calls it. (That's why the font is so small.) I think the formatting of the master list should be open – splitting into sections wouldn't make sense if there's only one compilation, for example. In other cases you might want to list collaborations, singles, live albums… under their own header, to reduce clutter. For Neil Young it would be a good idea to list releases by both NY and NY&CH. Etc. etc. etc. — 6×9 (Talk) 01:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Album List}} and a working example. (The list used in the example is located at Genesis/Albums.) — 6×9 (Talk) 06:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's really good 6. Well done! The only problem I envisage is users compiling the Artist/Albums page. You going to write instructions for that? And I know you will have already thought of this but the Artist/Albums page needs categorising as well...including invalid pages.  Яєdxx Actions Words 07:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
To categorise invalid pages you'll have to find them first, and if you find them you might as well fix them :-) — 6×9 (Talk) 08:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

{{NoLang}}

Anyone remember this one? The plan at the time was to have a bot add it to all pages in SNLI regularly… How about having SongFooter displaying it automatically if the language parameter is missing? (Unless it's an instrumental of course – before Red asks.) — 6×9 (Talk) 23:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me (I think I'm becoming a parrot). Now don't get over excited, but SandBot is being quite insistent that she can assist in this task by adding the template to all the songs in that category. What do you reckon? Should I tell her to give it a go?  Яєdxx Actions Words 03:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
My idea was to change SF (not right now, but with the next revision) to call that template if no language parameter is present, so no bot action would be necessary. Adding it by bot instead would mean you'd have to run it regularly, since new pages arrive in SNLI daily. — 6×9 (Talk) 03:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
And SandBot's idea was to give us a head start on you updating the SF by adding the template to all the songs in SNLI now. Your idea will still apply. Or would SandBot's efforts be of no help?  Яєdxx Actions Words 04:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
If we added the template directly to the pages, we'd later have to remove them again when SF is updated. We'd also have to tell all users, bots and cyborgs to remember to remove them when they add the language. Too much hassle for little gain, I'd think. — 6×9 (Talk) 04:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't song footer simply ignore it if a template was already on page? And aren't we going to have to remove the template manually anyway when language is entered? Or will it just magically disappear *pff* after language is entered and edit saved?
Ok, no worries, I was just trying to help :-)  Яєdxx Actions Words 13:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. Listen.. Can you hear that..? There's no owls in this neck of the woods ;)
The latter. Just like the page will disappear from SNLI, the NoLang banner will disappear from the page. P.S. An ellipsis is three dots, not two.6×9 (Talk) 22:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Ooh clever!  Яєdxx Actions Words 23:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC) P.S. Yes thank you I do know that. I was just being lazy. I've corrected it now though ;)

{{sblock}} and {{vblock}}

User:Sharp eyes created these two as shortcuts for spam & vandalism block notices. Using {{subst:sblock|username}} is the same as {{BlockUser|duration=infinite|reason=spam|admin=username}}. — 6×9 (Talk) 02:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

August

Front Page Music

I've got two things to ask to the other admins:

  1. I have finally secured an apartment so that I can go back to school this fall (woohoo!), but I may not have internet for the first few days/weeks (not sure how long it will take, hopefully days). I am moving in on the 22nd and will probably need someone to update the AotW and Free Music of the Week for that week. I was just wondering if anyone was up to it? I can give you the skinny on everything that needs to be done and I'll get the work done so that you have a Free Music feature. You'd essentially just have to update it (a lot of copy and paste is involved).
  2. SotD - September 9, 2009 already has a nomination, but this also marks the date of the official release of The Beatles digitally remastered catalog for the first time ever. The Beatles are the greatest band of all time (the greatest, but not necessarily my favorite). Is there a way we could get a dual SotD that day? Shouldn't be too hard, and I believe that there's a way of tricking ÜberBot into displaying both (we'd just have to make sure that each page got a SotD badge and each nominator got notified (if that is important)). I was planning on nominating Hey Jude (which hasn't been SotD yet apparently, and While My Guitar Gently Weeps and Yesterday were already taken). We should probably also do something for the AotW, but I should be able to take care of that.

--WillMak050389 17:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone read this page anymore? --WillMak050389 02:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Will, I've been a bit busy last few days and of course I'm behind on my never ending watchlist (rfl) but yes I always read this page. I know 6 does too. And Kiefer. In answer to your question, I'll do it if Kiefer doesn't want to. But I'd rather he did. That Ok with you Bearcat?  Яєdxx Actions Words 03:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know, I should be available to do that. A reminder or two or three wouldn't be seen as a bad thing, though. (Redxx?) That's about the time that the new school year for my daughter begins and things may be a bit hectic. Sorry I didn't respond earlier. I must have glossed-over the changes here on my watchlist.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Instructions are up here. Like I say on that page, feel free to contact me if there are any questions. I have access to a computer lab and will check probably every day, but I just don't have the time to do the whole AotW until I get internet at my apartment. Good luck and Thank You! --WillMak050389 18:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll do it Kiefer, sounds like you've got enough on your plate too (as long as you two don't mind me asking silly questions if there's anything I don't understand). Hope the move goes smoooothly Will and hope your beautiful daughter settles in well Kiefer. *Off to read instructions*  Яєdxx Actions Words 03:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I always feel like I have a lot on my plate, so nothing different there, I just know I'll be a little more distracted than usual. For instance, I spent 3+ hours today selling t-shirts and the like at my daughter's school to what felt like the entire student body's parents. I think for about five minutes in the chaos and frenzy I forgot my own name.  :-] Especially when we started selling out of certain sizes.  :-[ So, I won't feel bad if you want to do it. ;-] (Alright, a trio of emoticons! I can go to sleep happy tonight having accomplished something.)    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

ALBUMYEAR & Released parameter

Can the ALBUMYEAR magic word be adjusted so that it always returns the year even if there's no colon in the title? Because then we could do away with the "Released" parameter in {{Album}}. Actually we could do that now by using ROMANARTIST when there's no colon (like here), but that just seems… weird. (Maybe add a fix at the same time so AY only returns numbers, not "Live" or "Demo" as well?) — 6×9 (Talk) 05:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Note to self: {{#sub:{{PAGENAME}}|-5|-1}} always returns the year (if the pagename is formatted correctly). — 6×9 (Talk) 05:52, September 5, 2009 (UTC)
Talking to yourself is the first sign of madness ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 05:16, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with talking to yourself. It's only when you get a reply that you should start to worry. — 6×9 (Talk) 07:39, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
Haa haa. I often get asked why I ask my cats questions ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 01:13, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

September

New Wikipedia template

I created {{wplink}} as a meta-template which all other templates should call for their Wikipedia needs. This way, if for some reason the links stop working again in the future, we'll only have to fix one template instead of a dozen. It also (finally) allows section linking, without the hassle of extra parameters. Plus, in {{ArtistHeader}}, it shows "Russian/Japanese/…" instead of the ugly generic "non-English".

So far I've only changed {{ArtistHeader}} and {{Collaboration}} to use it, in case any bugs appear. If they do, please let me know! — 6×9 (Talk) 08:08, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Good one 6! And...does that mean my wikipedia section thingy now works..everywhere?  Яєdxx Actions Words 09:09, September 5, 2009 (UTC)
It will, once all other templates use wplink. We'll probably have to fix the existing ones though, because the new way uses "normal" text (i.e. as it appears on the page, not in the addressbar). — 6×9 (Talk) 09:58, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

The Despised and Torturous LW:PN

I "spoke" to Sean soon after the move and suggested that since the API is mostly dead and any developer is going to have to adjust or abandon their project due to the move anyhow that now would be the time to (if we're ever going to do it) kill the capitalization requirement. He seemed to think that it was a good idea.


So...what do you think?    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   18:06, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Chris' opinion is: Neutral
  • + If we wait any longer then it will become even more work
  • + There's no risk of forgetting
  • + the/of/a ... is the usual way to capitalise
  • + New names might be closer to the original ones
  • - This will be a lot work to fix/move the pages according to the new pages
  • - It could lead to discussions about how to write titles, edit- and move-wars in the worst case
  • - All old links have to be updated to keep archives readable and functional
  • - It's easier to maintain pages you know how to capitalise links in (f. e. the automatically created lists like iTunes charts)
  • o Imo the capitalised song-titles look better (subjective opinion, so no count for either side)
- Chris 20:30, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
Ooh looks like someone left a window open ;) Ok well I'm for doing away with the capitalization requirement.  Яєdxx Actions Words 20:44, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
Redxx, you brought in a stray, I see. Good thing he had good things to say.  :-]    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   21:58, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
Now that it's not going to cause issues, we might as well do it (though it's going to be a heavy load of work...) We do, however, need to create some sort of guideline to keep it standardized, because some people interpret "correct capitalization" differently. I always preferred these rules with one exception: prepositions that are four or five letters should also stay uncapped. I prefer "Me from You" over "Me From You" and I believe this is Wikipedia's convention too. Many other sources prefer only up to three-letter prepositions. Here are MusicBrainz capitalization standards. --WillMak050389 21:04, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
No bots either. In view of which, I think it would probably be best if existing pages remain as they are. If anyone wants to change them then that's fine. But otherwise they should co-exist. I admit I don't know how this would work regarding categories, etc.
I agree, some guidelines are needed concerning capitalisation, but I would hope they wouldn't be too complicated.  Яєdxx Actions Words 21:42, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
It's a heavy load of work, I do suppose, but I don't see it as a "We need to correct all instances ASAP" kind of a thing. It's an "as we go" kind of a thing.
For English titles, the extra capitalization isn't really a horrible deal. I've never really been bothered by it, Chris likes it, and I'm sure others are fairly neutral about it. (You never really hear from the neutral parties, do you?) I'm really more bothered by it for the other languages, such as French, Spanish, etc. Even to my non-native eye, some of those titles in initial caps look awfully awkward.
I don't think, with all that's been going on, that anyone's really been worrying about moving incorrectly capitalized titles, but I wanted to definitely get this out there so that we don't start moving things that we're going to have to possibly move back. What our "rules" are going to be can be decided later in the Community Portal, but this decision is sort of a "functioning of the system" decision that I felt needed Admin attention and thought. It was originally meant to primarily assist the whole API system, but that's a much-diminished necessity with the current state of things. Secretly...? I'm just bringing this up because I'm tired of moving things all the time and leaving "See LW:PN" notes everywhere. :-]    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   21:58, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
As for your intent, then I agree fully. Don't move anything to all caps because of LW:PN anymore! --WillMak050389 22:24, September 15, 2009 (UTC)
I'm neutral regarding all inicaps; just wanted to ask: who told you that our life will be simpler without capitalization, while PN is case-sensitive?--Senvaikis (talk) 04:48, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
There used to be at least one rant a week about the capitalization scheme from a new LyricWiki editor. (I used to hear quite a few of them, as I was the primary editor moving things around and leaving notes about the policy and I'd have their User page on my watch list.) It's kind of calmed down in the past year, but that may be largely due to the multitude of LW:PN notices around. Germans (well, those that edited German artists' pages, anyhow), seemed to have the biggest problem with the policy.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   05:23, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
I'm leaning more towards keeping the policy. Note that LW:PN#Purpose only mentions the API in passing, in the last sentence, and not even explicitly. All other reasons stated there still hold true. Not that I really expect any massive move wars… But – if we decide to do away with it (and currently it looks like we will) – can we at least wait until Janitor is back in action, to clean up the resulting double redirects? — 6×9 (Talk) 18:07, September 16, 2009 (UTC)
I'd really like to give respect to our friends from around the world who have different rules concerning capitalisation. But 6 does have a point. However, I imagine that the people most likely to edit those pages are those from the same country as the artist. And those most likely to search these pages will probably be from the same country too. As such they will probably be expecting to find what they deem to be the correct capitalisation.  Яєdxx Actions Words 23:45, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out that although 6×9 has a point about the "Purpose" section, I think we need to reexamine it.

  • The purpose of this policy is to have pagenames that are as uniform as possible.
    • This is true and a legitimate reason for keeping the same rules
  • LyricWiki is a site that has songs, artists, and users from many different nations, which have rules for capitalization that may vary. (At times, the Artist may creatively change capitalization as well.) By breaking the capitalization rules of every nation, it is hoped that the creation of multiple variations of a page will be minimized. This way, the site won't have one group of editors working on one variation, while another group works on another and work can be more collaborative.
    • This argument only looks at one side of the coin. Unfortunately, by having our own standards that break all the others, people don't realise (as can be seen by the numerous times that we have to tell them) that we have our own convention. This leads to multiple page creations for the same song, even if we already have the correct one. Someone from Germany may create a page at "German Band Name:Germans only like caps on Nouns" because (s)he didn't see "German Band Name:Germans Only Like Caps On Nouns". So, by trying to make it uniform, we have made it less collaborative for native speakers.
    • Redirects and links which would normally be created for the correct title (so as to link to the correct LW title) can be reversed for our change of LW:PN. Yes, this will create more work to undo the work we've done, but in the future, it will hopefully create less problems because people will tend to create pages at the correct titles instead of the AllInitialCaps titles.
  • Also, because LyricWiki is incorporated into other projects, a uniform method of creating pagenames is also necessary for coding purposes.
    • We can probably axe this statement as I assume this was talking about the API. With the recent developments, I assume the "other projects" has been reduced to a minimum (or zero). Also, any programs that access LW should probably be able to handle redirects anyway (not just because of caps issues, but also because of character encoding issues, page name restrictions, and name variances, etc.)

So I hope that argument makes sense. Essentially, breaking all the language conventions creates as many problems as following language conventions, so with the removal of the API, we might as well not keep the LW:PN conventions. The only thing we lose is page name uniformity, but that's really a stylistic issue now with the removal of the API. If we change, people will no longer complain that their pages shouldn't have been moved (for one example: see this discussion, there are plenty more where that came from). That's my take on it. Please place all complaints and insults below :). --WillMak050389 18:02, September 26, 2009 (UTC)

Like I wrote, I'm not dead-set against changing it, only somewhat slightly opposed. And that may be just because I'm so used to it by now… But I really think we should wait until some bot is available to clean up the resulting double redirects. Any news on that front? I feel kinda bad for Linus, who does much of that job manually. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:37, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
I didn't want to suggest that we needed to change everything now, just not enforce LW:PN anymore. I don't see much benefit to keeping the policy, and hopefully eventually we can get everything moved to correct language convention capitalisation, but not at the moment. Also, I didn't mean to come off as berating you 6, I just don't agree with the points that the "Purpose" section brings up, by the way what is your address. I have some letters to send... ;) --WillMak050389 18:48, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
Haa haa like it Will :-)
Ok so it seems that the API is not as dead and buried as we first thought (see Senv's comments). And since the removal of the API was the reason Kiefer proposed to do away with the capitalisation rule, it would seem that we are being a bit premature to be discussing changing this. Am I right Senv? For the purpose of API, would you suggest that we need to keep the capitalisation rule?  Яєdxx Actions Words 05:00, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to all for the wonderful discussion. I think that we've probably covered all of the pros and cons of the change. I don't think anything has come up with that I hadn't already considered at one point or another. Most, if not all, of the "Purpose" statement was written by me to help explain the various reasons for the policy to the many that were confused/upset/curious about the policy.
I didn't go too in depth with Senv's API link, but from first glance, it looks as if that is a MediaWiki API application, as opposed to the Grand Ol' LW API. Whatever the case, however, my main point regarding the API is that because of the new location and the new limits that would be automatically placed on any API usage, now would be the best time to make such a change (From what I am understanding, any API usage will not be able to return lyrics of any kind. Discographies and tracklists, yes, but lyrics, no. Forbidden.) Any API usage will need to be changed/updated, etc. So, now would be the optimal time for a change to be made, if such a change is desired. That way, if API usage/programs begin to proliferate, then they don't have to do a sudden rewrite (again) to work properly or most efficiently. True, the programmers should take into account redirects, etc., etc., but not all programmers (and programs) are created equal.  :-]
It would be nice, indeed, if bot power was restored before we made this completely official (my main concern is Janitor, so that those newly-created strays with alternate capitalization can be swept up and placed in their appropriate home), but I'd like to see this matter concluded one way or the other fairly quickly. (By the end of October, perhaps? He says hopefully.  :-])
Thanks again, to all the admins who are trudging through this move. I know that it's been difficult to see things a bit chaotic and feel more than a bit powerless about many of the changes. I understand. I feel it, too. I'm always available to any of you through e-mail.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:26, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Kiefer for the proposal. However, I don't think that any of us should assume that bots will return. If their activity/usage formulates part of the licensing agreement, they may not be able to.  Яєdxx Actions Words 01:12, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
Well, as it appears that the API is (mostly) functioning, and the reasoning behind the original policy seems to be still applicable, I suggest that we keep the policy as it stands. It's been weeks since the move to Wikia, and I haven't seen any angry messages about the capitalization scheme. Of course, for the most part we haven't done many moves/edits to enforce the policy, but I haven't seen much in the way of people "correcting" capitalization either. So, any objections?    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:12, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
Your reasoning sounds good. Probably should keep the LW:PN for now. -Sean Colombo 17:35, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
Agreed.  Яєdxx Actions Words 00:20, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Move limit?

Looks like we finally got what I wished for during the vandal attacks, but a limit of two moves per five minutes seems unnecessarily strict. I think something like two moves per minute would be more appropriate (and still severely limit the damage a vandal-bot could do). Can this be changed, please? — 6×9 (Talk) 17:24, September 22, 2009 (UTC)

Do you know that I'm kinda wondering who is actually running the show now...  Яєdxx Actions Words 23:32, September 22, 2009 (UTC)
I just adjusted the rate limit for this wiki, so regular user should now be able to move two pages per 60 seconds. There is an additional rate limit as well--new accounts are still restricted to two moves per five minutes. Do you want to leave that one or decrease it as well? --KyleH@fandom (talk) 21:21, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
I think that's good. Before the move new accounts weren't allowed to move pages at all, merely restricting them seems a better and fairer solution. Thanks! — 6×9 (Talk) 08:38, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
Yes I'm in agreement too, as it will reduce the queries raised about this by newly registered users when they find they are unable to move pages. Thanks Kyle.  Яєdxx Actions Words 05:04, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

(Pagesize = 66,483)

Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.