2,054,148 Pages


Thanks for inserting "reformatting for API" in summary as it helps me to understand what causes problems. I can't promise, and though not ideal, but if I can find ann alternative way of formatting such I will (by following your example). So in view of your recent edits to The Who, can I take it that the api doesn't like "H4Fake"?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 14:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Red - I'd like to know some universal formatting for all those bonus tracks and re-releases, but still must confess: all my attempts to find one were unsuccessful. Mentioned note belongs to one of such attempts :). What I can say for sure - "H4Fake" doesn't break API. But such tags as <BIG>, <OL><LI>...</OL> are definitely incompatible with current API. Cheers, --Senvaikis (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok in future I'll avoid BIG and use H4 instead. I think I saw a way you formatted track numbers to continue by doing something like ## so I'll try to remember and use that as opposed to <OL> and <LI>.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 16:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
besides the fact that <OL> and <LI> looks ugly as hell, there has always been more elegant ways to do it. Thanks Senv, cheers ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 16:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
End result looks exactly the same to me whatever way I do it. And whilst there may be more elegant ways of doing ordered lists, people like me who have never had any computer training are only likely to know these exist if someone actually tells them. And seeing as no one has yet told me of an "elegant way" of doing such lists, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Would you care to elaborate?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 17:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Truth to tell, Echo, I don't know this 'more elegant way' too, and... ok, I'll say that - I'm little confused by style of some your last notes. Take it easy - you are still one of my favorite admins here - that's why I thought it would be better to say that in an open, manly, but friendly form while it's possible. If I'm doing something wrong (I do believe it's possible) - please, tell me that; and please, explain why it was wrong. I'm writing this before answering you about "consistency problem" in your bot page ;). Your friend --Senvaikis (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

same result with less code, easier for the average user, no ugliness in edit mode, one fake header vs extra code on every track line, and most important of all, it produces the same result with less complication for avg contributor. I should've used unsightly, instead of ugly. my apologies to you & red. H4 fake may not be the most elegant way, but it beats html code in pages hands down. hth ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 18:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Now better, ES, thx ;) But how about formatting of nonbreaking numbered lists for bonus tracks (bt)? Currently I know three possible solutions, neither is absolutely perfect:
  • I was using "#*" for headlining bt part, and it doesn't break API, but I'm not satisfied by this approach, 'cause it produces undesirable headline indenting.
  • Red (maybe others too) uses sequence <ol><li>..</ol> - it looks better, but is incompatible with API.
  • 6x9 is, as usual, simple & effective, using just <br/> and headline text in preceeding line - I like his approach most, but headline is indented here too.
So, if you know more elegant and working approach for this task, let us know. Tia, --Senvaikis (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
And what happens when the bonus tracks are not consecutive tracks? either way, [The Wall]. Or it can be implemented as a template to be added after the bonus tracks {{BT|2003 Release}}. Keeping it Simple, while conveying the same amount of information.
Red's example is notable in that the text "1990 Reissue Bonus Tracks" is unnecessarily large (even a explicit content warning would be smaller, I hope! ;), and it also looks adorable in edit mode.
6x9's lyric example is interesting in that now there are two copies of the lyrics being stored and needs be edited :) hth ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 :) --Senvaikis (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Echo and you too Senv. Ok well it seems we are all clear on this. And is exactly as I thought. So what I'm thinking now is exploring the idea you mentioned up there Echo of a template. I think that is the way to go until these problems with API, etc. are resolved. I know Kiefer said that we shouldn't change the way we do things because of these problems, but as Senv knows, since he first made me aware of the problems he experiences with API I have been endeavoring to look for ways to format pages that suits everyone. But sometimes it simply isn't possible because there isn't a suitable alternative that formats pages the same as what I'm wanting to achieve, and the way I was advised to do these things by Kiefer, KingNee, etc. when I first came here. And I always figure they know best...(ok well usually.. ;)) So in those cases I feel unable to assist people like you and Senv and do it the LyricWiki way. I wish whoever has to sort these issues would just sort it, and, like Kiefer said, the developers amend their scripts to take these things into account. We shouldn't be left sparring about it. Anyway I know team a's gone a bit quiet and I'm hoping that's because he's finalizing the new {{Album}} (or still but I'll spin 6x9 around 3 times and shove him in this direction to see what he can come up with. That guy's got hidden talents I'm telling you (but not him ;)). Anyway, apologies Senv for this extremely loooooong post. Happy editing :P  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 02:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
@ Red
Thanks for taking the time to write that.
There is no api issue at the album level. Senv's, your's and my example all look the same seen thru the api, as for 6's example, see below.
The issue is the avg user on the web editing an album track list with bonus tracks.
cheers ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 06:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like ES was right, but look at response to API call on DB (Red case):

Never Let Me Down_(1987) - (at amazon)
  • Day In Day Out
  • Time Will Crawl
  • Beat Of Your Drum
  • Never Let Me Down
  • Zeroes
  • Glass Spider
  • Shining Star (Makin' My Love)
  • New York's In Love
  • '87 And Cry
  • Too Dizzy
  • Bang Bang
Shadow Man_(1989) - (at amazon)

--Senvaikis (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, Yes that one is broken... Maybe we need to inspect the most complex case, where there are bonus tracks and songs with named sections? and maybe use an appropriate example so that we can hear about Side1/Side2...non of my CDs have a side 2 ;) ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 07:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Bonus track template

Can the API deal with this? — 6x9 (Talk) 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I should've thought. This might help: Get artist and Get album - Ok I'm a tad disappointed cos I worked the coding out for album myself (Senv only gave me API to retrieve artist page) I was trying to be clever but I haven't got it right so it don't work :(  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 00:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, 6x9, It does work! Here is a piece of API response:

Minstrel In The Gallery_(1975) - (at amazon)
  • Minstrel In The Gallery
  • Cold Wind To Valhalla
  • Black Satin Dancer
  • Requiem
  • One White Duck/010 = Nothing At All
  • Baker Street Muse
  • Pig-Me And The Whore
  • Nice Little Tune
  • Crash-Barrier Waltzer
  • Mother England Reverie
  • Grace
  • Summerday Sands
  • March The Mad Scientist
  • Pan Dance
  • Minstrel In The Gallery
  • Cold Wind To Valhalla

