2,054,148 Pages

4 Chris

  • Songs A.xml - DoneGreen. Btw - no need to explain you - each change in your xml structure leads to Lwt reprogramming  ;). I agree though that removed node became obsolete for this task :). nite, --Senvaikis (talk) 21:51, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
Other XML files updated and uploaded, let me know if there are difficulties. Beware of empty lists. Overall taskcount was 8,710 move jobs for Lwt.
Senv, you are great! - Chris 03:35, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
DoneGreen, see error log.--Senvaikis (talk) 08:54, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
Type 1 error (destination already exists) were those pages that were created by ÜB in the small time frame between the creation of the lists and the moving. Those pages will be added to the lists of pages to merge by hand.
Type 2 error (source doesn't exist) seems to be issues like smart quote () in the title, like Canibus:4 Verses- as Cloak ‘N Dagga became Canibus:4 Verses- as Cloak N Dagga. Maybe I find a solution so they appear in the lists next time. I'm planning to try to enhance the code and then maybe find a few remaining in the second run before finishing the biggest automated part of LWPNE project. After that run it'd be just "move_NP.xml".
And finally I've got something for you =)
Multi-Platinum Record The Multi-Platinum Record
Senvaikis, I hereby present you with this Multi-Platinum Record for providing outstanding assistance with the implementation of LW:PN, and for your Lwt contributions in general.
Thank you, I could never have done this alone. - Chris 15:57, April 1, 2010 (UTC) P.S.: This is not an April Fool's joke ;D
Thanks, Chris. Frankly speaking, - that's me who must thank you for keeping my flagging interest to LW from complete fade-out...--Senvaikis (talk) 05:38, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. Btw, Lwt could remove the album parameter completely =) - Chris 03:18, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
The second run produced another 187 movejobs, hopefully now without encoding problems. - Chris 07:23, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
  • Moving: DoneGreen.
  • SF.album: nope, album removing would mean that this parameter can't be used here. But in general it may be used if sh.album doesn't match sf.album. Even if sh & sf both point to the same album, sf.album may be formatted using capitalisation rules, different from LW:PN. So, Lwt's clearing only sf.albums, exactly matching sh.album.
--Senvaikis (talk) 11:44, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
Thx for moving - Chris 14:12, April 3, 2010 (UTC)


@SF.album: Watching your last 'touchfixes', should I understand that sf.album became obsolete implicitly and therefore must be removed in any case? Should I reinstruct Lwt then? --Senvaikis (talk) 11:32, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I remove it completely, so nobody thinks it's missing and spends time inserting it. But I remove it in any case, without paying attention to S.album at all. Maybe we should both update our routines:
SF.album S.album
Empty X (YYYY)
Empty remove SF.album
X Copy SF.album to S.album*
and remove SF.album
remove SF.album
Y do nothing
* This will produce a redlink because the year is missing, but it's easier to lookup the album year than the complete album.
Chris 17:30, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

(unindenting) " nobody thinks it's missing...". Really? ;). Even if we decide to fob off Trainman's opinion, it shouldn't be only our two's decision (would be better to discuss that in CP imo). Regarding idea about sf.album moving into sh - it's up to you, but I'm not hooked by it for two reasons: (i) I hate producing red links (ii) before placing album into sh, one should ascertain that this album was the first release with this song. Theoretically Lwt is able to solve both problems (by finding all albums with this song), but solution is too server-traffic costly to be included into batch job with ~105 pages. I may be wrong (I'd even like to be wrong), and if you prove me that - we'll do it :). --Senvaikis (talk) 19:29, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

