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
<< 2010 May - 2012 December 2013 January - December 2014 >>


DMCA Notice Received

Pages deleted for copyright violation? Pages that aren't on Gracenote's takedown list? Unless GNB hasn't gotten around to them yet… But wasn't the idea behind our deal with Gracenote that we license our lyrics through them (which cost us quite dearly, and I'm not necessarily talking about money)? So shouldn't any takedowns happen via GN and GN only? Colour me confused. — 6×9 (Talk) 22:24, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

Color me confused about a lot of things the United States government is responsible for, and I even helped elect a few of them.
As I understand the DMCA, Wikia is legally required to remove copyrighted material when it gets a DMCA takedown request from the copyright holder, and that would be regardless of whether or not it had been licensed through Gracenote -- and, in this case, it doesn't appear that this particular artist has been licensed through Gracenote anyway. (One would hope that a copyright holder wouldn't file DMCA takedown requests with Wikia for things they've licensed to Gracenote, and fortunately, I don't think we've seen that happening...)
A little odd that Wikia doesn't have their bot do to DMCA-deleted pages what we do to Gracenote-deleted pages, with the explanation for the takedown on the page, and the page itself protected.
(By the way, if I recall the situation, the site itself -- and Sean personally -- would have paid even more dearly if the Gracenote/Wikia deal hadn't been made.) Trainman (talk) 00:03, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the information! Some confusion remains though:
  1. Not all song pages were deleted – sometimes differing only in accents (Ako Znas Bilo Sto vs. Ako Znaš Bilo Što).
  2. Some (but not all) album pages got deleted as well – so are tracklistings copyrighted too? Do sites like MusicBrainz or Discogs get takedown notices? (Album art is untouched though.)
  3. Even the artist page was deleted… and promptly restored by Janitor.
So I'm wondering whether Semanticdrifter got a specific list for takedowns, or just overlooked a couple pages. — 6×9 (Talk) 08:18, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
The DMCA is a perfect example for how the lobbyism has corrupted the whole American legislation. The big industries – be it music, technology, porn or whatever – have money, and they use it to influence the legislation to back up their interests with questionable laws.
Regarding paying dearly: Trainman is right. I recently valued the amount that Sean or his Motive Force LLC would've had to pay:
The lawsuit was issued in August 2009; in November 2009, LyricWiki reached the 1 million content pages (see here). So let's assume we had 900.000 pages in August 2009 (= 1 million minus the all the GNB protected pages minus the number of pages created in 3 months). Today, about 89% percent of the contents are lyrics (see here). Assuming the distribution was equal back then, that would've been 801.000 lyrics pages, which are definitely subject to the copyright infringement.
According to The Register, the lawsuit required him to pay the maximum fine for each "timely registered work" whose copyrights were infringed. That is $150.000 per work.
Now, multiplying 801.000 lyrics by $150.000, that is $120.150.000.000, or in words: 120.15 billion dollars. For Europeans: according to WolframAlpha, the exchange course USD to EUR in August 2009 was that $1 equaled about 70 Euro cents. That is, the fine was 84.105.000.000 €, in words 84.105 billion Euros (or explicitly in German "84,105 Milliaren Euro").
As a comparison:
  • In August 2009, the United States federal debt added up to $11.91 trillion (WolframAlpha) and 307 million people lived in the US (WolframAlpha). That would be a debt of $38.795 per capita. The fine amounted more than 1% of the federal depts, i. e. 100 lawsuits of that kind would've solved the debt problem of the US.
  • The richest man in the world in 2009 (Bill gates) had an estimated net worth of $40 billion (Wikipedia), so the fine was worth more that thrice Bill Gates' net worth.
  • The richest man in the world during the past 12 years was Carlos Slim in 2011, who had an estimated net worth of $74 billion (Wikipedia). So the fine was still more than 1.5 times that net worth.
As a footnote, mind that the calculations were done only for the lyrics, i. e. not including the album arts.
The US laws made it possible to sue a single man for more than 1.5 times the net worth of the world's richest man in that decade. I think, there is no need to add anything to that. - Chris 10:25, January 6, 2013 (UTC)
Well, there's usually a big difference between the amount the plaintiff wants (or, in this case, what the plaintiff claims in their press release) and, after the suit makes its way through the legal system, how much the defendant ends up paying.
Anyway, as far as I know without being a lawyer, album and artist pages can't be copyright violations, since they're merely lists of factual information -- I think someone was being a little overzealous in claiming those as DMCA violations, so it might be worth sending a counterclaim to Wikia for those particular pages. Trainman (talk) 02:52, January 7, 2013 (UTC)
That's a whole lot of 0's! :-O -Sean Colombo (talk) 06:17, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
I contacted Wikia about the DMCA takedowns, told them about some of the things you guys mentioned that were a problem & tried to figure out ways we could make this smoother in the future. The guy who enacted the takedowns (User:Semanticdrifter) responded quickly & the answers were quite encouraging.
  1. In regards to Gracenote takedowns vs. DMCAs... I think they also prefer using Gracenote, but a lot of the time they don't get forewarning and they just get a DMCA out of the blue. When that happens they pretty much have to execute it... then if we think that the person is faking it (ie: it's not the artist/publisher/rights-holder, it's someone pretending to be the artist, or something like that), then we can send a DMCA counter-notice and Wikia will put it right back up. Obviously, that's risky to send a counter-notice unless you're sure that's really not the rights-holder. Wikia's main stance seems to be that they have to act "mechanically" on this to keep their safe harbor. Takedown ===> take it down, counter-notice ===> put it back.
  2. Regarding album/artist pages... he agreed, apologized, and said that was a mistake from being unfamiliar with the mass delete process. I'm not sure if that means we need to issue a counter-notice for those pages or not...
  3. In regards to organization/messiness of carrying out deletions, I mentioned that we could possibly help write a bot similar to GracenoteBot, that was capable of doing a list of pages, or a bunch of pages. It would leave artists/albums in-tact and instead of just a page-deletion (which results in a deletion log when someone tries to see the page), this would replace the content with a message explaining that this was a DMCA takedown, and what that means (and we could even categorize it).

    He seemed very receptive to this and said "The bot you describe would be incredibly helpful if this happens again".

    I guess that part is up to us at this point... the DMCA takedowns don't happen that often, but if we were to write a bot (or special-page) like this soon, then it would be available when needed. Thoughts?
Cheerio,
-Sean Colombo (talk) 06:17, January 16, 2013 (UTC)

Page ranking

It seems that EchoSierra doesn't seem to like the way the bronze artist page ranking works. That issue aside, he has pointed out an anomaly that I've never noticed and I don't know that others have either. Help:Page_ranking/Artists states in the "In a nutshell" section that bronze artists have been checked by a human; in "The Templates" section that bronze artists need a watcher; and in the "Star Types" section that bronze artists need to have a header, footer and are correctly named.

So, do bronze artists need a watcher or not? If the answer is "yes", then there are a huge number of bronze artists that should not be bronze. If the answer is "no", then the Help:Page_ranking/Artists page needs to be changed.