As you can see - all tracks are included. Can you make this tl public? Thanks! --Senvaikis (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one noticing the three extra tracks!? ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 06:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You are :). There are no extra tracks here, - just all tracks on this album, including repeating ones, and 6x9's tl has nothing to do with that. That's default API's behavior, see example without tl (check album Procol Harum:Shine On Brightly... Plus (1998)). --Senvaikis (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
let me clarify: How many tracks is Jethro Tull:Baker Street Muse? One or 5? please also inspect the lyrics for the subsections: Pig-Me And The Whore, Nice Little Tune et al. There is one song page for Baker Street Muse with 5 sections, and there is also 5 seperate song pages for each of them, is this intentional?! ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 08:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Just forget about "Baker street", - we aren't talking about subtracks here (that may be discussed too, but in separate thread). We are talking about most appropriate way for nonbreaking numbered bt list formatting, and 6x9's tl is good imo. --Senvaikis (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The sub heading for the bt tracks is a requirement then? otherwise your (much) simpler solution works exactly as 6x9's. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 09:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
...not exactly - as I've mentioned above, it's undesirably indented.--Senvaikis (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
excuse me for being dense ;), the undesired indenting of the line "Bonus tracks on 2003 remaster: " when viewed from the web? ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 10:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, in web browser :)--Senvaikis (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then, allow me to display my Luddite side:

Senv's solution, 1 line for all bt:

#*Bonus tracks on 2003 remaster:

Echo's Solution, 1 line per bt:

*Bonus tracks on 2003 remaster:

6x9's solution requires:

{{User:6 times 9/Sandbox|header=Bonus tracks on the 2002 CD reissue:|nr=8|
#1='''[[Jethro Tull:Summerday Sands|Summerday Sands]]'''|
#2='''[[Jethro Tull:March The Mad Scientist|March the Mad Scientist]]'''|
#3='''[[Jethro Tull:Pan Dance|Pan Dance]]'''|
#4='''[[Jethro Tull:Minstrel In The Gallery|Minstrel in the Gallery]]''' (live)|
#5='''[[Jethro Tull:Cold Wind To Valhalla|Cold Wind to Valhalla]]''' (live)}}

Red's example requires:

'''<BIG>1990 Reissue Bonus Tracks</BIG>'''
<OL START=10> 
<LI>'''[[David Bowie:Lightning Frightening|Lightning Frightening]]'''
<LI>'''[[David Bowie:Holy Holy|Holy Holy]]'''
<LI>'''[[David Bowie:Moonage Daydream|Moonage Daydream]]''' (1971 Arnold Corns version) 
<LI>'''[[David Bowie:Hang On To Yourself|Hang On To Yourself]]''' (1971 Arnold Corns version) 

I apologize for missing the obvious, but is this complexity (with template as 6's, or without a template as Red's) necessary? Given the choice, which non admin, non programmer contributor would use the last two example? ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 11:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried 'Echo's Solution'? ;)--Senvaikis (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately yes, it supplies 26 tracks via the web and api. Care to elaborate? ;) ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 11:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Reread previous msg comment & retry once more ;) --Senvaikis (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the mystery is that I don't quite understand what the desired result that you wish to achieve, my example of indicating bonus tracks has the tracks of two discs numbered consecutively, is this undesired? ;) ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 12:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Truth to tell, that's getting tedious. Just can't believe you didn't understand the matter of dispute - I'm really sorry, having not enough time for such long discussions about such negligible things. If 'Senv's solution' is acceptable, then we have no need to reinvent the wheel. Otherwise - here's (once more) the matter of 'problem'(lol): we have an album with n tracks in it's original release; this album has re-release with the same n tracks + k bonus tracks. And we want to format this album such way, that original and bonus tracks were separated by some heading, but without loosing continuity of their numbering (and compatibility with API). I do know my English is terrible, but have never suspected that it's impossible to understand what I'm talking about at all :). cheers, --Senvaikis (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I apologised already ;) Since a sub heading is a requirement then it is clear that my solution is out as well. Your solution with 1 extra line for any value of k beats the template and the html. Not only it doesn't break the api, nor does it break the avg contributor/editor. ;) So what is stopping the adoption of your solution? ;) ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 13:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
@Echo - As Senv has already said sub-heading and indentation. I agree that using a template is not ideal but it's a compromise that clearly works better with the API until these problems with the API are resolved. As with many other templates it will be up to the user if they feel confident enough to use it. We weren't born admins Echo. We were all "average users" once. And as you know I'm certainly no programmer. But like many of our users (and you may be surprised to learn this) I do in actual fact have a reasonable amount of intelligence. Certainly enough to understand how to complete a template, follow instructions on help pages and yes even understand broken English ;) Besides, I thought a template was in fact your idea?
@Senv - Glad it works Senv :-) I will certainly be using it from now on. I'm sure 6x9 will release into the wild when he signs on later. Thanks for testing.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 14:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

@Red: I'm sorry, Simplicity was my idea, not blind faith in templates. Thanks to this thread, that simplicity can be achieved without coding a template is clear. Senv's simple solution has no incompatibility with the api, the browser, or the avg user! You seem to be taking personal offense at my pointing out the unnecessary complexity of your solution, rather than as an admin endavouring to follow the rule of KISS and making it work for everybody with the least effort ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 15:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC) This is not a job, one can take a few days to cool ;)

No I'm not taking offense at you pointing out the unnecessary complexity of my solution, for I soon became aware that it presented problems to people like Senv and therefore was far from ideal. If I seem to be taking offense it is at your efforts to undermine this solution. Senv has already stated that he is not satisfied with his "simple solution". He is however happy with the template 6x9 has created. Since I have always wanted to find a solution to assist Senv in this, I am happy with it too. I guess what I'm saying is that I really can't understand your problem with it.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 15:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)P.S. You don't get rid of me that easily ;)
My problem with the solution you present is the level of complexity that it introduces (not for me, as I can code it all 6 ways presented so far using my own tools and slap the result on lw, and I am sure not for Senv either, and certainly not for for you or 6x9) Your solution is too complex relative to Senv's. I am not an admin who takes the side of friends, rather an admin who hopes to find solutions that satisfies the majority of contributors without any fancy coding by anyone.
This long thread could have been much shortened had it been stated upfront that this is all about a one character width indentation of a heading!! Is this progress? ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 15:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC) I can't imagine what justification will be presented for lyric duplication, Baker Street Xerox? ;)
Yep... Let me refrain from comments... Except one. Neither complexity, nor 'one char indentation' doesn't present any problems for me. Standardization and clarity for all users - that's what we should talk about. And I will be equally happy using 1-line Senv, 1-line 6x9's, or n-line 6x9's tl solution. Just tell me which... :) cheers,--Senvaikis (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
@Senv - Well 6x9's template formats the tracks like I was told to do it when I came here. And as Echo knows, Kiefer has stated that we shouldn't change the way we work because of problems such as this (and he is a bureaucrat which means he talks I listen ;)). From the comments you made, you also seemed extremely pleased with the template 6x9 created when you first saw it. So I know what I think is the way to go ;)
@Echo - And just so we are all clear on this, when I said I wanted to help Senv out I didn't mean just Senv. (It isn't his personal template ;)) It's just that he is the only one who has ever made me aware that such problems exist. As I told him at the time.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 17:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I was pleased with 6's solution?!
You forgot to address the matter of clarity for all users, is that multiline template clearer to implement and edit than Senv's?
A Template has one advantage over Senv's 1 liner, it can categorise bt albums, a very handy feature for Senv, I believe ;)
Please address the matter of clarity and simplicity, with sugar on top ;) and no waving at the man behind the curtain! ∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 17:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
                          Breaks api         Complex       Indent            
Red's solution            Yes                 Yes           Yes     
6x9's Solution            No                 Yes            Yes
Echo's Solution           No                 No             No
Senv's Solution           No                 No            Yes           <-- Why not?
∃cho⚡ierr∀ () 17:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Lets try to explain this another way. Let's play spot the difference...