(I) I don't like producing red links, either, but I think one's ambitions to fix redlinks are higher than the ambitions to research the complete album. If there's a redlink, every visitor sees that there is some information that's missing, and he even knows what to research.
(II) Why? =)
(II 1) Any information that is wrong in SH was wrong in SF as well, so a change wouldn't influence the correctness of the page.
(II 2) Any album in SH is better than none. If it's (i) not the first one, the information yet is still correctly inserted, until any previous album is inserted. And then, it's task of the one who's inserting the other album to sort them. If it's (ii) completely wrong, everybody is free to correct it.
(II 3) Nobody demands the page to be perfect after Lwt worked on it, Senv =). The job you are describing is to insert the (i) complete and (ii) correct information for (iii) every song, which is like an own task... What I talk about is to bring every page you visit one step nearer to that goal.
It's not said that the page is perfect afterwards. No, it'll even have a redlink then. But as said in (I) a redlink is more inviting to fix than a perfectly parsed SH-sentence wihtout the information. ;) It'd animate the visitors to contribute. - Chris 21:48, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
I understand your good intentions, Chris, but that can't change one of main rules I've set for Lwt: it may be programmed only for changes, approved by community and documented in LW. Current documentation does allow existence of sf.album and only tells when it may be omited, thus Trainman's position (which you still never commented) doesn't go in contradiction with it. Btw, I'm still not sure that moving sf.album to sh may be treated as sensible page improvement: (i)lack of album in sh is obvious even without redlink in it; (ii) information about album to be searched is still available in sf - also without redlink. So, take it easy, but I'd like to hear an opinion of our bureaucracy or at least 6 before changing something. --Senvaikis (talk) 06:57, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
I heard someone mention my name – or at least my number ;-)
Removal of sf.album: agree with Senv that lwt and lwc should only remove it if it is identical to sh.album, including case. In that case pun not intended, for once you might as well remove the empty parameter too – else casual users may think it needs to be filled in.
Moving to sf.album to empty sh.album: might be beneficial, since casual users may not know there should be an album link between the two pipes. (One of the drawbacks of unnamed parameters.) I'm on the fence about this one, though. If you do implement it, I think it would be better to append " (????)" to get the correct link format, and to avoid linking to songs. — 6×9 (Talk) 09:39, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Lwt is currently removing sf.album even if there are differences in case… is this intentional or a bug? — 6×9 (Talk) 18:01, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Very usefull catch, 6! That neither intentional nor a bug - just Lwt has grew into something too complicated to be managed properly ;), and some procedures, written earlear, now differs from similar procedures, used in tasks, written recently. So, your example is the result of old & 'stupid' procedure, while current massive album removes are driven by younger, 'smarter' one ;) Now let's return to your statement " might as well remove the empty parameter too – else casual users may think it needs to be filled in". To be strictly - not always. Some users may want to refill removed sf.album even in the case of exact matching (at the moment of removing). And some of them may be far from being 'casual' - more like scrupulous, - I mean such users as Trainman. And your example may be taken as very typical model for such situation. These scrupulous users may want to refill sf.album even if Lwt haven't done any 'error', - e.g. if sf.album exactly matched sh.album at the moment of removing.
Btw, (that's not the first time we are speaking about that, but you know - I'm an old sclerotic man) - could you please remind me once more the reasons (not only aesthetic, I suppose), why it's so important to have possibility to format sf.album under rules, different from LW:PN? --Senvaikis (talk) 18:37, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
With the above Bowie example, it is purely aesthetic. In some (admittedly rare) instances it might be more – if the album title contains forbidden characters. Let's say a fictional album is called ">>>here"; you can imagine that a link with "Greater Than Greater Than Greater Than Here" as search term might not yield the best results ;-)
I suppose there should be a Song parameter for changing album display text as well, which would make sf.album obsolete, but things can already get very messy with several albums, if you throw in alias and type and albumartist… Maybe we should change the 2 unnamed parameters to |album= and |artist= so we can put each parameter on its own line, like in most other templates…6×9 (Talk) 18:57, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Yep... Then I'll hardly make the mentioned old 'stupid' procedure 'smart' enough to catch all possible variations of 'right' matching... This procedure collects all albums of the artist, sorts them by release date, then forms according sh for a song, based on this data. And if sf.album doesn't match to sh.album (e.g. points to some other album) - it should be removed then, as not the first album, or at all different, not existing on LW album. So, all I can improve here - teach it to leave sf.album only in such cases as above Bowie album - when it matches sh.album in case-insensitive comparer, but mismatches in case-sensitive one. SF.album ">>>here" have no chances to survive... So, some 'bugs' here are inevitable, - the only hope that number of such albums isn't very large... --Senvaikis (talk) 20:01, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
Hm, I'm not too sure anymore that it's clear what I was talking about^^. I was just objecting that if the sf.album is removed from a page, the |album = code could be removed from that page as well, so
{{SongFooter              \   {{SongFooter              \   {{SongFooter
|fLetter  = A             |   |fLetter  = A             |   |fLetter  = A
|song     = A Song        |   |song     = A Song        |   |song     = A Song
|album    = Sandbox  not  |>  |album    =          but  |>  |language = English
|language = English       |   |language = English       |   ...
...                       |   ...                       |   }}
}}                        /   }}                        /
Nothing else :D - Chris 01:52, April 7, 2010 (UTC) P.S.: just like with |language = and {{Instrumental}}
Can't help then ;)--Senvaikis (talk) 04:44, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
Huh? o.O Talking about that should maybe become that =) - Chris 06:47, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
One more attempt, and the last one --Senvaikis (talk) 07:13, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
Yep, and that's absolutely fine with me. =)
I don't want to always/more often/generally remove sf.album^^ All I am asking about is: why Lwt doesn't remove sf.album code (|album=), too, when removing the value anyways (like here)?. - Chris 23:23, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
Pfff... Knowing how much time does it takes for me to write even a short message in English, you'd not force me to reexplain once more my position, described already (clearly enough imo) above :). But I'll try.
Let's start from the fact, that something from these reasonings you've accepted already, otherwice your position hadn't changed from "I remove it(sf.album) in any case, without paying attention to S.album at all" to "I don't want to always/more often/generally remove sf.album". That would be enough for me - now I may stay loose that you'll not run with such 'improving' fix through Pink Floyd pages, safeguarded by Will (Trainman is not alone) ;).
But now you are unhappy why I'm not removing album parameter while removing it's value :). The short answer is: (i) because not always that may be treated as page imrovement and (ii) because that's not documented in LW as recomended editing policy. Your comparision with {{Instrumental}} & language is very good, it's only pitty that you are making incorrect conclusion, ignoring one essential difference here: under LW documentation presence of {{Instrumental}} makes language parameter obsolete in that page - it's a sufficient condition that language parameter will not have any value, - thus may be removed. Do we have the same situation with sf.album? No. I'm forced to repeat once more - some users may want (and have full rights to) refill af.album even if it exactly matched sh.album (at the moment of it's removing). Look once more at this example, given specially to demonstrate such situation.
Yes, in some cases you may be sure that sf.album will not be refilled (at least without changing sh). But what are these cases? (i) title consist from only one word (first word must be uppercased); (ii) title consist of two words (last word must be uppercased too); (iii) title (between first & last words) doesn't contain any word from a long list of words, which may be lowercased (in, to, a, the... etc). To make things more complicated , the third case has some semantic exeptions, hardly digestable for bots. And keep in mind that third case description is valid only for English titles, thus the italian song from your very first link may be mb-style formatted as "Sy e Duar". So, both Lwt & Lwc might easily resolve first two cases. I don't know about you, but I'm not going even to try teach Lwt to resolve third one, for a very simple reason - the goal is not worth taking such efforts imo. More over - I'm not sure that all this issue is worth even such a long discussion (that's why my first answer to your question was so short ;)). As to me, I'd gladly eliminated all these aesthetics to make bots' life easier ;).
As always, I'm ready to change my mind if you show me where I was wrong or provide some 'smarter' solution :)
--Senvaikis (talk) 08:23, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, ok now I got it. Thanks for your patience, Senv.
Now I also know why it took so long to understand... I trust in the users to add code on their own. That's why I always removed the code as well:
  • Those who know about the possibility and with the intention to add it know the code and how to insert it.
  • Those who come here first shall not see an empty parameter code and then spend enourmous amounts of time inserting it though not necessary.
I see that there was the necessity to check if sh.album and sf.album are identical and if not, leave it as it is to protect sf.album from being removed although actually affecting something. Therefore I updated AutoFix and TouchFix routines. Tell me if you come across any case of where TouchFix or one of my usual edits still removes the parameter though it was different, because from now on this is a malfunction of my code and not intended any longer. - Chris 11:05, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
I shouldn't do that, if I wanna close that enormous thread, but just couldn't resist my 'cyber Alter Ego', requiring all statements and definitions to be as precise as possible :). So, if you do know that SH.album was the first release with this song, but SF points to a different album, then you not may - you must clear SF.album. So, in general - that's not always 'malfunction' :). --Senvaikis (talk) 11:46, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
As the scripts do not know which one is the correct one, they won't delete it, but I would when taking care of album-parameters manually =). - Chris 12:09, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Altorių Šešėliai (Altoriu Seseliai)

