FANDOM

2,054,171 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 LyricWiki talk:Page ranking
<< October – December 2008 January 2009 ??? >>

Black stars

Seems there may be some confusion over this and seeing as the documentation hasn't been updated to include black stars can I ask for some clarification on this please Aqua? Like why are artists/albums/songs being manually ranked black? What does this mean...? And what exactly is the difference between black and green? Thanks.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 16:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to have some clarification as well, please. I've been cleaning out Category:Black Songs and all the ones I've seen thus far were black because there was no star=Color on the page so I've been adding green stars thinking that black was simply the default for "not a bot-created page". Would one of you kind folks CC my talk page? I need to know if what I'm doing is incorrect. RainbowDragon 16:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
and what does it mean when a song has stars of mutiple colours? Is that valid or all multiple star songs should have stars of the highest ranking?
as for artists, what is the minimum requirement for getting a Green star? (since all pages are black star by default..., even when no star exists on page) (expanding on Dargon's point) see The Allman Brothers Band:Jessica ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 16:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
One interpretation I can think of is that Black stars are just placeholders that say "this page could be any of the colors... we just haven't looked at it yet to figure out which one.". I get that impression from the docs (otherwise I can't really see why we'd have both Black and Green). That makes sense to me and seems to mesh with the fact that the new-song template has "Star=Green" in there by default. Seem reasonable to everyone else?
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 17:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
That's the way I always understood it: black = no colour. As for multiple colours, that's really just a temporary thing; we've already decided to do away with multiple Song templates, haven't we?
@Redxx – do you mean people are actually putting "star=Black" on pages??? — 6x9 (Talk) 17:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Scot Jawohl.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 17:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Since I stumbled upon the Black Songs category, I thought that they were there only because they needed to be Green or higher. Should I continue trying to convert Black to Green? I saw on an archived post on Sean's talk page that there were more Black Songs needing to be added to the Black Song category. If it is a wasted effort I shall devote myself to SNLI instead. RainbowDragon 17:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Look here now Category:Black Songs, and look again in a few days or maybe few hours, why does that category keep growing? All newly created song pages are getting automatic green stars, however, old songs will keep poping into that category!! Is that a Category issue or template code issue? And where do we find all pages with no star at all?

@RainbowDragon: Yes it is a wated effort, that's a bot job, the unwasted effort is SNLI. The multicoloured ones in the Balck Songs, as 6x9 suggests, should be cleared up soon, somehow (lots of those out ther 6, as well lots of No Star pages) ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 18:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Odd. The only pages that should have no star at all are old artist pages with neither {{Star}} nor ArtistHeader, or old album pages. Song and ArtistHeader templates both default to Black (though now it seems that in the case of {{Song}}, this wasn's such a good idea).
As to why Category:Black Songs grows… Some of it might be because people add additional Song templates to pages for additional albums. Once the cat. is mostly cleared out, it should be easy to see which pages recently appeared and look at their history. — 6x9 (Talk) 18:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Odd indeed because I flushed Black Songs that had only One Song Header, right after when all the Category: Review Me was converted to Green last week. And new new songs started showing up in there (the ones Rainbow Dragon was working on). Still no answer on how to find the unranked song/artist/albums though. Maybe what makes sense is to have all Album/Artist/Song pages that don't have a star box or no header to get Categorised as black so we can get to them? see Whitney Houston:You'll Never Stand Alone ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 18:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the only way to do that would be for a bot to go through ALL artist, album and song pages and add [[Category:Black (whatever)s]], but if a bot were to do that, he/she/it might as well add the appropriate template and/or convert them to Green. — 6x9 (Talk) 19:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Preview [1]? ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 19:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is anybody keeping an eye on Category:Black Songs? So howcome those Y songs that were just bot edited popped in there? 006? 007? Is that Category funk or template? hmmmm Odd Indeed! ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 19:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at this: the page had the song template since it was created, but either somehow Team a's update to {{Song}} (making black star the default) never arrived there (can pages drop out of the job queue?), or it simply didn't appear in the category until S2E2 edited it. Neither of these possibilities bode well. — 6x9 (Talk) 20:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
LOL, or it may look like the last edit added a Black star?! and look at this one too Babasónicos:Y Qué?, it just arrived in Cat Black!, just follow S2E2's edits... hth ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 20:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no black star against "Simple" example Song??  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 20:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like it's a cache thing then. @Red – do you mean the fact that Song isn't in Category:Black Songs? That's because there is no song template on this page ;-) (Hint: look at the documentation in edit mode.) — 6x9 (Talk) 20:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if Sean is still following this, It's a Category issue is after all (in the queue after API, MW...) ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 21:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