Discuss. Biggrin Eeepy (talk) 08:26, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

In this discussion it was decided that watchers aren't necessary for Bronze, no exceptions. So I guess we simply forgot to update H:PR/A… — 6×9 (Talk) 12:39, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
That leaves just a few more issues to straighten out.
  • What is the minimum requirements for declaring Bronze? (Can this be spelled out clearly?)
  • Is there a requirement that the ranking template must be filled to reflect the state of the Artist page, at the time it is being Ranked? What is the point of a unedited (default) ranking template in a talk page?
  • Can an artist page with no album listing and just a OS list be Bronze?
  • Are we not muddifying the distinction between Green & Bronze? I'm all for getting rid of one of the two, but when I see wildly varying quality at Bronze (Artist pages with severe OS list issues (3/3) are being ranked Bronze), and the talk page just has the split template! If that is good enough for Bronze, what is Green then? If the mere existence of AH & AF qualifies for Bronze, can we just spell it out? And if that is so, why not set the Janitor and the default template to just make Bronze artist from the start? Did Bronze become the new Green? Can the documentation spell out the distinction, assuming everybody agrees there is one?
cheers
-- ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 13:09, January 28, 2013 (UTC)
These are very good questions. Even I would like to know the answer to some of them. In most cases, when I Bronze songs, I just make sure they have a decent amount of information, and don't have just an album and language. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 02:32, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
My opinion is that for an artist page to be Bronze, it should at least be obvious that a human did some work on the page, e.g., a header and footer with at least some of the information filled in, a decent attempt at getting albums listed, and an Other Songs list that's not overwhelmingly long (say, the 1/3 category, not 2/3 or 3/3) -- as well as an accurately filled out ranking template on the Talk page. I'm not sure exactly how you'd quantify all that on the Help pages, though. Trainman (talk) 02:50, February 6, 2013 (UTC)
We (the admin) don't know how the ranking system works, because it simply doesn't. However it is our job to lay out the rules and bash them to near perfection. As we see, everybody has their own definition when to up a green to bronze, the documentation doesn't have one either, it's just a puddle of mud. Obvioulsy this is not a job for humans anyway, our time is better spent coming with ideas. So for all of you to see how this new system works, here it is: post a link to an artist page, any artist page, already ranked or not, one you have worked on or not. Let the bot apply the rules defined within it. Then we can discuss the results. Pages to be ranked. thank you. --ES (Talk) 02:58, February 12, 2013 (UTC)
Hi Echo, you said that we admins don't know how our system works. At least regarding me this isn't true, and I am surprised you couldn't find it in the documentation. I used the usual way I'd expect every user to take: menubar > Help Out > Help Index > Policy / Page Ranking > Section "Stars". Also Help:Page ranking/Artists explains the differences.
A green artist is basically nothing else but an "unconfirmed" artist. That's why all new artists by bots are always ranked Green, except maybe for the ones that our cyborg creates, because it is supervised by a mastermind anyways Wink. Unconfirmed artists/pages are those, whose existance hasn't been checked by a human being. Especially Janitor tends to create wrong pages (e. g. "Artist 1 Feat. Artist 2" after he found a song page "Artist 1 Feat. Artist 2:A Song"), but also new users (mostly for not knowing about LW:PN and therefore creating a second artist page instance or a new artist with a wrong name). Bronze is applied by a human being who has confirmed the page is meeting the technical LyricWiki standards, i. e. LW:PN and, when speaking of artists, a {{ArtistHeader}} and {{ArtistFooter}} with the minimum required information such as fLetter and so on. - Chris 21:50, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
So Chris, either from documentation, or your personal opinion... What is the MINIMUM requirements to upgrade an artist page from Green to Bronze? Please spell it out, because some human threw some parameter in it doesn't cut it :) (a car doesn't become road worthy just because it got human attention and it's tire pressure was verified, does it? Unless it was already known that everything is fine with the car except the tire pressure. Did I make a leap of faith?). At Ranking:Artists it states: "The grouping of page ranking templates is shown below. Portions shown in GREEN should be changed to correctly reflect the state of that parameter:" And below the text is the ArtistInfo Box with all params in GREEN and unknown. So it appears that in order for rank to be elevated to bronze all those params should change, no? And the change reflected in the Artist Info Box (what should really be called Artist MANIFEST, Because We already have another ArtistInfo box that goes above Artist Footer). I'd like to see a draft (since it doesn't exist yet) of a single page where it is clearly states what needs to be done to turn an artist Bronze. It got human attention is just piffle. I have worked on 1000's of artist pages (minimum AF & AH params filled, romanized, fletter corrected), so I suppose they should have all been ranked Bronze, right? Not in my books. I & three other admins have worked on multiple artist pages together, within a few hours, and neither of us upped the rank to bronze, and when at least one of the other three ups the rank to bronze, it wasn't based on the existance & accuracy of labels & params in AH/AF, rather the entire artist page was perfect top to bottom with OS=0, Artist Info (related/memebers) filled with proper refs. Those who throw a bronze at an artist page with OS>100 (admin, user or anon IP), and a split 3/3 on talk page are apprently using a loophole large enough to drive the entire woodstock festival thru. Can you show us where that loophole is and what are we going to do about it? Please do read again the questions I indicated in my first post on the subject, I am trying to avoid writing an essay here :) The documentation is muddy. Take the example of Violet stars, read the description and take a look at the Violet Artist category. Language issue (mangled accents) + violet star at artist&album pages became a non issue in 2009, LOL. Violet & language apply only to song pages. So I will just stop here and wait for your one page document on the official (and sane & logical) description of how Green Artist becomes Bronze artist. Please remeber that >%99.00 of all pages at LW have the correctly named header & footer, and >95% have the correct fletter, so should they be bronzed?! cheers mate! --ES (Talk) 17:02, February 19, 2013 (UTC) fletter (much larger than the artist1 feat artist2 bot created pages) & related (or is it sound alike artists in the related box?) (AIBox) issue in my next essay Wink
Echo, do you have to pay a fee for each line break? My eyes hurt! Outdenting…
Let's try not to confuse this issue by mixing up current requirements for Bronze with what you think should be requirements, or we won't get anywhere. The loophole you mention doesn't exist: that would mean the rules allowed such a page to be Bronzed even though it shouldn't be, that the wording of the rules is not in accordance with their "spirit" (the way they were meant), but that's not the case.
Current requirement for Bronze: check required templates are present and pagename is correct. For artists, this indeed means that fLetter is correct and pagename doesn't violate LW:PN. These rules were developed when most of our sanity checks weren't in place, so they made more sense then than they do now.
To avoid further convolutions, it might be a good idea to do this in two separate steps: (1) discuss whether PR rules should be updated, with more human input required for advancing Green pages to Bronze – or maybe we're all in agreement and no discussion is necessary?, (2) then, if we decide in favour, agree which human input is required for Bronze.
So, are any of the admins against stricter requirements for Bronzing? — 6×9 (Talk) 21:04, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
Actually I think the current standards are fine, but I wouldn't be totally against changes if you wish to raise the bar for Bronze. I guess the big problem is that our page ranking is a wild mixture out of diverse requirement types. As we are seemingly heading towards a new ranking system, I think maybe my preliminary work might give a hint on what to consider during the design process. Ideally, the new system pays attention to all these requirements as well or names other ways to ensure that they are met:
Our current page ranking system handles four types of requirements
1) Technical requirements (operativeness)
These are related to the mere operativeness of a page in the LyricWiki page pool. They are usually imposed by our automated categorizing, and concern issues like that pages do have an fLetter, albums' page names end on (YEAR), or that the basic categorizing templates (header + footer) are present on the page; another thing might be illegal characters in the page name.
2) Standards requirements (conformance)
These are related to the various policies LyricWiki has. They usually concern formatting issues to ensure a uniform appearance and thereby establish a "typical style of LyricWiki content". Examples are LW:PN (which might also be considered a technical requirement when thinking of the API), rules on template use and their order, formatting (like the format for tracklists), but also more vague principles like "no duplicated content" or "when to include singles".
3) Quantity requirements (completeness)
These are measuring how much of the available information is already present on the page. It typically incorporates the meta data to the page's content: external links, album cover/genre/length for albums, credits for songs, etc.
4) Quality requirements (correctness)
These are trying to rate how good the content actually is. Currently, we have the system of certifying and watching, which are only partially linked to the page ranking system.
I think what confuses many people is that when they hear "bronze, silver, gold" they automatically associate it with awards. But actually, as we want to bring all pages to gold, our page ranking system is nothing but a to-do list in disguise. Currently, a page can be upgraded from Green to Bronze without any additional work. This obviously confuses people; how can a page be awarded anything just because it is existing? They are thinking about the quality requirements, maybe also about the quantity requirements, but they are forgetting about the other two aspects. A page is currently "awarded" Bronze for meeting requirements 1 and 2. This is nothing else than "it exists, our automations work, and we want content here".
Maybe we need a more modular page ranking here, one that rates the four requirements independently. - Chris 00:01, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Calling all Admins

If there is sufficient interest by admins, let's try to redefine the whole ranking issue from scratch, but with a time limit and a deadline. So I'm suggesting that if we get enough votes here, we start on March 1st (in 2 weeks). I hope all those who vote aye bring some clear ideas to share. My vote is aye only if my collegues agree to participate, otherwise I have enough work in the LW basement to keep me happily busy for a few years ;) --ES (Talk) 03:41, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