Minstrel In The Gallery (1975) (Current formatting - breaks api, shows [without use of HA4] in TOC))

  1. Minstrel in the Gallery
  2. Cold Wind to Valhalla
  3. Black Satin Dancer
  4. Requiem
  5. One White Duck/0<sup>10</sup> = Nothing at All
  6. Baker St Muse, including:
  7. Grace

Bonus tracks on the 2002 CD reissue

  1. Summerday Sands
  2. March the Mad Scientist
  3. Pan Dance
  4. Minstrel in the Gallery (live)
  5. Cold Wind to Valhalla (live)

Minstrel In The Gallery (1975) (Echo's solution - doesn't break api)

  1. Minstrel in the Gallery
  2. Cold Wind to Valhalla
  3. Black Satin Dancer
  4. Requiem
  5. One White Duck/010 = Nothing At All
  6. Baker St Muse, including:
  7. Grace
  • Bonus tracks on the 2002 CD reissue:
  1. Summerday Sands
  2. March the Mad Scientist
  3. Pan Dance
  4. Minstrel in the Gallery (live)
  5. Cold Wind to Valhalla (live)

Minstrel In The Gallery (1975) (Senv has been doing - doesn't break api)

  1. Minstrel in the Gallery
  2. Cold Wind to Valhalla
  3. Black Satin Dancer
  4. Requiem
  5. One White Duck<br/>0<sup>10</sup> = Nothing at All
  6. Baker St Muse, including:
  7. Grace
    • Bonus tracks on the 2002 CD reissue:
  8. Summerday Sands
  9. March the Mad Scientist
  10. Pan Dance
  11. Minstrel in the Gallery (live)
  12. Cold Wind to Valhalla (live)

Minstrel In The Gallery (1975) (template solution - doesn't break api)

  1. Minstrel in the Gallery
  2. Cold Wind to Valhalla
  3. Black Satin Dancer
  4. Requiem
  5. One White Duck<br/>0<sup>10</sup> = Nothing at All
  6. Baker St Muse, including:
  7. Grace
Bonus tracks on the 2002 CD reissue:
  1. Summerday Sands
  2. March the Mad Scientist
  3. Pan Dance
  4. Minstrel in the Gallery (live)
  5. Cold Wind to Valhalla (live)
 ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 20:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, this seems to have turned into a pitched battle in my absence… Let me just state that: (1) existence of this template won't mean its use will be mandatory, users can still apply several other solutions that don't break the API; (2) it's not *much* more complicated, just one additional line, plus a couple extra characters per track; (3) I myself am perfectly happy with my previous solution (using "<br/>Bonus tracks:") although a certain bot recently removed these tags on several pages… *cough cough*, but I can see why Red and Senv prefer a non-indented header; and finally (4) any solution which disrupts the numbering so the first bonus track is "1." is unacceptable for me, and I reserve the right to correct this on any page I come across. — 6x9 (Talk) 20:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I second the "whoa!" Call me old-fashioned, but I just list the original tracklist and add the bonus tracks afterward with a parenthetical (Bonus track on the 2002 re-release) or (iTune bonus track) after it. If someone really wants to totally separate then in order to clearly differentiate the regular track list from these extra tracks (I can understand the desire - clarity is good), then using Echo's simple bulleted bonus track sub-header seems appropriate since it's simple and doesn't cause the API problems.
I haven't looked at the template, but I try to always be aware that using templates adds a level of complexity to a page. Regular wiki editing is the first level of complexity that a potential editor has to decipher and learn, then comes the template at level 2, where the mechanism behind its display and function is hidden in coding and where the editor has to 1 - be aware of the template, and 2 - know how to correctly use the template.
I would suggest that if this discussion needs to go much further, then it should probably be jumped over to the Community Portal. Not everybody comes by Senvaikis' lovely talk page. Just us nosy ones.... :-]    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, sorry for butting in to what seems to be a rather heated debate (lol) when I quite possibly have no idea what I'm talking about, but I noticed the other day that wikipedia uses something that looks like this:

;iTunes bonus tracks
#<li value="12"> (Track 12)
# (Track 13)

that seems to be simple AND produces the desired effect (and maybe won't break the API?). However, over here, that same coding looks like this and has a weird extra line for a track #1. Is that something maybe we could fix on our end and make everybody happy? :) ~ Backgammon 04:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, - returned here (is it really my own talk page, hehe?) after some pause with hope to find passions calmed down or some decision taken. As I see, only first part of my hopes have came true :). Strange, but that's not the first time thread length and emotional temperature is in inverse proportion to the problem importance ;). Anyway now I can make decision (at least for myself), and it'll be the same as 6x9 made - I'll use the same techniques (Senv's or 6x9's), as I did before (unless some obvious arguments against will be given). Thanks to all you :) @Echo: do you really want to start a similar thread about subtracks? If so, where - again in this poor talk page? ;) cheers, --Senvaikis (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And I'll be using 6x9's too.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 19:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Faithfull Marianne ;)

Do I cause you a lot of work Senv? It's just that you fill in all the other bits, the album, etc., so much better than me ;) Thanks for what you've done on above lady's page btw. I always enjoy working with you.

Oh and it's entirely up to you (of course) but I think you could safely archive the above post now if you wanted to make room for more of my ramblings. No one much seems to be waiting a full month before archiving now anyways (unless of course you're name is Kiefer in which case you keep no less than 4 months worth of posts on your talk page. Rfl)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 13:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

By order:
  • You are welcome as always :)
  • Thanks for kind words, but you know - I'm more technocrat, not musicologist, so forgive me all my mistakes...
  • Glad to hear pleasure was mutual - that's very important for a man of my age while contacting with ladies ;)
  • Neither age (15 d.) nor size (17 KB) of this talk page indicate archiving necessity, but if you asked - ok, I'll do that :)
Btw, if you are going to return to above mentioned lady's page, I must warn you about some misinformation I left there (album "Thorne: Sprawl" does contain songs "Self - Imposed Exile" and "Sexual Terrorist", but they are not performed by MF). I had no success/(time) looking for any official MF release with these songs.
And finally - please, feel free to give me (or my LwT, or my LRC-maker) some work more often :) Btw - wasn't you happy with my response to one more your Worklist item? I'm asking because it still has the same comment...
cheers,--Senvaikis (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Aah Passion page looks better than last time I looked at it - so thank you for doing that. I don't know who they are but it was a page I came across a while back and I knew it needed wprking on but I hadn't revisited the page since (why comment hadn't changed). Thanks also for telling me about the MF songs. That's one of my specialties, i.e. research, so I'll see if I can track them down and then you can do your bit. Regards  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 15:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


