FANDOM

2,054,077 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
<< 2009 October - 2010 April 2010 May - 2012 December 2013 – ??? >>


2010

FLetter at ligatures

What does Rikkert Zuiderveld:IJskristal get for fLetter? Symbol? I? IJ? - Chris 10:37, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia use of the ligature IJ instead of separate letters IJ is discouraged: "…even with Unicode available, it is recommended to encode ij as two separate letters." (The Dutch wp article agrees with this.) In that case the page should be moved to Rikkert Zuiderveld:IJskristal with I as fLetter (and an API-friendly redirect at Ijskristal). Otherwise, IJ would be correct as fLetter. What do the others think? — 6×9 (Talk) 12:42, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Chris proudly presents:

The LW:PN template LWPN! We could insert it into the link to the artist or the album in the {{Song}} template.

{{Song|This Is an Album for the Future (2008)|Mr brown|star=Green}}
could produce perfectly LW:PN conform artist- and albumlinks AND pay attention to the captitalisation of artists! That again means, that we can as well do away with sf.album parameter because the "better" capitalisation there isn't necessary, it can be done in {{Song}}. - Chris 21:25, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
P.S.: This could be realised thanks to the Loops extension. Well Sean, you really should've enabled it May 09^^
I like it! I've thought about something like that too a while ago, but without loops it would have been Bracket Hell. Unfortunately sf.album is still necessary – for those few albums with forbidden characters (#, <, [ etc.). — 6×9 (Talk) 14:48, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
{{LWPN|a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 a7 a8 a9 a10 a11 a12 a13 a14 a15 a16 a17 a18 a19 a20 a21 a22 a23 a24 a25 a26 a27 a28 a29 a30 a31 a32 a33 a34 a35 a36 a37 a38 a39 a40 a41 a42 a43 a44 a45 a46 a47 a48 a49 a50 a51 a52 a53 a54 a55 a56 a57 a58 a59 a60 a61 a62 a63 a64 a65 a66 a67 a68 a69 a70 a71 a72 a73 a74 a75 a76 a77 a78 a79 a80 a81 a82 a83 a84 a85 a86 a87 a88 a89 a90 a91 a92 a93 a94 a95 a96 a97 a98 a99 a100}}
Max. pagename length is 255 bytes, so I guess 83 words should be enough :-) — 6×9 (Talk) 14:48, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe a check for correct album link format (basically see if it ends with " (????)") might be a good idea too… (Both of these wouldn't be done in {{Song}} but in {{AlbumtypeSwitcher}}, keeping the vast majority of song pages out of the job queue.) — 6×9 (Talk) 14:48, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
83 words is enough, I think so, yeah :D Why are "forbidden" characters a reason for sf.album? We'll change a huge number of pages anyway, and the job queue is nearly at zero again (see webnumbr). We could finally edit {{Song}} and insert the parameter where it belongs (namely with "alias"). With Loops Extension we can "kill" the fa-number limitation and while we're editing the template, we add "albumname[#]" to it. - Chris 20:14, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
If an album were titled "a > b" the LWPN-conformant pagename would be "A Greater Than B"; somehow I don't think the search links in the footer would give many meaningful results for that term… We'll need to keep the alias parameter for the same reason (and for artists who recorded under various names so we won't have to create separate pages for each variation).
(Yet) another thing I'd like to include is a characters-that-mangle-display-text-replacer template so we don't have to use these annoying workarounds like with *NSYNC. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:46, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I do not speak of removing the possibility to define the displaytext for artists and albums. I just think that the displaytext-parameter for the album should rather be in {{Song}} than in {{SongFooter}} (so the link will be well formed in {{Song}}, too).
I suggest the following changes:
  1. Include the LW:PN template to be applied on every artist and album link in {{Song}} (maybe fa, too? We'd need a parameter for fa displaytexts, but with Loops that code wouldn't be too messy...)
  2. Insert a possibility to define the displaytext for albums in {{Song}} (which however will not be necessary for simple lowercase <-> LW:PN uppercase issues): Artist: [[{{LWPN|{{{2}}}}}|{{{alias|{{{2}}}}}}]] / Albums: [[{{LWPN|{{{1|}}}}}|{{{albumname|{{{1|}}}}}}]]
  3. Use Loops to allow unlimited number of fa
  4. Remove album parameter from {{SongFooter}}, because "s.albumname" does that job now.
Chris 20:33, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

de-cluttering page rank info templates

The Song/Album/Artist Info templates all contain several parameters that could be safely removed (see list below), since we have categories for quickly finding and fixing pages missing them. Is there a reason why we should keep them?

{{Artist Info}}
fLetter
(possibly artist – it's "not applicable" for 99% anyway)
{{Album Info}}
fLetter
artist
album
(some album talk pages also still list the obsolete released parameter)
{{Song Info}}
fLetter
artist
song

We could also add allmusic parameters to all three (and maybe musicbrainz to Song Info). — 6×9 (Talk) 18:57, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

Customizing Achievements

I recently turned on Achievements which are pretty fun :) ... one of the cool features is that we can change all of the icons and the names of the achievements. It's a bit challenging to find pictures which go well inside of the frames (it automatically frames the picture based on what 'level' the badge is). I guess the trick is to find one that's mostly round w/the good stuff right in the center.

Anywho... the page to customize achievements is only accessible to admins. It can be found here: Special:AchievementsCustomize. Any ideas for custom names? Maybe name the badges after songs or something?

I'll try to get my creative juices flowing too and try to think of things ;)
-Sean Colombo 22:08, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

Yay, I've earned 1 badge already! :-) With the monaco skin, they take up a lot of space in the right column (screenshot after resizing browser to 1024px width). With monobook they show at the bottom (which I think is better), but somehow garbled. Other than that, I like it! — 6×9 (Talk) 07:55, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Images

Is it just me & my connection, or does it take painfully let's-take-a-nap-and-then-brew-a-pot-of-coffee-and-then-see-if-it's-finished-yet long for image thumbnails to appear? Mostly affects new images, but happens for a few older ones as well. No problems with full-size versions though. — 6×9 (Talk) 11:22, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Thumbnailing is messed up wikia-wide. It's apparently known about and the ops guys are working on it. Sorry :/
-Sean Colombo 20:10, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
I shouldn't say that ;), but the worm of conscience is forcing me to make one remark here: the mess have happened exactly after Lwt's massive (over 1600) reuploading of most-oversized images, reduced to 500*500 px2 (see here). --Senvaikis (talk) 21:08, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
Given the fact that we have got about 38,000 album covers, 1,600 covers aren't so much (about 4%)... - Chris 23:19, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
We recently re-wrote the thumbnailing system because it had hit a wall... the re-write wasn't much better unfortunately (it was just a temporary solution... they're working on a permanent fix now). It's surprisingly hard to thumbnail and serve images for a site with almost a billion page views per month ;) mad props to the ops guys if they can solve this quickly.
-Sean Colombo 05:23, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

AllMusic: new link format

Hi, looks like AMG has adapted the allmusic url design to the akuma page. The parameter is usually preceded with the title, but this is fortunately unnecessary. Parameter is the same as with Akuma, f. e.