  • User:Eeepy
  • User:XxTimberlakexx
  • User:Senvaikis
  • User:LWChris
    I'd love to see a new page ranking system which can later be calculated partially automated. I'd wish for smaller ranking templates, speaking as well about the source code as about the box itself. It could easily be achived if metadata was no longer part of the actual page, but could be transcluded from a Meta: namespace page. We could then acquire a system where at least the meta-data ranking stuff is calculated and transcluded in the ranking display. For more information, read T-Line/Metadata. If this sounds interesting to you, I can explain further.
  • User:6 times 9
  • User:Hard4me
  • User:EchoSierra
  • (read the page you ref'd) Seperating data from container is a Good Thing. Please elaborate, and where else besides ranking does the new scheme help, plz spell it out!
  • User:Trainman -- Aye, although perhaps it would make more sense to do the work of implementing Chris's metadata namespace proposal first, before worrying about changes to the page ranking criteria? (Voted 00:25, February 21, 2013 (UTC))
Hi ES, the transclusion system in general will help to avoid duplicate or asynchronous contents, and increase the integration of related pages' contents into a content page. As an example, instead of having the tracklists for an album both on the artist and the album page, we will have it once as album page and transclude that list onto the artists page, so changes have to be made once. At the same time Transclusion makes it possible to show tracklists on song pages for example.
I've also got an idea for how a new ranking system could work. We should rate the four types of requirements I mentioned in my post from a few minutes ago (see above) separately with numbers. Then we use a system like the one that Windows uses to rate the hardware: the lowest score is the total score. Together with the metadata concept, we could automate a large part of the ranking fairly easy. - Chris 00:30, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

Album of the Week

So, lately Album of the Week has been very unpredictable. Some weeks we'll get nominations, and some weeks we won't. Ever since Hard4me and I consecutively took over, there's been some large gaps in updating, either because of his busy life, or lack of nominations. In my case, it's the latter. I encouraged Chris to put a little announcement on the main page to encourage users to add noms for AOTW, but it only sparked the fuse, if you will, for a short time.

I'll quote one of my talk page messages to LWChris to address some of the questions that I have with this.

Quote by XxTimberlakexx: "Well, what could it be then? Album of the Month maybe? Or should we just remove it altogether? I'm more for the former - but I am against removing it, as I feel if we just had Song of the Day, it wouldn't be enough. Even if we went for Album of the Month, that would screw up the archives for Album of the Week unless we make it a whole new project instead of renaming Album of the Week to that. The banner on the main page attracted a few noms at least, but not enough fuel to keep it running. We'll have to think of something with the other admins."

T'would be nice to see what you guys think, and I would definitely be interested to hear your thoughts Smile XxTimberlakexx (talk) 02:32, February 6, 2013 (UTC)

Not an issue that I ever paid attention too, but I think a bunch of admins making most of the nominations is a little like the accountants cooking up the books Wink If our contributors don't participate, maybe that is a hint to put our effort into something else? How about a (short run test of) artist of the week/fortnight/month? Given that I concern myself primarily with artist pages, shouldn't come as a surprise. Of course we can have a routine built into Lwt/janitor to randomly pick an album, check that it has no red links (Senv may approve!), rank it, and if it makes Bronze at least, submit it. Hope this will light a fuse -- ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 15:57, February 9, 2013 (UTC)
That does sound like a good idea! I'd like to see the opinions of the other admins first, though. I posted this literally a week from today and I'm shocked to see only one person has responded to it. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 21:47, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
If we should keep alive the albums, I'd vote for leaving the AOTW stuff as it is and create AOTM as completely new project.
Artist of the Month sounds more interesting though, because you can pick any artist you like a song from, opposed to a whole album. Plus it's easier to talk interesting stuff about a person than a compact disc. Plus more artists have WP articles than albums have. - Chris 23:54, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
So basically, you're saying to retire the Album of the Week project, stop featuring it on the main page (similar to Free Music of the Week) and create either Album of the Month or Artist of the Month? That would definitely work better. Heck, we could even do both of those if we had another user to take over Artist of the Month (I'll vouch to do Album of the Month, as I updated Album of the Week for a long time). Anyways, I want to see what Senv and 6x9 think, then maybe we could put this into action. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 22:08, February 14, 2013 (UTC)
I feel that we are not going to be more successful with an Album of the Month project. And there's a simple reason why we can't have both: the shortcut AOTM shouldn't be ambivalent. - Chris 21:31, February 16, 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, very true. That would be rather confusing. I'm more for Artist of the Month now that I think about it, as you can talk about an artist as a whole in as little as a paragraph instead of just one album. I think it would be a good project. Again, if 6 and Senv have even seen this yet, I want to see what their thoughts are. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 14:17, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Chris & Echo: if there's not enough interest in AotW, there's little point in forcing it to continue. Artist of the Month sounds like a good idea; it might even get more nominations that AotW did (not everyone listens to full albums). — 6×9 (Talk) 20:27, February 19, 2013 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Should we wait for Senv's input before putting it in action? XxTimberlakexx (talk) 21:49, February 20, 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to steal Senv's chance to write here, but as I know him, I assume his opinion is likely "As I don't visit the main page anyways, I needn't take part in decision-making on what contents it has." Sorry if this isn't true, Senv, I'm just guessing your opinion to be alike that. - Chris 00:16, February 21, 2013 (UTC)
Well, we should at least see what his real opinion is, shouldn't we? Someone should contact him about this. I really want to put this into action soon. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 22:49, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
I say just do it -- if Senvaikis hasn't weighed in by now, I think it's safe to assume he doesn't particularly have an opinion in the matter. Trainman (talk) 23:15, February 27, 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, not much happens here that Senv don't notice. His silence on this subject can be safely taken as no objection --ES (Talk) 00:49, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I see. Well, I'll need help from Chris to put this into action, as I can't do this myself. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 13:51, March 3, 2013 (UTC)
Anyone there? I wanted Chris to give me the heads-up that he was going to start work on this, but seeing as how it's been over 2 weeks, I'm starting to lose hope. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 22:06, March 21, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, very busy atm. Working one hour overtime per day and studies have begun again. - Chris 01:59, March 23, 2013 (UTC)
Ah, okay. When will you be able to help out? It kinda bugs me that this section has been up for nearly 2 months now and we haven't even started on this project. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 20:07, March 25, 2013 (UTC)
Maybe this weekend. I have to get into how these projects are structured here before I can set one up. I have never done anything like that before either, these projects existed when I joined LyricWiki. - Chris 16:58, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
Oh, okay. Well, we seriously need to start on this ASAP. Maybe help from Senv or 6x9 would be appreciated, as it seems they're more skilled in coding. I mean, Album of the Week is starting to make it look like this site is never updated, as it's been stuck on Blood Pressures since January. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 22:20, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
Not sure you've noticed it already, but I've been spending one night up and it's implemented now. I also handed in my first nomination and hands down I'd be very, very proud if Joel was the first AOTM we'd ever have. I'd also happily throw in three last albums in AOTW that I recently rediscovered, so that AOTM can start on May, 1st. Is that okay with you? - Chris 22:11, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
That sounds great! I haven't noticed it though, would you mind linking me? I also have many ideas for some AOTMs. Once we set it up, we'll have to take down AOTW and say on the AOTW page that it's been replaced by AOTM. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 19:41, April 15, 2013 (UTC)
I put the last AOTW online here, could you link it everywhere please? I think we can keep it there for the rest of the month, doesn't matter. On May 1st I'll then put AOTM online with Deadmau5, okay? - Chris 20:46, April 16, 2013 (UTC)
Alright, just did that. Added the template to the album page and added it to the archive. You might want to add a length and genre to the album, though, as it looks rather empty without them. And that sounds good! Why did you not link me to Album of the Month like I requested, though? Sad I couldn't find it under LyricWiki:Album of the Month, so I had to hunt for it and eventually found it under LyricWiki:AOTM. May 1st sounds like a reasonable date. I have many ideas for nominations, and we should definitely promote it on the site like we attempted with AOTW. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 21:22, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

A pair of DMCAs

Wikia got DMCAs for Eve Bulloch and Charlene Ava. While these artists have so few songs that we could crank through them by hand, I think this would be a good time to deliver a bot to them to help do the takedowns in a clean way that works well with the community. I can write the bot later tonight, but I'd love feedback & could use some help with a template. Here are my thoughts:

  • Bot would leave the artist page alone
  • Bot would leave album pages alone
  • Each song page would have it's contents replaced (like Gracenote takedowns) with a {{dmca}} template which categorizes the page & has an explanation of why the content isn't there & instructs users not to put content back.
  • After adding DMCA template, page gets protected.