Thanks Senv for correcting my oversight with covers on Bill Withers:Ain't No Sunshine (Live). I should've realized.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 13:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

think nothing of it, - and I must thank for your kind msg @ lrcdb forum (sad to say, but it's slowly floundering...)
But let me use you as 'certified answering machine' once more :). Let's take a look at new SongFooter.
  • I'm glad lrcDB finally have found it's place here. But I'm not sure if it's always a good idea to replace empty lrcdb value by LrcDB search link. And not only because this search is doomed to be idle in most cases. It may look silly even in the reverse situation - when song has several releases with the same title and lyrics, but different timing. In such cases one may use {{LrcDB}} for giving links to different versions (in analogy with {{MusicBrainzRelease}} vs musicbrainz in SF). And then (especially when none of LrcDB versions matches exactly this album version) it would be nice to have an option to 'switch off' lrcDB in SF... Even MB, having much more chances to satisfy any our search request, doesn't have untoggable search link in SF...
  • Am I the only, who don't understand - what for discogs search now is included in SF by default (and is unswitchable)? It'll never lead you to this particular song, and it even doesn't pretend to... because discogs is album-oriented service. I'd understand, if such untoggable discogs behavior was typical for AlbumFooter, but it is not... Don't you find this slightly illogical?
tia, cheers, --Senvaikis (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for delay in relying Senv I'm a bit behind.
Yes, I thought it was time that lrcdb was more integrated into LW, which is why it is now included in {{Song Info}}, not as an optional parameter but in the default template (check out a song talk page).
Ok well rather than me blab on unintelligeably ;) I think you may get some answers by reading these two posts on 6x9 talk page: Two Questions & Live Lyrics (I amended the {{Live Lyrics}} template I created in view of your comments ;)).
I would also suggest that you talk to 6x9 with regards to the lrcDB in {{SongFooter}} as he is in the process of finalising this and has asked for comments. You haven't missed anything else on these subjects so far as I'm aware. ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 13:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. Pssssst..this should make you laugh click HERE ...& then HERE.
Yep... You was right - I've got a fun ;) Sry for drastically having no time- brb (tomorrow). cheers,--Senvaikis (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Adminship: I Don't Give Up Easily

...Ok, guys, you know - I'm not very good in English, therefore some your expressions I may understand with "polar opposite" precision :) So, after third reread of your discussion @AP I started to doubt if you are happy with my edits at all... Initially it was a big surprise for me, but later I've got why Aq may be unhappy or even annoyed with me. Believe me, Aq - those guys & girls alleging me on doing that on special purpose to annoy you, are in the wrong! ;). So, if patrolling of my edits is the only problem with me (indeed?;)) - maybe I can do it myself? If my adminship can help here, I should remind, that my restraint from adminship was caused only by my doubts if I'll be able to carry out all it's obligations (not permissions, - Red's right, she knows me better, hehe). And now I know for sure, that I'll still not meet all requirements for admin (as I understand them) for a long time... But finally even now some admins are far from being such 'true admins' as Kiefer, Aq, Red, 6x9, ES or King are... So if you (with Kiefer ahead) decided that promoting to adminship, just enabling to make some admin-specific actions without loading full set of obligations, is possible - I'd positively have no objections :). Anyway I'm ready to accept any your decision, up to reducing my (lwt) edits, leaving all other stuff 'as is', if that'd be preffered ;) And beg me pardon for my English once more, - have no time to recheck, must leave again. Thanks, --Senvaikis (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh, now we've done it :-) Let me state here clearly and unambiguously that none of us are annoyed with your edits. On the contrary, they are a huge help in keeping this site in good shape. The only thing Aqua (and Red and I) meant is that they make edits by other users rather hard to spot in Recent Changes (like needles in a haystack), but that does not mean you should stop or even slow down! And that's certainly not the only reason we'd be happy to add you to our ranks. (You might also find some of the "special powers" useful occasionally.)
Then there is the saying that those who crave power should at all costs be prevented from getting it… so logic dictates it should be given to those who don't want it! And that means you :-) — 6x9 (Talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC) was still in bed 6x9 when I started writing this but I'm not changing a word! (edit conflict -lol).
That's kinda what I was hoping you'd say Senv ;) As for carrying out all obligations? You seem not to understand Senv that you already do!
You always have opinions on the things we do, or are proposing to do. Your opinions are always well thought out and valid. Your contributions are first rate. You have added to the site by the use of your tool and also by integrating timed lyrics. Your knowledge of the API is extensive. You are always very courteous in your posts (being polite does matter) All this = you are a very valued member of our LW community! This is exactly why we all want you to be a fellow admin! It seems to us only right. Here are a few more things I'd also like you to consider:
You do extremely well in understanding as much of the English language as you do, but I can understand if maybe you are a little concerned about this aspect. To which I would say that we all have our different skills and not all admins choose to be, for want of a better word, "front-line". Because I am unlike ES (i.e. good with a bot), and because I'm not skilled in the art of template making (like KingNee, 6x9 and Team a), I try to make myself useful here at LW by applying my communicative skills (such as they are - lol) in helping to fulfill this role. By which I mean assist users with general problems, update help pages, etc. I am not the only one that chooses to do this of course..6x9 and Will and...are other admins that choose to do this too. But believe me, some admins are so quiet that you wouldn't even know they were there!! So I really do not envisage this to be a problem.
None of us get paid. Editing on LW is a hobby and therefore there aren't really any "obligations" placed upon us. We all choose what we want to do. Added to which we all have different time restraints. I am fortunate in so far as I have more time on my hands than most that enables me to devote to this. So unless you disappear without telling us (like team a sadly seems to have done) and don't sign in for weeks on end, this isn't a problem either.
I must correct you on two possible misunderstandings though. The post in AP. It was all complimentary I can assure you. Admins patrol their own edits. As such admins edits in watchlists don't come up with the red exclamation mark beside it indicating it needs to be checked. Aqua was paying you compliments. One - that you do a lot of editing. Two - that because you are not an admin your edits come up as needing to be checked. Three - we feel obligated to check them. Four - this is of course totally unnecessary because you hardly ever make mistakes (mine need checking far more than yours in fact - lol). Five - we all wish you were an admin because we don't like the number of red exclamation marks on our watchlists resulting from your prolific edits! I hope I have made myself understood.
But yes patrolling of your edits is the only problem we've got with you. The other bit about doing it "on purpose" was merely 6x9's poor attempt at a joke (lol). It was not in any way insulting. Actually it was very funny. It was the kind of comment that if you understood our humour better would have been worthy of a wink ;).
Finally, I know I can be pretty persuasive (one of my skills ;)), so although I would very much like you to accept adminship, please do not feel pressurized into accepting it. If you don't feel comfortable with the idea, for whatever reason, then I will of course respect that. Anyway...I hope Kiefer reads all this and I'm not in too much trouble for meddling (rfl). Regards,  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 15:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for kind words, - just didn't know what can I reply to such over-laudatory posts. Truth to tell, now still don't know too, - little Embarrassed, little Wink3--Senvaikis (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Being an admin just says that you're a fairly constant presence whose work and site knowledge has been found trustworthy and of high quality. It allows you a few extra abilities wiki-wise, and while it does have a bit of added responsibility in that you behave in a well-mannered way due to you being seen (fairly or unfairly) as representing the site, it doesn't add any other requirements. Certainly no requirements that you aren't already fulfilling. So, yes.....?    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If adminship allows me to do the same I was doing by now, only easier and better, then - surely, Yes :). At least one possitive result I know already - AQ'll be disengaged from patrolling my edits ;). To be more serious, I'm very glad - thanks, Kiefer :) --Senvaikis (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sweet! You've been Admin-ed Welcome aboard :)
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 23:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It was the only right decision ;)

