Talk:Administrators Portal

Back to page

1,754,840pages on
this wiki
Archive Index

Updating the Docs

I recently set up a page where we can list due documentation updating, and discuss it if necessary: LW:DocUpd. I think this should be a joint effort, so your input is much appreciated.

  • Capitalisation: Not necessarily policy, but I think users should know that proper capitalisation is not only possible but appreciated. So I'd like to make it a part of a future user guideline.
  • Soundtracks: needs some clarification / simplification imo, I'll come up with some suggestions later
  • Traditional: Not policy, but guideline

I suggest to discuss details on the talk page  Lichtweber talk service  19:04, January 4, 2015 (UTC)


{{HerbMusic}}, [1] – anyone know what it's good for? Couldn't find a useful "about" or help page; there doesn't seem to be any info that's not on discogs or mb as well. Anyway, apparently this user's sole purpose is to apply the template to album pages… — 6×9 (Talk) 14:30, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

Didn't find additional info either. Nice logo, though ... ;)  Lichtweber talk service  15:11, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
a more useful site to link to is one of the misheard lyric sites :) --ES (talk) 22:46, February 1, 2015 (UTC)


Hi guys, as you may have noticed, Umbreon126 and I have discussed the handling of Vocaloid pages here on LW. It has been suggested before to remove all Vocaloid song pages from LW. But I think neither is it possible nor is it preferable to "ban" a certain type of lyrics from LW.

So, in brief, our proposal is this:

  • (re)integrate all pages featuring a Vocaloid in Main by assigning them to a human artist, i.e. composer/producer
  • in order to make it possible for users to search by Vocaloid's name, add those pages to Category:Vocaloid/Vocaloid Name by introducing a new template.
  • additionally add a Vocaloid Database template for reference.

Any comments, objections?  Lichtweber talk service  18:30, February 22, 2015 (UTC)

Hip Hop vs. Rap as a genre here

I've noticed this for a while now but never really gave it much thought. Two genre categories here exist for essentially the same genre, Hip Hop and Rap. If you look on most sources, you will see that these two genres are pretty much exactly the same, but is generally referred to as "hip hop" now. There are significantly more items in the hip hop category here than the rap one, and plenty more subcategories in the hip hop category as well. Heck, even searching "rap music" on Wikipedia redirects you to hip hop music's page. So what do you all think, should we merge the Rap category to the Hip Hop one since it is more or less a redundant category? Unless someone provides an argument that rap is, in fact, different from hip hop (and as far as I can tell, it isn't, and is just an alternate name for the genre), then I think we should. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)01:46, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

What about the sub cats Horrorcore Rap and Rap Rock?  Lichtweber talk service  17:20, February 27, 2015 (UTC)
Rap Rock can stay; per Wikipedia that is the official name for it and it doesn't go by any other names (pretty sure "hip hop rock" isn't a thing). Horrorcore Rap should be merged with Horrorcore, though, because most sources show the genre is just called "horrorcore", not "horrorcore rap". XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)20:44, February 27, 2015 (UTC)
From what I gather, the musical difference (which is the only thing that matters in terms of our Category/Genre) is ill-defined to non-existent. But since this isn't a matter concerning policy, we may as well discuss it openly on the CP. Not sure how many of us admins are experts in rap/hip hop, at least since team a fell off the radar… — 6×9 (Talk) 18:23, March 8, 2015 (UTC)
So, a month's gone by, what is the consensus here? Move all of the Rap pages to Hip hop and delete Rap entirely? I don't know if bringing this to the CP would be a good idea, 6, because based on my past experiences, barely anyone seems to be responsive over there, as tons of my messages in the past there were left unanswered (XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)15:24, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
I'm ok with moving and deleting rap  Lichtweber talk service  19:03, April 19, 2015 (UTC)
done Category deleted & all pages reclassified as hip hop. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:12, April 20, 2015 (UTC)
Fantastic, 6, great job Grin XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)02:09, April 23, 2015 (UTC)

Special Artist Needed

Hi guys, please have a look at the Sesame Street talk page. I think we need SPAs after all. Please share your thoughts.  Lichtweber talk service  05:54, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