It can be gathered by following the current allmusic links (which are still working and redirect to the new format).

As we're currently editing all the templates anyway, shall we merge sf.akuma and sf.allmusic into sf.amgid (and for Artist and Album, too) and parse |amgid = p347307 to Akuma and AllMusic links? - Chris 13:44, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

I think we should remove the Akuma parameter completely and just use the existing "allmusic" variable for Akuma links. Actually, our deal with Akuma has lapsed, so we can remove those links unless we think they're helpful for their own sake to have them around.
-Sean Colombo 16:48, October 14, 2010 (UTC)


2011

Gracenote's horrible database - a proposal

Hello,

every time Gracenote decides or has to block a page, they also put similar pagetitles on their block-/blacklist. This is sensible and reasonable, as long as the pagetitles are common typos, similar titles, aka-names for the songs, etc.

However, in recent history cases of absolutely senseless page titles have reached such a high level that it really hurts my forehead because I faceplam so often about the incredible page names. A few examples I recently saw, only to mention a few:

or from other artists

This list could be continued into the thousands, just look into the recent contributions of GNB.

I'm really tired of redirecting dozens of pages to the one page that is in fact really meant to be taken down. It isn't only a lot of unnecessary work, it also fills up our recent edits, the revisions-table, and the whole database, but it does also look pretty ugly if A) Janitor adds the pages to the Other songs section or B) a user uses our "Browse all pages by X" link. Now here's my idea:

Sean proposed a new system of case insensitivity. The planned implementation includes the ability of the extension to prevent a user from creating a page (that only differs by the capitalization). Now couldn't exactly the same prevention mechanism be used to check a table of protected titles, = a list of all page titles that Gracenote added on the blocklist that were not created so far? This way, we'd not have the page in our visible database, but still prevent a creation. Adding and deleting from a blocklist was also easier then by simple SQL request for GNBot:

Insertion: INSERT $pagetitle INTO gn_blockedpages
Deletion: DELETE FROM gn_blockedpages WHERE gn_title=$pagetitle

Keeps us from a lot of useless redirects or empty-except-for-block-notice pages, ugly page names, block/unblock revisions, edits - and last but not least it saves me and all other admins a lot of work. So please, Sean, could we implement it that way? Pages that have been created on takedown-day are handled as usual; pages that have not been created are fed into the database and cannot be created - just as required. The block-extension/parser-hook could also throw a note why the creation is prevented, like the current template does.

I'd appreciate that solution very much.

- Chris 17:55, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, something like this should be possible already without any changes to the db schema or the mw software. You can protect a pagename just like an existing page – see Special:ProtectedTitles. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:05, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
True, but that'd not allow us to throw a specified message about the block reason or a separate listing specialpage, which might be desirable? Smile - Chris 18:18, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Nostalgic intro, rhetotical experiment and positive suggestion

Hi, admins.

Let's make a little experiment: check this page two days after date to count, how many admins have responded to this message. Do you remember days, then this number was over ten? I do. Now it's great to receive responses from two admins; three would be a real marvel (meaning The BM joined too).
What am I talking about? We need a fresh blood - a new, really active admin. I thought about Trainman, and wanted to ask your opinion. All of you, active admins :)
tia,--Senvaikis (talk) 21:02, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
I think Trainman would be great :) -Sean Colombo 02:29, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, on all counts. So that's 75% in favour for Trainman already… — 6×9 (Talk) 04:33, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
LyricWiki is admin-draining: LyricWiki:Administrators. I update that list from time to time after recent edits, but I think now that I answered, that's actually it. Senv, 6, Sean and I - the four admins... Pro new admins, Chris 13:18, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

So, when Chris in a very sophisticated way also subscribed (imo) to my suggestion, and we have all 100% (from those accessible), may I ask Sean (or any other) to make an official offer to a new pretender? I'd gladly made that myself, but you know my English - it's definitelly too bad for such official celebratory speaches ;). Thanks, --Senvaikis (talk) 14:01, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

100% agreed with your opinion: "Pro new admins" I need a quotation template - will create one in a minute.
"I'd gladly made that myself, but you know my English - it's definitelly too bad for such official celebratory speaches ;)" - Nonsense Grin. You used "sophisticated", is that what you call "bad English"? Wink I think not, so from my POV you might as well be bold go ahead Smile - Chris 15:58, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
+1 ... I'm cool w/Senv offering :) -Sean Colombo 00:10, April 21, 2011 (UTC)
@Sean: I asked Trainman what would be his reaction to such offer and seems he's ready to accept it. So, again - BM, please, be so kind to finalise this job, as the only active bureaucrat :). Tia.
@Chris:If you really want to get WP-Song check lists in nearest future, you'd be interested to bump BM, releasing me such way from 2 hours of creative torments, while writing an offer :). These 2 hours would be enough to rewrite Lwt, adapting it to your task ;). --Senvaikis (talk) 05:41, April 21, 2011 (UTC)
Quote by Senv: "If you really want to get WP-Song check lists in nearest future, you'd be interested to bump BM" No need to hurry Hihi - Chris 15:16, April 21, 2011 (UTC)
Ugh, sorry I've missed that this convo has been changing. I'm apparently not getting all of my watchlist emails :(
Anywho... have made the direct offer to Trainman and will follow up w/the changing of user-groups if he accepts.
-Sean Colombo 22:48, April 24, 2011 (UTC)
Trainman is an admin now! :D -Sean Colombo 23:12, April 24, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone -- as I've said to both Senvaikis and Sean, I can't promise that I'll have a lot of time to work on admin tasks (since I haven't even had as much time for editing as I'd like recently), but I'll definitely try to help out to the best of my ability. Even if I'm busy, though, I should always be reachable via my talk page here, or email, or Twitter. Trainman 02:54, April 25, 2011 (UTC)

New project

Based on the Stunningly Stellar Star-o-Meter I made up some coloured page ranking statistics. We definitely have too many green pages, which could be bronze. I'll comb through the green categories and upgrade the pages to bronze where possible. This will do for the rest of my life, I think Wink. - Chris 02:07, April 22, 2011 (UTC)