Any additional ideas/concerns? If you guys are up to it, could you take a crack at making the {{dmca}} template & I'll take a stab at the bot later tonight?
Thanks!
-Sean Colombo (talk) 20:11, February 21, 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sean

In the past 48 hours, two different users (one anon, and User:Deleteuser) tried deleteing Eve Bulloch's lyrics in a rather amatureish way, I restored the lyrics and artist page, blocked both users and put protection on Eve yesterday. It looked like vandalism from here...
As soon as someone cranks out the dmca notice, I will get to it. For now the lyrics of both artists have been commented out, Artist pages are intact, no album page exists. And I removed the user blocks. Waiting for the dmca template to appear... hth --ES (Talk) 13:41, February 22, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, ES :)
I made the bot (was quite simple... most just copied from GN bot). Ran it on the artists, then removed the commenting-out part. Looks like it worked. I'll send this code to Wikia.
Thanks again,
-Sean Colombo (talk) 23:09, February 22, 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Lyricwiki. We have in fact received DMCA notices for these pages. Sean's bot is awesome, and we at Wikia definitely want to work on using it to keep things running smoothly. I have been dealing with Sean directly and he has been great. One aspect of this process that still needs work is that when Wikia gets a DMCA notice, we have to completely remove the content. To that end, I am removing the remaining snippets of lyrics from those pages, but leaving the artists and album pages intact. Thanks for working with us, --semanticdrifter @fandom (help forum | blog) 15:36, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Echo Sierra

Hi ES,

I wanted to ask what's going on here. I feel like you're about to carry the ranking thing to excess if you threaten to block or ban a user because he doesn't clarify why he ranked a page Bronze.

Futhermore I don't see why this page wouldn't meet the criteria for Bronze:

Page Ranking Information: " This song has been given the rank Bronze. This means that a human being has seen this page and checked that the page name is correct and in accordance to LW:PN, all required parameters are correctly filled in, and the lyrics show no obvious problems."

  1. NYCScribbler, as a human, obviously saw the page.
  2. The song exists, there is a song "Pagan Man" by Skyclad, verifiable via the existing AllMusic and iTunes links.
  3. The page complies with LW:PN.
  4. The required parameters (for song pages: Song.2, Song.star, SongFooter.fLetter, SongFooter.language) are filled in correctly.
  5. The lyrics do not show any "obvious problems", if the following issues are considered to be obvious (these are all I can think of, are there any others?):

Why being so harsh to threaten one of our most active (#3 or 4 of the non-bots, depending on whether you call Senv's account a bot-account or not) and trusted users? I don't understand the sudden rudeness. - Chris 00:09, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chris:

My mistake: the entry at mb and discogs and iTunes are in contradiction. [1]. Skyclad:Intro: Pagan Man vs. Skyclad:Pagan Man. Both of which are here, one in Orphaned pages, one on the artist list. Which one is correct? What should the rank be, if any? The contradiction would be one reason to refrain from ranking. Can a songpage be ranked without consideration of the artist/album or the fact that multiple instances of similarly named page exist in the namespace? --ES (talk) 00:38, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
Hi ES,
of course the wrongly named page of those two does not deserve to be ranked Bronze. That would be something NYC has to find out. Assuming he knows that "Pagan Man" is the correct name and "Intro: Pagan Man" is not (which has to be confirmed now), the page in question deserves to be Bronze; it is not required that duplicates are made to redirects to make a page Bronze. Three reasons:
  1. As the name "page ranking" says, this parameter reflects this page's status, not the overall song status within LyricWiki. Wrong content on other pages doesn't make the correct content of the ranked page worse, does it?
  2. Pages would have to be demoted when someone else later creates duplicate content. (Actually such conditional rankings based on other pages are a general problem of our ranking system. Ranking can never be more than a snapshot of the current state; see also "Gold artist requires all songs to be Gold." Add one song and the artist is back at Bronze.) Furthermore, the existance of duplicate content is not always as obvious as in this case, for example if a song got an "inofficial name" based on a chorus line.
  3. Taking care of duplicate pages is part of the artist page ranking: orphaned pages are added to the "Other songs" section by the bot Janitor. Tidying up the "OS" section is required to upgrade an artist to Silver (see here), as well as a watcher who'd then be notified if new orphans are added to the list by Janitor (or manually).
- Chris 15:40, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry ES, I tried to be patient with your obsession about ranking so far, but this was the straw that broke the camel's back... what the hell is wrong with you!? You just blocked an editor with otherwise good edits just because he ranked a song wrongly? Seriously? This guy is here for 4 months now, and he makes beginner's mistakes. Just because you told him once five minutes ago that's not sufficient to block him the next time.
Furthermore, it's almost funny how you say "read the documentation" but your own block doesn't conform to our standards.
First, you did not include the {{BlockUser}} template, which had required you to give a detailed reason. "disregard for site policy" is a conceivably bad block reason: neither you name what policy nor do you state how exactly it was disregarded. A good block reason would be "Disregard page ranking policy by ranking malformed lyrics silver" or something. By the way he did not rank a page silver and added markups. In fact he removed the markup by replacing it with notations (which is allowed), and then ranked it Silver (which is of course the wrong rank, but for other reasons).
Second, you did not name the exact edit, which makes it hard to relate to that block. It could be any edit from maybe the last 2 weeks that you're referring to. Maybe it wasn't because of ranking but because of the markup here? Then it's okay to ask him to correct that, but certainly not with an instant three day block three minutes after the edit! To me it appears like he copies the lyrics, saves the page and then corrects the markups at some point later. You should rather require him to correct the markup before he saves the page for the first time. You go ahead of yourself with the block. This user is here for 4 months and has less than 850 edits. That is less than 7 edits per day in average. The recent average speed is maybe 20 edits per day. At this edit speed, he is not an imminent danger for our contents like a bot that vandalizes several pages per minute is. There is no need for an instant-block here, and even if, two hours or one day was enough to make sure he reads your message before he continues editing.
Third, you did not only hastily block him without proper reasoning, you also applied the IMO completely wrong options. Blocked users should never be disallowed to edit their talkpages. It is my understanding of democracy that one can answer back and explain. The only reasons why you would disallow edits there are 1) because of a spam bot that spams its own talk page, or 2) a user who is posting nonsense, insults or harassments there. What if he doesn't know which policy or which mistakes you're referring to (which is very likely if you don't name them)? He has to wait three days until he can ask.
I changed the block to 1 day and allowed talk page edits.
ES, I'm sorry, but this block makes me wonder what makes you so peevish. - Chris 15:30, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
This made me review the block log… Seriously? Blocking User:Teddybollocks for 1 year for "Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages" just because they created a top ten list? Blocking several IPs for 1 month because they dared to use Wikia's adding categories feature? I think it's high time for you to review LW:AGF. — 6×9 (Talk) 15:53, April 13, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks guys. The better option is to let months pass, and edits with various issues accumulate, and just leave them on the pile. LW:AGF equally applies to all of us :) cheers --ES (talk) 00:23, April 14, 2013 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith for Linusnils, that's why I'm asking you what has happened that you block him quasi in passing by, like it's the most normal thing to do. A block should be used as a last resort, like the red card in a football game. You sort of showed the red card for maybe the third casual foul, and without a yellow one.
I am absolutely assuming good faith in your edits. It's just that the block was not the right answer to the mistakes he made in my opinion, that's all. I'm not asking you to wait months, but as I said, even 2 days = 30-40 edits are few enough so he can catch up and tidy up his mistakes. - Chris 03:17, April 14, 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely right you are! And in case you see me make such a mistake again, go right ahead and unblock the fella (which I did).
Just curious, how many blocks did I apply over the past (4 months?) and how many were out of order? In an average year, how many blocks do you apply? I make as many mistakes in one day, that 9 editors & 6 admins (Not S!) make in a month. So it is imperative that you & 6 keep an eye on me, and set me good examples! Why do you think I paint 6 's talk page so much? ;) tia --ES (talk) 01:54, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Gold albums

Well, partly albums, partly Gold in general. The policy and help pages aren't 100% clear on whether it's sufficient to complete the checklist (aka Info template) to rank a page Gold or whether one should go the extra mile and make sure any relevant info (credits, ext. links etc.) is present even if it doesn't earn an additional "done" checkmark on the talk page. I always assumed it should be the latter, but it's entirely possible I'm the only admin (at least among the still-active ones) who does!

