2,054,077 Pages

A jungle jumble of templates

I suspect LWT didn't see the AddAlb template that was already there because it went by its full name, i.e. {{Additional Albums}}…? Another thing: the earliest album a song is linked to from isn't always the one it first appeared on. Example: Deep Purple:Child In Time is on the CD reissue of Deep Purple:Concerto For Group And Orchestra (1969), but wasn't on the original 1969 release. Its first appearance was on Deep Purple:Deep Purple In Rock (1970). Sorry for complicating things :-) — 6x9 (Talk) 21:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Senv may have been my fault I'll use AddAlb in future.  Яєdxx Actions Words 22:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Considering that AddAlb is just a redirect and Additional Albums the "real" template, I'd hardly call that a fault… Though, with most people using AddAlb anyway, maybe we should move the latter over the former… — 6x9 (Talk) 23:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
No but I have noticed that LWT can't seem to see if I use Additional Albums and seeing as it makes no odds to me, but it does to Senv's LWT, I like to adapt to fit in with Senv.  Яєdxx Actions Words 03:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for noting that, 6. Of course, it's my bug, and I can easily retrain LWT to recognize both forms of AA - you have no need to change anything, Red :). But I'm afraid that the second issue may be simply unsolvable for LWT. And unfortunately that's not all - the mess LWT have made recently in PF namespace uncovered more problems with it. Let's take for example PF album The Wall. How can I explain to LWT that song The Final Cut doesn't belong to this album?. I'm little tired, suffering deficiency disease, disappointed and seriously thinking about rest or even retirement...--Senvaikis (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Senv retirement from LyricWiki isn't an option for you my friend. I would simply come and hunt you down ;). I wish I understood LWT because it's a great program you've made there. I follow you so I know. What I don't get though is why LWT would think "The Final Cut" is on The Wall when it has never appeared on any version of the album?  Яєdxx Actions Words 06:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
There's a link to the song on The Wall's page. My personal take on it: LWT should only edit Green Songs in this way, because, by definition, they are not yet reviewed. Any edits to Gold, Silver, and Bronze pages should be human-made edits. This at least solves some of our problem. That which is left is automatically allowed because the pages are Green. --WillMak050389 06:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) LWT's using backlinks to song while collecting a list of albums with that song. You may imitate LWT's way of thinking: just open The Final Cut and click WLH - you'll see that two albums have links to this song, and The Wall is the first one. Then you can open a page of this album to see that it just contains additional information about this album with The Final Cut mentioned in it. But LWT has absolutely no information about this link context , so it decides that first appearance of this song was on this album.--Senvaikis (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
@Will: then, being logically consistent, you should ban using LW api, mwapi etc. 'cause they are even more unsuited to current LW architecture. Just try to check the same PF with api...;) --Senvaikis (talk) 07:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the benefit of LWT assists more than causes the occasional error. I also don't see this situation occurring often enough to cause any real problem. For LWT not to edit anything other than Green songs because of this would be a real shame in my personal opinion. I would like to find a different solution or dare I say accept as is...  Яєdxx Actions Words 09:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Gotta agree with Red here (gasp, shock, horror). The advantages still far outweigh any of the unfixable glitches. Bronze means only that the song has been checked by a human, so there'll usually be a lot of information missing. While that shouldn't be the case with Silver and Gold, the latter also have watchers who will catch any errors LWT might make.
On the topic of bootlegs, if we have pages for them, we should link to them. Otherwise we might as well delete them. — 6x9 (Talk) 12:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It's no good fighting it 6, because eventually you'll come to agree with me on everything. It's an inevitability ;) Yes watchers should catch these odd glitches. Can you direct me to where bootlegs was mentioned because I can't seem to see it.  Яєdxx Actions Words 12:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That's because it was mentioned on Will's talk page, not here… my bad. (Can you find your way there, or do I need to add a link?)6x9 (Talk) 12:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You know if you was here I'd be hitting you with a cushion right about now. No less than you deserve of course  Яєdxx Actions Words 13:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'd already figured you're the kinky type. — 6x9 (Talk) 13:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm saying nowt ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 13:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You coming Senv?

User_talk:6_times_9#Wenn_die_Katze_aus_dem_Haus_ist.2C_tanzen_die_M.C3.A4use... Only I'm not overkeen on this Industrial stuff that MetalSnake's put on and I think we could do with a change of music... Яєdxx Actions Words 17:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Facebook app down

Hi, the facebook app can't connect to MySQL server:

Notice: Undefined variable: lwc_memcache_server in /var/www/html/ on line 34

Notice: Undefined variable: lwc_memcache_port in /var/www/html/ on line 35
Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (2)

I don't know who to notify, so I looked recent changes to find someone. --Enoriel 12:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that only Sean Colombo is able to cope with that, - sorry, --Senvaikis (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was about time you had another one