So seems Aqua was right after all then >> User_talk:Sean_Colombo/Archive/2009_January#Categories  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 21:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Fresh off the oven Whitesnake:Saints An' Sinners, is that supposed to be Green or black? ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 22:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like User:Aeoris uses an outdated script, which doesn't insert "|star=Green" yet. — 6x9 (Talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you just guessing? 0.13.3 is outdated?
Either outdated or buggy, if it doesn't insert (at least) a green star by default.
I'm starting to think that having actual black stars was a bad idea, since people now think Black is a rating too, when in reality it is the lack of a rating… — 6x9 (Talk) 23:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Black Green or Pink, would it have made a diff if a "no star" page displayed Green? like those pages that are now populating the Black Songs category yet again...the confusion is people look at the page in browse mode, and think something is there, which in edit mode isn't. Every page needs a explicit star, that' what I think we are getting to... ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 23:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Boy! I do seem to have a knack of stirring up a hornets nest (rfl). I wish I could find the post when it was decided to create the black category. And indeed why. I reckon Aqua must still be partying ;)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 04:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
There's no blood in my alcohol stream!!!! --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 05:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Some find it hard to grasp the diff btwn null and 0, now add to the mix categories that distinguish btwn Null and Zero, and the fact that the categories are stale for the forseeable future, this is the same thing we have had for the past n months, so what else is NEW? oh Yeah, happy New Year! ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 05:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Violet stars

I'm really not digging the complete replacement of C:Á with the violet category- I keep doing a double-take whenever I run across a page that has been so changed. I had been under the impression that Violet was going to be a catch-all for C:Á, requests for translation, requests for Romanization, requests for kanji, and any other services necessary to make a page comprehensible to the maximum number of people- that, for example, the C:Á banner would still be up, as well as the page being starred Violet.
What I know about coding would fit comfortably in a thimble, but is there any way to make the various requests (like accented characters, Romanization, kanji, etc.) subcategories of Violet?
NYCScribbler 02:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right and I should hold off on doing that until Semantic comes. Violet is supposed to be the parent category and then the {{Code Purple}} on the talk page specifies the exact nature of the problem. As for the banner, I think the idea is that only someone who cares enough to look at the talk page is willing to see a banner, and that average Google-directed crowds find it a turn-off. I guess I'm OK with removing the generic C:Á's because there's no loss of information to make them plain Violets. Have you checked out {{Code Purple}} and still want Violet subcategorized? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 03:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I see Code Purple and I like Code Purple, but the extra steps of switching to the discussion page to add the template, then later switching to the discussion page to take it off might be less welcoming. I know one of the reasons I got started was because of the pesky banner- I wanted it gone, and if I could help, then I would help.NYCScribbler 13:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Join the legion of us flamin' pissed to wait for Semantics! --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 14:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Other Songs = done