Either way, the ranking docs (esp. for albums) could use some rewriting and making sure they don't contradict each other. Also, any wishlists for additional Info checkboxes (am/mb for Song, maybe credits for album)? — 6×9 (Talk) 19:35, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, ever since I learned about page rankings, I always just went by the "all songs being gold" code when it comes to Gold albums. Tons of albums on here are Gold without musicians and awards (examples: 1 2 3). I do agree that the policy should probably be clarified more if those absolutely need to be included for an album to be ranked Gold, but I'd rather wait on what the other admins have to say first, as this still perplexes me a little bit. Additional info checkboxes for the album would probably work well too (not sure about the extra Song checkboxes though), but then we'd have to go back to all of the gold albums without awards/musicians and downgrade them to silver. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 22:18, April 2, 2013 (UTC)
I'm equally confused by this. I thought the point of LyricWiki was as a lyrics site, and that we were leaving other info (musicians, awards, etc) to sites like Wikipedia, amongst others. I always thought the point of putting in links to Wikipedia and other music websites on the album page was so that if anyone was curious enough about musicians and whatever, they could click the link and go and have a look.
To me, this raises a different issue, beyond a wishlist for Info checkboxes. The home page says "We are a free wiki website where anyone can get reliable lyrics for any song by any artist." What is the actual intent of this site and the pages presented here? Do we need to redefine the scope of LyricWiki? Eeepy (talk) 21:49, April 4, 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys (and Eeepy).
As a programmer, I've always learned that sometimes it's not only necessary to think about the "how", but maybe also about the "why". Sometimes what seemed to be a good idea at first turns out to be difficult to handle, and you have to think about alternatives...
So actually it's like the more I think about it, the more I wonder: why do we have something like a "ranking system" at all? Some users and admins like ES are investing a lot of time to determine the correct ranking status for a page, reading up on dozens of help pages, pondering about special cases, comparing page ranks to the page contents. But what is the benefit from that?
What does it mean for a page to be "Bronze"? What does it mean to be "Gold"? Isn't the ranking just a summary of categories, a list of pages that are lacking certain information?
I see categories like Albums missing genre; isn't that what our "page ranking system" is all about, to get this type of categories empty? And if yes, do we actually need a ranking system to achieve that?
I wonder if it wasn't easier to simply define "Pages missing ..." categories for everything we want to have (genre, length, cover, ...) in which every page is put into by one "Page Status" template, unless some template defines some kind of "ParamXyzIsSet" variable. Together with a simple "Unwatched pages" category we could easily map the current star colours to the absence of certain "missing" categories and thereby project our complicated ranking system onto categories. And if we add a special "Complete pages" category, we have some category as reference of a good page, just like the "Gold" categories.
Currently the declared goal is to bring as many pages to "Gold" as possible. This is equivalent to declaring the goal of empty "missing" categories.
So after all this is a question of principle: do we need a ranking system? - Chris 21:03, April 5, 2013 (UTC)
(Scene from Blues Brothers) Chris has seen the light, CHRIS Has Seen The LIGHT! --ES (talk) 01:17, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
Unless I got Aquatiki completely wrong at the time, the idea was, like Wikipedia's featured articles, to have a set of pages as shining (pardon the pun) examples that we can point users to: "that's what you should strive for". This means (at least in my interpretation) that there's more to it than just removing them from "missing" cats. Which is why the idea of a Goldrush (bringing as many pages to Gold as possible) makes me cringe, as it inevitably leads to doing just the bare required minimum. That would indeed make this endeavour pointless.
It shouldn't be necessary to read up on "lots of pages" to determine on what the correct ranking for a page is; Help > Page Ranking > PageType should be all you need. Which is why they have to be waterproof. — 6×9 (Talk) 06:35, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but what "more" is there to do? I don't see any criterion that is not mappable to that some work was missing, like "Songs without Credits", "Uncertified lyrics", "Unwatched songs", "Artists with unsorted discography" and so on... - Chris 22:06, April 6, 2013 (UTC)
Take song credits: Someone adds composer and lyricist and marks credits as "done". But the album might have somewhat different line-ups on each song, so credits should also include a list of musicians, with links to artist pages where applicable. But it's nonsense to require musician credits for *all* songs, because it makes little sense on albums that have little to no line-up/instrumentation variation. So no "Songs without Musician Credits".
Maybe we should get some more opinions, i.e. ask on the CP whether people like the ranking system the way it is or whether they'd like to change things (and what they'd change) or whether they'd prefer to get rid of it completely?
In the meantime, it would be nice if folks -- especially admins -- followed the current rules, hazy though they might be. This means, for example, not downgrading an artist from Bronze to Green just because there are a couple OS left. — 6×9 (Talk) 20:03, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
+1 on the CP, as all theoretical systems might still not be what our users might like.
Furthermore +1 for not demoting anything that is Bronze. IMO the criteria for Bronze is so incredibly low, it should be really hard to make a page that fails them without being stuck in some category that is wiped out by our cool cyborg or our lovely Mrs. Admine every other day anyway. And OS aren't part of the PR at that stage yet. - Chris 22:30, April 8, 2013 (UTC)
Let's look at it from another direction: How many pages do people think will ever make it beyond Bronze? Currently we have more bogus (violet) artists than Gold & Silver combined. Currently on my worklist I have more dupe artists to eliminate than Silver & Gold combined. Years after the inauguration of the ranking system, we have ~100 Gold & Silver out of ~68000 artists. 1/6th of a percent!
So all the pages that made Bronze with an fletter and a sh.alb, when will they make Silver? If we admit that Bronze is so incredibly low, why not eliminate Green? (asking again 2 months later)
Are you talking to me? (featuring Robert DeNiro): How do we bring to the attention of artist fans that the page they bronzed (and will most likely never go further up) that their page contains ambiguios tracks that don't belong there OS? Post a message on their talk page? If ranking is derived from data on page (not the song credits per 6's clear description of stratospheric golden arcana), then editors will have to do the work to make the page earn the rank. As it stands now, an fletter correction will bronze anything including a pile of soggy cat food.
Ranking usage: Who is using ranking anyway? Tons of editors work the pages and leave them green, is that bad? Isn't it better to derive ranking from data on page? Such a scheme would be useful to everybody, I'd like to hear the contrary opinion. Ranking should be like a thermometer, not subject to rigging by editors with a paint brush.
imho, The main issue to address is the border between Green & Bronze, which looks as wide as the border btwn Canada & Mexico. --ES (talk) 14:16, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
Quote by EchoSierra: "As it stands now, an fletter correction will bronze anything including a pile of soggy cat food." If this wiki was about soggy cat food, it would, yes.
Quote by EchoSierra: "editors will have to do the work to make the page earn the rank" The whole point of Bronze is that it is not meant to be earnt by something. It is a status, like a postmark on a letter. It states that something has been looked at with human eyes. Page"rank" Bronze = the "ranked" page has a reason to exist and it is not broken.
I never understood why new pages are "Green" by default. I think that is a mistake. New pages should be Bronze by default, and only bots should use "Green" when they create a page automatically, because that is what the differentiation between Bronze and Green was meant for. The whole point of the extra status for bot-created pages is lost when also the human-created pages are ranked like the bot-created pages until someone "corrects" the status.
Quote by EchoSierra: "Tons of editors work the pages and leave them green" But only because they don't do anything about the ranking. They'd also leave a page Bronze if it was Bronze.
I think, this is absolutely wrong. The relation of Green to Bronze should be 1:1 if not 1:2. - Chris 19:25, April 9, 2013 (UTC)
@Echo: we have {{split}} to alert editors of OS. Even if we changed Bronze requirements, it would at most be something like "not all songs may be listed under OS". Either way, Björk has more than earned her Bronze rank. As for low number of Ag/Au artists: hardly surprising, considering the requirement that ALL songs and albums have to exist and be ranked Ag/Au first. For artists with more than a few albums that's enough to make Sisyphos weep.
@Chris: Bots are actually better at requirements than casual users -- just look how many pages are created by organic lifeforms each day with "Symbol" as fLetter. So just pretend "checked by a human" really means "checked by a human with basic knowledge of LW's inner workings". — 6×9 (Talk) 18:36, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