AFAIK (and AFA LW:PN K) the "Native (Romanized)" rule is only for non-Latin-based alphabets; in that case the above page should be located at Altorių Šešėliai. (I guess ah.romArtist can stay though, since it's still useful for search links…) — 6×9 (Talk) 11:47, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, 6 - you are right, I'll remove it. DoneGreen Help from BatchMove equal Zero, btw.
Batchmove doesn't like brackets anymore it seems. I've already notified BM, but I'm not sure whether I should read his response as "Go learn some PHP and fix it yourself!"… — 6×9 (Talk) 13:45, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
Btw, I've made one more gaffe, (also related to this band): tidying some Lithuanian metal groups, added by UB, I decided to make a template for external link to metal-archives for them, based on your ProgArchives model not the first clone, as you know. When I noticed existence of two sepatate templates for artist and albums also yours, clone was almost ready, and, to be frankly, I liked this third version more - I thought that there's no sense in keeping two different templates for the task that one template is able to cope with. But templates are made by you, so decision also must be yours. If you agree, Lwt might replace both initial templates by last, universal one, and then they might be deleted. --Senvaikis (talk) 12:46, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
By all means, go ahead! PA was originally two separate templates as well, until introduction of pagetype variable. I was just too lazy to do the same for MA ;-) — 6×9 (Talk) 13:31, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
DoneGreen. --Senvaikis (talk) 14:22, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your starting comment to this thread: if you don't like Chris' dominating in my talk page, - you have a lot to do yet... No chances imo, especially while learning php ;). --Senvaikis (talk) 15:07, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Just using this section because I don't want to start a new one: congratulations to your 2,000,000th edit. I'm about to get 55k (lame!!! xD) - Chris 15:44, April 12, 2010 (UTC).