This and covers is likely to change. So...?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 14:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm lost. How will those change? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 21:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Covers will change when a new album is added without cover art. OS will change when new songs are added, but not allocated to albums.
Speaking of Other Songs, when there never were any to begin with, do I mark them as "done" or "not applicable"? Not that it matters much, since the end result is the same… — 6x9 (Talk) 22:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
All true: that's why you can't get to Gold, Silver or Bronze without there being a watcher. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 01:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes but say you allocated all OS, added "done" to that parameter and certified page accordingly, then bot added another bunch of songs to OS and you were unable to redirect/allocate them all...the parameters would then be invalid and the page should then be downgraded appropriately. That is the point I was trying to make.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 01:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia could rename their article, their official website could change/close, the band could break, you could be missing an obscure Related Artist, or some schmuck could use that damn script program and muck up a song page. Lot's of stupid things break pages. That's why you're the watcher. I'm not trying to be flippant, but I don't see how else to proceed. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 10:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
So do we downgrade the page in such instances then? That's really what I want to know because someone else is likely to ask this question at some point in the future now Janitor is active again and I'd like to know how to reply.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 14:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah. Now I see where this is going. Yes, I would downgrade it, but don't knock yourself out. Semantic will do it automatically in the future. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 18:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Aqua!  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 20:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Star ranking system suggestions