Gold Record The Gold Record
Senvaikis, I hereby present you with this Gold Record for your efforts with Ol' Blue Eyes pages. Thanks! Appreciated!  Яєdxx Actions Words 12:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 :) Thanks, Red; let me know if you have more gravy targets for LWT to earn more your precious metals & gemstones ;) cheers, --Senvaikis (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Btw, are you sure reverting edition on The Concert Sinatra with comment "(not a live album)"? LWT may be wrong, but it gets info from amg, which says it was one of the best live FS records. MB & amazon will say you the same, --Senvaikis (talk) 13:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Senv but yes I'm sure: - This misleadingly titled 1963 collaboration with Nelson Riddle is not a live album
Wikipedia - The title refers to the larger-than-normal orchestra Nelson Riddle gathered for this recording; it is not a documentation of a live performance.
Allmusic declined to comment ;)
 Яєdxx Actions Words 13:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, you are right... Poor, poor LWT - no chances for more Red's points :)--Senvaikis (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes there is Senv, I'm a big fan of LWT :-)  Яєdxx Actions Words 15:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankie Boy

Senv, you know when you did that list for me before? Did you use magic? Or did you labour over "what links here"? The reason I ask is because I allocated a great many songs yesterday from the Other Songs list, and rather than delete for rebuild I'd rather go through and individually delete. Yes, I probably should've done it as I was working through the list.. (lol) Яєdxx Actions Words 14:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Red, but I've 'switched to weekend mode' already - would you mind to wait till monday?--Senvaikis (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Haa haa yes of course. Enjoy!  Яєdxx Actions Words 18:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm back, but still not sure if operatibility of my brain is finally regenerated ;) So, let me know if that is what you expected?--Senvaikis (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Bless you Senv! Yes indeed that was exactly what I was hoping for. Many thanks! I will deal with them later today.  Яєdxx Actions Words 16:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


There have been a few changes to this template, so you might need to re-train your tool. Sorry. I promise I'm not doing it just to keep you on your toes :-) They are listed here. — 6×9 (Talk) 15:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

PS. Unrelated, but in regards to the archived discussion about vanishing albums in WLH list, I have added an invisible link to the artist page at the very start of the {{Album}} template, and it seems to work – the WLH for Peter Hammill lists all 31 albums. — 6×9 (Talk) 15:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for info, 6. You are as always - precise and clear man of a few words and a lot of jobs :). Going to study your changes. Respect, --Senvaikis (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Timed lyrics..

..for instrumentals? (Leonard Cohen) Kinda threw me a bit, because I had just been assuming "not applicable"  Яєdxx Actions Words 12:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The same goes then for LW: <lyrics /> for instrumental...?--Senvaikis (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
You could say they both serve the same purpose internally, i.e. to inform visitors to lrcdb/LyricWiki, and those trying to retrieve timed lyrics/lyrics via a widget from these sites, that the song is an instrumental and therefore there are no lyrics, but to link to an external site for timed lyrics when there aren't any just seems a bit well silly to me. No?  Яєdxx Actions Words 16:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It's always up to you - include such link or not - it's optional anyway, even for songs with lyrics. Just I don't think it would be right to forbid such links for instrumentals by policy - sometimes lrcdb may contain surprisingly different info ;). And don't forget that you are speaking not with me - it's LWT speaking with you, - and it doesn't know for a while any rules finetuning it's behavior regarding that. --Senvaikis (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Aaah now I understand. Thanks Senv :-)  Яєdxx Actions Words 16:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not quite as evident, evidently

This one. "type=comp. album" is debatable (these particular versions of the songs weren't released anywhere else), but LWT should leave addtext alone. And linking the artist in the credits seems a bit unnecessary when there's already a link for him at the top of the page, I should think… — 6×9 (Talk) 12:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
PS. Thank you for taking care of all the "small" stuff on PH's songs. My fingers hurt just at the thought of doing all of this myself :-) — 6×9 (Talk) 13:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
PPS. Regarding "After audio & video renaming in SF the same should be done in SI, imo" – that would depend on whether or not we want to allow other video/audio sites as well… — 6×9 (Talk) 13:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just be careful never to link to more than the first occurrence of a word on Wikipedia's pages Senv, cos I've heard that over there this is considered like so many things to be a capital offence ;) Яєdxx Actions Words 16:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
@R: Seems my qualms about brain operatibility weren't baseless ;) - would you be so kind to clarify your guidance? tia, --Senvaikis (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC), still in resurrection...
I guess what Red meant is that she sees no problem with having several identical links on the same page. We all know by now she's too lazy to scroll, and the hardship of having to go back to the top of a song page to be able to click on the artist link is too much for her to bear ;-) — 6×9 (Talk) 17:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
@6 - regarding:
  • leaving addtext alone - agree; (lwt is still not trained to recognize it - 2 b done)
  • not linking the artist in credits - agree too; I was thinking the same way, just our friends Rx & ES may have different oppinion regarding that, judging from some their lwt's reedits ;) - we just need to take some definite decision for credits formatting.
  • PH - just it was used as very handy 'firing ground' for LWT training ;)
  • audio/video in SF & SI naming: if SF parameters could be renamed without waiting for such determination, why SI couldn't? It's not very important, of course - just it would be easier for lwt to work with uniformly named params ;)
  • and last, little offtopic q: while working on PH, one album formatting returned me to one very old question - how should be tracks/subtracks formatted? Some notes about mentioned album:
    • tracking on artist and album pages are different (may they?)
    • subtracks, visible on album page, aren't available for API
    • linking subtracks to internal anchores in the same track page doesn't work
    • subtracks can't be given any available metadata info in such case - the same track page info would be overwritten then