You just can't die without seeing Metallica

Now I can :)
World Magnetic Tour in Vilnius, 2010-04-20
--Senvaikis (talk) 05:37, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Music and Lyrics Answers

The Music and Lyrics Answers site launched today. All lyric-related questions from Wikianswers are being moved there. If you have enabled the Wikianswers widget, you'll now see questions about Lyrics taken from this new site instead of from the Central Wikianswers site. If you would like to customize the widget, you can edit the text at MediaWiki:Answers widget user note. You'll find more help with the widget at Help:Wikianswers widget. If you'd like to be involved and join the admin team at Lyric Answers, please let me know on my talk page there. Angela@fandom (talk) 03:42, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Melting -> crumbling

--Senvaikis (talk) 13:39, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Last touch of old SNLI list returned SNLI.count to 949. --Senvaikis (talk) 13:03, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, do you log which pages vanish and re-appear after Lwt touched them? If not, could you do that thrice, please? You'd just have to compare the entries in the category before and after touching. I'll investigate (1) if it's always the same pages making trouble and (2) what these pages have in common. Maybe I'll find something. There's little hope we find the problem, because actually I think this phenomenon applies to all categories, because there are some empty categories (language, hometown and such) which certainly were created on demand and not in advance (or there were some, 6 deleted many of them). - Chris 12:37, May 21, 2010 (UTC)
Ok, we may make such check, though next to you I hardly believe too that'll help. And maybe we should wait for more remarkable snli shrinkage to start log... --Senvaikis (talk) 18:56, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
"more remarkable" meaning more or less pages disappearing than ~400 current? - Chris 11:19, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
I found a proof that other pages lose their categorization as well: Franco Battiato:..Ein Tag Aus Dem Leben Des Kleinen Johannes (German-Spanish) ought to be in Category:Language/German-Spanish, but it's empty. Yet that song is listed in all other categories as expected. - Chris 14:20, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
At the moment when you was wroting that 'current disappearing is ~400', it was actually <100 (snli.count was ~870), but just now it's melting/crumbling started with a new energy - now it equals to 751 and is getting less & less with each recheck (was 765 at the moment when I started this reply). --Senvaikis (talk) 15:17, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed o.O - 733. Do you think it'll get to nearly zero anytime ( = zero except for the newly created pages)? - Chris 15:37, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Link to SNLI to help the ops team when debugging -Sean Colombo 15:45, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

