2,054,106 Pages

Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current LyricWiki talk page.
LyricWiki talk archive for Administrators Portal
<< 2015 2016 2017-2018 >>


(no, I hadn't forgotten about it) I think I have eliminated most bugs & glitches. Are we agreed on the changes (all outlined at the top of the doc page) and the layout? If yes, I'd like to start by converting all pages using {{SongCollaboration}} first; hopefully any remaining bugs will manifest themselves before we go for the Big One ({{Song}}, that is, not Sean). — 6×9 (Talk) 18:09, January 6, 2016 (UTC)

(I've been looking forward to this) Looks excellent, 6.
My only qualm is reducing fas to 3, but that's just me, if others are fine with it I am (if I had my way we'd have infinite fas ;P) - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 18:18, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
They're not reduced as such, just relocated (to CreditBox). Infinite fas would make SH infinitely complex, whereas CB can take it* (just one param, list can be as long as necessary & even divided into columns). — 6×9 (Talk) 19:00, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
*) A lot, not infinity – that would break the internet.
Sounds fair enough Wink - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 19:06, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
Seems a little more complicated to edit now, but fine with me since I can see the improvements :) Good work and thx 6.  · Lichtweber talk service  19:09, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! It might be a bit more work for "normal" albums, but on the plus side there's no more hassle with albumartist, and SongFooter.album can finally be retired for good! — 6×9 (Talk) 20:35, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
Regarding "more complicated editing": complexity may be essentially reduced, using specific Auto-New Page templates; (some of them, including SongCollab, may need some corrections though). --Senvaikis (talk) 20:52, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
Very nice! I'd prefer the ranking star within the header to reduce the white space above, but that's fairly minor.
A side question: might it be better to move the language parameter from SF to SH? This would make Artist/Album/SongFooter more consistent (they'd contain ext. links, fLetter, categorisation), and means the language parameter + missing language message could be up top (more noticeable to new users - maybe they'll be more likely to fill it in!). I'm not sure if this could work with instrumental pages, though. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 17:59, January 7, 2016 (UTC)
I'm not happy about the wasted space either, but the alternative (stars inside the box) looks weird to me. Maybe we could make more use of it by adding a scroll icon for certified songs, or a flag icon for language? Provided we move the latter to SH… The no-language notice would still have to be handled by SF though (can't use variables that aren't defined yet, and dpl doesn't appear to work on same page – possibly disabled to avoid infinite recursion). Should be possible to relocate it through css or js though… — 6×9 (Talk) 21:42, January 7, 2016 (UTC)
If most of us are unhappy with a star-wasted space, wouldn't it be possible to "squeeze" it into a box, right-aligned to div#song-header-title, smth like this?
Yes, sometimes it would be "jumping", while resizing pages with a long titles, but is that so crucial? --Senvaikis (talk) 11:13, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
Just noticed, artist pages show the star on an otherwise blank line also. Speaking of CSS, another possibility could be to push the star up into the header (would work on artist/album pages too). Adding useful indicators with the star could be an interesting idea. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 14:04, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
In monobook, moving the star up with position:absolute is trivial. In wikia skin, not so: as soon as it moves out of #WikiaArticle, it disappears, because overflow is set to "hidden" (by design, I guess), and I'm not sure the wikia people would be OK with us overriding that. — 6×9 (Talk) 16:54, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
@Senv: I'm not really happy with the look, and we can't do that for artists (narrow box, not enough room in title bar).
Another option would be to make box not use up the 100% width: File:Space_for_star.png (if we add language and/or cert flags, they would appear in a column below the star). Of the two versions, I like the centered one better. But for artists it wouldn't work, and I think I prefer consistency over some 30 px of saved space… — 6×9 (Talk) 10:34, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
Agree, especially to consistency priority over 30px. --Senvaikis (talk) 17:07, January 9, 2016 (UTC)