Showoff! :-) Do you plan to do this automatedly? (Probably, since it's for the rest of one life only…) Because there are probably many pages that are "formally" correct, but have the wrong lyrics. Personally I don't think these should be ranked Bronze (though I've had an argument with Red and Humbug, IIRC, who disagreed). — 6×9 (Talk) 06:19, April 22, 2011 (UTC)
Quote by 6 times 9: "Do you plan to do this automatedly?" - I'm thinking about a cyborg tool, yes. It turns out like I'll need .NET for my apprenticeship, so I think trying to build anything like LWT is a good training in that language. And now for something completely different...
Short disquisition about lyrical correctness in relation to page ranking
If you take a close look, the question of "wrong lyrics" does not belong into the field of star colour. The star colour refers (as you said) to the formal correctness of a page. Lyrical correctness is covered by the ranking aspect of certification, and does not become a factor for the star colour unless you want to upgrade a song to Gold. Maybe that's not sensible, but that's the way it is. There is no step inbetween "unverified" and "certified", which maybe was the one we'd need for Bronze. But there isn't anything like that, hence you have to differentiate between "star colour" and "certification" both being a seperate part of "page ranking" until it comes to the golden star.
You might want to debate on what "obvious problems" in "the lyrics show no obvious problems" refers to. I'm afraid that is the point that wasn't discussed enough when the page ranking was introduced.
So much for my essay, thanks Biggrin - Chris 16:50, April 22, 2011 (UTC)
Now I'm not sure whether I wasn't clear or whether I'm misinterpreting you… If it's the former, sorry for making you write that essay! With "wrong lyrics" I didn't mean a couple wrong words or even lines, I meant a song page having the lyrics for a completely different song (as was the case with nearly every song from the first Supertramp album). That's a wholly different type of "unverified"! I don't think such a page should be ranked Bronze, and in some respects this is even more severe a problem than a missing template. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:40, April 22, 2011 (UTC)
I also meant that, "wrong" lyrics don't belong to that page (opposed to "inaccurate" lyrics). Yet I see lyrics completely unrelated to the star colour until Gold. As I said, that might be a mistake, but in fact it is set up like this, that star colour is for formatting and not some "overall" rank, which is uncommon but my understanding of the system that's described here.
Edit: Regarding unverified vs. certified:
  • unverified = could be wrong, could be inaccurate, could be correct.
  • certified = not wrong, not inaccurate, is correct.
Maybe there should have been a state for "not wrong, could be inaccurate, could be correct" as criterion for Bronze or at least Silver... - Chris 19:30, April 22, 2011 (UTC) P.S.: We're currently just 4 or 5 admins, maybe we should find a strict convention now rather than when we have 10 or 12...
Wanted to let you know

Quote by Lyricserver: "I may certify a song, add the ((WP-Song)) link to it, add the ((Youtube embed)) link, put the ((cover/cover2)) & all the other song badges, add the Credits section and complete the ((Star Box)) list so it's all done, the most ranking the song can have is a StarIconBronze Bronze. All it would need is a "watcher" to make it a StarIconGold Gold. Bronze to Gold for just one criteria is a bit much, in my opinion, but that's what I've been doing so far. It's kind of disappointing to see all that hard work amount to a little reward.

I know you and the other admins have been talking about the page rankings. I personally like the inclusion of the unverified vs. certified ranking, but I don't know much about the implementation of it. And I just wanted you (all admins) about how I feel about the "watching" situation. I also know I'm just one person, but sometimes that's just enough. :)

Once again, thank you Chris for all the things you've accomplished as well as Senvaikis, 6x9 & all the other admins. All your hard work on this site shows.
/soapbox :)"

Gracenote guidance

Over on the Job Exchange, Eeepy has submitted a request to have a number of Gracenote-takedown-obliterated pages for "Shake, Rattle and Roll" redirected to Bill Haley:Shake, Rattle And Roll -- which happens to have not been affected by a takedown.

I'm all in favor of sticking it to The Man, but redirecting all those pages seems like it's deliberately baiting Gracenote -- not to mention the various music publishers and their friendly lawyers -- and seems like it might be a fairly short step from there to creating pages with deliberately misspelled/mis-punctuated titles in order to get around takedown notices.

(If you're wondering, in this particular case, although a number of recordings of the song have been released credited to "Bill Haley" or "Bill Haley & The Comets," the correct page would be Bill Haley & His Comets:Shake, Rattle And Roll.)

Any thoughts? (Yes, I also see the Job Exchange request from a couple months ago involving "Guns and Roses," which I guess is a related can of worms.) Trainman 21:31, May 5, 2011 (UTC)

My position is: it's not our fault if their databases hold blocks for pages by the wrong artist but not for the correct one. Anyway I do not quite understand their system. So I'd do it. However this is just how I'd do it.
Even on closer look we're not doing something wrong. We only must not display the blocked lyrics and try to prevent to add them. But it's not forbidden to redirect to any similar page or even something completely different. This is what we do. I think, we might as well redirect all blocked songs to some random page Wink N.B.: I like that idea, somehow^^ - Chris 22:06, May 5, 2011 (UTC) And one more reason to implement my idea.


2012

New Admins.. via you guys ;)

Howdy, I was thinking that it'd be good to promote Hard4me, XxTimberlakexx and Eeepy to admins if they'd like.

But I've also noticed on several occasions that there's really no reason that I haven't made a few of you Bureaucrats by now (other than it being really difficult to spell bureaucrat!). Sooo... how about I make LWChris, Senvaikis, and 6 times 9 Bureaucrats? The main difference is that you'd be able to promote new admins.

If you're all game, then you guys could use the three users above as your first promotions if they make sense to you. Chris, Senv, 6... what do you think? :)

Thanks,
-Sean Colombo 19:16, February 2, 2012 (UTC)