(I'm lazy too, so left indentation as it was when response was started to be slooowly typed...)--Senvaikis (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Couple of replies:
  1. I wasn't saying the additional link in Credits is wrong, just unnecessary. :-)
  2. video and audio params in SF were renamed because (1) users not looking at the help page won't know that "audio" isn't for any audio, just goear, and (2) there have been repeated requests for allowing other sites as well, and the renaming will eventually free up the original parameters for that.
  3. As for Usher, the tracks are as I originally found them at [[Hammill Peter]]. I meant to split them up eventually, but it seems to have slipped my mind or I was just too lazy. I will get around to it, promised! — 6×9 (Talk) 18:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Rfl, seems I am to be forever misunderstood ;)
Ok to clarify my earlier (supportive) comment: Adding links in credits is a very good thing, providing there isn't already a link to the artist on the page. If the artist who recorded the song is credited with writing it, then of course the artist is already linked to in the {{Song}} template. As such it is unnecessary and like I say considered a hanging offence on Wikipedia to provide another link in credits section.
See 6, I wasn't being lazy not this time anyways :-) Яєdxx Actions Words 01:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


I saw you working on Andrew Bird, and I was wondering if you still update the LWutil versions for ClickOnce. As far as I can get is 2.1, and I've noticed you've been doing some things with it that don't immediately seem possible for me.
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 17:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, King. Yes, you are right - current version is drastically different from the last published one. But please, understand me - for a long time I hadn't any feedback from you and didn't see any indications of LWT using. So, it was natural to stop taking pains about publishing, keeping in mind that you was the only LWT user and such support is too time-consuming (especially when usercount ->0). If you'd like, I can publish the last version (a few days later, - now I'm out of my office with devbox). But be warned - it's again absolutely unequipped for external user, so 3/4 of it's functionality would be hidden from you or may lead to surprising results ;). If you are really going to use LWT in the future, I'd start a new project, more suited for publishing. But not today or tomorrow, sorry. In such case drop me at least a short list of desirable LWT functionality. cheers, --Senvaikis (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Regarding one your edition - plz, take a look at discussion above. I think we must finally determine - link or not to link artist in credits. It's not a very good lead for ordinal users, when admin A is reediting admin B by adding links, and later admin C is reediting the same B by unlinking... What should I say to LWT then? :)
Several things at once: I figured you had stopped the user experience development, considering I was gone for the last how many months. If you don't want to do it at all, I understand completely, it's your program. In all honesty, though, I don't know why the other admins haven't tried to use it too. In light of this, I could not ask you to rewrite your own script just so I can play with it. Feel free to say "No," right of the bat. If you do want to continue, I suggest that you and I advertise the tool to the other admin and power users (in personal domains so the uninitiated are kept out) so that you have more than just one beta tester.
But don't worry too much about me not being able to figure out what to do. I am pretty good at figuring things out without a manual. :D All that I ask is that the newest version does the stuff that 2.1 does without too much obfuscation. If it is too different, I'd say leave 2.1 as the most recent clickonce version.
OK, beside that: we do need to figure out what to do with links in credits. Personally, I don't like them, but I saw what Red was saying in the conversation above this one, and took that to be the standard (I assume that I am wrong, all the time, since I haven't been around for a while. It's easier to do that and find out otherwise, than visa versa). So that is about the depth of my own knowledge about the situation, I think it should be brought up in the Community and Admin portals.
Lastly, I'd like to say you've been doing a bang up job with Andrew Bird. Before long they will all be gold star if they aren't already!
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 03:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Re linking to other artist pages in credits, see: Help:Contents/Editing/Formatting/Songs#Credits. And about using LWT, providing I can understand how to use it I would be more than happy to assist in its future development. Just let me know.  Яєdxx Actions Words 03:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
DoneGreen 3.1.0 version published. Sorry for bugs you'll surely find, - some of them I know just now :). But the main problem - I'm just curious how will you find all semi-hidden functionality, so feel free to ask any questions, --Senvaikis (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
When I tried to update, it said that the location I was downloading from had no information. Where should I be downloading from?
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 08:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Check your e-mail, --Senvaikis (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! I finally have had a chance to play with it (finals week, you know), and everything seems pretty straight forward. I will later really put it through the paces, but I have come up with something that is relatively simple, programmatically, to reduce confusion: Descriptive tooltips. Some of the buttons already have them, but they are one worders, like 'update' and such, while some have none at all.
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 22:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I am not talking a tax form manual explanation for each button, but just half a sentence giving me some idea of what they do. (like the two side by side binoculars? I cannot figure out what they would do differently, so I am just using the first)
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Seems you just didn't noticed - tooltips you are speaking about exist already for most similar buttons. So, two "binocular" buttons in albums tab have tooltips "Get All Albums with backlinks to Artist" & "Get Albums by Artist"; next similar button pair in language tab have t/ts "Get Songs with backlink to Artist (MWAPI)" & "Get Songs (from Artist page)" accordingly. Neighboring checkbox, having t/t "Only by Artist" means filtering only songs by chosen artist... and so on. So, if you still haven't seen them, maybe you were too quick - quicker then your computer :) cheers, --Senvaikis (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Of course, any tooltips can't serve as normal documentation or user guide. Especially when app has some 'dummy' controlls having same (or none) t/ts or even doing nothing ;). So, anyway, I must make at least some short description (with screenshots) of app functionality, elements, events etc. And I'll make it, together with some 'cleansing' of form elements. The only one problem - time... I noticed that it's getting hard to sleep 4 hours per day... ;). --Senvaikis (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't push yourself on my account! I thank you for the effort, but I don't want to be responsible for any mental breakdowns! I am doing fine without any documentation or anything! I had a couple of things that I couldn't figure at first, but I am understand just about everything right off. I wanted to just say that I have been working with it more, and I am quite happy with how it's working.
Thank you again.
King_Nee1114 (talk pagecontributionsdeletions) 11:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Shame on me for such delay, but finally you may find at least some details of LWT description in the egg. 2bcont..., --Senvaikis (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This one isn't for you ;)