On second thought, using national flags for languages would open a can of worms I'd rather not have to deal with… We could use the generic flags icon with hover text instead. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:21, January 13, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed also - like I first mentioned, the gap is fairly minor. I'd still prefer it in the header, but if Wikia people might have issues with it, I guess we can't. Agreed about flags too (flags aren't really languages), but that certified icon seems a handy thing to add. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 16:52, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
@6: No complaints, but can you please add the roman and trans params in the doc? I'll complain after it's online. Wink --ES (talk) 09:29, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
Do we prefer to deal with Fa's in two places? Can we send them all to CB by bot, and unclutter SH? --09:33, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
I'll have to write the doc first before I can add to it… (Currently it's only demonstration + list of changes from tl:Song… which does include the roman param. There is no trans param…) — 6×9 (Talk) 09:33, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
Now that this is the new default song template (which appears when you create a page), is 6's bot going to change all {{Song}}s to {{SongHeader}}s? I ask because currently, both are floating around on song pages, which makes for a large inconsistency. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)00:09, February 20, 2016 (UTC)
Does this answer your question? — 6×9 (Talk) 08:51, February 20, 2016 (UTC)
It does, thanks. Smile I'd imagine that's going to take a great deal of time (even via bot), but the end result should be nice. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)15:33, February 20, 2016 (UTC)
I'm a little confused why featured artists need to have the brackets around their name when the song artist doesn't. Was there a particular reason for that decision? It was probably discussed somewhere, but I don't see it mentioned here.
Besides that, I wanted to commend 6 for his hard work on this new template, I quite like it. It's a lot more appealing on the eyes and condenses several other things into it quite nicely (e.g. AddAlb). I particularly like how we moved Language to the SongHeader now, which is good not only for saving time (not having to go down every time to put the language in) but it will also (hopefully) guide the newer users who never put language on songs because they never notice it all the way at the bottom. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)23:03, February 22, 2016 (UTC)
why featured artists need... so now we have the option of indicating unlinked fa's. The reminder to the editors is that unless they are willing to create the artist page for a fa artist, then it can be unlinked (same issue as creating data less album pages, eh?) --ES (talk) 01:57, February 23, 2016 (UTC)

Serious {{Cover}} problem

Ronnie brought this up, and it may be related to {{SongHeader}}, but 6 it seems this edit to {{Cover}} has broken it, and is seriously messing up pages once the cache updates. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 13:28, January 7, 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, see help desk. — 6×9 (Talk) 16:57, January 7, 2016 (UTC)

Albums that aren't releases

For those of you who haven't seen the discussion on my talk page, Lichtweber proposed a few additions/changes to {{AlbumHeader}} to handle works like operas etc. I've implemented & described the changes here. Any additional suggestions, improvements, potential problems? — 6×9 (Talk) 09:12, January 23, 2016 (UTC)

Merged the changes into the template & updated its doc. Nuked 3-4 "Albums released in (< 1900)" cats. @LW: do you want to take care of the help pages? — 6×9 (Talk) 17:29, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

Thanxalot! Will do.
Now that we went live with it I noticed that categories need fixing:
I might be missing something obvious here, but… since you created the categories for the latter three, why didn't you make them subcats of work? Agree that wtypes are different things than genres – so why put {{Genrebox}} which puts the page into C:G on Mass? — 6×9 (Talk) 18:42, February 6, 2016 (UTC)
The obious thing is that those cats should be automatically be assigned to the proper ones, rather than manually ;)  · Lichtweber talk service  19:02, February 6, 2016 (UTC)
There is no such thing as automatic assignment to categories – you have to do it either manually or via a template (which still has to be added manually). — 6×9 (Talk) 19:28, February 6, 2016 (UTC)
Hm ok, my bad I guess, thx again!  · Lichtweber talk service  20:55, February 6, 2016 (UTC)
done, see Help:Albums#Album Types and new page Help:Classical: As always, fixes in content and language appreciated.  · Lichtweber talk service  00:15, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

Typo on Batchmove page

Really trivial thing, and I don't even know if this is the right place to post this (this may be something only Staff can do) but on the Batchmove page, before you press the final submit, it says "This can possible be a large operation and will be difficult to reverse.". "Possible" should be "possibly". XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)01:07, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

Comparing revisions bug

Is anyone else seeing really strange bogus content when comparing two revisions? I seem to be getting stuff from completely unrelated things (from what I think is other pages and even other wikis) showing up. For example, Icon For Hire:Make A Move showed me the content for The Lodger:A Year Since Last Summer after 42's edit. Am I just having a very strange client-side issue?

I saw one other person on the Community Wikia having a similar issue, but when adding an image. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 15:54, March 23, 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, seems it's been fixed - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 16:01, March 23, 2016 (UTC)
Not entirely fixed – there were ~200 edits by 42 (between 15:26 and 15:37 UTC) which I had to revert (example). Weird thing is, the reported size difference seems to reflect the should-have-been edit rather than the actual edit. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:03, March 23, 2016 (UTC)