As I suggest all this, +1 for all promotions from me. Smile - Chris 19:29, February 2, 2012 (UTC)
I'm not about to complain either :-) Good luck convincing Senv though – remember how much wheedling it took us before he accepted his adminship? ;-) — 6×9 (Talk) 16:55, February 3, 2012 (UTC)
Relax, 6 - no need for wheedlings anymore: you have my +1. Speaking about a fresh blood for LW adminship, I'd recommend to keep an eye on User:Salandas also...--Senvaikis (talk) 10:08, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
Awesome! :) have made all three of you Bureaucrats & you can start admin target-practice on Special:UserRights with the other three ;). Thanks for everything! :)
-Sean Colombo 17:41, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I just promoted xxTimberlakexx and hard4me. 6, Senv, if you want, it's your turn now to upgrade Eeepy. Sorry for "taking away" two, but as they are good friends and IMO equally skilled I found it awkward to only promote one of them at a time. Salandas' edits look great, Senv, good "catch". A bit too new to become admin yet, but certainly worth to keep an eye on like you said. Maybe if 6 and Sean agree, you (or someone of us if you don't want to) should tell him that he's observed for possible promotion so he has that aim in sight? - Chris 21:31, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
Ah, and I omitted the question on whether they want to become admin as they requested it earlier. You might want to ask Eeepy in the first instance though. - Chris 21:33, February 4, 2012 (UTC)
No worries. At least in one case the question would have been unnecessary anyway ;-) I've asked Eeepy man, that's weird to type :-)
Agree on Salandas. We might as well promote him to trusted status now. Also, if everyone agrees, I'd suggest the same for Sssh. — 6×9 (Talk) 10:24, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I made a list on whom to "trust": Rossetyler, JonnyCraigIsAmazing, Sssh, Jomidi and Hornean. I'm not sure about PatrixIssy, he edits a lot and his edits seem to be policy compliant now. But as he was immune to feedback several times I don't feel like already mark the edits "autopatrolled". How about you?
Agree on all of the above. Had wanted to suggest Rossetyler too, but forgotten about it… old age. Gnu andrew too. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:41, February 5, 2012 (UTC)
Rossetyler, JonnyCraigIsAmazing, Sssh, Jomidi and Hornean have been promoted to trusted. — 6×9 (Talk) 13:20, February 6, 2012 (UTC)
For the logs:
  • 6 times 9, LWChris, Senvaikis: +bureaucrat
  • Eeepy, Hard4me, XxTimberlakexx: +admin
  • Hornean, Jomidi, JonnyCraigIsAmazing, Rossetyler, Sssh, Gnu andrew: +trusted
  • Salandas: watch.
What about Gnu andrew? - Chris 01:32, February 7, 2012 (UTC)
I was going to wait if there were any objections. I'll take your question as a "no". Trusted. — 6×9 (Talk) 07:06, February 7, 2012 (UTC)

Trusting Users

Upgraded I need a name to Trusted as well. — 6×9 (Talk) 17:42, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit too early to upgrade after not even 500 edits? I thought a good point to start thinking about trusting a user is after 2000 edits. Your opinion about when a user is trustworthy? - Chris 18:40, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
I don't think number of edits should be the main criterium – quality of edits is more important. Some users who do boatloads of edits are a bit shoddy occasionally (like redirecting to non-existent pages, posting lyrics in ALL CAPS…). INaN has been editing pretty consistently for 2½ years now.
Normally I wouldn't go ahead and promote someone to Trusted without asking other admins' opinion first, but this case seemed pretty straightforward to me… Looks like I was a bit hasty anyway. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:25, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
6 times 9: "I don't think number of edits should be the main criterium - quality of edits is more important." - agreed, but my question is: how many edits do you need to check until you can safely tell about their quality? In this case, I think 2½ years is enough to be sure, so forget about this one. Furthermore I don't know whether the edit-count dimension I think about - those 2000 edits - is appropiate anyway. That's why I am asking what you think a safe, appropriate editcount to start considerations on trusting someone. - Chris 20:00, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Next to 6 I also put more value upon quality, not quantity (I just hear your laugh now, considering my editcount ;)). That's why it wasn't necessary to wait for thousands edits to recognize potential admin in Trainman, or to "mark" for watching Salandas. Diligent mutt may be worse than brainy slugabed (did I hear a sniggering again?) --Senvaikis (talk) 20:21, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
If you'd press me for a number I'd probably suggest something with three digits just so you'd leave me alone :-) but it wouldn't necessarily be meaningful. For example, I'm averse to trusting PatrixIssy with his astronomic editcount, even if his recent edits all seem conistently good, for the reason you mentioned above; on the other hand, if you suggested promoting Salandas to Trusted status right now I wouldn't put up much of a fight, because it's fairly evident already he won't turn into a vandal any time soon. I wonder whether he didn't spend a few days studying our help pages before risking his first edit…
We'll also have to take into account the types of edits. Some user could make thousands of good edits fixing lyrics, then suddenly start on artist or album pages and make a huge mess because he doesn't understand a first thing about templates, our policies etc. (which he didn't need to just for correcting lyrics). — 6×9 (Talk) 21:07, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
Again agreed, and again, I don't say that the editcount is an unerring indicator. In mathematical terms, I'm asking for a necessary editcount, not a sufficient one. It's exactly because of what you said: you can only safely rate what you've seen. If you've never seen that user doing album pages, you can only assume he'll not mess album pages up. But: after how many edits can you tell that the present flawlessness isn't pure luck? Maybe I'm just seeing "trusted" the wrong way; to me, being a "trusted user" is almost something like the preliminary state of possible adminship, because it's attesting that this user will very likely do the right thing even in tricky situations. Talking of tricky situations, that is "getting into an edit war" as well as content stuff like "songs by different artists who have the same name". I always thought the editcount is a pretty good indicator to tell which struggles of daily LyricWiki life this user has already been exposed to. Maybe I'm erring? And please don't get me wrong, it's not my intention to make a big deal out of trusting users, I'm just curious on your opinions, trying to level our view on trusted users – either by changing mine or yours. Wink - Chris 21:39, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

Main Page

Hey, last weekend I sat down to tidy up the mainpage code. Just wanted to let you know that the box-style is now back in the Wikia.css and that the translation system of our translated main pages is back. - Chris 22:48, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

What about EditPreview css (still shows all dead-links in blue)?--Senvaikis (talk) 05:59, February 15, 2012 (UTC)
I could fix that, but usually I'd say that's a Wikia bug. But I guess it doesn't hurt someone to add that code, too. Done in a second, I don't know how long it'll take until the stylesheet updates apply to the page, though... - Chris 20:14, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