I originally posted this to Aquatiki's talk page but since he will be quite busy for the next few days, he asked that I post this here to be discussed.
My idea is that brand new song pages ought to have a red star. Red to me indicates that I should stop or be on alert. This page may be missing fields such as language or album/artist. They lyrics on this page might also need fixing. In other words, this star would replace the current Green star.
The next level would be Green. This level indicates that at the very least the language field has been entered and the lyrics have been verified via listening to the music while reading the lyrics or by adding the lyrics from official sources. This level would show that this song page has had human attention but nobody has decided to adopt it, to protect it from vandal, spammers or well-intentioned folks that don't have their lyrics right.
After this the other colors and their criteria would stay the same. Whilst Aqua likes my idea and the colors for the first two levels, he didn't really think it would be feasible to change all the existing green stars to red and suggested instead that we ought to choose another color to go above green rather than have red replacing green.
In hindsight, I can see where he's coming from logistically because it would be a long, tedious process to change stars from green to red and folks that had already fixed up pages and determined the accuracy of the lyrics wouldn't know if a page's green star was the old one or the new one. So, I'm bringing up the idea of an additional level to see what others in our editorial community think.    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   15:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't really thought this through but I too think the colour red is a great idea (well...obviously ;)) Could red simply replace black Aqua, but with same criteria and (with job queue in mind) not change existing pages which already have black stars which are/should be changed anyhow) or is that a silly idea?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 17:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
What existing/perceived problem does the addition of a red star solve? To me green means the same thing as the red described above - a page which is wide open for edit and review.
I am concerned here about "star proliferation". There are already a number of star types and consequently determining which star type is applicable is becoming difficult and the meaning of a star is being muddied. The more stars added, the muddier it becomes until the stars have no real value.
Just my 2 cents
Steve 18:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the way to go would be to change the requirements for existing stars, not add another star. My idea: Green = default (unless there are character coding problems, in that case Violet); Bronze = checked by a human, whether he's watching or not; Silver = certified + a set of required parameters (not things like YouTube links) and infos + watcher; Gold = same but with all parameters. Alternatively we can leave Silver & Gold status as is, but find a way to display the certified status on the song page. I'd also do away with Black stars entirely: having a star colour and even displaying a star to show that there is no star is rather counter-intuitive… — 6x9 (Talk) 18:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes I certainly agree that we don't need any more ranks. IMO, based on the feedback we've had since the commencement of this program, less would definitely mean more ;) I also agree with your last comment 6x9. Black stars are counter productive. I would prefer just 3: Green (or Red) default (needs attention), Bronze (watched page with minimum set of basic requirements) and Gold (complete and verified). Oh and of course Violet (special needs).  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 19:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Finally I understand why the Romans never grasped the concept of Zero. :) ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 20:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Well that was certainly constructive Echo! Would you care to elaborate? Only I don't know about RainbowDragon, Steve or 6x9 but I can't actually see any Romans here.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 20:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(starting over) OK, let's think about this from the top. Black is zero. There is no black: black is someone didn't complete the form. There will never be a {{Song}} with star=Black. OK? Next, I'm for Red being a color because it's good to have a step above machine-made, but without requiring a watcher. When Semantic takes over auto-calculating the star, there will never arise a Black star. Green will be automatic. Then, if a human touches it, they can mark it Red. If you sign up, it's Bronze. If all the details are there, it's Silver. If someone did {{Cert}}, it's Gold. Thoughts? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 21:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What I don't like about this system (or the current one) is that certification doesn't affect the rating *at all* unless it's already Silver, which seems to send the message that completing all other information is more important than making sure the lyrics are correct. On a lyrics site, that just seems wrong. That black star = no star is clear to me, but actually displaying a black star kinda implies the opposite (not only to Romans). Red said somewhere that some users *did* put "star=Black" in the song template, though I haven't come across that myself (and I assume those pages have been cleared out by now by Echo's bot).
The thing is, we have to come up with a system that not only makes sense, but is also intuitive, since we can't rely on all users reading the help pages thoroughly. — 6x9 (Talk) 22:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Am I the only contributor who is not confused by the pages in Category:Black Artists & Category:Black Songs? (sorry to disappoint 6x9, note that those pages never had any star) Aqua, maybe if the absence of ranking is instead indicated by , then it will clear the confusion? btw, same happens if Green is spelled green, or Gold is spelled gold. hth ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 22:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)neither SMW nor templates are capable of fetching those unranked pages, only bot magic is sufficiently advanced
Yes 6x9 black star = no star is clear to me too, but actually displaying a black star implies the opposite to me and I'm sure also to many others (including of course our Roman friends).
And yes you are also correct on your other point. I asked for clarification on these black stars after I had seen "star=Black" being manually added to pages (see here). However, because I don't think it is very nice to embarrass or ridicule people who may not understand things as easily as I do, you will note that when you asked (somewhat incredulously) for clarification that I had meant that people were in fact adding "star=Black" to pages, I simply answered yes. (Okay no that's not strictly true. I answered "Jawohl".) However in view of this discussion and some of the comments that have been made I would now wish to enlighten you to the fact that it is not "Mr Average" user who is adding "star=Black" to pages. It is in fact one of our fellow administrators, by which I mean the one who likes to think that we are all stupid and he is the only contributor not confused by the black star. See here.