Songs With Music Videos category

Do we really need this category? I stumbled upon it today and it felt like a dupe category to me, since Category:YouTube/Song already has 80,000+ articles in it. It seems like this category is a misnomer as only pages that use the {{video}} template are listed in it. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)20:50, April 6, 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. It is was actually older than YT/S, and SongFooter originally used this template to show video links. — 6×9 (Talk) 06:54, April 7, 2016 (UTC)
Ah okay, figures. I'm surprised that slipped by us without deletion for this long Wink The 30+ songs in this category may still need to be purged as they still show up as members of the category. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)10:50, April 7, 2016 (UTC)
Touching: done, but that wasn't enough to resolve Nicola's question - this cat still contained some members (containing {{Videodm}} or manual cats). I removed all mancats and deadlinks to Dailymotion, but don't know what should we do with those 7 remaining (with a valid {{Videodm}}s)... --Senvaikis (talk) 14:22, April 7, 2016 (UTC)
PS: Question for reflection: what'd you say about restoring C:SWMV, with 3 subcats: C:YouTube/Song‎‎, C:Vimeo/Song‎‎ and C:Dailymotion/Song‎ (to be created then)? --Senvaikis (talk) 15:13, April 7, 2016 (UTC)
Another good catch not surprising, with all the fishing you do :-) Updated videodm to bring it in line with other footer templates. Restoring SWMV sounds like a good idea, though I'd keep them in C:ExtLinks as well. — 6×9 (Talk) 17:05, April 7, 2016 (UTC)
--Senvaikis (talk) 07:49, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
Funny you should ask – been wondering about that too. Pop the question now, or wait for a bit? Looks good so far though. — 6×9 (Talk) 20:54, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
How about just now? --Senvaikis (talk) 12:08, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
Are we making suggestions for what I think we are? Because if we are I have an additional nomination in mind - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 14:12, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
Go ahead then, Pat - I'm just curious if I guess right ;). And what can you say in answer to my Q?
I agree with the nomination already stated. My nomination however goes to a certain German beverage ;). - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 14:22, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
There's only one possible objection to you suggestion (nothing's strange I guessed it right) - too many DEs in one ship ;). If seriously - I agree 100%, but my agreement doesn't mean I withdraw the previous nominee (considering your definition as additional, not alternative...) :) --Senvaikis (talk) 14:44, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
Of course, I was merely throwing an additional suggestion :) (much like mine and 123F's nomination). We can always have more coding powerhouses around LW. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 15:29, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
I assume Category:Songs With Audio is of a similar antiquity too? Added by {{Audio}}, and contains a single song page (though the template's also used on SOTD archives + AOTW talk pages).
It could be repurposed along with Songs With Music Videos, containing the relevant GoEar/Spotify/Bandcamp/SoundCloud categories. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 12:39, April 13, 2016 (UTC)
+1 on SWA, and on 2nd nominee. — 6×9 (Talk) 13:37, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
Well, we have agreements from 3 admins... Considering the fact that 2/3 of them are bureaucrats and other admins haven't expressed any objections (though at least two of them have positively seen these nominations), I think it's time to ask for a nominees opinion. Surely, I'd prefer to see a bigger quorum (btw, it's not late for voting yet), but anyways I'm going to ask BB for his agreement a few hours later. Would you agree to ask FB, Pat? --Senvaikis (talk) 18:13, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I'll ask him when you ask BB (if asked in the next 3 hours) - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 18:25, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
Do you mind being clear? What the heck are we supposed to vote for?  · Lichtweber talk service  19:23, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
Two new admin nominations. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:25, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
Care to elaborate...?  · Lichtweber talk service  19:31, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
I object!  · Lichtweber talk service  20:09, April 16, 2016 (UTC)

New Template

Template {{cv}} for covers on artist pages, similiar to {{ft}}

{{cv|Full Song Page Name}}

U like? Improve?  · Lichtweber talk service  19:50, April 14, 2016 (UTC)

¡gracias! Was long overdue...--ES (talk) 20:00, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
I spied you working on that, nice work! - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 20:07, April 14, 2016 (UTC)
I thought unnamed params were assimilated, even in one param templates... --ES (talk) 08:23, April 15, 2016 (UTC)
Small bug showed up. --Senvaikis (talk) 08:42, April 15, 2016 (UTC)
after-fix PS: you are welcome!
Thanks for your help guys, I think cv is good to go now. I added it to Help:Templates already :)  · Lichtweber talk service  12:46, April 16, 2016 (UTC)