I told Lwt to recheck the old SNLI list and compare it to the current SNLI. Here's the list of songs from the first list, still languageless/undeleted/unredirected, but not included into current SNLI. It's obvious that process of melting is extremely simple and is alphabetically ordered. --Senvaikis (talk) 15:55, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for really crazy idea, but being an ex-physicist, just couldn't resist without telling about some strange association between all this mess with... Einstein's theory of relativity and Heisenberg uncertainty principle, stating that system properties are dependand from process of observation sorry for rude formulation :) . I don't know if that was just occasional concurrence of events, but the fact is obvious: both last melting jumps happened exactly after... simple rereading of all songs in SNLI (without any editing or even touching). --Senvaikis (talk) 17:25, May 24, 2010 (UTC)
Last SNLI stats --Senvaikis (talk) 14:29, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Bonus Track: OL Template vs. Parentheses

On the Grant-Lee Phillips page, is there a reason you changed from the OL template to indicate the bonus track on the reissue of Ladies' Love Oracle to merely indicating the bonus track using parentheses? The documentation for the OL template makes it seem as if bonus tracks are exactly what the OL template is for. (And I notice Mobilize, which also has bonus tracks, didn't get changed.)

Thought I should ask before I changed it back. Trainman 15:49, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever thought what {{OL}} was made for? Why don't we use something similar for marking all kinds of mixes, demos, lives etc.? Because there's no need - usually they aren't grouped. The main {{OL}} destination - marking a group of bonus tracks without multiple repeating the same comment and without loosing an order of tracks numbering. Yes, it may be used for a single track too, but that's more like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut :) --Senvaikis (talk) 16:49, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
"Bonus" is not the same thing as "remix," "demo," or "live," though -- it's an identification of the release of the song, rather than the song itself. (And, of course, many bonus tracks are remixes, demos, or live recordings.)
I feel the OL header provides a good visual cue to separate the original release track list from the bonus track(s), and see no reason for there to be a difference when there's one bonus track versus two or more. I don't think this has anything to do with "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut" -- it seems more like Planters using the same basic package design for everything from their vending machine packets to their huge jars. Trainman 18:00, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
:) Finally, if that makes you happier - let it be - you are free to use any approach which doesn't conflict with LW docs. Using {{OL}} doesn't :). --Senvaikis (talk) 16:27, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

A Perfect Circle: 3 Libras

I noticed you created the page for the lyrics to A Perfect Circle: 3 Libras and the lyrics are rather incomplete. I know the lyrics for this song very well and would be more than happy to contribute to editing it, but the page is locked. -- Lythandrel 23:41, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at this page revisions history, you'll notice that page was created by ÜberBot and used to have complete lyrics at the moment when Gracenote licencing restrictions were applied to it by GracenoteBot. I'm sad about that too, but these restrictions just can't be repealed even by admins at the moment. --Senvaikis (talk) 05:58, May 31, 2010 (UTC)


Hi, sorry, I just emptied my Worklist, so I didn't see that these albums were yours. Go ahead, I won't move, as I'm off for an hour now. =) - Chris 19:12, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Does Lwt clean Category:Album art without album now or doesn't it? Because I said I won't do anything and now you didn't do either and the number of pages is already quite big... Don't want to wait any longer, but don't want to start working hours when you just didn't execute your script because you thought I'd do it while I thought you'd do it. - Chris 20:09, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Lwt was working on that cat, but practically has finished already the task (fixing all images in that cat, corresponding to existing album pages). ~1400 images were affected during last two weeks. Most of the files, remaining in that cat currently, correspond to albums, which are not created yet. Must confess that I still don't know, what should be done with all these remaining images - remarkable part of these to-be-created-albums should be rechecked before creating album pages for them, and Lwt still isn't smart enough to make such checking. What are you supposing to do with this cat? If you have some idea, where Lwt may be usefull - let me know :) --Senvaikis (talk) 05:53, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
Here's last AAWA statistics:
Current Category:Album art without album situation (at 2010-07-02):
Type Description Count
No backlinks None of pages have a link to this image 4
Existing Page of the album with this cover exists (may be fixed soon) 15
Album not detected Various reasons: (artistPhoto instead of albumcover, plain text instead of link to the album on artist page etc.)
(special subtype, containing 50 images, resides on pseudoartist Hipgnosis page)
Not written Album with this cover is included into artist page, but is red-linked (album page not created yet) 1325
Total 1428

--Senvaikis (talk) 09:04, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Chris - you asked, I answered, so - what now? - what are you going to do with that? Or what should be done with that, iyo?--Senvaikis (talk) 20:00, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I mean, it's a thing that is relatively easy to do but somehow time-consuming (though this might be only the case for me because I often fix other mistakes on that pages, too). Can this category be done by Lwt or shall I write a GM-script for that? - Chris 17:11, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, I can hardly;) believe that this cat may be properly cleaned by any bot or script. Almost all current members of this cat correspond to non-existing album pages; more over - remarkable part of them are mistitled, some of them aren't albums at all, tracklists are erroneus/incomplete/to-be-redirected etc. etc. Simple creating album pages, based on album tracklists and redlinked titles on artist page will inevitably lead to massive erroneous album pages creation. What for - just to clear some questionable abstraction? Lwt is able to do almost any task here, with only one qualification: task should have a clean-cut algorithm. Or am I missing something here and you know some other, smarter way of cleaning this cat? Then share your algorithm with Lwt, and it'll do the rest :) --Senvaikis (talk) 20:09, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
Always keep in mind that scripts are not full but semiautomatical. They'd open the page and I'd click a link to create the albumpage. I have to admit though that creating a GM script likely is more work than doing it by hand. - Chris 20:32, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
Current AAWA statistics: total count - 846, 806 of them correspond to pageless albums, all the rest (40) - reside on Hipgnosis page, e.g. aren't linked to artist pages. --Senvaikis (talk) 06:41, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

About HometownCat

Trying to understand how could cleaning of Chris' Worklist cost me an hour of additional manual editing wasn't in vain :). I took note on progressbar of Category:Hometown (HTC) updating process, pointing to 95% (3008 of 3180). I've had some dealings with that too, therefore these numbers appeared not very reliable for me. I asked Lwt to recheck this category. As it was expected, actual number of HTC's is notably higher. And though Lwt updated (templated existing or created new) additionally over 700 HTC's, this task is still far from being finished. Here's some agregated statistics for current HTC situation:

All Hometown categories
Paged / Populated Empty Populated Total
Not written/deleted 621 317 938
Written 17 3626 3643
Total 638 3943 4581
So, 3943 categories are populated (have backlinks to at least 1 page), and 317 of them still aren't paged (should be created). Plus some of them are overlapping/misspelled and should be deleted. Regarding empty 638 cats - one could decide that all of them are unused and even those 17 paged cats may be deleted too. But keep in mind that behavior of all our cats is strange - I'd not guarantee that all of them are empty for sure...
--Senvaikis (talk) 21:09, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
What, a full hour?! I'm so sorry, Senv. First about I cleared it out, second about I didn't get a notifying bar when I refreshed the category before resuming work. =( Which category is cleared out lossless by Lwt? I mean "lossless", because sometimes Lwt just deletes the parameter-values, at least it formerly did.
The count I calculated was the number I found using Special:Categories. As this doesn't list the unused categories, my number is lower than the actual number of existing categories. On the other hand, the list contains the wanted categories... Creation of HometownCats automatically can be dangerous for 3 reasons:
  1. The artist is sorted into a misspelled hometown due to a typo or wrongly named parameters (US/USA/... instead of United States, Town, State as hometown-parameter, ...)
  2. The artist is sorted into a misspelled hometown due to English/Native language differences (f. e. Belgium: French/Flemish)
  3. The artist is sorted into a non-existant state because {{ArtistHeader}} puts him/her into "Category:Hometown/Country/Hometown" if "State" is left empty. This may be the case though the state should be defined for that country.
- Chris 14:50, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Move again?