Multi-Platinum Record The Multi-Platinum Record
Senv, I hereby present you with this Multi-Platinum Record Many congratulations on your adminship! I'm really glad you finally accepted!  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 00:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Just here to congratulate you on the adminship which is way overdue, but totally your decision. Here's to an awesome future with you helping us in command! --WillMak050389 02:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
*adding to the congratulations and heaping on some more platinum* Happy to have you with us! (And not only because this means I'm not the youngest admin anymore…) — 6x9 (Talk) 03:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
You never were the "youngest" well you know ;p  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 03:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for congrats, hope you'll never regret about this decision :). I think here must follow my acceptance speech, but let me omit it - you know my 'felicity of phrase' ;). If nonetheless it's required - I'll ask Red to write it for me - in the end, she's the main culprit of this decision ;). (If seriously - thank you, Red, for your tolerance, startlingly mixed with tenacity :)).
Now, being the youngest admin here (btw, an oldest one too, I suppose), I want to ask for your help finding what my first steps should be, and also be patient and lenient if I make some mistakes. And thank all of you, - I really think it was a happy day when I found this site and this community :) --Senvaikis (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, you already do a fine job Senv, so I really don't know what to suggest. We also appreciate your time constraints too but if you do have any spare time in between, you could always patrol a few edits. These are the edits in Special:RecentChanges (and in your watchlist) that have red exclamation marks by the side of them. These are the edits that need to be checked (and marked as patrolled) to ensure they are good edits, not spam, etc. (*Obviously it is impossible to check all of them).

Most of the time they are of course good edits, but occasionally the edits need reverting/correcting because they have been undertaken by new users who have not (yet) received a {{Welcome}} note (from an admin), who haven't located our help pages and who are unfamiliar with our ways and page naming policy. But then you know all this already.

You also know about our LyricWiki:Administrators Portal and of course now you can delete pages yourself and Special:Batchmove.

Just you carry on the way you have been. One thing tends to lead to another. As you know I'm usually around, so if you do need any help, you've got any questions, you want me to write you a speech (hee hee) or you want me to communicate on your behalf with one of those difficult English speaking users, just send me a link, rattle my cage and I'll do my best at all times to assist! It's called "teamwork"...and we sure make a great team!  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 04:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Redxx. Don't think you have to do any more than you already do. Because you don't. Becoming an admin is a bit of a pat on the back, but it isn't a shove to make you do more than you already do. :-]    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   05:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

First steps

Hi Senvaikis, thanks for the tips! I'm glad to be part of the community, and I'm trying to do my best, and I'm really happy to find someone to help me if I need (and I'm pretty sure that I'll need it - For example, now, to reply your message - It's the first I'm doing this, And I have no idea of how to do it) Thanks Once again! User:Leoleal1

You are always welcome! Here's one more tip (for free ;)): use four "~" symbols for datetime stamped signing of your messages (toolbar above edit window contains even special button Button sig for that). Good luck, --Senvaikis (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
(joined to prev. msg by Senvaikis): Hi! thanks one more time! I'm trying to see the help pages and the FAQs, but unfortunately I have a few time to do it, so, sometimes I edit the pages, and if later I find some mistakes, I return to them and try to correct it. I know that this is not 100% right, but soon I'll get better and I'll do the things in the right way (100%).But, talking about the lyrics, I'm not taking them from the internet. I'm taking them from my CDs. All the song I'm editing I have the albums and I'm taking their lyrics straight from the booklets. In that case (Black Sabbath:Black Sabbath), I know that there's another version, but I also know that this other version wasn't present in the original version of the album (if I'm not wrong, the first official release of this version was in the 1997 Ozzy Osbourne's The Ozzman Cometh), and maybe it's present in the Black Box edition of Black Sabbath, but I'm not sure. That was the reason why I changed it. I hope don't do any more mistakes, but if I do, feel free to correct me (and thus help me) always! Tahnks!--Leoleal1 10:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for reply, - it's gratifying to know you like the music of my long-lost youth, and what's more important - you seem to be a real adept of BS. You intriguied me telling about different versions of this song. In such case (when lyrics are different) we should make a separate pages for those versions. It would be very nice if you could share ripped original records using any public host or service (then I'd make lrc's for them ;). cheers,--Senvaikis (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Just one more thing. I searched in the internet about the versions of the Sabbath's Black Sabbath and I found the following: The European Version, released in 1970, have this tracklist:1)Black Sabbath 2)The Wizard 3)Behind The Wall Of Sleep 4)N.I.B. 5)Evil Woman 6)Sleeping Village 7)Warning. The US version have 1)Black Sabbath 2)The Wizard 3)Wasp/Behind The Wall Of Sleep 4)Basically/NIB 5)Wicked World 6)A bit of finger/Sleeping Village 7)Warning. The version I posted in fact is the 1996 remastered version, but like it haves all the songs of both European and US versions, I decided to put it like that. The version you posted as being the US version, actually is the Black Box version, released in 2004, with some joined songs. I thought about do different pages, but first I would search for this differences to confirm them, and then I'd do a different page. I hope I have clarified the issue :-) And about rip the lyrics, I'll try to do in that way!! And just for record: I'm really an adept of BS.I'm a quite young and their songs are part of my life since always!;-). Thanks! --Leoleal1 11:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I note you are transcribing from the CD booklets Leoleal1. Just bear in mind that the lyrics we hold should be as sung, even if these differ from the "official lyrics"/what is printed in the CD booklet. Thanks for your contributions and happy editing!  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 23:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC) <<< another Sabbath fan.

Ow, thank you buddy, I didn't see many songs like that, so, I didn't know how to do it ('cause I didn't try to edit to see how to do it, ok, my bad).The problem is that the changes here happen too fast, and I can't follow it, sorry!And what about when the song appears in more than 2 albums, what should I do?? Put an "album 3" in the same line or open that "also appears on" tag??Thanks for the suport, and sorry again for the speed, I'm trying to do my best, but I know that sometimes I make big mistakes. Cheers, --Leoleal1 11:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi Senvaikis. Congratulations on your adminship! I am happy for you. I had a question. I know with your script you can find missing info like iTunes and musicbrainz as well as other things. I've seen you using it on different artists. My question is whether you could use it to find the missing info for a few various artist's songs? This page here --> Super Hits Of The '70s I've been adding songs but haven't had a chance to find all the details yet. If it is possible, and if you have time, would you use your marvelous tool to find the missing things, please? --   RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   13:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, RD, glad to see you in my room :).
I'd be even more happy if I could place here "Done" icon, but as you can see, I added to your songs only information from MB and Allmusic. Sorry for having no time to explain in more detailed manner just now, but for couple of reasons I couldn't do much more. Amazon has information about Super Hits Of The '70s, but this info is valid only for albums (while we need asins for mp3 records). I had no luck @iTunes too; I've noticed iTunes info in some your songs, but all links I've tested weren't available for me. What country of iTunes Story have you used for search? (I tested on US, UK (GB), CA, GE, even RU - no luck). One more issue - album parameters in SH & SF. Initially I was intended to fill them if they were empty. But later I refused this idea, 'cause I'm not sure if that would suit LW formatting policy. Anyway, we may return to that later, 'cause I have some more thoughts to discuss; but now sorry - it's a time for me to go to bed (truth to tell, it was long time ago ;)).
Btw, cool project, RD, - congrats! cheers,--Senvaikis (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
So, I've finished in '70s, sad that it wasn't the best occasion to show you all 'beauty' of LWT ;). I still hope some day upgraded LW API will let us make such jobs like smoke... If you noticed, I've added missing albums to your project (leaving missed lyrics & main page filling for you ;)). Please, feel free to give me such job more often, especially in cases when additional info is required for songs on 'almost done' artist pages.
Btw, have you read one of last conversations between Red & 6x9? (I always have a real fun 'listening' how they are communicating :)). Poor, poor Red - we can only imagine how unendurable should be for her keeping lips sealed...;) So, pssst..., don't tell her that all those missing albums where added using wikyfier, which is getting all required info from MB & Amz automatically - in exactly the same manner, as 'enhanced' wikifyer, sarcastically described by 6x9 :). Cheers, --Senvaikis (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow! You have made my job much easier now! I never expected you to do so much. This is one reason why working together on projects can be great fun.
I did see that conversation between Redxx and 6x9. I think it's fun to read their "arguments" but they are really laughing when they pretend to scold each other  :-)Don't tell them but I think they are both really good people. Bye, --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   15:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
About formatting policy relating song album & other info

Being not sure my arguments against setting album info in SH/SF were plain enough, I'd like to discuss that in more detailed manner. Don't you think that prevailing info in both SH & (especially) SF should point us to official studio albums firstly, and contain links to all sorts of singles, compilations & bootlegs only in cases when song hasn't been released on studio album (or be added as additional info like in AddAlb)? Speaking about your project, most of songs in it then should have other album info in both Song & SongFooter. What do you think about that?--Senvaikis (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've re-read what you said and I think I understand what you are suggesting. You would like my asin, iTunes, musicbrainz links to point to original albums that the songs were on instead of showing these links going to Super Pages discs. I thought we were always supposed to include the links to the album we were writing about. --   RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   20:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What we are all supposed to do RD is:

  • The album the song was first released on in {{Song}}
  • If the song was released on a further 2 albums then we simply add |album1= and |album2= (and if various artist compilation, soundtrack, single or film |type1= |type2= ) to {{Song}} and detail these in chronological order.
  • If more than 3 albums don't bother adding the additional albums to Song, just use {{AddAlb}}

See help page.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 00:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, I wasn't bothering to research what the original albums were. I was doing it "quick and dirty" by just adding the album I knew the orphan songs were on. I'll do as you say and find the original albums and place those first and then the Super Hits album last. I apologize for editing in a way you disapprove of. --   RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   01:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I said that is what we are supposed to do because you said you thought we were always supposed to include the links to the album we were writing about. I didn't say we always do it though ;). The point I believe Senvaikis is making is that a song has normally been released on an album by the actual song artist before it appears on a various artists compilation. And if we have an album listed by the artist with the song on (even if it isn't the first release) then that is what should be entered in the song template. Think of it as a list of priorities. First appearance on album by song artist, any appearance on album by song artist, appearance on various artists compilation album, etc. How far you go is as always up to you. If we haven't got an album by the artist with the song listed on it, on then by all means enter the compilation album. Any link is better than none ;)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 03:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a question

Not sure why this edit deleted some information. It seems the album should have been added instead of replacing the current placed album. Maybe something with /LwUtil needs to be modified? I just wanted to inform. --WillMak050389 21:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for info, Will, I corrected mentioned song header. (Initially I was frightened that I deleted entire album...:)). Unfortunatelly, lwt is not smart enough to automatically fill albums in both SH & SF, so it was more my fault, not lwt. If you've had read my discussion with King about that, then you should know, how it works, and that potentially lwt is able to fill this info (using backlinks from song page), but that would be very costly due to multiple requests to server. In addition, I still haven't any idea how can I train lwt to automatically decide which albums should be included into header, and which - not. If you have any bright idea how it may be done without waiting for Semantics, - let me know :). Thanks once more, --Senvaikis (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

lrcDB in ArtistFooter?

Red told me to ask you whether you think it would be a good idea to include an lrcDB parameter in the revamped ArtistFooter template. So: Do you think it would be a good idea to include an lrcDB parameter in the revamped ArtistFooter template? I got the idea after seeing the {{lrcDB}} template used on this artist page and thought we could instead link directly to the artist's page on Do you think it's worth it? If not I'll take it out again, but it's only about 3 lines additional code anyway. (My sandbox version is here; note that it needs an updated ArtistHeader to work properly.) — 6x9 (Talk) 22:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that such iclusion shouldn't be costly indeed, I think it may be done. Only one note - I don't like the icon used in {{lrcDB}} :)
I'm very glad you are revamping ArtistFooter. Speaking about current sample in your sandbox, can I ask your opinion about making amg parameter behavior the same as mb, amz etc., e.g switching to search by artist on empty parameter? (Current version of {{AllmusicArtist}} has a bug, allowing "empty link").
Here's possible url for such search:
"" + {{Artist}}
. Thanks, --Senvaikis (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Allmusic search added – good idea. I think the reason why it hadn't been added earlier was that no-one could figure out the search URL, so thanks a lot for that! (BTW, Red thinks the "empty link" thing is a feature rather than a bug, since allmusic redirects to the search page anyway…)
Do you have a better icon for the lrcDB link, or a suggestion for one? Only restriction is that the size be 16x16 px. — 6x9 (Talk) 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah well now you put it like that no I don't. I just chose to think positively about it. And as I believe I pointed out to you, it's a much better bug than your Progressive Archives bug, since at least it defaults to search page...which is useful ;)
Anyone for a Cherry Brandy? Second fave drink of the moment..first fave is tea. Third is beer..real ale of course.. ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 00:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
@6: I don't think Timed note I'm using in my lwt could be named as "better", but it may be used as some draft for better one. Truth to tell, it's absolutelly unimportant to me; more important question - when ArtistFooter will be implemented? (I should retrain lwt to meet new situation in artist page...).
@Red: Your arguments are as always womanly irresistable ;)
cheers,--Senvaikis (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Lol thank you Senv x. Now I am no way a graphics editor but I was mucking around with our existing timed lyrics icon and ended up with this..16x18px-Timed lyrics but asides from the fact that it is flawed and 16x18, I think yours is far better Senv. Who is our graphics editor do you think? Aqua?  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 13:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I like yours, Senv. Just… do you maybe have a bigger version of it floating around somewhere, so we can get rid of the aliasing? It's also effectively only 15x15, and at that size every single pixel counts :-) If not though, that's okay too.
As to when it will be implemented… I'll leave another note on the Comm. Portal, to see if more stuff to be added comes up (Echo had some good ideas last night). — 6x9 (Talk) 16:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure Aq'd make a better variant of icon, having a free minute. As I've told, that's not essential and may be changed later. Thanks once more for your job, --Senvaikis (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