We might need to come up with some general guidelines on what info is allowed on track listings and what isn't – both {{feat}} and {{cv}} duplicate info from song pages, as does "(instrumental)", but while the former are accepted, the latter generally isn't. — 6×9 (Talk) 08:46, May 21, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd think anything specific to the song (cvr/cvrd/feat/credits/romanized/transtitle) is best not duplicated on alb/artist pages. Then there are cases of track times/ indicated on alb/artist pages, exact alb release date / alb type etc. (added to album headers and pages) Instrumental only when non instrumental version exists? Transcluding may allow display of such song specific info without explicit typing in track lists... Is that a possibility? --ES (talk) 09:45, May 21, 2016 (UTC)
I like having cover/feat, at least, displayed on the artist and album pages. It makes it easier to see where a guest artist has contributed, who all the artists working on the album are, and other artists related to the given artist. Instrumental only when there's a non-instrumental version sounds good, similar to other notations. Transcluding: not really possible unless we make each track a parameter in a template, which doesn't seem practical. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 01:26, May 22, 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Bobo; feat and cover (as well as notations like remix or live) is beneficial IMO. I think there should be a separate rule for cases where the majority of the album features covers, however, to avoid over-inflating the page. Instrumental notations and translation/romanisation of song titles should remain on song page only, though. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 12:37, May 22, 2016 (UTC)


Speaking of templates: I'd like to do the same for {{ft}} as for the fa parameters in {{SongHeader}} and remove the autolinking. To that end (and also for naming consistency) I'd create a new template at {{fa}} and let my bot convert all occurences of ft, adding links only where the target page exists. This would also be announced on the CP. Thoughts? Does anyone see a problem with that? — 6×9 (Talk) 09:24, April 16, 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather that we kept the template name {{ft}} because I feel that this is the "most natural" name for it. But removing autolinking is a good thing, I guess.  · Lichtweber talk service  12:43, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
How about removing any ambiguity and just going with "featured", or "feat"? I doubt anyone's fingers will fall off from having to hit a couple extra keys… — 6×9 (Talk) 13:27, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good! I prefer 'ft' over 'fa' too - it took me a while to figure out what 'fa' meant when I first started editing here. The name's not that important though, so whatever works best! - OneTwoThreeFall talk 20:06, April 18, 2016 (UTC)
Would anyone have a problem with choosing {{feat}} over {{ft}}? (A new name wouldn't break current links & make keeping track of converting a bit easier.) Also, should we (eventually) rename the SongHeader params to ft#/feat# for consistency? — 6×9 (Talk) 09:56, May 5, 2016 (UTC)
I'm okay with feat if SH gets changed as well (however it would take some relearning Tongue) - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 17:00, May 5, 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me as well. Maybe bold the featured artist name if it doesn't exist? I like feat# for SH. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 21:42, May 5, 2016 (UTC)

Nominating New Admins

I am sorry, but I don't think it's fair to expect us to vote for new admins when nobody even bothers to officially and explicitly name the candidates here @LW. And I object to limiting the voting process to "a few hours". Name the candidates, give everybody at least one week to consider their vote. I won't vote for mysterious unknowns.  · Lichtweber talk service  20:05, April 16, 2016 (UTC)

I thought the secrecy was just a bit of fun and games. Both nominations have had their user pages linked, but here's some clarification for you:
  1. Bobo, nominated by Senv
  2. Fassbrause, nominated by me
Both very good editors who can do with the additional tools. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 20:11, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
Have you any other, more specific objections, which could change our opinion, LW? --Senvaikis (talk) 20:41, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
PS @Pat: let's wait till tomorrow... :)
[edit conflict] Note that, while we didn't explicitly state that we were talking about adminship nominations, both nominees' usernames were explicitly mentioned. — 6×9 (Talk) 20:43, April 16, 2016 (UTC)
@Pat: Thank you.
@Senv: I honestly don't know how to answer this. Let me just say Hannover. You are unbelievable...  · Lichtweber talk service  09:32, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
@LW: Trying to remain polite, I just say bluntly: that's not a post of admin. --Senvaikis (talk) 11:24, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
It appears he left. Anyway, the edit summary was completely unacceptable and would have led to an instant block for most users. I've removed his admin status. Should he ever return & be willing to discuss things objectively, I'd be willing to reconsider. — 6×9 (Talk) 12:40, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
The mood is spoiled, but we should decide what to do imo - hope both nominees will understand that actual reasons of the conflict have nothing to do with them... What do you think, Pat? --Senvaikis (talk) 14:46, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
We haven't heard 123F, ES and Nic's (and Dr B's :P) thoughts on the nominations (I doubt they'd have objections), so maybe they could chime in with their opinions. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 15:16, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
No objections here. Fassbrause has been a great contributor for a very long time, and Bobogoobo, while only having edited regularly for the last few months, definitely seems to have the experience. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 16:13, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
No objections to either nominee. --ES (talk) 17:56, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
...why not both? --ES (talk) 19:17, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
It's always been both (I probably could have made that clearer earlier Tongue) - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 19:29, April 17, 2016 (UTC)
I've been considering Fassbrause as a new admin nominee for some time now, so I'm definitely on board for that. I've seen Bobo around but haven't really looked at their profile/contribs much - in doing so now, I also have no objections to them becoming admin as they seem to be well-versed in Wikia and very helpful. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)10:17, April 18, 2016 (UTC)
*bump* That's as unanimous as it gets… — 6×9 (Talk) 18:44, May 2, 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Would be nice though to hear that we aren't going to wait for absolutely all remaining admins chiming in, putting such way an end to this shameful story.
My apologies to both nominees (hope that the break in FB's contribs is just a coincidence...)--Senvaikis (talk) 06:04, May 3, 2016 (UTC)
That would be a new record for LW's admin curse – mere mention of the possibility of a nomination! — 6×9 (Talk) 11:00, May 3, 2016 (UTC)
Shall we send out the requests then? I'm sure FB will hopefully start editing again soon, and the admin request will be a nice thing for him to return to. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 15:28, May 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • BB: request: done, answer:done, grants: done.
  • FB: request...
--Senvaikis (talk) 19:35, May 3, 2016 (UTC)
FB: request: done, answer also pending
And it looks like Bobo's up for it. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 23:17, May 3, 2016 (UTC)