Gold Record The Gold Record
LWT, I hereby present you with this Gold Record . Thanks for your help with the discogs problem! Very much appreciated!  Яєdxx Actions Words 02:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not jealous, but believe me - LWT isn't worth of your awards - it's too stupid even to thank you for them; so I'm forced to do that on behalf of LWT :)--Senvaikis (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


Could you head over to this discussion when you have a moment, please? (I messed up again.) Thanks! — 6×9 (Talk) 02:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Jethro Tull, lang restoration

When the Instrumental template is present on the song page, the language param is ignored. happy editing. Night Owl 15:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thx, - now I know at least that lwt isnt' alone in getting crazy by multiple lyrics tags (AddAlb was very interesting too) :)--Senvaikis (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Now? your newest edition made the page api friendly as well, well done Night Owl 16:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, but song representation on album and artist pages should then be changed too? In other words, I still don't know what is LW policy regarding song subtracks - I have asked 6x9 formerly to find some common solution for that, - maybe he's got an answer already?--Senvaikis (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
As long as the lyrics of the song (all subtracks) are together and unbroken, they are inserted into the lyrics field of the song in digital players. That is the technical description, and my understanding of how iTunes works ;) For the past 12 hours my iTunes has been fetching lyrics for songs that have no lyrics, at a rate of 1 song every 5 seconds. Another 10 hrs to go! Night Owl 16:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Depends, really… In the case of Baker St Muse, it's one track on both old and new CDs, so it should be one LW page, with the subsections' pages redirecting to it. (Same with Atom Heart Mother, Supper's Ready…) Problematic are the multi-part songs that are split into tracks on some releases and not on others. Another problem altogether are songs that are really only one song, with no names for subsections, but that are split into several tracks anyway, for no apparent reason (like this one). Metadata-wise, splitting them up into one page per track would be the best solution, but since the focus of LW should be on lyrics rather than metadata, I'm not so sure… — 6×9 (Talk) 16:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleting artist tag from song footer

Template:SongFooter says the tag is optional, not in need of removal. Help:Page_ranking/Songs says that any page ranked Bronze or higher must have the artist tag completed in the SongFooter. Why are you mass removing them? DarkProdigy 00:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That's us being behind with updating the help pages (again). A recent edit to {{SongFooter}} has made the artist parameter optional (it wasn't before), and the template's documentation was updated accordingly, but it seems we missed the page ranking help. Thanks for bringing this to our attention! — 6×9 (Talk) 01:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi Senv. just noticed your TestArtist showing up in the orphaned pages, please share any knowledge gained. :) Night Owl 05:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, thanks for reminding,--Senvaikis (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

save without edit

Can LWT save a page without editing? thanks Night Owl 08:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As you know, from LW point of view editing lwt is just the ordinary user, working on his IE browser. Of course, it can save without editing, just I'm not sure that such action may lead to any perceptible result. I know only that at least in history such edit doesn't leave any footprint. If I knew what are you speaking about, maybe we could make some experiment? --Senvaikis (talk) 08:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The useful result is that all the song pages missing from Language categories will reappear in their categories, and of course the psuedo edits won't leave a mark. I now have a Windows box to test LWT, if possible :) Night Owl 09:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd be glad if you could test lwt on your box, though current published version will not have functionality you was speaking about. But it may be done in nearest future. As your current incarnation doesn't have e-mail enabled, I'll try to find you on previous one to send an address of LWT install. It's so-called 'One-Click' application, made with M$.NET, so requirements are: Win OS with .NET 2.0 Framework.
Check your e-mail or give me other address if I was wrong in addressing ; cheers,--Senvaikis (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