AllMusic in Artist pages

Regarding this edit, AllMusic has now moved to the {{ArtistFooter}}. Hopefully a quick fix for you. --WillMak050389 20:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. Good news. I'll recheck last lwt edits. Need to look when this change was done. Thanks 6x too, but he could inform me, as I was asking... ;)--Senvaikis (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that. I left a notice on the Community Portal, but it got bumped up by several other topics. Coldplay was the only artist page you changed since then, so the "damage" is minimal. — 6x9 (Talk) 21:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No need for regrets; thanks once more - you are great.--Senvaikis (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Aww, thanks :-) But don't let Red see this – she's always afraid my head might get too big, and she'd think she'd have to compensate for all that praise… — 6x9 (Talk) 22:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Senv, shall I stop linking directly to Bio page? Only I seem to be causing you additional work.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 14:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, haven't noticed this post innitially, later was too busy struggling with edit conflicts in the post below, later was offline...:).
Ok, - I'd not say that's a big crime, but strictly speaking such parameter value doesn't satisfy it's definition in template, where it's determined as link to the artist's page, with one very substantial reminder to use only pure ID. You could see already from discussion below, how different may look the same things depending from the point of view - what is important for manual editor, may be negligible for bots or such utils as lwt, - and vice versa. I understand your desire to have a direct link exactly to the most important (in your opinion) amg page of artist. But who said that your opinion is the only one possible? Such things as header/footer parameters must be defined as strictly as possible to avoid potential misunderstandings. Take for example my lwt. It uses amg ID for linking to amg artist page, then finds discography page for albums amg ID, then - songs, then - composers and so on. Starting point for all this travel is an artist amg ID. Of course - now, when I know about your desires to add a ~T1, that wouldn't be a big problem for me to detect and remove undesired suffixe before producing search code. I can also imagine that someone else may choose discography page (~T2) as more preferable starting point. So, I must use regex to detect and remove all possible suffixes before proceeding. And I can. But other developers may not even know about your free-style interpretations of this parameter definition. And their tools will fail then necessarily...
Please, let me know if my explanation was understandable and redundant enough :), --Senvaikis (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Love the "free-style" bit! That would make Red the first free-style perfectionist in the history of humankind :-) — 6x9 (Talk) 20:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Rfl 6. No, you are right Senv. I am wrong. No need to change anything. I shall change my ways ;) Thanks for reply. ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 21:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The order of things...

[1] Wouldn't it make more sense for country to be first? Also, I'm thinking that because of this, many will re-edit the pages and do this...  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 15:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter at all in which order named parameters appear in a template. If you find users editing pages just to change that order around, you might want to tell them that. — 6x9 (Talk) 15:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I know that. You know that. Senv knows that but they might not. And yes I would, but it could become a little tedious...  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 15:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict(double))...
@6:You are right, but I understand Red's posittion too; the uniform (and logical) order of parameters in edit mode is more convenient for editors, imo :)
@R & 6: As you doubtless know, editions like this were done by lwt, which isn't instructed pro tem about any particular mandatory order of parameters. I agree that some uniform order would be desirable. Can I ask you a favor to help me retraining lwt and give me some approved drafts for order of parameters in headers/footers?
tia,--Senvaikis (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
|artist = (optional)
|romanizedArtist = (optional)
|star = Green
|pic = (optional)
|caption = (optional)
|officialSite = 
|myspace = 
|wikipedia = 
|wikipedia2 = (optional)
|country = 
|state  = 
|hometown = 
love  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 15:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
And, where applicable, artist and romanizedArtist at the very top, even above star. Guess the logical place for pic and caption would be between these and officialSite… (That's where they appear in the infobox, anyway.) — 6x9 (Talk) 15:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
(conflict again - you are typing too fast) :)
... Not so quick & easy, plz...:) Is it full list of all possible parameters? And where are your instructions to lwt concerning empty parameters? I suppose some of them may be removed if empty, some should be leaved in either case... etc. Be more precise, Red ;) cheers,--Senvaikis (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Other than wikipedia2 (which should go directly beneath wikipedia of course), those are all parameters. As for empty ones… If they're there, leave them, if they aren't, don't add them? Leaving them doesn't hurt, and a user might fill them in who otherwise wouldn't. — 6x9 (Talk) 16:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, then maybe the most simple (for lwt, e.g. - me as programmer) approach is admissible too? Just making a standard lists for all head/foot-ers, leaving all parameters unremoved regardless of their filling?--Senvaikis (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Apologies..I've corrected and updated it now.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 16:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, now turn to my last (previous msg) question and remaining lists... :)--Senvaikis (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, except for country, star and romanizedArtist (which is either required or must not be used) all of these are optional. State doesn't make much sense for some countries neither does hometown, in the case of Gibralter :-), many non-English artists don't have English wp articles, quite a number don't have official sites or myspace pages… Sorry for making things even more confusing. I guess what I'm trying to say is: don't add blank parameters; but if they're already there, leave them, unless you're certain they won't be filled (at least in the near future).
I'm also still not convinced that order is really important. I can't remember seeing any edit where a user just changed the order, but nothing else, so I don't think that'll be much of a problem. — 6x9 (Talk) 16:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) Lol, that's what I meant suggesting Red not to fasten :). Ok, I've got your idea, and try to pass it to lwt. Thanks, --Senvaikis (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This is my day for apologies so apologies once again Senv for totally confusing the issue.  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 21:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Red, what apologies? You've rised a reasonable question and that led me to better understanding of how things should be done; so - thank you, o Omnipresent, for yor perfectionism. And if 6 still doesn't know, we can tell him - all we are perfectionists, and I like that :)--Senvaikis (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Need Your Help