Christien LeBlanc

Hello,

I think most of us admins are involved in that argument with the above mentioned user. However I'd like to ask you to do me a favor and keep things cool, that is no warning or blocking. I'll now try to deal with it and explain everything once again to him. I know he's upset and maybe some of his accusions are extravagate regarding the netiquette, but I'll give it a calm try. - Chris 23:56, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me, and you certainly gave it a good shot. I resent the "lame joke" bit though! ;-) I'm actually more amused than annoyed at the whole thing. At this point it seems fairly clear that he doesn't *want* to follow our reasoning. But since his last edit at least follows our rules, it might be best to just let the whole thing go (and occasionally keep an eye on his contributions). — 6×9 (Talk) 06:52, April 7, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, seems like there's nothing left to be done in that case... turns out all was based on some misunderstanding and different views on what the ideal formatting is. Looks like both positions are and remain incompatible and thus I can't do anything. He said he'll leave the project so there are no further actions to be taken. I think we can also accept that he deleted the discussion. I can understand he doesn't want them to remain and I think it's okay... - Chris 15:42, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad that my vacation prevented involving me into this discussion - I'm pretty sure things could went much worse then - sooner or later I'd say what I think about this "educated" person ;). Thanks, Chris :). --Senvaikis (talk) 19:02, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought I'd maybe try to smoothen the waves as I'm "Chris aka the calmness itself". I hardly losing my temper (although you better take a step back when I do Wink). Welcome back! - Chris 20:34, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
Now, when my next vacation didn't save me from contact with this destructive guy, and looking at his friendly pitching with Chris on his talk page, I'm not sure already if XxTimberlakexx was so wrong, blocking his account :)
What I'm pretty sure, is that Chris' public "disciplining", addressed to XxTimberlakexx, was a mistake, interpretted by LeBlanc as some sign that his behaviour may be tolerated. It could be done here, Chris, without making that public. That's why I'm writing this note here, not on your talk page. --Senvaikis (talk) 08:35, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
Hi Senv, it might be even better to email me then. Yeah, I agree that it was not the best idea to post it there, but I didn't think of posting it here. Blocking his account was maybe not wrong, but it was done wrongly, with wrong options set and wrong duration and without a proper reasoning. And it was simply too late. I think it's simply not fair that an completely uninvolved admin blocks some user two weeks later only on assumption that user was flaming back then.
But I also realized by now it's quite hard to handle his temper, because it appears he does not accept compromisses regarding who is right and feels personally offended if you criticize his work or postings. The fact that he replies so ultra extended, over-explaining some things, and violating several formatting rules for good readability (all uppercase, & for and, separating sentences by underscores) makes it hard to read through his posts fully concentrated all along. So this time, I'll put a lot effort into solving it one last time. But the next time anything like this happens, I am with you, Senv. I've also tried to make that clear on my page. - Chris 18:28, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
Oh and I have to disagree on destructive. All in all his edits were productive, just that he of all users is involved into an edit war ongoing on The Dreaming is very unfortunate. I hope I could make him clear that we all, even I are annoyed by the way discussions with him usually went. - Chris 18:38, June 12, 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that after his latest diatribe anyone needs further confirmation that any attempt at fruitful discussion with this person is entirely pointless. He's as blind to his own flaws as he's willing to find them in (and point them out to) others.
I suggest we stop wasting our (metaphorical, unless anyone has gills on their fingers) breaths trying to reason with him; instead just keep an eye on his contributions, and at the slightest hint of misbehaviour, flaming, trolling or whatever slap him with a lifetime ban. — 6×9 (Talk) 15:10, June 13, 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not happy with this suggestion. I don't know if I am naive, but I still feel like this is a big confusion you have once in a lifetime. It's bad luck he misunderstood your comment on "endless repetitions", it's bad luck Salzion is that kind of guy who reverted his actually good edits. Christien seems to see sarcasm everywhere, and kind of easily misunderstands things. Like when I asked him to do me a favour and don't use "&" and "_" when talking to me, he did not realize I was talking about when he's writing with me. He exaggerated and acted as if I had asked the world to always write like I prefer. But that's there point where others turn and sigh, but I am very patient and explain to him I did not mean it that way.
About the versions: I'm a bit confused with all the edits and pages and what track is on EPs stuff and so on. Obviously, The Dreaming is a nasty band for a beginner, where sometimes EP versions differ lyrically, but sometimes they don't, sometimes the lyrics are the same but the track title changes. It's difficult for a new guy to find out where and how to use two pages, redirects, link texts or page annotations. If this confusion is made worse by an edit war, I can understand it gets difficult.
However I would like to try to tidy that page up with together with him, like you did. But for that, I will have some inventory-talking before we change anything, so I can explain where to do what with an example. Learning by editing according to previously made instructions, instead of learing by correcting mistakes. By now, I think most of his edit mistakes have been caused because he didn't know better or because he misinterpreted something. The EP version mess Senv was referring to was caused because I suggested to create different pages for the EP versions. I didn't know there were so many special cases when I suggested it. Additionally, he apparently doesn't know about the version history yet, because he didn't know there was a revert function. So he maybe didn't know some of the changes like the redirecting were made by you and thought it was the edit war, and he didn't see your comments and so on. Let me try it one last time. In case I fail and surrender, you may block him, or I'll do it. - Chris 22:42, June 13, 2012 (UTC)
Just don't know what to say, Chris. Truth to tell, I predicted such a final, though that's not a case when prediction coming to truth brings any satisfaction. I can apologize only that main strain of this trouble was loaded onto your young shoulders. I'm even asking myself if it was a right decision just to stop participating in this sick "discussion" and leave you alone; but each time after rereading all these beauties on your talkpage I realize that my participating could make things even worse. Seems even posting anything new on this page wouldn't be easy for me until its archiving... ;)
Anyway, you did all you could (and even more imo). So, take it easy, Chris - any experience, even such a bitter disappointment is usefull - that's exactly what makes us really adult :)
Once more - my apologies, and thanks for your efforts. - --Senvaikis (talk) 11:04, June 15, 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Just now I saw the last CL reply on your talkpage and thought you may want to repost my msg there (decide yourself)
All this reminded me a bit of the JimCubb situation a few years ago… not sure if you were around then, Chris. Anyway, I'm sure a ban is the best solution, since it would have been just a matter of time before he got into another flamewar with some hapless user who made the grave mistake of leaving a message on his talkpage. As with Jim back then, this decision would have been a lot easier if it hadn't been for the many, many useful edits :-| — 6×9 (Talk) 17:29, June 15, 2012 (UTC)
I said I won't reply, and opposed to him I really won't, although I really had some words to say about, for example that I wouldn't consider his opinion. But I'm done with it now and I think I will delete it. I don't want it to be in my archives, this is such a ridiculous discussion it's not worth to keep it in an archive, we've got the page history, it'll do.
To Senvaikis, I have to say I'm really not happy with your "soiled hands" comment, because that clearly gave him a point where he had a justifiable demand for an excusion. But as I already explained to him, I can understand even you lose your patience at some point, when you just try to tell him what's wrong, he interprets it as sarcasm and start on how rude you are.
To 6, I wouldn't have tried if I hadn't been sure that it's okay with me. He is just one of those very few persons on this planet that can make me lose my temper in written form. Usually, I never go mad at somebody when I write. I've tried to give him a chance to show that the progress of LyricWiki is more important to him than winning a pointless discussion. But he slapped away my helping hand, so I in turn pulled it back and let him alone in his rage and indignation.
I guess, what we've all learned from it, should in first place be to try to read our rules in other ways than they are meant when a user claims to pay attention to a rule when he doesn't comply with the intention. Links to rules might help a lot less than to examples. I need some time on my hands to finalize the YouTube tutorial idea.
Chris 20:05, June 15, 2012 (UTC)
I've already deleted it. I would've maybe kept it a bit, but after this I think he has no right to stay any longer on my page, because you can call me a lot of names and I won't get mad or even care about it, but I'm certainly not a fascist bitch. - Chris 20:54, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

Yes:Roundabout

Look man, I don't want to get into an argument. But I'm simply saying that it's silly to remove that portion of the lyrics because 1. They were certified yesterday by Smasher 101, and he added them for a reason, 2. Tons of other pages have those supposed "non-lyrics" and they were fine and never removed, and 3. Several people, admins included, certify songs including "non-lyrics" like so. Also, I checked the song help page and it says nothing about not including non-lexicable words sung in a recording. So, I don't understand why we have to remove them. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 16:52, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