You do a great job here Echo. You always have. But we all have our particular areas of expertise and they aren't always the same. Maybe you would do well to remember that.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 01:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
and I did this one too [[2]], what is to be emabrrased about? ;) ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 01:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Whoa, this conversation is getting ugly fast. Echo, I can't see your character so I'm not sure what you're saying. Everyone, I'd like to do away with Black forthwith, if that's cool with everyone. 6x9, I think adding Red is a could way to deal with what you bring up. If a user goes through and improves a Green page, it becomes Red. Admittedly, this doesn't deal with the {{Cert}} promotion issue, but it encourages lyrics editing. Thoughts? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 01:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
So how do you suggest we find the rest of the unranked pages? ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 01:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm all for removing black stars (meaning the icon in the top right corner). I'd also suggest changing "Category:Black Songs" to "Category:Unranked Songs" (and same for artists, albums etc. of course). That should clear up any and all confusion about this issue. (This means we'll have to change the {{Star}} template, which is called by {{Song}}, so we'll have to do it at the same time that we update Song and SongFooter…)
If we do add a Red star, could we change its meaning with Green? Because red usually means trouble, while green means OK. Sorry Red, you know I don't mean you… Or maybe use Blue instead of Red… — 6x9 (Talk) 02:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm definitely in favour of removing Black stars. And yes 6x9 Red should precede Green for the reasons you have stated.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 02:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
If we juggle the meanings, it would mean a lot of work (admittedly, for a bot). It would be easier to add Blue after Green and before Bronze. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 10:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
If we just relaxed the requirements for Bronze a bit (watcher optional) we wouldn't have to change any existing ratings and we wouldn't have to create an additional colour. Because I agree with Steve above: five stars are enough, and we needn't complicate matters further. Really, it's the least hassle: just change a few words on the help page, maybe a short note on the main page, done. — 6x9 (Talk) 16:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) ummm, I don't mean to embarrass your insufficiently advanced magic 6x9, but are you sure you did what you said you did? see here, is that black or Deep Purple? looks like you swept the confusion under the rug. Oh well... ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 10:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes Echo, 6x9 did do exactly what he said he did. I'm tempted to leave this at that, but I assume you are referring to the "green" bit. Well if you look again at what 6x9 said he did in the summary, you will note that he didn't say he'd corrected someone else's incorrect capitalisation of the word "green". We can't be expected to notice (or even correct) every mistake on pages we visit. I know I certainly don't. But I do know that after I've visited a page, I leave it in a better state than it was before. That in my book = improvement.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 12:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry Red, you misred, I was pointing to the "black star" bit, i was not nitpicking 6x9's edit of the page.That page has a black star. See my above ^^^ comments aboy Gold vs. gold etc. hth ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 12:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Like my red knight (knightess?) in shining armour noted, I did what I said in the summary. I either didn't notice the black star on that page, or forgot about it while fixing the other stuff, otherwise I'd have changed it too. Funnily enough (speaking about advanced magic) I included a fix in the soon-to-be-updated star template to automatically convert the first letter of the colour to uppercase… so if you leave that page alone, it'll soon appear in Green Artists all by itself. {{UCFIRST:...}} turns out to be really useful in templates!
Also, compare Category:Black Artists with Category:Unranked Artists. — 6x9 (Talk) 13:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
So, Black was named Unranked. You do remember that template magic doesn't reach every corner of lw universe, that's why the unranked category remains unranked, even after all the songs in Review Me were ranked Green, and more of them remains to be found. How? SMW?
I'm looking forward to the documentation on Green, Red, Blue etc. and filling which params allows promotion to the next rank, starting at unranked. Thanks for all the effort you put into this. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 13:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Here you can find all artist pages with {{ArtistHeader}}. All artist pages (and you have a list of those) without ArtistHeader will be unranked (unless they had the Star template added directly) and need to have AH added anyway, except for those two dozen or so with the Collaboration template. — 6x9 (Talk) 15:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
LOL, would it be cliché if I said "I knew that"? Did you notice the total count of pages that have an artistHeader? Do you recall how many are the total artist pages? the difference is......I'll let you do the math. Can a magic template be defined that can throw all the artist pages without an artist header in to a category. Not for my persoanl use, mind you, but for all of our contributors. Nice try, but no iscream with joy topping for you ;) and this is really not about ranking as such, but it would help in that area too. I must be sounding like a broken record like we know who. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 16:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)the logic of such magic template would be: If page is artist page AND has no {{ArtistHeader then....... I rest my case
(I've actually already done the math…) Such a template would still have to be added to *all* artist pages, and that would be useless, since you could just as well add ArtistHeader instead and be done with it. Right now, the only way to cet all pages ranked is the one I described. I realise it will take a looooong time, but it will eventually have to be done anyway (since AH is required). — 6x9 (Talk) 18:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
SMW is the shiz-nit. It can do conjunctions and disjunctions of categories and criteria. Also, while I love KISS and think five is a goodly number of stars, it feels important to me to keep the Olympic Medal Colours (Bronze, Silver, Gold) for Watched pages. As long as fools can come along with a script or spammers can molest a page, it's not really safe in any status. Watchers gaurantee a degree of stability. Two colors below that (Green and Blue) and one outside of all ranks (Violet) seems an acceptably high number to me. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 19:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Vote

Let's not loose the momentum of this discussion. I suggest we vote.

  • moved to new section at the bottom for greater visibility

Objections Delineated

  • I'd prefer not to increase the number of stars and instead downgrade Bronze to not require a watcher, but failing that, the in-between Blue star is the next best solution. So, not particularly in favour, but not against either. — 6x9 (Talk) 09:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What he said. This will actually make Silver worth while. ♫ LYRIC-Humbug wordsdeeds 10:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What he said. This will actually make Silver worthwhile.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 13:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC) You can stop bawling now 6x9. I was behind on my watchlist but I caught up with discussion eventually ;)

None of you buy my "Olympic Medals for Watched Pages" bit?! --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 17:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I do Aqua but I really don't want anymore stars. As someone indicated up there ^ it's all getting far too confusing as it is for people to comprehend. I understand the reasons, but I think we've got to make it more user friendly if we want more people to enlist. Choices have got to be made. Maybe even some sacrifices. Personally I would prefer Green (Violet), Bronze, Silver and Gold, though I'd change some of the requirements because Silver isn't proving very worthwhile.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 17:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
<Sigh>. Oh well. So, what you guys are proposing is this?
Req. Green Bronze Silver Gold Violet
Bot Y ? ? ? ?
Human N Y Y Y Y
Watcher N N Y Y ?
All Done N N Y Y ?
Cert N N N Y ?
? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 00:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. You did a good job of making your point seem very viable :)
This is what I suggest:

Rank Requires: Description
StarIconGreen

"unchecked"
- For bot created pages/"unranked" pages
StarIconViolet

"Code-P"
Special attention For special cases
StarIconBronze

"Checked"
Human attention, language param, correct pagename This means the page looks like it should. Not missing a major template or being horribly wrong and the page name is correct! i.e. It should be here.
StarIconSilver


"Filled"
Watcher, language, iTunes or ASIN, album (song pages), (maybe YouTube) and wikipedia param on any status other then "Unknown" This is for songs that are almost done. They have a watcher and they have the important params filled. (ASIN or iTunes because they generate revenue)
StarIconGold

"Perfect"
Cert and all params good This is for perfect songs

This will make Silver more worth while and also encourage people to go to the effort of adding iunes/ASIN/album/wiki params so they can have a shiny silver star on their watchlist without having to crawl to every end of the (music) web to get every param in which case they may as well cert it and have a shiny gold song.
Check out Song Rank/temp, Help:Page_ranking/temp and Help:Page_ranking/Songs/temp. ♫ LYRIC-Humbug wordsdeeds 02:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not bad, Humbug. I can get behind that. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 11:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it is also important to give a demonstration like I did: Give some subtitles to remember which star goes where, an "In a nutshell" explanation and then an in depth description. Lets wait for the others to have a say. ♫ LYRIC-Humbug wordsdeeds 12:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC) So we need to change the four help pages... is that it?
That's pretty much what I had in mind, only you put it much better than I ever could have. StarIconGold Yep, no other changes than to help pages and LyricWiki:Page ranking needed. (If GoEar were more complete, I'd say we'd require it rather than YouTube for Silver… ah well. Looks like we have to stick with all those home-made slideshows instead.) — 6x9 (Talk) 14:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Vote: Page ranking

In Favour of adding a Blue star between Green and Bronze
  • Aquatiki
In Favour of Humbug's System, outlined here

(in short: relaxing the requirements for Bronze so Watcher is no longer needed)

  • 6x9
  • Humbug
  • RainbowDragon
  • Redxx still behind on her watchlist and why are we bolding this? lol
  • Senvaikis
  • Kingnee1114lyrics
  • WillMak050389

    I'm putting mine in "script" font, that is slightly higher than bolding, whatever that means
  • NYCScribbler
  • Snesbitt
  • MetalSnake 15:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC) (totally against adding a new star which would it make even more compliated than it is!)
Against changing the current system