Please, help me someone (Sean, ES, 6x9, Humbug, Red...) to solve very simple (on the surface) task: getting a full list of albums for particular artist. For the meantime I knew 3 possible methods for that, collecting albums from:

  1. API f-n GetArtist (doesn't include albums, not listed in artist page and helpless for splitted artists)
  2. Special:PrefixIndex (doesn't include collaborations, soundtracks etc.)
  3. Special:WhatLinksHere, equivalent to mwapi/backlinks call (should contain all albums, having a link to the artist page - e.g., must satisfy my needs)

As you see, first two methods aren't suitable for this task, so let's talk about the third one. I'm definitely missing something here, but in most cases album list, collected from it's response, is, to put it mildly, incomplete - albums, definitely having links to the artist page, are not included there! Take for example David Bowie:

  • two-page-long WhatLinksHere response contains only 13 albums from DB namespace (instead of real ~39).
  • Mwapi returns the same unbelievable result.

In other words, Special:WhatLinksHere doesn't work?

I do believe I'm missing something here - it's hardly believable that such bug could exist unnoticed. But irrespective from an answer to the question above, my main question is: what is the most efficient & reliable method of getting full list of albums with particular artist songs?
Tia, --Senvaikis (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wish I could help, but I'm stumped. I just tried it for Peter Hammill, and got only six albums (of 31) from the what-links-here. So it's a consistent error. — 6x9 (Talk) 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be another case of redirects causing issues. David Bowie:Let's Dance (1983) did not show in "what links here", as you indicated above, but now it does. Three db songs had album redirects linked in SH&SF "Let's dance", instead of Let's Dance.
∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 22:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Which is even weirder, because what links to "Let's Dance" should have no effect at all on whether that album shows up in WLH or not. I suspect it's because song and album pages link to the artist page through templates, rather than explicitly and directly. So if you'd add [[David Bowie]] to every album page, all of them would show up… — 6x9 (Talk) 23:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
And the same solution to Let's Dance can not be applied to Peter Hammill's In a Foreign Town (1988). If 6's observation is correct, then this is a case of a relational database that can't handle 2nd and 3rd level child related data. Gaaack! sql was not supposed to have such issues ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 23:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC) PS:And this bit: All pages that show in WLH for PH or DB do not have explicit links to the artists (true for most album and song pages of artists pages) but they still show in WLH, so it's still inconsistent.
It seems that the complexity of the template has something to do with it – albums are strongly affected, songs hardly (or even not at all). In the Song template, the artist link appears pretty early on, directly after the star, while in the Album template it's almost at the very end, with lots of code inbetween. So maybe including an "invisible" link near the top (e.g. with &nbsp; as displaytext) would help… — 6x9 (Talk) 00:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
In both Song and Album template, why not test for artist as first argument and then the rest? That might do it. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 00:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately checking for artist isn't enough, you have to produce an actual link on the page the template is transcluded on. (Assuming that my theory is correct in the first place, of course.) It might be possible to hide that link beneath the star, I'll have to test that. — 6x9 (Talk) 01:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
(observing Kiefer's test) this may be a matter of touch.... ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)Both pages Kiefer edited (Fool's Mate and Singularity) now turn up in WLH. But the question now is: what made them disappear in the first place? And will they eventually disappear again? — 6x9 (Talk) 01:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
This is truly weird. I tested Peter Hammill:Fool's Mate (1971). It has the Artist parameter as the first item, but didn't show up in the What Links Here list, and although Peter Hammill:Clutch (2002) had the parameter second, it still showed up on the list. I added a link to Peter Hammill in the Musicians list of Fool's Mate, and POOF! the page suddenly appears on the list.
Now here's where things get interesting. I did a worthless edit on a couple of album pages that weren't showing up on the list. I removed a return from each. Guess what happened? Those pages suddenly showed up on the list! I looked at the ones that didn't (and those that I had changed) and guess what? All the ones that don't show up haven't been edited in a long time. S2E2 had moved a few wiki links on Feb. 12, 2009, but all but one of those pages still don't show up. There were a few edits on Feb. 13, 2009 by 6x9 that do show up, however. Other than that, the ones that were last touched by a human editor and didn't show up were changed in September 2008. I figure that maybe it has something to do with how the WLH list is generated. Perhaps the cache/whatever that is used isn't as up-to-date as is necessary. I'll drop a note on Sean's page to see this discussion. Perhaps he can find a definitive cause.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   01:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
So, the problem is in WLH. Hope we'll cope with that. But regarding to my initial question I'm just curious - what's your method of album list generating, if such bug was unnoticed for such a long time? Please, share your "know-how" :). tia, --Senvaikis (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe I've ever had call to do such a thing before. Really, such things should be available through the Artist's page in some form or another. (Related Artist link, a notation next to a song, etc.) As for the bug, just because it exists now doesn't mean that it did in the past. I've primarily used WLH when an item has been moved to correct the links to that item so that they don't have to go through a redirect. Perhaps there was a problem in the past, but not necessarily so.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   05:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Mmm..all very interesting and well spotted Senv! I use WLH a lot so I hope it gets sorted soon. With you guys on the case however, I believe it will. My brain has a tendency to switch off atm over things like this...I need to make more room in there ;).  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 06:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I see multiple questions in Senv's last question:
1- List of child songs of album X (WLH Album) (what if links on album page are redirects?)
2- List of Albums containing Song X (WLH Song) (what if song point to an album redirect?)
3- List of Albums/Songs on Artist page (WLH Artist)
4- List of Orphan songs of artist (PrefixIndex - WLH, lonelypages)
WLH results are iffy. lonelypages list is iffy, redirecting a page can send it to oblivion. WLH is not a cached page, because as soon as a page is edited it WLH shows the new page, but how long does it stay in WLH... looks like prefix index and list comparisons are your friends. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 06:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad bad Nick

Can LWUtil load the artists list for a keyword search? That helps with finding all the Nicks & scratches.... ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 12:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

 :) Sorry, ES, - I'm really veery bad in English - could you please be more 'redundant' again to make it more clear what are you supposing? cheers,--Senvaikis (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
sry, what I mean is to search the artist list (30,000+) for all artists whose name contains "Nick", or any other keword:
  1. Andre Nickatina


  1. Nick Cave And The Bad Seeds


  1. Nicky Wire
  2. Scotti Nick
  3. Stevie Nicks
  4. U-Nick

∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 14:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I do believe it must be very funny. But, as Red've noticed formerly, I'm veery bad not only in English - seems I have absolutelly no sense of humour too. Try to tell this joke to her ;)--Senvaikis (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

In case you haven't seen it yet...

...Sean has just granted one of our wishes (and appears to be working hard on another one). Woohoo! — 6x9 (Talk) 00:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noting; good news :)--Senvaikis (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.