These Days

You changed Counting Crows:These Days to a cover of Jackson Browne:These Days but I thought that the cover was meant to list the first person to record the song and wikipedia (These Days) lists Nico as the first to record it in 1967. Was I wrong? - ezekiel000 12:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you are right, - indeed, first official recording was made by Nico. But take one more look at the very first sentence in wp article you are citing here: "...On January 7, 1967 he(JB) made some demo recordings for Nina Music Publishing at Jaycino Studio in New York City". So, real first performer is JB. Moreover - even without this fact I can hardly imagine a page for this song, performed by it's author JB (there are at least two JB albums with that song on LW), with information that JB is... covering Nico's song. It's pure nonsense. So, rules are good, but sometimes we must better listen to the voice of Mother Wit :).
Btw, about CC: do you know that ~80 CC songs, starred as golden, haven't set an album info (though SongInfo (SI) declares "done")? Yes, most of them will never have such info as being released only on bootlegs. But does it mean that we can promote a song, having almost any metadata, to gold?. Then I might want to publish here a real "golden", but still unreleased song of my grandson ;).
In addition, SI should be synched to the pages for some songs (they have already goear/wp info, but are shown in SI as not applicable). If you'd like, I can provide you some lwt info about these songs later.
Sorry, I must leave for a short time - we may discuss that later on separate thread, if you'd like.
regards, --Senvaikis (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah yeah your right, I just seemed to get it into my mind that it only meant official release (if there is one) even though I read that article a couple of times to make sure I hadn't made a mistake, sorry about that. (I don't know anything about the song other than the Counting Crows version and the wiki article)
Sorry about the incorrect SI info I went through all the unreleased CC songs and corrected the album, audio and wiki status where it was needed, it results from my using my own copy of the template for the SI page but not taking into account that these songs were unreleased before copy and pasting (because it's not a field I normally have to change on the template). The goear and wiki ones are because they were added after I had done the formating for the pages but before I certified them but I forgot to update the SI pages.
Sorry but I don't know what lwt info is, so I couldn't tell you if I want it. =) - ezekiel000 15:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how long Senvaikis is going to be so I'll just give you an example of the LWT that (s)he was probably talking about. The following is a screenshot that helped me sync the info from {{SongFooter}} and such into the {{Song Info}} box: File:Lwt rank.png. --WillMak050389 15:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah right, that looks like a useful piece of software, no chance of a linux version? =) - ezekiel000 15:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
@Will: thx for deputizing me in my absence :)
  • Glad you agree about JB vs Nico.
  • Also glad you've walked through unsynched CC pages, though lwt could make that in one single mouse click, saving your time.
  • But how about the color of their stars? Are you still sure they should be golden regardless of absence of any metadata info, with totally empty External Links section? I don't know how do you interpret the purpose of PR, but imo it shouldn't be treated as some indicator, showing how much do you like/dislike the song. The song itself may be wonderful, but while it's page header and footer doesn't contain at least available information about song, how can it be promoted to gold, meaning songinfo being ... "Perfect" ... and having "... all possible fields filled" (quotes from Help:Page ranking/Songs)? If you really think that songs, never officially released, may be starred as golden, then you should collect at least all available info about them (MusicBrainz, for example, does have info about most of songs, discussed here). But if you don't want to create pages for bootleg albums (like perfect series of live recordings @Shim Sham in New Orleans, etc.) or moreover - even mention them - then imo songs should be downgraded from golden state, as not being a benchmark, a lead or sample how should be other songs formatted and filled. Of course, it's only my humble opinion, without any kind of imperative.
  • Regarding linux - sry, but lwt is strongly win-dependent/restricted. One of our users was going to make something similar, but platform-independent on Jawa. I should search through archives to find him. I'll let you know if I find something.
--Senvaikis (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Well they are gold because they have all the info available filled in as they are unreleased and only played live, most fields have can't have any info.
I haven't linked to musicbrainz bootleg albums as they are bootlegs, not official so my thinking was they have no place in an artists discography. But I will have a look into the bootlegs album.
The real problem with Counting Crows bootleg albums is that there are so many and if I add one I will have to add all of them, plus most are mostly already released tracks witch will clog up the song pages with a huge list of albums that the songs appear on. I guess I could add the musicbrainz links without adding the bootleg album pages. What are your thoughts on this? - ezekiel000 22:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
All you've said is truth, I may just note, that not all songs must be gold. Otherwise what is the sense of ranking... As I said, I may publish here a song of my 3-yeard old grandson and promote it to gold, explaining that I collected all possible info about it ;) cheers, --Senvaikis (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Interesting discussion guys which raised a few questions in my mind.
Picking up where Senv left off, by my way of thinking the page ranking certificate needs to be removed from all the unreleased songs. The reason being is that we do not advocate listing unofficial recordings, i.e. bootlegs. And since we don't advocate listing bootlegs, it follows that they don't qualify for page ranking certification. (If they aren't released they can't be listened to, won't have the necessary links, etc.)
Like Senv has correctly indicated by using the example of his grandson, if we were to allow unofficial recordings to be certified, anyone could effectively create an artist page, make up a load of fictitious albums, with fictitious songs, and certify them all as gold. (There are some crazy people out there ;))
I'm glad you raised this subject though, since it has proved that we need to clarify this in the page ranking help pages. But before doing so, I think I'll just post a note for the benefit of other editors in Community Portal. Thanks.  Яєdxx Actions Words 08:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
If they can not be upgraded to gold ranking then the artist cannot be upgraded to gold ranking, personally I would prefer to get rid of the lot of live covers but the bots will keep adding them again won't they? As they are on loads of other lyric sites. Let me know where we go from here, my only concern is to keep the CC page gold. - ezekiel000 09:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Mmmm...yes, the bots would re-add them, but regardless of this we don't want to do away with any lyrics. Ok we need to discuss this in CP. I'll start a thread just as soon as I've had my bath ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 11:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
@Ez: If you are really a fan of CC, then I hope that your expression "...I would prefer to get rid of the lot of live covers..." was just the momental emotional outburst, not a real desire. I do believe you understand that making pages golden shouldn't be the main your goal here; the main your concern should be concentrated on making our site as comprehensive, informative and accessible as possible.--Senvaikis (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if you took it the wrong way but it wasn't an emotional outburst or meant to be taken as angry at all. I am a fan of CC but I don't really care for live tracks (that's my personal preference), I went through and processed them and organised them because I was being as complete as possible, I want the CC page to be complete but you can say it's complete with or without them as it is either their official releases or all their performances.
But the idea of getting pages to gold and being comprehensive goes hand in hand because to make something gold it has to have all available information, so it's the same thing. I'm not trying to start an argument. - ezekiel000 12:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
It's always astonishing me, how easy sometimes we are giving into slavery of all kinds of rules and pseudorules, forgetting what for they were created. Ok, if creating a page for bootleg album is illegal (indeed?), and even mentioning about that bootleg is illegal too (indeed?!), why then can't I just sort and group those officially unreleased songs under corresponding information headers of type "Songs, performed live at Shim Sham night club (New Orleans, LA, 2001)"? That's in the artist page. What's the reason I can't add according information in song page SH, using addtext of type "<br>* Unreleased song, performed live at Shim Sham night club (New Orleans, LA, 2001)"? What's the reason SF of the same song page can't contain MBID param? --Senvaikis (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I got completely confused with that last post, but I'll look into the bootlegs on MB in a second. - ezekiel000 13:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay it's all sorted now, I started work on the bootleg albums and downgraded all unreleased songs not currently listed on a bootleg album. So no worries, I'll get round to finishing the sorting sometime soon. - ezekiel000 15:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, Ez, - I really appreciate your remarkable input here, your solid and intensive style and glad we've found finally some passable solution. Thanks, --Senvaikis (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Posted this in CP  Яєdxx Actions Words 21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Artist name variations

Hi Senv Is there a link to a policy page that describes how to handle artist name variations like Robert Cray/Robert Cray Band, John Mayall/JMBB? I have looked at LW:PN as per Kiefer's suggestion, but nothing. thank you. Night Owl 07:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you doing the rounds Night Owl?  Яєdxx Actions Words 08:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict. btw, that's why it's so hard for me to participate in such debates - I even don't understand, what does it mean - "doing the rounds" ;) )
Sorry, owl, but you should know that I'm not a good adviser in such bureaucratic questions. I had some miserable experience formerly, trying to rise another problem (hope you still remember my "unanswered questions"). Later I realized that I may be more usefull to LW just doing what I can do better than arguing in my broken English, and focused merely on missing metadata filling... That doesn't mean that now I'm happy about api or entire LW architecture ;). (You surelly know Serenity Prayer - the most functional formula for living life: "God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."). That's why I'm usually keeping silence in 'wars' like the last one... But every time following tempestuous (sometimes almost bloody) debates about such "extremely complicated and important problems" I'm silently sighing: oh, if at least part of this energy would be directed into real lw problems solution... And take it easy, but I think that sometimes even quite the best your ideas or arguments are being buried by specific your style of arguing. I'm a technocrat, and such strict style is ordinary for me, but not all of us are technocrats...
So, returning to your question, I'll not say nothing new suggesting to find an answer in my edits. Being a programmer, I'm naturally a strong adept of maximal strict rules where it is possible. But at the same time I realize that it's just impossible to cram all the real world miscelanity into some finit set of rules. Then the main rule must be used, as I tried to do in the thread above: listen to the voice of Mother Wit. So, try to use it and answer yourself to some questions: why should I keep separate page for RCB, if it never existed without RC? What for? Why should we separate, differenciate, sort and categorize all possible naming variations better then artist/bands are doing that themselves? Are we lingvistic, discography or lyrics site? What for people are coming here? For information about exact (but offten very temporary) name of band at the moment of particular album release? Or for their lyrics? Maximal comprehensive, maximal available, maximal handy for search & find, but lyrics?.
--Senvaikis (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes Senv, i remember your unanswered question of past. The issue about RCB/RC, JM/JMBB is that your edits are not being labeled as personal preference/against policy/controversial/stirring trouble. Neither are similar edits by Herr Times. There is no policy on even whether RC/RCB are considered two artists or one. LW:PN does not address these issues. Hope that much is clear :) Night Owl 09:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi, just thought I'd let you know if you didn't that, you've been using "Slovenian" in language fields but lyricwiki uses the alternative "Slovene". Although "Slovenian" is recognised the pages turn up in the "Invalid Language Parameter" category and have the warning in the pages footer. - ezekiel000 20:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

thx, ez - I'll fix that.--Senvaikis (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I already fixed them. - ezekiel000 20:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I mean fixing lwt :) thx once more,--Senvaikis (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah right, I don't know anything about that. =) - ezekiel000 20:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Updates to template

Later today I plan to start going through all the pages I maintain to make sure that they use the correct template. But I wanted to make sure what needs changing, for song pages:

  • Remove artist from songfooter
  • audio -> goear
  • video -> youtube
  • Remove type for albums that are albums

Album pages:

  • Remove artist from albumfooter?
  • Remove type for albums that are albums

Artist pages:

  • Remove artist from artist header.

Is there anything you think I've missed? - ezekiel000 09:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Some notes/additions and one warning for your list:
  • SF: -artist (strictly speaking - not all, see here)
  • SF: -language for Instrumentals (check {{Instrumental}} using - some songs still have just text "instrumental")
  • SF: audio -> goear
  • SF: video -> youtube
  • SH: joining multiple SHs into one, using album#n; adding AddAlbs ir required
  • Referece: SF changes
  • AF: Do not remove artist - required parameter!
  • {{DiscogsRelease}}->AF.discogs (if AF.discogs is empty or the same; for multiple releases should be left)
  • {{MusicBrainzRelease}}->AF.musicBrainz (if AF.musicBrainz is empty or the same; for multiple releases should be left)
  • AF: check akuma & discogs matching new stuff
  • Referece: AlbF changes
  • AF: -artist (artist -> AH)
  • AF: -wp (or AF.wp->AH.wp, if AH doesn't contain or contains different one)
  • AF: -officialSite(or AF.officialSite->AH.officialSite, if AH doesn't contain or contains different one)
  • AF: -myspace(or AF.myspace->AH.myspace, if AH doesn't contain or contains different one)
  • {{AllmusicArtist}}->AF.allmusic
  • AF.genres->{{Genres}}
  • AF.genres2->{{Genres}}
  • Category:Genre->{{Genres}}
  • ==Record Labels==->{{Labels}}
  • Referece: ArtF changes
Good luck, --Senvaikis (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I got stuck into emptying out the song missing languages yesterday so I never got round to this. I'll have a go today btw I thought that artist in the header of artist pages wasn't needed unless it's different to the page name? - ezekiel000 09:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
And what forced you to change your mind? :). Look once more here - ArtF changes:
The following parameters are no longer supported by this template:
  • "artist, romanizedArtist, wikipedia, pedlr, myspace and officialSite (use corresponding parameters in {{ArtistHeader}} instead)"
So, artist should be removed from AF in any way. Now look at ArtistHeader docs:
"...if the artist's actual name differs from the pagename, it can be specified with this parameter", eg it may be removed if matches pagename.
hth, --Senvaikis (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. - ezekiel000 11:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Waste edits

Hi again I was just wondering what this was about [[1]] as I've seen it done twice. - ezekiel000 11:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thx for noting that. As you noticed likely, lwt just added spaces after "=" for 2 empty SF parameters, and though it isn't an error, such 'waste' lwt editions are surely undesirable. I should check lwt code to prevent such misbehavior. --Senvaikis (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
DoneGreenDone. Thanks once more - you saved LW from thousands of waste records in edit history :) --Senvaikis (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem. - ezekiel000 14:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions about the recent minor edits ^_^

Example: [[2]] I just wonder if it makes a difference? That way I will update my local copy of the pages (and my local copy of templates) so the minor corrections will be minimized ^_^ From what the history shows, there were just 3 changes, and it was the re-ordering of the parameters and one change from lowercase to uppercase. Thanks for the info! --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 08:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

One way it could be said to make a difference is that by providing uniformity it simplifies edits made by bots.  Яєdxx Actions Words 08:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree to Laib - any edition, not including any additional info, should be treated as undesirable wasting of server time and edition history spaming. Just simple reordering to make bot life easier isn't a very good argument - just bots should be more 'brainy' ;). And lwt did have some problems some time ago regarding that (see thread above), but thanks to Ez, now it shouldn't happen. Sample you've provided isn't just simple reordering - LW is case-sensitive, and generally you should strictly follow all the symbols case for parameters and templates names (f.e. lrcDB for SF parameter, but LrcDB for template name). Anyway, thanks for note, and feel free to let me know, if you notice some lwt misbehavior in the future, cheers, --Senvaikis (talk) 09:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I've got another one for you LWT has been reordering the sort letter field, is that a waste I wasn't sure. [[3]] - ezekiel000 09:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not another one - look at the datetime of edition, and you'll see, that it was made before your note and later fix :)--Senvaikis (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Your right not another just one I noticed before but assumed it was not a waste as there was a noticable change. Sorry about that. - ezekiel000 09:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

SF.artist removal

Maybe this too? LWT is deleting the |artist from quite a few artists with non-latin and romanized names :) Titaki 09:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep! That's more serious... Stopped lwt job. Seems that simplified 'specification' for artist param removal ("Remove sf/artist if pagename starts with it"), approved in our discussion with 6, was too simplified and now I'll have some additional job... Ok, need a break; accepting all bright ideas how should be this specification tightened ( "...if romanizedArtist is empty"? ) Thanks for info, Titaki. --Senvaikis (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Project of 'strenghtened specification' for SF.artist removal - remove, if:
  • pageName starts with SF.artist
  • SH.artist=SF.artist
  • SF.romanizedArtist is empty
Any thoughts? I do believe this 'formula' may seem slightly redundant (having 2-nd, 1-st is maybe needless?) , but I hate making undo's ;) --Senvaikis (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the 1st may give the same results because the non-latin is first and it usually goes at |artist. I think the 2nd should be enough if it's case sensitive too but I have no idea from programming. Just a thought! Titaki 11:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Programming isn't any problem. Considering all possible variations to prevent possible mess - that's the problem ;) One of crazy, but possible complications - song page still may contain several SH's ({{Song}}) with different artists, e.g. - such thing as single, unambiguous SH.artist value doesn't exist (or it may be determined as |artist in the very first SH)... Ok, let's wait a little for more brainstormers (bureaucrats preferred) ;)--Senvaikis (talk) 12:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
While waiting: here's one more 'simplified' sf.artist removal specification version: "remove, if it = pagename artist part (till first ":" - that's not the same as startsWith) and sf.romanizedArtist is empty". ?--Senvaikis (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
No again, - it'll fail for artists with colons in their names. Then maybe so: "if pagename starts with sf.artist, followed by ":", and sf.romanizedArtist is empty"? Lol, I'm again speaking with myself... --Senvaikis (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, lwt now continues with last variant of removal instruction. Thanks :)--Senvaikis (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
It's now working fine! Good job. Thanks for the MB edits too! Titaki 19:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you assist?

..with this post? I think you are best qualified to help users on this page.  Яєdxx Actions Words 02:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You should know, Red - I'm absolutelly toothless here - only Sean can change api behavior...--Senvaikis (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Changelist pwnership

Howdy Senv,
I love how much progress LWT is helping you make :) Looks like quite a nice tool. Its speed tends to make it a bit challenging to read the RecentChanges though. I know you're not a bot even when using LWT, but do you think we should make a Cyborg flag or something, lol? Or just give you a bot flag? Or maybe just spread the word that ppl should hide minor edits when looking at RecentChanges? It's possible that we should just leave it as-is, but if there is a better solution then that seems desirable. Any thoughts?
Cheers, :)
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 16:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Lol, I do understand that recent lwt activity criticaly draws towards 'spam-attacker' level; fortunatelly, this activity shouldn't stay at the same level for a long - the light of finish is in sight at the end of this tunnel already :). But anyway I really don't like to be a pain in the arse for anyone here even for a short time. So I'm ready to accept any reasonable solution, allowing to separate batch lwt editions from manual ones. I hope you still remember what kind of solution would be the best in my opinion ;) We may even try to list all possible solutions, starting from most utopian:
  1. lwt works with it's own account only via Soap WS (WS-I compliance required...)
  2. lwt works only via HTTP GET/POST, without mimicring webbrowser client - it should be possible, but I don't know how to deal with required cookies...
  3. use sepparate whatever-flagged (bot-like) account for massive lwt batch jobs
  4. use whatever flag you like for senv together with his lwt
  5. ban all those lwt's ;)
I may be wrong, but imo #3 is the most real halfway approach ;) Hope to hear more bright thoughts :), --Senvaikis (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand the first two but I think #3 would be great too ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 14:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
User Lwt may be flagged now as a main spammer. Btw, Senv told me that I should look here for a red-headed lady having a funny hobby to write welcome messages... and logged-out. --Lwt 16:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
That's fine, but tell me, who's gonna patroll lwt's edits? Don't look at me...--Senvaikis (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I've updated Lwt's groups to Bot (although not truly a bot, still tech-driven, yes?) and Trusted, so that ought to help a bit.  :-]    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Kiefer (and Sean)! I think you sorted it. Problem solved Green check  :-)  Яєdxx Actions Words 07:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

in reference to Catman listing


Attempted to create a link between SUPERMAN (It's Not Easy) on Catman page and the link SUPERMAN on Five for Fighting page, but could not figure out proper wiki format. As you can see I am not very smart when it comes to computers. Thanks very much for all your editorial efforts in refining the client listing.

A Levine 702 227 6630

Links are case-sensitive. Changing "for" to "For" did the trick. — 6×9 (Talk) 20:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.