Results

While the polls are still open, I'm gonna go ahead and declare myself the clear and decisive winner on this one! </sarcasm>. OK, since Humbug Obama and Barack*9 slammed AquaCain on this one, I nominate them to update LW:PR and H:PR! --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 02:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Haa haa - a gracious loser. Well Aqua you know what they say? You can't win 'em all ;).  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 02:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Lol, fair enough. I've started already anyway... Not like I have to deal with Guantanamo Bay or pulling out of Iraq. [3] I'll have to leave the {{Song Rank}} temp up to 6x9 seeing as it's protected. Probaly a good thing. I'd leave it in need of a grammer edit or ten anyway. Not good for the job queue.LYRIC-Humbug wordsdeeds 09:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
That you already did most of the work on the documentation is actually the reason I voted for your system in the first place :-) I'll get to Song Rank right away. — 6x9 (Talk) 13:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking great, you guys. Thanks for doing that. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒΔΣ 15:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Page Ranking - Requirements for Song

  1. Artist, fLetter and song parameters in Song Info are taken care of to attain Bronze.
  2. I propose watcher, album, language, asin and iTunes (with revenue in mind) all be requirements to attain Silver.
  3. Video, Audio, Credits, Wikipedia, Timed lyrics and Cert all be requirements for Gold (or credits and Wikipedia be added to silver..I was just trying to even it out a bit).

What I don't think we should do is use this as an opportunity to make more requirements. That was not the issue and it has not been a problem. And the pages that have been ranked thus far have all fulfilled the unwritten requirements anyway, meaning they are examples of near perfect pages. I am intending, as you can see from the current position on the Help:Page_ranking/Songs page to incorporate "guidelines" (as indeed Aqua and Humbug had already done), but let's not move the goalposts! Ok over to you.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 00:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Artist, fLetter and song parameters (besides album) are all done automatically, so bot generated pages would be bronze already? Why make asin and iTunes requirements for Silver? Many songs aren't in iTunes and/or asin. So while everything is perfect the song can't get silver/gold because iTunes doesn't has that song? Same for Wikipedia at gold. What are Certs and timed lyrics? --MetalSnake
A quick note about artist, fLetter and song: Yes, they are filled in automatically, but not always correctly! The autotemplate gets thrown off if the song title contains a colon (as I'm sure many of our users have noticed already), so it's good practice to ALWAYS check whether they're correct. — 6x9 (Talk) 18:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments MS. We are currently in the process of deciding upon all this and updating the help page which I hope will explain some of the difficulties and misunderstandings that I've noted since the commencement of PR people have had when partaking. The page is in a bit of a mess atm (I'm just typing as I think - lol) but please have a look. As for asin, iTunes, etc. there seems to be some misunderstanding about this. There is and always has been a parameter in {{Song Info}} for "not applicable". If something doesn't apply you can't be penalized for it! As such you best go turn all them ol' songs Gold (hee hee)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 11:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok I've done my usual bit of meddling on the Help:Page ranking/Songs page and now I've done with that I'm off to try and catch up with my ever increasing unpatrolled edits on my watchlist. (Sorry Kiefer, I really did intend to help you with the Grammy Awards page knowing this is fast approaching...Come on peeps! Give the guy a break and lend a hand!) Ok so like I say I'm done with updating the page now. I think it reflects more of what I believe we have decided we now want, but it does need to be thoroughly checked. I would also wish to stress that it also needs to be discussed and agreed. Please do comment. I know I'm perfect ;) but I always welcome constructive criticism it helps me to learn. Thanking you in advance for your kind attention to this matter ;)
Oh, one final point on the subject of Page Ranking, I am led to believe that 6x9 has worked his magic on the song, album and artist talk pages, so that now, instead of being presented with an unworkable template (which I know has irritated many, including me) we now get one we can actually use!  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 17:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC) *Goes off singing: "For he's a jolly good fellow, for he's a jolly good fellow, for he's a jolly good feeeeeelloooooowww *cough* and so say all of us!" (sorry, I forgot to take my cough medicine)
The talk pages will still need to be saved first before the blank Info template appears; nothing to be done about that! I've added a comment to the autotemplate about this. — 6x9 (Talk) 18:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.