"...non-Latin writing system that uses symbols for entire words (Chinese, Japanese, & Korean)..." Yes, but what about syllable-based alphabets, which are somewhere in between (like Ethiopic or Canadian)? I vote for using the script language, rather than the first character, for these scripts.

Also, how do we deal with CJK Unified Ideographs (Unicode range x4E00-x9FFF)? "Many characters in this block are used in all three writing systems, while others are in only one or two of the three." Do we fall back to language (for songs) and hometown (artists), with suitable replacements (Mandarin => Chinese, Hong Kong => Chinese)? — 6×9 (Talk) 06:42, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed on the first question. Far too many characters to be worth categories. For CJK Unified I'd go with song language, yeah. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 04:30, May 9, 2016 (UTC)


Quoth LWPN: "… in the case with albums or songs that start with a Twitter hashtag, the number part should be removed completely …" I think and a certain admin candidate, who's still waiting to be proposed to by Senv, agrees that it would be better to replace "#" with "Hashtag ", to reflect the norm in spoken language. Thoughts? — 6×9 (Talk) 17:18, April 27, 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Usually we follow Wikipedia's lead for things like this, and they seem to leave the hashtag out. However it is true that hashtag is spoken, so I'm wouldn't really be opposed to either. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 16:10, April 29, 2016 (UTC)
As stated above, I'm in favor of converting any characters with technical restrictions to the way they would be pronounced in the title. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 04:30, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

Bot request

Not sure what the procedure is for requesting a bot flag on an account, since bureaucrats can't set them anymore. In case this is the right place: I'd like a bot flag for an account I've already used as such elsewhere, User:Lyra Botstrings. I haven't taken the time to learn PyWikipediaBot, though I am experienced with Python, so I just use AWB. Don't have any particular projects for it at the moment, but I'm sure it will be useful. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 04:30, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

You'll need to ask the Wikia staff through Special:Contact. Not sure if admins need a recommendation letter (bureaucrats don't), but in case you do:
I, 6 times 9, being of mostly sound mind, hereby declare Bobogoobo fit to own a bot and unlikely to use it to destroy the internet.
6×9 (Talk) 16:50, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, the rights have been granted. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 04:12, May 10, 2016 (UTC)

Soundtracks in multiple languages

Presenting {{SoundtrackLanguage}} (following this and this discussion). You can see a working example for songs here and a not-so working example for albums here – it requires albums to be actually formatted as such, complete with AH. (If the French version was released as soundtrack, it should get a regular album page, not just a list; if it wasn't it shouldn't be listed as released version…) — 6×9 (Talk) 08:21, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

Looks great! ~Bobogoobo (talk) 23:33, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

Vocal Slicing in Lyrics

Help:Lyrics is unclear about how songs using vocal slicing/chopping should be transcribed. (At least when the song is composed mainly of such -- for only a line or two, I would exclude it entirely or use an ellipsis as usual.) Often the sliced portions do constitute "part or all of the chorus" or make a song notable, but that rule has been contradicted before. I think it's very inaccurate simply to mark the song as instrumental. Often there are whole words among the slices. What do you guys prefer to do with it? As an example, take Echelon:Sleep, of which I have created a sample slicing transcription in my sandbox. Obviously it would be ridiculous to include all of it on a mainspace page, as much of the slicing is open to interpretation and, indeed, meaningless. But what about the whole words, especially between the "verses", or even within them? Should there be some notation for excluded slice portions? It's not really the same as scat/vocalizing where you can put a small portion and imply the rest. In any case, I think Help:Lyrics should include a specific line just to cover the bases. (Also, while I'm here, I made a suggestion that may need some discussion here.) ~Bobogoobo (talk) 04:40, May 30, 2016 (UTC)

IMO, the whole words should definitely be included, but vocal splicing like your example should only be included if it leads to a full word (e.g. "lo-lo-love me like you do"). I've made an attempt on your sandbox at laying out the lyrics to your song. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 09:52, May 30, 2016 (UTC)


Minor thing, but I didn't want to unilaterally change a bunch of organization. Does anyone object to creating subcategories for Category:Users, such as Users by Location, Users by Artist Fandom, Users by Languages Read? Would make it a bit easier to navigate, and would be nice to put them under the relevant letters. Also, I don't think user pages should be put in the category directly, but rather should belong to one of the existing subcategories. EDIT: also, {{Userboxes/Hometown}} creates an inconsistency by using "Users who are from X" rather than "Users from X", so there are some locations with one of each category. I prefer the latter, but either way we should pick one. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 07:05, June 16, 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. On the same note, I'd also put all "Albums released in" categories in "Albums by Release Year" or something, rather than directly in Category:Albums. — 6×9 (Talk) 17:58, June 16, 2016 (UTC)

Retire Code Purple

I think {{Code Purple}} is unnecessary. It is only used on 31 pages. Most of it is covered by {{RequestTranslation}}; the rest would be better served by a new {{RequestWriting}}, which can be placed directly on the song page and would make it easier for users to find requests in languages with which they are familiar. (For example, this song could use {{RequestWriting|German}} instead of Edit.) Only two pages are in Requests For Searching, and could be placed into Requests For Writing instead. This usage would be more intuitive as everything would be a more specific version of Template:Edit, and none of the categories would be on talk pages. Edit: also, Category:Requests For Romanization is inconsistent with the rest - it's the only one that lists all the pages also contained in the subcategories, which isn't very useful when split by language. Also, could you guys please take a look at these topics on the CP? Thanks as always, ~Bobogoobo (talk) 22:04, June 17, 2016 (UTC)

  1. Agree on CPu; putting it on a talk page means it'll only be found by a small fraction of the users who'd see it if it were on the content page.
  2. Good point on RfR, I've changed it to only use the main cat if language is not provided (0 pages so far, unlike RfT).
  3. Cant' really comment on romanization rules; I'd prefer sentence case but there might be very good reasons I don't know about. (LyricWiki:Japan seems to be mostly dead, unfortunately…) — 6×9 (Talk) 08:06, June 18, 2016 (UTC)

Watcher icon

A while ago, Bobo came up with a good idea – adding a watcher icon to the other header icons. We'd only need a decent icon… the crazy eye doesn't really work at 20px or below, and when stripped down it isn't really recognizable as an eye anymore. I found this one, but it might look a bit too creepy. And most b&w icons are too plain next to the coloured icons. Anyone got an eye for eyes? — 6×9 (Talk) 17:52, June 18, 2016 (UTC)

If all else fails, maybe binoculars? ~Bobogoobo (talk) 20:57, June 18, 2016 (UTC)
That could work. (Using this icon, unfortunately not svg, but most images are either too elaborate or too pictogram-ish.) — 6×9 (Talk) 13:49, June 19, 2016 (UTC)
Anyone against this? Anyone have a different icon they'd prefer? While making changes to {{Star}} I'd also like to merge all "Unranked PAGETYPEs" categories into one "C:Unranked", is that OK with everyone? — 6×9 (Talk) 06:53, June 25, 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 18:51, June 25, 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good to me too, seems quite useful! - OneTwoThreeFall talk 20:33, June 25, 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with Bobo and 123F. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 20:48, June 25, 2016 (UTC)

done As always, if you find any bugs please let me know. — 6×9 (Talk) 07:05, June 26, 2016 (UTC)

VA compilation albums redundant?