Hi Senv, could you move for me again? I merged all fLetters into that file to make it easier for you. As the songs were gathered partly, there might occur the case of pages that were already moved. An linked error-log would help very much. Thanks a huuuuge lot, Chris 22:52, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

DoneGreenDone. --Senvaikis (talk) 06:03, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, I went through the log, one page was existing twice, all the others were just already moved. Thank you =) See you in a month or two? :P - Chris 15:08, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

...And LabelCat

Current situation:
All Label categories
Paged / Populated Empty Populated Total
Not written/deleted 153 1365 1518
Written 0 772 772
Total 153 2137 2290
There are 40 cats to be templated.
--Senvaikis (talk) 21:48, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
About your tables: what do the left descriptions "Written" and "Not written/deleted" mean? - Chris 22:55, June 5, 2010 (UTC)
Written cats have pages, created for them, Unwritten - haven't. So, Wanted are all Populated, but Unwritten cats. --Senvaikis (talk) 07:50, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, how can there be a finite number of unwritten empty categories then? And are you sure there are 1365 wanted label-categories? My list (Feb. 10) had got ~480 entries... - Chris 19:24, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

I was speaking about limited number of really existing unwritten empty cats (otherwice where from I've got this number?;)).

And there may be two kinds of such cats:
  • deleted empty category, e.g. they used to be written empty cats earlier (such as Philips Records)
  • unpopulated wanted cats, e.g. they used to be non-empty, or wanted earlier (sorry, but there's no history of such changes, so - no examples))
And here's my list of wanted categories (may be slightly outdated, of course)
--Senvaikis (talk) 20:36, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
Found (to be honest - made 4 u) an example for the second case, mentioned above: Corporate Punishment was unwritten, but populated by 3 Mile Scream, e.g. - wanted. After correcting 3MS' label to Corporate Punishment Records, this category became unwritten & unpopulated. But it still exists in categories namespace (14). Is it empty indeed, or, like SNLI, have some hidden population - who knows... :). --Senvaikis (talk) 13:33, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
Aha! =D Okay, now I can understand you, thanks. The problem I had was that I always used Special:Categories. There these sort of "temporarily wanted categories" disappear as soon as they are empty again. I didn't expect the API to be different. This is also why my numbers are smaller.
Well then, if the API throws other results as the "GUI", does API's list=categorymembers throw the full SNLI list including "hidden songs"? Can't find out as they are unsorted. - Chris 15:20, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
Edit: Oh, they aren't unsorted, I thought they'd be sorted by songname, but they're sorted by artists, and it's just 131 songs - so not the real population, is it? - Chris 15:25, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunatelly, yes. For the present I know only only one way to restore/find assured actual population of category - updating/touching all the files - potential members of that category (songs in SNLI case or artists in Label case). There again, I haven't never noticed yet any case of Labels melting... :) As for SNLI, I do know exactly the real it's population, and don't repopulate it intentionally - the game is not worth the candle imo :) --Senvaikis (talk) 18:22, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Artist Wikipedia links

Hi Senv,

do you know why there are so many artists with Wikipedia links on their pages, although the articles they are linked to never existed (example)? Seems like S2E2 was responsible. But why did EchoSierra program him like that? I thought, the parameter should only be set if the article is actually available; have I missed something?

If not, do you think this is something I should bring up at community portal? - Chris 20:49, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
Can't remember if S2E2 did that without checking, but when {{ArtistHeader}} was added to the autotemplate its wp parameter was filled with ARTIST. I doubt too many users checked when creating new artist pages… not to mention Janitor. — 6×9 (Talk) 04:37, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
Have nothing to say in addition to 6' clarification :). Just thought that Lwt could run through all artists, cleaning all pseudoWP's, if you'd like. ? --Senvaikis (talk) 05:26, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
DoneGreen Done. 7180 artists removed from category (dead wp link cleaned), 228 links fixed (http part removed). --Senvaikis (talk) 12:15, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under Copyright unless otherwise noted.