Definitely useful for cases like this (see also MB's bogus artists). I don't think we need to change all that much to allow them: basically a sentence on artist help page detailing when it is appropriate, and a small note/infobox (+ category?) on the artist page. — 6×9 (Talk) 10:23, May 3, 2015 (UTC)
When would it be appropriate? Your ideas are welcome @ User talk:Lichtweber/Special Purpose Artist, then I'll fix sth. @6: Would it be possible to modify let's say the colour of the artist box to immediately show that this one's an SPA?  Lichtweber talk service  11:58, May 13, 2015 (UTC)
Basically the scenario you described above – when there are numerous actual artists with no songs outside the show. Re: colour, change is simple enough but requires a parameter, like |special or |type = special. — 6×9 (Talk) 15:00, May 13, 2015 (UTC)


Could someone please teach the lil janitor to recognize OS sections with {{split}} and prevent him to add the same songs below existing list again and again?  Lichtweber talk service  11:58, May 13, 2015 (UTC)

I've bumped Sean. — 6×9 (Talk) 14:53, May 13, 2015 (UTC)

batch move not working?

Hi guys, I recently tried to use batch move (last on Angel (Helena Iren Michaelsen) to Angel (NO)) and all pages are skipped. Anyone other than me tried it and experienced the same? What's the cause?  Lichtweber talk service  08:34, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't like brackets in the source (bracketed target is OK though). Many years ago you could get it to work by escaping the brackets "\(...\)" – I guess someone tried to fix that, so now neither method works… — 6×9 (Talk) 16:20, June 8, 2015 (UTC)

DPL and pagenames

So apparently DPL has its own set of escape characters, which break it if they appear in pagenames. { and } are not allowed anyway, so that leaves » « ¦ ¶ and \n. We could either add 5 nested #replaces to every use of DPL in a template, making code like this, which is already quite heavy, more or less unmaintainable; or we could ban them from pagenames – which would probably affect at most a few dozen pages (apart from the quotes they're rather esoteric). Thoughts? — 6×9 (Talk) 18:55, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

I'm for banning them  Lichtweber talk service  19:03, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
While I was still getting a list of pages containing these chars, Senv already moved them… way ahead of us as usual! Well Done! I've added them to the list, along with the regular pipe (and some colours). — 6×9 (Talk) 08:17, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

Admin suggestion

What do you all think of promoting User:OneTwoThreeFall to admin? He/She not sure which one already pretty much does the job of an admin anyway… — 6×9 (Talk) 18:55, June 10, 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Same goes for User:Patzilla777 imo ...  Lichtweber talk service  19:05, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
Good one! — 6×9 (Talk) 19:13, June 10, 2015 (UTC)
+ 4 both, --Senvaikis (talk) 07:01, June 11, 2015 (UTC)
That's as good as unanimous these days… I'll ask 123F. LW, would you like to ask Pat? — 6×9 (Talk) 07:35, June 13, 2015 (UTC)
sure. done  Lichtweber talk service  12:00, June 13, 2015 (UTC)
Patrick accepted.  Lichtweber talk service  14:02, June 13, 2015 (UTC)
Both promoted. Congrats and welcome! — 6×9 (Talk) 15:13, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

Special Characters in Song Page Titles

Hi guys, please see this track listing: James ♥:Here Today Gone Tomorrow (2014), especially tracks 2, 8, 9 12. Shouldn't we restrict stylized track titles to display text only and have the page titles written in regular characters? I don't even know how to type those titles (and quite frankly: I don't want to). Please let me know what you think.  Lichtweber talk service  09:48, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

We could potentially restrict the more extreme ones like tracks 2, 8 and 9. The symbols in track 12 are simple enough to be acceptable (as is the heart in the artist's name). Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 11:47, June 21, 2015 (UTC)
I could live with 8 & 9 (although I despise leetspeak), but not 2 – (a) it's illegible with monospaced fonts (see edit mode) and (b) it bleeds over the text in the line below, impacting usability. So I'd go one further and ban zalgoisms from displaytext as well. — 6×9 (Talk) 12:02, June 21, 2015 (UTC)
That sounds fair, only track 2 seems to really hinder the site in any way. Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 12:18, June 21, 2015 (UTC)

What are "zalgoisms"? OK, so I tried to make a sentence of it, added it to our title guidelines. OK? Shortcuts: Help:Stylised Titles, Help:Stylized Titles.  Lichtweber talk service  17:12, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