Are various artists compilation/greatest-hits albums (1, 2, 3, etc.) considered redundant per LyricWiki:Deletion? To me, they don't seem too useful (other than for filling up album# parameters on popular songs), but I'm not sure if these sorts of various artist albums are a special case to be kept. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 17:28, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

They're probably useful to their owners the albums', not the pages' for having all the links in one place instead of having to hunt for each song separately. Can't tell how often they're actually used for that though… — 6×9 (Talk) 18:23, July 20, 2016 (UTC)
Fair point, though you could say the same thing about single artist compilation albums too. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 05:19, July 21, 2016 (UTC)
Not quite, as all songs are (or at least should be) listed on that artist's page and can be quickly located with ctrl+f. This argument could of course be also applied to "regular" albums as well…
A guideline for VA comps would be useful though. I don't think we need (or want) pages for obscure, long out of print releases and such. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:59, July 21, 2016 (UTC)
I thought the guideline was create VA comps only when needed for songs that can't be found on other releases, (which could very well be obscure and out of print singles). Single artist compilation albums are best looked at case by case, as they are not always the same as "Greatest Hits", and they help displace long out of print studio albums. --ES (talk) 19:44, July 21, 2016 (UTC)
That guideline was only ever applied to/enforced for single artist comps. If we want to extend it to VAs as well, we'd better get some opinions on the CP first. — 6×9 (Talk) 14:50, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

More artist lookup links

Can we have lookup links added for PureVolume and bandcamp in Artist ExtLinks? Lots of indie bands may only be found there... --ES (talk) 04:14, August 22, 2016 (UTC)

One more template in C:EL?

Hi, bros,

I'd like to hear your opinion about this discussion, - tia! --Senvaikis (talk) 12:27, September 2, 2016 (UTC)
Yandex: agree with your reasons and its removal. GooglePlay: little informational value; personally I don't think we should advertise a paid service unless it helped paying our bills (like Amazon and iTunes links). — 6×9 (Talk) 18:12, September 2, 2016 (UTC)
Yep... I suspect that this time hardly "silence gives consent". Next to 6, I'm also not sure if we should promote GP, but on another hand, full-featured Spotify is not free also... In addition, GP may have less regional restrictions and gives more info about artist, compared to SP. But its free version doesn't have any player controls - that make it less usefull for lyrics transcribing...
Well, if someone have any thoughts - I'll wait till next week. Otherwise, if I got it right, - decision should be negative (deleting template). --Senvaikis (talk) 08:51, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
I haven't encountered any limitations with using Spotify for wiki purposes. I didn't see any benefit to Google Play, and agreed on lack of controls. I don't think it allows you to play the full song either. Doesn't seem worth keeping for now. If there were a referral link maybe it could just be an optional addition separate from SF. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 00:56, September 8, 2016 (UTC)
So, seems we should return a verdict: "to be deleted"? (Though I know at least one user who will be definitely saddened by such our decision - contrary to Spotify, GP gives much wider list of available Russian artists...).
@BB: It is just a separate external referral link, not intended to be used in SF...
Well, I'll wait till tomorrow, before deleting it finally... :) --Senvaikis (talk) 08:25, September 13, 2016 (UTC)
Are many people interested in having a GooglePlay template here? Maybe Wikia would like to make a referral deal with them? (side-note: iirc, our iTunes links haven't used a referrer tag for a while now, so they're not helping with the bills either!)
Agreed though - it doesn't seem to provide much use over offering to buy the song. If it is useful for a particular song (if it's the only source, for example), a link can always be added with {{ExtLink}}. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 11:50, September 13, 2016 (UTC)
done, --Senvaikis (talk) 07:02, September 14, 2016 (UTC)
P.S. @(6 & 123): just for fun - try to create to GP, using {{ExtLink}} :)
Exactly - not really userfriendly (putting it mildly), especially in  :) --Senvaikis (talk) 16:51, September 14, 2016 (UTC)}}

A temporary work-around for SOTD?

Considering the ongoing issue with Song of the Day management, I've made a little script at MediaWiki:SOTD submitter.js as a temporary work-around.

What it will do is intercept the submitting of a new nomination on the Special:SOTD page, and instead add it to the LyricWiki talk:Song of the Day page under the relevant section (either 'Nominations' or '"Preferred Date" Nominations'), similar to how nominations were submitted before Special:SOTD. Management will be a manual affair, but hey, at least it'll be working again!

If this would be considered satisfactory for now (until a proper fix can be made), all that needs to be done to enable it is adding an import for the JS page into MediaWiki:Common.js. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 11:36, September 13, 2016 (UTC)

Is your script membership in Category:Invalid YouTube Link unavoidable? --Senvaikis (talk) 12:40, September 13, 2016 (UTC)
Oops, fixed! - OneTwoThreeFall talk 13:07, September 13, 2016 (UTC)
This is now active - new SOTD nominations via the special page will be added to LyricWiki talk:Song of the Day, where they can be approved by being moved to the queue page. Once we have a few nominations, User:ÜberBot can be unblocked, and should process upcoming SOTDs as it used to. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 09:32, September 20, 2016 (UTC)

Easier JS usage?