And I think it's silly to add non-lyrics because 1. there's no benefit – people normally read lyrics so they can make out what the words that are sung, "da da da" is hardly ambiguous; and 2. some singers tend to insert lots of grunts, moans and/or drawn-out vowels – you'd have to transcribe those as well, which would make some lyrics near illegible.
That many other song pages have them hardly counts, because many more don't. Similarly, the help page doesn't say anything about including non-words either, so I could say I don't see why we should include them.
Since this argument might come up in the future as well, now might be a good time to get a consensus on this, so next time we can just point to the help page. What do the other admins think? — 6×9 (Talk) 17:37, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
Concerning including something like this in general, I'm more with Nic, pro inclusion. But in this particular case, I'm against full inclusion.
Reasons:
  1. Too few variations. You don't need to read it to reproduce in your mind.
  2. It's not substantial for the song, and the song is also not famous for this part.
  3. It's at the end of the song.
Detailed reasons:
  1. I include such parts if they are in the middle of a song and if they are not just "ornamental". Personally, I use these lines to track the position to know when the lyrics start again.
  2. I include such parts when they are substantial for the song. Examples: Crazy Frog:Axel F, Scatman John:Scatman (Ski Ba Bop Ba Dop Bop) or Gigi D'Agostino:Bla Bla Bla; imagine these songs were released without these parts, it'd totally change them. Suzanne Vega:Tom's Diner has something extremely similar to Yes:Roundabout, but the fact that this part out of all has been sampled so many times maybe rectifies the inclusion. I'm not too sure, though.
  3. When they are just meant to be filling in the end, I'd rather transscribe them as "Da da da ..."
Well, if I was asked to take side for only one general rule that is to apply everywhere, I'd vote pro inclusion. I love it if LyricWiki has details that others are skipping as "trivial" or "too laborious". - Chris 18:22, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. I just think that since we're LyricWiki, we need to provide the most accurate lyrics, so including all the non-lexicable vocals is necessary in my opinion. So should we add them back?Tongue XxTimberlakexx (talk) 20:16, October 7, 2012 (UTC)

Let's at least give the other admins some time to chip in before we decide on a guideline…
I noticed that I probably gave the impression that I'm generally against including non-lyrics. I actually (mostly) agree with Chris – if they're in some way integral to the song (e.g. if the song is named after them, or has gained notoriety for them… though it does look rather silly in the latter case) then we might or even should mould? shight? wait, that sounds wrong include them.
I'd prefer to handle this like our guideline about end-of-line punctuation: add it when there's a good reason to, else don't. I'd rather not have lyric pages that look like this. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:36, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

Well, looks like us other admins can go home now, since XxTimberlakexx decided for us. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:18, October 14, 2012 (UTC)

Sad to say, Chris, but seems that the term and the substance of administrating should be reexplained for both your protegees. --Senvaikis (talk) 22:14, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
Hm, I don't know, one week seems like a reasonable timespan to wait for answers to me. On the other hand, 6 is right, Nic. Next time, please wait until a public consensus was found, or post anything like "We waited for a week now, if there is no new post until tomorrow, I will change it back." Well, in the mean time, it doesn't really harm anybody if it's still there (while it could - very theoretically - be missing if it's not there Wink).
So what about you, Senvaikis? Do you have any opinion on the question whether those "non-lyrics" should stay? So far, we have these opinions:
  • Nic: Pro inclusion, for LyricWiki should always try to provide the most accurate lyrics possible
  • 6 times 9: Contra inclusion, except for cases where the song is famous for those parts or the non-lyrics are integrated into the song.
  • Chris: Pro inclusion, unless it's just the background-vocals. For endings, especially when fading out, the preferred way is one line of the non-lyrics plus "..." in the next line below.
Chris 19:49, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
It'd be funny if weren't sad, Chris, - what are we talking about? Do you really treat this "issue" as the matter of discussion? No, - it's too clear, that the real number of options you've listed is 2, not 3, since last two positions actually are just different formulas of the same position, as 6 have reasonably pointed that already. And it's the only one acceptable, common-sense position imo. Now, when you know my opinion (wasn't it evident from my previous post?), I'd like to return to the real issue I've tried to moot.
So, admin 6 asks admin X to remove some "da doos". X disagrees and rises a discussion, and that's fine (though X is a real yardbird compared to 6...). Later admin C also points, that leaving full "da doos" would be redundant. Shouldn't that be enough for neophyte X? No. Seems he either misunderstands something or just ignores opinion of two older and more experienced admins, 'cause on the spot reverts 6' edition to version with full "da doos". Then maybe X has changed something after apparently negative reaction, expressed by S, an oldest of live admins? No. And that should be the real matter of serious discussion.
I'd keep the silence if that was the first time. But look what (and how) he've done with LrcDB: yes, site's dead and parameter may be removed. But how? Just remove and forget, or collect all lrcIDs before that, keeping in mind that I have a complete Lrc database, which could be used to restore lrc info if needed? Now this possibility is lost, thanks to X. Such behaviour is absolutely inadmissible for any user, but for admin - especially. Btw, don't know why, but looking at my last "discussion" with admin H, you may easily find some similarities in our young friends behaviour...
That's what I was asking you to talk about with H & X, Chris.
--Senvaikis (talk) 22:25, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
Just a shame to watch that. --Senvaikis (talk) 09:34, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
I sadly see and don't understand what's wrong with them. Trying to understand this and clear it up... - Chris 22:56, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

Censorship

  • (moved from Senv's talk-page)

Looks like you'll have to blacklist certain images: [1] [2] We wouldn't want lwt to get banned… Now I can't help wondering if censorship of lyrics (or the dreaded PA template) will eventually make their comeback… — 6×9 (Talk) 18:12, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

Bad news indeed. If I've got it right and the content of images was a reason of violation, then even blacklisting of imagenames hardly may help here. As you know, lw:pn isn't applied to filenames, so actually the title of album with unallowable cover content should be blacklisted for cover uploading then...
But should confess I'm not even sure completely about the reason of violation: most of censored images (I could find only one feature, common for all them - an image of nude body) are public-available widelly (on dog, amz, lastFm, iTunes, WP etc). Why then image, valid for discogs, last.fm, or even WP suddenly becomes illegal on LW?
So, maybe not content, but some other Wikia's Terms of Use (the source image was taken from, providing a link to this src... etc.) were violated here? Could you please help me to understand better what was wrong with all these images? Only then we'll be able to prevent possible banning of our bots (and users too) (do you know how a sad smile emoticon should look like?). --Senvaikis (talk) 21:44, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
Paris 2010 - Le Penseur

This guy is nude! Does this mean this link will be removed?

I doubt it's the source – as you noted, the only common theme between all deleted images is partial or full nudity. A more specific reason than "violation of ToU" would have been nice; the only relevant section I can see is "You agree not to use the Service to: […] Post or transmit any content that is obscene, pornographic, […]" I'll admit that the Avulsed images above are borderline, but something like this can't be considered pornographic by any stretch of the imagination. Makes me wonder if the other Wikia staff members agree or if it's just one lonesome crusader. I'm almost tempted to restore them and see what happens… *shakes head* ← An emoticon for that would be useful too. No animated gifs; that's cheating!6×9 (Talk) 22:08, November 24, 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think these terms were meant to prohibit the upload of this kind of material when they made the terms. I don't even consider this pornographic, because to me, pornographic images means sexual content, and although there is a lot of graphic gore on the cover it's not like that I will never catch sleep again (actually I will go to bed right after saving this post), so it's not really disgusting/gross either. I am strongly against censorship. But maybe we should upload a pixelated version of it, plus a template on the file page that we mustn't upload the original because some might consider it offensive? - Chris 00:29, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with all your points. But I don't think we should start uploading censored images just yet. To put it bluntly, it looks to me like Sannse is imposing her view on what constitutes obscenity and pornography on the rest of Wikia. I could imagine some courts ruling the Avulsed covers as obscene (not pornographic), but the Perret cover? If we pixelate a (tastefully, at that) painted butt, where will it stop? We must have thousands of lyrics that are way more offensive, obscene or pornographic than that. Will we eventually have to "asteriskate" certain words or whole stanzas just so a page won't get deleted for violating ToU?
I think it's up to Sannse ot provide evidence that the images actually are considered obscene or pornographic under U.S. law and not just in her personal opinion. — 6×9 (Talk) 09:21, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
As you possibly know, remarkable part of my life went in SU, under censorship which (i hope) would seem too strict even for Sannse :). So, although I'm strongly against censorship too, but my ex-SU experience tells me that first of all I should think about my (Lwt) safety. In other words - tell us what image is illegal, and ve'll not (re)upload it. Just there should be some "flag", informing me (bot) about that. Pixelating itself may be acceptable for censors, but it does not protect me (especially - my bot) from unintended reuploading of image "with a better resolution", such way leading us into a risk of being banned. Thus I think that such censored image should be marked by a special template (maybe with including in a spec. category). And one more question should be answered then - would it be acceptable for censors if such censored image, according to current LW recommendations, was provided with a link to original (via {{Album Art}}.source)?
Anyways, whatever decision would be taken, I'll try to use all my ex-Soviet experience to stay loyal. But one thing I know for sure - I'll never start to teach Lwt pixelate or dress Venus de Milo in a brassiere :) --Senvaikis (talk) 14:04, November 25, 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable solution, but I wonder why you don't blacklist the album title for "cover works"? I know, there is a minor chance of that a blacklisted page gets moved and that way it's not on the blacklist anymore, but this happens maybe once a year, if it happens at all. Anyway, until any solution is found, how about we grant Lwt the admin rights, so you can do all edits under the Lwt account. So if any account gets blocked, it's the Lwt account, and it's easy to argument that the bot couldn't know what that cover was showing, which besides is also the truth for your account, but it's easier to reason when the upload was commited from a bot account. Furthermore, even if Lwt gets banned for whatever reason, you have your account as backup.
Btw, if you ever get banned, I will write the support and protest against it every day until they revoke the banishment! Furious - Chris 19:17, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
Lol, thanks in advance, - I'm just thrilled to tears, Chris... :)
But seems to me, you still haven't got me right, though I was trying to say that as clear as I could (in my broken English):
  • I'm not going to participate in creating any blacklists, based on someone's opinion. SU with its censorship was mentioned intentionally, in hope you'll understand better and forgive me this, I admit, slightly allergic, attitude.
  • At the same time, I promised to try being as loyal as possible regarding all Wiki rules and policies. And granting admin permissions to Lwt may only complicate this task imo (see below).
Regarding Lwt "adminship", - we've been talking about that already, and you may treat that as silly/old-fashioned relic, but I still don't like this idea: in either case, regardless of grants given, responsibility for any bot action lies on its owner, doesn't it? I'm far from being so sure about infallibility of Lwt, and I really won't be happy to know one day that some page/file, created by other admin, for example, have been deleted by my bot. The same should be said about new song pages creating: now I may tell Lwt to find lyrics and create pages for some artist missing songs, without worrying about possible conflicts with GN - thanks to you, now all missing GN-taken titles are reserved and protected from such editors as Lwt, so - responsibility lies not on Lwt. That's exactly what I'd like to be realized under penalty of possible censorship attack: if that's inevitable - ok, let someone (who needs/like/must) make that dirty job (blackisting, reserving, protecting). Then all my "loyality" task becomes very simple - training Lwt not to touch any object, marked by censors :). And even then I shouldn't be nervous, knowing that Lwt's just unable to recreate protected file (the same way as now it's unable to create a new song page, protected for GN) :) --Senvaikis (talk) 22:19, November 26, 2012 (UTC)
You might both and anyone else who sees this of course want to look at this and this – just the first two links Google threw up for "sannse file deletions". Apparently the Wikia staff forgot to mention that their own personal definitions for obscenity and pornography apply to the ToU. (Including exposed nipples – no mention of gender, so I suppose male nipples are also taboo?) At least no mention of "but think of the children!" – so far…
Pity only a small percentage of albums has cover art on Wikimedia Commons, else we could simply link to that. Or maybe we should create a CENSORED logo and display it in place of any offensive album art; the uglier the better. Can you tell I'm just THRILLED at this new development?6×9 (Talk) 18:22, November 27, 2012 (UTC)
I'd love to reply to you two now, but I'm feeling guilty for overtaking Senv's talk page (again). Could me move this whole discussion to [a subpage of?] the admin portal first? That made me feel more comfortable replying... - Chris 20:41, November 27, 2012 (UTC)

Now you may feel more comfortable, Chris :) if that's possible at all... --Senvaikis (talk) 21:45, November 27, 2012 (UTC)
@Senv: It's just that I'm afraid we overtake your talkpage again.
Okay, now b2t:
@Senv: I'm sorry, I thought you were saying it's impossible to create a good blacklist because filenames may change, and I only saw you were against making Lwt blur pictures. Actually, I have never thought of the advantages that a non-admin bot has. I always thought if you need to get things done with admin-rights, you'll just run it under your account, so what's the difference?, but now I finally see the other point of view: it's impossible for Lwt to do admin things if it's not supposed to, because you'll run the task under Lwt account. All I could offer was a LwtAdmin admin-bot-account, to protect yourself from gathering more and more badges, if you want to. But that's something you have to decide on your own, I won't bother you with this anymore :)
@6: I am almost with you, but I need to say one thing: personally I don't believe it's Sannse deciding which images to delete. I haven't fully read those other discussions, but from what I got, it's more like several are reviewing them and Sannse is the one of those to take them down.
@Senv again: I guess a link to a page where you can find it, such as the discogs page, is perfectly okay with the ToU. A direct link to the image file might not, I don't know. We could introduce a special parameter to {{Albumcover}}, that holds the link to that page. If that parameter is present, we could style the template differently or include another template. That'd also be the wanted flag for your bot. Come to think of it, we should replace these covers with some white image and text on it like this:
(. )( .)
We name it Eyes.jpg, for we all know these are Homer Simpson's eyes.
Neverless, the arguments I read there are ridiculous and nowhere near the ToU. They said it was pornographic, obscene or profane content. I think this is just another case of "Welcome to America" where the FCC is actively censoring anything like this. Therefore I strongly disagree that America should be the guide line.
No matter whether pornographic, obscene or profane, all three are ridiculous, in most cases it's just nudity.
pornographic
Screenshots from a blue film, or at least showing of sexual itensions. Which pure nudity is not.
obscene
Offensive to morality, disgusting. Which pure nudity is not.
profane
Offensive towards god or sacred things, unholy. Which mere nudity can never be.
I feel offended and imposed by many of those deletions. Mad - Chris 23:31, November 27, 2012 (UTC)
Censored by Wikia
I had hoped it was only Sannse (because then we could have brought it up with the other staff members), but after skimming through the discussions I linked, it's become clear that this is general Wikia policy. IOW, we're screwed. (Pardon.)
I had a similar idea about a replacement image, only I was going to make it more *explicit* (gotta love the irony): like the one on the left, only done properly by someone who knows what he's doing, hint hint :-) (Or maybe leave it as is, so its ugliness adds to the statement?) Instead of a new template parameter, I'd add an explanation to the image page, along with instructions on where to find the albumcover – starting with the Footer links, but maybe also including links to sites like ecover.to. Or we could add a parameter to {{Album}} to display a link to the actual cover, in small text below the replacement pic. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:27, November 28, 2012 (UTC)

(Edit confict, but posting anyways...) While wondering why this discussion isn't interesting for any other admin, let me add a couple of notes:

  1. Publishing of any blured/pixelated/retouched album cover art image isn't such "innocent" thing too - that may be treated as another kind of criminal, aka copyright infringements.
    • That's why I'd recommend to follow Lwt and not hasten showing any initiatives here
  2. With all my respect to Sannse (she's just trying to do diligently her duty, as she understands it), I just can't believe that she represents the position of all Wikia team. So, I haven't seen yet any official Wikia document, confirming such "medieval" interpretation of pornography etc.
    • we should wait/ask for more official and specific elucidation of new Wikia's ToU interpretation, or just contact with someone from wikia staff for clarifications
  3. Even if Sannse's interpretation occurred being approved by all wikia staff, that wouldn't mean we can't disagree with such interpretation and at least call to some discussion, preceding any final decisions.
    • One of arguments in such possible discussion is some lyrics.wikia specific, making it different from other wikias, where images in their majority are nothing more than some illustration to the article, so may be changed/edited without essential influence to the quality of article. Album art in our site is not just a picture - it's a part of album metadata, so it may be either published "as is", or should be not published at all, as incorrect metadata. So, any censorship of such kind should be applied here very cautiously, only in really extraordinary situation, when pornographic, offensive or racistic content of image is really obvious.
  4. And don't hope that censorship'll be done with images only - lyrics surely is the next target...
List is far from being complete, but the main thing I wanted to say was said: I ask you to show at least minimal resistance to this sanctimonious extremism, if you want to retain lyrics.wikia and your self-respect.
--Senvaikis (talk) 18:56, November 28, 2012 (UTC)
@6: Hint perceived, I'll re-create that picture with equal line spacing etc... ::@Senv: If uploading blurred images is a copyright infringement due to unallowed modification, isn't censoring lyrics the same?
Some random thoughts from yesterday:
  • It would appear only half as offending to me if Sannse/Wikia had notified us and asked us admins to remove content instead of silently doing this behind our backs. I guess this is also a major reason why many of the other Wikias are so angry and aggressive towards this. It's not like it should be, they ought to give us a heads up like "Hey, there's content we do not approve" and let us decide what to do, maybe while consulting them continously. By the way it currently is done, I can't help but feel like it was possible that (drastically spoken) tomorrow whole lyrics.wikia was deleted for any ambiguos ToU statements' interpretation.
  • Wikia is a spin-off of the Wikimedia Foundation. How come it's perfectly okay with them if far more explicit images are displayed? Because they have sensible ToU. Only thing said about pornographic or obscene is:

Quote by Wikimedia Foundation, Terms of Use: "
[you may not engage in:]
Misusing Our Services for Other Illegal Purposes

  • Posting child pornography or any other content that violates applicable law concerning child pornography;
  • Posting or trafficking in obscene material that is unlawful under applicable law; and
  • Using the services in a manner that is inconsistent with applicable law.

"

  • I wonder if Sean knows Wikia is silently deleting our contents. What would he say if he knew his former employer is cutting back his "baby"? Wasn't LyricWiki meant to be a bastion against censorship, and therefore actively replacing "b*tch f*cking n*gga" with "bitch fucking nigga" if the performer says it loud and clear?
  • So far, I had always recommended Wikia to anyone who asked me for a corporation that is fair towards their users. The have lost at least a third of my trust now. I've been contributing to LyricWiki for a reason: I hate censorship! - Chris 23:46, November 28, 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been delinquent in paying attention to the admin talk page. Thanks to Senvaikis for pointing me this way.
However, I don't really have anything else to add. I do like the idea of using the "censored by Wikia" graphic together with a link to see the album cover on another site, although we might want to change it from "Wikia does not approve" to something like "Wikia management does not approve."
Actually, if we wanted to be really pointed, we might have the link be a Google image search for the album cover, the clear message being "Wikia management won't allow this image here, but dozens of other sites allow it." (Or maybe we don't want to be quite so pointed, if it might strain our relationship with Wikia management...)
I wonder if Wikia is perhaps being overzealous for commercial reasons, i.e., they're worried (rightly or wrongly) about selling advertising on sites that may have nude photos.
I think the fact that Wikia is commercial and the Wikipedia is nonprofit accounts for the difference in the terms of use, despite the common Wikimedia Foundation link between the two sites. Trainman (talk) 19:59, November 30, 2012 (UTC)
Happy New Year to everyone -- any updates on this situation? Trainman (talk) 02:10, January 4, 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year! No news that I'm aware of... No change to the ToU to clarify what they understand as obscenity/pornography. No further deletions these last few weeks either (despite all images having been restored), but I'll definitively keep an occasional eye on the logs. — 6×9 (Talk) 07:59, January 4, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.