[2] Looks good to me. — 6×9 (Talk) 13:13, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

Song titles

Wouldn't it make sense to move song parameter from Footer to Header and display the title at the top, like we do for albums & artists? Something like this… not entirely sure I like that layout, but can't think of something better. (The trusty float:right infobox won't work for songpages.) — 6×9 (Talk) 13:09, June 28, 2015 (UTC)

I like the layout and I think the yellow headline is quite appropriate for song titles. I would even love it if it'd say "Song title by Artist" in the headline. This way we'd finally solve the miserable "performed by" issue. Do you think we could do that? Wanna take this opportunity to thank you for all the improvements in code you made these past weeks. U rock! :)  Lichtweber talk service  14:21, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! :-) You mean something like this? Problem is, without any album (or featured artist) there would be nothing to display below the headline except a lonesome star… Plus, "XXX by Traditional" isn't really right either. I prefer the current strategy of switching based on keywords (like in this page). — 6×9 (Talk) 14:50, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
I like that layout too. Also, a big +1 on Lichtweber's comment - the recent improvements are very much appreciated! I made a layout example on that page based on Lichtweber's, with the star on the right (I see you did try this, but I think it looks nice there) and an example for traditional songs (should still work with keywords, I think?). - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 18:06, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
The switching is definitely a big step forward and we should keep it. Still doesn't help when we have composers like Andrew Lloyd Webber or lyricist as the main artist, though. As long as we don't have any means to distinguish between performers and authors "performed by" will sound wrong in these cases. Song by Artist on the other hand will always sound right.
@123: Nice. I made another one adjusting the colour so a gold star won't drown ;)  Lichtweber talk service  18:37, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
…by drowning the Bronze star instead ;-) Also, on that darker background, Violet is hard to distinguish from Silver (though that might just be my ageing eyes). I doubt many backgrounds (except very light ones) will work with all stars.
If this is mainly about the word "performed", we could simply drop it. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:57, June 29, 2015 (UTC)
Well Done! - As always - nice job, Six!
  • Layout: I'm for the 6's (brightest) one. Btw, contrary to others, it's resize-proof
  • Probs:
    • Album:Type: I'd like 3rd approach ;)
    • Compatibility: +1 for a new {{SongHeader}} (as simpler & unambiguous imo)
  • To do (...adding "by Artist"...): ...would be nice, just while formatting of aliased/non-latin artists isn't strictly defined in our docs, that may lead to undesirable (redundant) repeatings in some cases (when part of albs/songs use artist page name, while another - alias). That's a good occasion to make some changes in our docs anyway...
Once more - thanks for a DPL-light at the end of long & dark Song-tunnel! --Senvaikis (talk) 05:25, June 30, 2015 (UTC)
About resizing: prob. because there was no {{clear}} between the headers; the border's added 2px create enough space for the star... Either way that wouldn't matter in "real life" where there's only 1 header. — 6×9 (Talk) 06:54, June 30, 2015 (UTC)
Another potential problem with having song + artist in the header is that one might overshadow the other (e.g. a very long song title or a collab with many artists). Plus there's the consideration when or when not to display the "This song…" text: yes for 1-3 albums, no for >= 4 albums (because "appears on" and "also appears on" looks silly if there's nothing else, but that means AA header has to conditionally omit the "also") but yes for >= 4 albums and at least 1 fa…
I mean it's certainly doable, I'm just not convinced it's an improvement. — 6×9 (Talk) 12:50, July 1, 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, looking at it now, I prefer the look of artist not in the header + the light background and border seems best to me (better contrasting than the others). I made yet another layout on the test page, with a very slightly darker than 6's background, so it stands out from the translated, etc. templates. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 15:42, July 3, 2015 (UTC)

OK, how about we make it a bit more like Album- & ArtistHeader, i.e. with a border around the whole thing? Only across the whole width (anything else wouldn't make much sense). (examples) Just looks a bit odd if there's only 1 line of text in the box… — 6×9 (Talk) 16:58, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Album -> AlbumHeader

Generic song titles

I may have missed the discussion about this, but when/where was it decided that generic song titles (Intro etc.) should always have the album title appended, not just when there's more than one? — 6×9 (Talk) 08:50, July 2, 2015 (UTC)