@Echo: Drowning Pool has been downgraded from Bronze to Green for what reason? Just because you don't think that artists should be bronze is not a reason. This is getting out of control. Eeepy (talk) 10:19, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

So who is using ranking? and for what purpose?
@6: Given the hazy rules as they stand I take the high ground (not the two param soggy cat food bronze), like the other three admins who haven't said a word about the subject but make darn good bronze pages that as aqua said shine thru as good examples of Bronze. Bjork's OS=23 is NOT a shine thru example of Bronze, see Rush.
@Chris see the illegal silver & gold pages list that our silent cyborg generated. :))
@Eeepy, it's in the edit summary, in history.
@Trainman @ XXTXX, keep up the good work guys
@ Everybody, What we need is a lax ranking system (current one seems to fit fine, nobody complained till I came back and tried to clarify the mud) and another system as chris described which defines where work lurks.
Good luck with discussion in CP! That's how we got here! How many regular editors have the whole site in mind?!

--ES (talk) 13:40, April 11, 2013 (UTC) the mindset that got us in this mess is not the mindset that will get us out

Once again, and hopefully for the last time: until the ranking rules are changed, we follow the current rules. Yes, some aspects are hazy, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the parts that are clear as day. OS don't play into whether a page is Green or Bronze. Björk could have 230 or 23,000 OS and still be ranked Bronze. — 6×9 (Talk) 14:46, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
ACK. Echo, please, just accept that currently the number of OS is not relevant for Bronze. It is for Silver, it is for Gold, but not for Bronze. I don't understand why you still couldn't cope with that. Downgrade a Silver to a Bronze when OS contains a lot of duplicates, and likely nobody will complain. It contains two? Then save your two edits do downgrade on artist and talk page, and rather fix the duplicates with those two edits.
Anyway I think it has become evident that – in case the CP poll result is "new ranking system" – we should definitely aim for a system that calculates the apropiate rank. No subjective ranking means no space for discussions. If everything is hard-coded, the ranking is either accepted as is or the code has to be modified until all [admins] are happy with it.
A short prospect: I've made detailed plans of how to implement an automated ranking system I had in mind; I'm confident that the techniques I'd use there are compatible to most of the ideas that will be shared, so I'd like to incorporate that automated ranking system into T-Line if necessary.
But for now we need that poll, right? If I haven't missed something, there is no poll yet. Does anybody mind if I set up one during this or the next week? - Chris 15:27, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
I was hoping you'd ask :-) IOW: yes, please go ahead. — 6×9 (Talk) 17:04, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
Go far it, it's been a long time coming ;) --ES (talk) 17:15, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
Oh wow, I missed quite a bit. I read a little bit of it but don't have time right now to read everything. So could somebody summarize what's been going on? What did we decide to do with page rankings? Can R.E.M.'s Automatic for the People be Gold now? What is an "OS"? XxTimberlakexx (talk) 21:26, April 17, 2013 (UTC)
We cleared up that the OS of artists are not relevant for the Bronze ranking, but as not all of us are happy with the current system, we decided it might be time to re-consider the ranking system and -rules. We agreed on that it shouldn't be us but our users who are mostly ranking stuff, so it should be their decision whether we want to implement a new one. Therefore I'll start a poll on the community portal, which I am working on atm.
@All: do you think I should make a simple "New ranking system? - Yes/No" poll, or should I rather set up a more complex survey system where we can ask with multiple choice questions like "How often do you use the ranking system"? I knew how to do the latter (template based), it just takes a few days to set it up. - Chris 15:59, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
And the distinction between Bronze and the rank between Bronze & Violet? ...that makes up 90% of the site? Spell it out please! --ES (talk) 22:13, April 20, 2013 (UTC)
Green: Created, the page exists. Bronze: Page was checked by someone who knows what to check: header and footer templates are present, page title is LW:PN conformant, page technically not broken (e. g. because of missing brackets or tags, or wrong fLetter). - Chris 04:33, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
And by that definition, how many pages are not green?
  1. Broken Header/Footer = Zero
  2. LW:PN compliancy: See the lists at User:Senvaikis/Stat broken down by page type. largest type? ~1950 songpages ending in a dot. Second largest? X Feat. Y Songpages
  3. fLetter: 99% of fLetter errors are CJK/Cyrillic pages in the last 3 pages of Category:Songs_Symbol (less than 600)
Conclusion? Expecting the general population to do what is admin's job to do is wishful thinking (took nearly 4 years for the general public to make 10% of songs Bronze, so we need another 30+ years!) Despite the fact that the Bronze definition was made as low as possible!
A very Large Majority of the public and a teeeny minority of admin think of lw as a mere lyric site, that is their right.
btw: in how many languages do we have the ranking docs, besides English & German? Wink --ES (talk) 14:52, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

Where do our artists go

From time to to I update the statistics about LyricWiki in other projects. This time I noticed a massive "loss" of artist pages.

October 10, 2012, based on Wikipedia
Artists: 70,000
Albums: 90,000
Songs: 1,250,000
April 14, 2013, based on current Special:WikiActivity
Artists: 68,000
Albums: 100,000
Songs: 1,280,000

Where did the 2,000 artists go if everything else expands? - Chris 13:47, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

When I started combing thru artists (Jan 26, 2013), we had ~69100. So correct, ~1000 artists were eliminated since then. Feat. artists, misspelled, Uppercase/Innicap (GPS/Gps), dupes due to sloppy disambigs Artist (Ger) = Artist (DE) = Artist (Rap) collaboration of X & Y on 3 pages (X, Y, X&Y), you name it, we have it. The history of User:Kingnee1114lyrics/Sandbox/Articles_to_be_merged explains most of the artist merges since 2008, and I was involved with most of them, also review the page itself. See also Artists section. naturally merged artist pages means the songs within were redirected too.
The Unknown Hometown Artists (still slightly over 50% of our current artist total) will yield more redirect targets.
The October 2012 to Jan 2013 reduction of 1000 is a total mystery (to me anyway), either the stats are wrong, or Senv knows what went on. Special:ArtistRedirects should be a good place to look, but I never made sense of it.
I don't see any stats on Special:WikiActivity I always look at Category:Artist for the number.
I'd love to see month by month stats of artist numbers, from as far back as they can be found. --ES (talk) 15:31, April 14, 2013 (UTC)
P.S. according to Wikipedia, MetalArchives had 170,000 artists at 2010/07, but according to MA itself [2] on 31/3/2013: We have now reached an incredible 90,000 bands listed in the database! Surely wikipedia's numbers are incredibler :), or MA Lost 80,000 artists in 3 years (more than we ever had!)-es
Special:WikiActivity - bottom right, community corner, fun random facts, which are not really fun nor random Blush - Chris 21:01, April 14, 2013 (UTC)
Earlier Senv & I cleaned out lots of orphaned artists that had been created by Janitor for lyricless Gracenote placeholders; they became orphaned when those placeholders got deleted, and there was no reason to keep those with little to no metadata around. That might well have been > 1000 pages. Of course, when I write "Senv & I" I really mean he did around 95%... — 6×9 (Talk) 17:59, April 15, 2013 (UTC)
@ES: regarding the number at Wikipedia: opposed to the MA, Wikipedia's stats on LyricWiki were correct as I added them personally and I know which number goes where, whilst some others do not (he confused #total with #songs).
@6: of course... Grin - Chris 19:29, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

Problem pages

Thanks to Senv as usual, here is where all the pages that disappear (--> redirected) can be found, and why they get redirected. You can also find other useful (non trivial) trivia about illegal ranking, lyricless albums etc.

If anyone can think of other page problems on lw, please post the issue here.
--ES (talk) 11:09, April 19, 2013 (UTC)

LyricFind

Did I miss something? What is it for? Who(se) is UserBot who created all these pages, and why don't they show up in his contributions? And can we block him for violating LWPN? Why is Category:LyricFind Lyrics empty? Why do they clog up Special:DeadendPages even though they contain blue links? And how are we supposed to get them out of the orphanage?

OK, apparently they're taking over licensing from Gracenote (or something): http://www.lyricfind.com/gracenote-larry-marcus/ At least this time they've done it "properly" and disabled moving/deleting as well. — 6×9 (Talk) 10:19, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

C:LFL now tops Special:WantedCategories with 3,252 members but still appears empty: 0. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:46, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

I guess the the categorizing will only be done when the pages are purged. Although I don't really mind what the name of our licensing organization is, I once again feel left out; I think we have to make it clear to Wikia that we want to be notified about such changes in the future some weeks beforehand. It mustn't be that we are always the last ones to know what is happening to OUR wiki! The same thing like when they deleted our album covers without a notice (not even afterwards), instead of asking us to remove the covers because of this and that. - Chris 20:08, April 25, 2013 (UTC)
40,276 pages now according to S:WC. Loads of duplicates differing only in capitalisation. Oh well… — 6×9 (Talk) 08:38, April 28, 2013 (UTC)
768,083 and counting. BTW, touching doesn't help; LFL is still "empty". Not the only bug either: UserBot occasionally "forgets" NS and song title postfix, see first 38 entries in Special:DeadendPages. (Deleting doesn't help, I've tried.) — 6×9 (Talk) 09:15, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

{{AlbumCollaboration}}

Yep. @Chris: Before you ask, I didn't use a loop because (1) the places where we'd really need loops are also those where we're most likely to run into the 100-per-page limit, and (2) I avoided nesting, so it's no more complex than {{Covered}} and easily expanded if necessary. — 6×9 (Talk) 08:38, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Is it a requirement that {{SongCollaboration}} be used for songs of Collab albums, or not? --ES (talk) 00:51, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

LyricWiki styling changes

Hello guys and Eeepy,

I'd like to ask you what you think about the current LyricWiki design... To be honest I don't think it's very great, because although for example the background uses orange and blue as "corporate design", I think a lighter background would comfort the eyes a lot more. I also do not like the dark main page boxes. The gray shading of the boxes appears to me like nothing but CSS3 showoff stuff; it's not really needed.

I've been usign my own CSS rule set for a very long time now which modifies the looks of LyricWiki into a look that I like, less bright colours, more clean grayshade areas. I know this is not everyone's favourite style, but I wanted to ask you what you think of it, whether we should adapt it as official LyricWiki design.

Chris 00:21, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Certainly your version wins over the B&O. --ES (talk) 00:53, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
Hmm...I'm not sure if I like this or not. Then again, we need as much room as possible for Artist of the Month since those nominations will be considerably longer. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 01:04, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
The sorting is independant from the colour scheme.
I already re-arranged the main page because otherwise the right column would've been significantly longer than the left column and that made the page look ugly. - Chris 01:35, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

Negativity

I edited Placebo, putting in ordered lists for bonus tracks, as per instructions on the artist help page. I know that a lot of people don't use ordered lists because they find them too complicated to understand, so they just put comments for the bonus tracks instead.

EchoSierra reverted my edits within 15 minutes, removing all the ordered lists, and just putting comments for the bonus tracks.

This destructive edit is just another in a long line of nonsense. I'm getting really sick of Echo stalking all my edits, and his constant whining and negativity on my talk page, with no attempt at being constructive.

I'd leave if I hadn't been here so long. How many others has Echo driven off with this sort of pettiness, never to be seen again? Eeepy (talk) 08:07, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean. ES, what is wrong with this edit? You reverted it, you warned the user. Why? Maybe a few related artists too much, and he forgot the pipes in front of the template, but regarding everything else this was a good edit.
  • You may enhance OS with additional information
  • {{ArtistInfo}} is one of the most basic templates
  • He did not add blacks or redlinks
  • The structure was good
  • All genres are correct
May I remind you of one very important policy of LyricWiki: Improve over remove, insert over revert. That means: instead of removing non-perfect content by deleting a new page or reverting an edit, you should try to improve the content by inserting the correct content. So would you please stop your endless circle of "observe edits, revert edits, lecture user"? Thanks. - Chris 17:46, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
After multiple notes about ranking and to check the documentation, on ranking, I inserted the relevant portion of the docs on his talk page, then he promptly removed it from his talk page, I noticed. Wasn't that enough, Or do we need those docs translated and lectures and videos added? --ES (talk) 18:12, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
What do any of these have to do with reverting a good (except for a missing pipe) edit? — 6×9 (Talk) 19:32, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
The point of all this was....So he learns to do it right? right? He put the same edit on the same page twice without looking at it in preview. An editor learning is more important or a revert to get their attention? --ES (talk) 19:57, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
P.S. All of which has so far failed so far.
What was he supposed to learn from reversion of a good (except for a missing pipe) edit? To not bother? — 6×9 (Talk) 20:39, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Oops... It happened somehow that I haven't been here for a long time, - and should say I don't like what I see. @ES: if you really think the main goal of lw is teaching, then you'd also learn one thing: ability to say sometimes: "yes, my bad..." --Senvaikis (talk) 05:18, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

[3] --ES (talk) 01:50, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

Artist collab

@ES:

Your last post on your talk page shows you still haven't understood - I'm not going to diminish the reputation of adminship, keeping discussion in such unfair manner on public-available space. Have no other choice - let's try once more here, on our sequestered spot, unavailable for ordinary users.
. Well, let's list once more some issues, related to your recent edits on artist collabs, and try to discuss them (without ruffle or excitement, if possible):
  1. legitimacy of artist collab "obsoleteness": I'll not repeat this question again - your stubborn reluctance to answer this question made me conclude that was your own decision
  2. Mixed-type redir: you are redirecting "obsolete" collab pages to their release pages. But you don't need to be a programmer to understand that such mixed-type redir is faulty per se. Redirection normally is applied to the objects with the same type of content. We just say: yes, this object has a different title, but its content is the same (or almost the same) as the target of redir. This seemingly theoretical point of view isn't as abstract as may appear on the surface - most further issues are nothing more than consequences of this type-violation
  3. Multiple releases: if redirecting collab artist to its single release may seem partially justifiable, it becomes absolutelly irrational for collabs with multiple releases. Why should Björn Ulvaeus & Benny Andersson be redirected to Kristina Från Duvemåla (1996), not to Lycka (1970)?
  4. "Unresolvable redir": current LW architecture is still unready to dispense with collab artist object completely. If "Various Artists", pointed as the albumartist for albumart of some well-known two artist collab looks good enough for you, we may take another, maybe more obvious for you example. Let's take such templates as {{Cover}}, {{Covered}} etc, which requre param artist. How are you going to resolve this issue? (Notice that release page, opened from the cover "performer" link, even doesn't contain the covered song!)
  5. Janitor - hope comments are needless - that's just one of above-mentioned consequences...
  6. Unused images: this (and furher) issue isn't directly related to mixed-redir problem; however you are admin, and any your action is supossed to have some good reason, - that's why I'm just curious - why almost all images of artist collabs were left unused? If you haven't deleted them before making redir, maybe you were going to repost them somewhere else?
  7. Songs: if you decided to redirect artist collab page (in other words - "delete" such an "artist"), wouldn't it be desirable to make according changes to all the songs of this collab? Once more - you are admin, and all your edits should serve as an example of "how things should be done here". Is that a suitable editing model to be followed? And how would these songs look like if now someone just "resolved" current redirs, replacing song artist (ex-collab pagetitle) by release title?
@Others: As all you know, it's not very easy task for me to write more or less orderly sentence in English without a risk to be misunderstood, especially when other side doesn't show burning desire to understand ;). Thus please, help us, joining this discussion - I'm pretty sure it's far from being finished ;)
tia, --Senvaikis (talk) 17:48, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

P.S. sorry for all possible typos & errors - just spent too much time for writing that and have no more time left for spellchecking and rechecking :)

The reason I didn't bring this up with ES as soon as he started removing tl:Coll from artist pages is because I suspected* the following discussion would go the way it now did between Senv and ES. Sometimes I hate being proven right. *) Well, that and I've really got my hands full with non-LW activities these days.
@Senv: you pretty much summed up all my concerns and even added several I wouldn't have thought of. Nice job!
@Echo: Your tendency to "shoot first and ask questions later" is really getting out of hand. AlbumCollab was explicitly created to avoid artist pages for one-album-collabs; there never was any talk of ArtistCollab becoming obsolete, nor did you ask for confirmation before emptying Artist Collaborations of all but one of its members. This behaviour is unacceptable. — 6×9 (Talk) 12:15, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
  1. legitimacy of artist collab "obsoleteness": Other Sonsg list. Songs performed in collaboration exist on both artist's OS lis, attributed to one or the other artist, in addition to existing copies of the song attributed to both artists. By bringing the collab albums on both artist pages, we can identify duplicated songs. Recall the Italian duo for which we had three Artist pages, one for each individual plus one as X & Y. Many examples of those exist yet.
  2. Mixed-type redir: Thanks for the clarification, at the surface such redirs didn't seem out of place but their consequence goes much further. I'll correct all the artist to album redirs.
  3. Multiple releases: Justification: to whichever release the collabArtist is redirected to, on the target page we have links to both artists of the collab, which leads to either artist page which contains all their collab albums.
  4. Janitor As if I am unaware of what janitor does! Is this issue not unlike janitor adding OS lists to Disambiguation pages? Why have I been religiously (you may say) correcting all the disambig pages, a task yet unfinished... as everything else.
  5. Unused images: Strange, every album that I added the collabAlb header to, I also edited it's albumcover template and amde sure the cover correctly displays on the album page.
  6. "Unresolvable redir": Obviously big boo boo on my part, redirect of the collab artist should only go to either artist.
  7. Songs: Certainly all songs of the collabs need to use {{SongCollaboration}} (assuming the songs are true collabs, and not single artist songs on colabAlbs). I asked 5 weeks ago, right here on AP, and nobody has yet answerd. I take it the answer is yes?
further: Did it go unnoticed the existing faux collaboration Songs and albums that I corrected, (shooting after getting no response) in addition to new collaboration albums and songs of which you are mercifully ......?! While your storm in the teacup was brewing!
In case it has gone unnoticed, I am not here to work on my pet artist pages, and there is no task that I call donkey work, So make a priority list and I will go at it (The entire albumCollab category was one, before your post). Recall that the work lists on your stat page are not labguishing in neglect, and for every dangling image or bad redirect I have left behind, there are hundreds I have fixed. ;) cheers --ES (talk) 10:53, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
Once again you completely ignore the main issue: There never was any explicit or implicit consensus about tl:Collab becoming obsolete, nor did you ask for any confirmation before you went ahead and removed it.
To answer your last question: No, all collab songs should not use tl:SC; only those where no collab artist page exists (because there's only one album or even only one song).
And listing the same album on several artist pages? That's a logistical nightmare; won't be long before you end up with several different tracklistings for one album, because not every editor knows or can be bothered to check all places. — 6×9 (Talk) 12:51, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been around here in a while -- too many other things going on in my life at the moment (new job, mostly). (Also, for some reason, I'm not getting updates from this page, but I'll try to remember to come to the site to check it more often.)
I seriously cannot tell exactly what is supposed to be done with collaborations now, although from what little I can glean, I don't think I like it. Is there a reason this doesn't seem to have been discussed
Did anyone think to change the help pages to reflect the apparent new method of handling collaborations? For example, the artist editing help page still points to using the {{Collaboration}} template for "limited-time artist collaborations," which I gather is not entirely correct anymore. Seems to me if we're going to change "the way we do things," the applicable help pages should be the first edits, before going whole hog on editing song/album/artist pages to conform to the "new rules." I'd volunteer, but as I said, I have little to no idea what's going on in the first place. Trainman (talk) 04:45, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
You're right – often, in the rush to "fix things", the documentation is forgotten. Large part of this is probably my fault; I moved a while ago, plus work is sometimes pretty crazy, so way too often I just cram in a few LW minutes in between other stuff. And next week I'm off on a holiday, with no LW access at all.
Special problem in this case is that apparently there were a few crossed wires. I think we were pretty much all in agreement (correct me if I'm wrong) that {{SongCollaboration}} was desirable, to avoid one-song-only artist pages. {{AlbumCollaboration}} for one-album-only collabs seems reasonable as well, though it's not as clearcut. (Maybe we should have a vote on this?) As is evident from the above discussion, ES thought it was meant to replace artist collab pages entirely.
So yeah, maybe we should vote on this: Do we want tl:AlbColl at all? If yes, only for one-album-collabs or to replace artist collab pages entirely? Are we all agreed on SongCollab? (Technically, AC sorta implies SC, so you only have to vote on SC if you don't want AC.)
My vote: AC yes, for one-album collabs, not to replace artist collabs entirely. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:11, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
I can't vote whether AlbColl should replace any ArtistColl page, until I know who's going to be responsible for updating album pages using AlbColl when a second collab-album is released, respectively who's going to check whether there's not simply x AlbumCollab albums with x > 1? - Chris 22:39, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

MusicBrainz

Hi,

I think there was a section were somebody (Sean?) informed us that MusicBrainz now features backlinks to LyricWiki with a very short step-by-step solution of how to add them. Does anybody remember or know where this section is? - Chris 00:10, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for belated response, - next to TM, I'm not getting any info about this page updates also. If you still need some help on the subject, - hope this Jingo may help you :) --Senvaikis (talk) 11:02, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
Wow, thanks, this helps a lot! I found something like this in a very special section of the documentation: http://musicbrainz.org/relationships/artist-url but the forward link phrase "lyrics page" made me think this was not the right type of relationship. Thanks for helping me out! - Chris 20:51, September 10, 2013 (UTC)

Genres

You're all probably aware of this discussion (and if you weren't, you are now). Before this drops below the radar and is forgotten in Senv's talk page archive, let's strike while the iron is still hot:

  1. Is anyone opposed to genres for songs?
  2. If not, should we keep Artist and Album genres or remove them?
  3. Suggestions/ideas on how to implement it?

For starters, here's my take: (1) I'm not. (2) Remove them (after giving Lwt time to add albums' genres to songs). (3) Simplest and cleanest way would be a genres parameter in SF, but we'd need to unhide all genre cats. If we want more visibility, {{CreditBox}} might be an option, but it's not widely used yet. I'd rather not put {{Genres}} on song pages, since I don't think we should allow for more than one genre. — 6×9 (Talk) 17:35, September 29, 2013 (UTC)

HOWDY! :D

Hey guys... I'm back for a bit. More infos here: LyricWiki_talk:Community_Portal#Licensing_restrictions_are_relaxing
-Sean Colombo (talk) 20:50, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Sean! It's been quite a while. Congrats on the marriage, btw :) XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)22:21, November 22, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! :D :D :D
-Sean Colombo (talk) 01:10, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick question

Not that I'm against this or anything, but where did the discussion take place for creating all the "Songs by *artist*" categories? They seemed to have popped up out of the blue and I don't recall seeing any discussion on creating them. I'm just curious, I actually think it's a pretty good addition; like I said, I'm not against it. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)22:21, November 22, 2013 (UTC)

I briefly discussed it with Senv here. Since they're largely intended for maintenance, and the change doesn't affect "normal use" of LW (most users won't even see them unless they enable hidden cats in their profile), plus their usefulness and even necessity in our current system was pretty much a given, I decided to implement the change without additional discussion.
The next logical step would be to do the same for albums. In this case, I think categories should only be created when they're populated; we have too many artists who never released a proper album. I'd actually intended to do this last weekend already, but didn't expect such a huge fallout from SbA…
Finally (and this I planned to discuss here first) we can replace the "Browse all pages by…" link in the ArtistHeader (which isn't true for aliased or disambig'ed artists anyway) with links to these two categories instead. Or should we keep both? — 6×9 (Talk) 09:43, November 23, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.