Working on Senvaikis's suggestions, I came up with a system that allows fairly easy management/customisation of various JS code for the user. (To be honest, I finished making it a while back but forgot to bring it up here!)

It would allow having a central place to choose and customise available JS scripts (you can simply visit a page and check boxes for what you wish to use, with extra settings available for scripts that use them), as opposed to the current methods of using importArticles and global variables. Also, instead of having scripts stored in various user namespaces (making them hard to find), they would all be in the MediaWiki namespace.

Would this be useful to have here? Thoughts/opinions? - OneTwoThreeFall talk 09:39, September 20, 2016 (UTC)

Having a central place for scripts sounds like a huge plus – at least if we can get the staff to make that namespace editable for admins again! Failing that, could it be adapted without too much hassle to look in the LW namespace instead? — 6×9 (Talk) 20:17, September 20, 2016 (UTC)
Support for sure, I never got around to working on cataloguing our scripts earlier. ~Bobogoobo (talk) 02:16, September 21, 2016 (UTC)
As it should have been expected, - I agree, though should confess - still have no clue how does your system work. :) --Senvaikis (talk) 04:44, September 21, 2016 (UTC)
Some pages in the MediaWiki namespace are editable now, including all .js pages, so that should be alright.
Basically how it works is a page listing the available scripts is made (here's an example one), and the main script uses that page along with a user page (kept at User:Example/preferences-codeload.css) to load whatever scripts have been enabled. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 10:05, September 21, 2016 (UTC)
Happy to say this is now done! There should be a link in the tools menu on the bottom toolbar named "Script preferences", which allows choosing scripts you'd like to use.
As of now, there are three scripts listed there (new editor buttons that I've been working on). For the existing scripts in the user namespace to be available, they'll need to be copied to the MediaWiki namespace and then added to the MediaWiki:CodeLoad-definitions.js page. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 16:34, November 16, 2016 (UTC)
Only played with it on a handful of pages so far, but looks good! Thanks! — 6×9 (Talk) 20:42, November 16, 2016 (UTC)
+√ --ES (talk) 03:59, November 17, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, glad it's all working well! - OneTwoThreeFall talk 09:48, November 20, 2016 (UTC)
Oops, just found a bug stopping settings being loaded from the user page if the browser data is cleared. I've made a fix, and it'll be live in the next day or two once approved. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 12:21, November 20, 2016 (UTC)
Would be nice to find all the ancient artist/album pages that contain "_" instead of space in tracks (bot/dpl?) (+manual fix), since this breaks the resolve redirects JS. --ES (talk) 18:14, November 20, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the note! The resolve redirects JS will now work on links with any combination of spaces/underscores (and I've added it to the new scripts page too). Not sure if they're worth replacing en masse, though. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 08:25, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

Special Purpose Artists

Let's give this another go. I've made a first draft of a template for use on SPA pages, and at a guideline (using examples where we pretty much agreed in the last discussion that they should be SPAs). It's rather meagre so far, so we'll need more categories and examples.

It's fairly obvious that a waterproof policy that'll let us decide with 100% accuracy is impossible. There'll always be borderline cases that'll have to be decided individually. That's why I use the term guideline instead. — 6×9 (Talk) 08:11, October 11, 2016 (UTC)

Category sort orders

Might it be more useful if the Songs by Artist and Albums by Artist categories were sorted by song/album title, rather than the complete page name? Taking Category:Songs by 10,000 Maniacs as an example, the only sub-heading now is "1", but with such a change, it would have the A-Z sub-headings, making finding a song in the list quickly easier. It'd also allow using {{CatAZ}} for bigger categories, if desired. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 15:17, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense to me! ~Bobogoobo (talk) 18:33, November 21, 2016 (UTC)
+1 --ES (talk) 19:30, November 21, 2016 (UTC)
I left default sorting because that way songs are grouped by alias; for navigation there's {{CatAZPrefix}}. But I'm not really in favour of one over the other, so if you prefer sorting by song/album, I've no problem with changing it. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:04, November 22, 2016 (UTC)
I didn't realise it sorted by alias; you can really see the effect of that on artists like Renard! Considering that, and the prefix template I wasn't aware of either, I feel fairly ambivalent to the sort order too. - OneTwoThreeFall talk 09:24, November 30, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.