Tagging onto 6's comment: surely the generic titles should be converted into disambiguation pages to aid navigation between the different intros/interludes/outros/etc. instead of just outright deleting them? Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 12:17, July 2, 2015 (UTC)
...Not to mention appearance of multiple new deadlinks & orphanes. Have a strange feeling of déjà vu - I've seen already something similar somewhere... ;). --Senvaikis (talk) 15:28, July 2, 2015 (UTC)
I changed it when adding the "stylised" section because to me it seems quite coherent:
  • Dr. Octacon, for instance, is still active. Now if we name his (possibly first) intro unambiguously we do not need to make changes when he'll release his next one. And we do not risk having the wrong intro listed on his next CD (I've seen wrong intros sitting on a track list for years).
  • I am certain: the simpler a rule, the better. So why making things complicated if we don't have to? What's the harm here?
  • With an agreement on this we can send a robot, protect all generic titles and have the bot add a link to resp. help page section. Big help for editors imo, significantly decreasing wrong attributed intros over time.
 Lichtweber talk service  16:05, July 2, 2015 (UTC)
What's easier for the editor isn't necessarily easier for the (non-editing) user – they look for a song "Intro", see it's a red page (and protected to boot) and have to go through the artist page to get their lyrics. Hence the need for a disambig page.
As for simpler rules: we already have a rule for different songs with same (non-generic) title by same artist, so distinguishing between generic and non-generic titles is actually complicating things. — 6×9 (Talk) 16:38, July 2, 2015 (UTC)

Since the few admins who commented here don't favour Lichtweber's edit, I've changed the help text to reflect policy and current practice. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:13, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Minor updates to the talk page parameters

Hey all. Lately I've been doing a lot of work dealing with page ranks on songs and getting them closer to perfection. I noticed that recently, the Song Rank template was taken out and the star now automatically updates per what star the page actually has, which is good and less redundant. However, some other changes need to be made. I'm still seeing several talk pages with the outdated parameters "timed" and "download". Neither of these show up in the talk page template that is automatically generated when you create a talk page (and timed doesn't appear on the talk page at all), so would it be possible for a LW bot to remove all cases of those parameters on talk pages? Or am I missing something and they still have a use? I hope not, as I've always removed any "timed"s or "download"s that I've noticed on talk pages when working on page ranks. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)03:08, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

Not quite...--Senvaikis (talk) 21:27, July 26, 2015 (UTC)
Wait, so Download is still usable? Huh... I assume it's only an optional talk page parameter, though (not one required for Gold), since not all songs have legal downloads. Is this correct?
From that revision you linked, it does imply that the "timed" parameter is out-of-date since you replaced it with download, so can we at least remove all "timed" parameters on talk pages? XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)22:41, July 26, 2015 (UTC)
  • download: even optional params info should be reflected in page rank info, if such reflection is implemented in Info template, thus total removing of download param was not a good idea
  • timed: I'd not hasten to start removing it also, waiting for comming DPL-upgrades - it's quite possible that a new DPL-enhanced Info page will be made {{Timed}}-sensitive by Six...
--Senvaikis (talk) 10:40, July 27, 2015 (UTC)
The thing is, I never would have known that "download" was still usable, seeing as it doesn't appear in the talk page box when you create a new talk page, inclining me to think that it was outdated as "timed" is. I wish this was made more clear. But for what it's worth, I haven't removed too many "download"s as I don't see them as often as I do "timed" - I removed a few here and there, but I can't remember which songs. Apparently, there's still a little over a thousand songs with legal downloads listed here, but not all of them have the "download" parameter on the talk page (example), which is a bit confusing.
As for "timed"...not quite sure what you're saying here (comming DPL-upgrades?), but I see "not hasten to start removing it" so I'm guessing you mean "timed" has use as well? XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)15:06, July 27, 2015 (UTC)
Considering my current status (gone fishin'), you'd better have mercy on me and find all the answers by yourself (aren't you an admin, finally?...)--Senvaikis (talk) 20:31, July 27, 2015 (UTC)
What? Isn't the admin portal for admins to ask other admins questions? Admins don't know everything, and we can't always "find the answers by ourselves", that's why we communicate here to get our questions answered. If you're busy, I'll just wait for another admin to comment on this, sorry about that. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)21:05, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki