Talk:Administrators Portal

2,761,190pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Archive Index

Problem pages

Thanks to Senv as usual, here is where all the pages that disappear (--> redirected) can be found, and why they get redirected. You can also find other useful (non trivial) trivia about illegal ranking, lyricless albums etc.

If anyone can think of other page problems on lw, please post the issue here.
--ES (talk) 11:09, April 19, 2013 (UTC)


Did I miss something? What is it for? Who(se) is UserBot who created all these pages, and why don't they show up in his contributions? And can we block him for violating LWPN? Why is Category:LyricFind Lyrics empty? Why do they clog up Special:DeadendPages even though they contain blue links? And how are we supposed to get them out of the orphanage?

OK, apparently they're taking over licensing from Gracenote (or something): At least this time they've done it "properly" and disabled moving/deleting as well. — 6×9 (Talk) 10:19, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

C:LFL now tops Special:WantedCategories with 3,252 members but still appears empty: 0. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:46, April 25, 2013 (UTC)

I guess the the categorizing will only be done when the pages are purged. Although I don't really mind what the name of our licensing organization is, I once again feel left out; I think we have to make it clear to Wikia that we want to be notified about such changes in the future some weeks beforehand. It mustn't be that we are always the last ones to know what is happening to OUR wiki! The same thing like when they deleted our album covers without a notice (not even afterwards), instead of asking us to remove the covers because of this and that. - Chris 20:08, April 25, 2013 (UTC)
40,276 pages now according to S:WC. Loads of duplicates differing only in capitalisation. Oh well… — 6×9 (Talk) 08:38, April 28, 2013 (UTC)
768,083 and counting. BTW, touching doesn't help; LFL is still "empty". Not the only bug either: UserBot occasionally "forgets" NS and song title postfix, see first 38 entries in Special:DeadendPages. (Deleting doesn't help, I've tried.) — 6×9 (Talk) 09:15, June 1, 2013 (UTC)


Yep. @Chris: Before you ask, I didn't use a loop because (1) the places where we'd really need loops are also those where we're most likely to run into the 100-per-page limit, and (2) I avoided nesting, so it's no more complex than {{Covered}} and easily expanded if necessary. — 6×9 (Talk) 08:38, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Is it a requirement that {{SongCollaboration}} be used for songs of Collab albums, or not? --ES (talk) 00:51, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

LyricWiki styling changes

Hello guys and Eeepy,

I'd like to ask you what you think about the current LyricWiki design... To be honest I don't think it's very great, because although for example the background uses orange and blue as "corporate design", I think a lighter background would comfort the eyes a lot more. I also do not like the dark main page boxes. The gray shading of the boxes appears to me like nothing but CSS3 showoff stuff; it's not really needed.

I've been usign my own CSS rule set for a very long time now which modifies the looks of LyricWiki into a look that I like, less bright colours, more clean grayshade areas. I know this is not everyone's favourite style, but I wanted to ask you what you think of it, whether we should adapt it as official LyricWiki design.

Chris 00:21, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Certainly your version wins over the B&O. --ES (talk) 00:53, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
Hmm...I'm not sure if I like this or not. Then again, we need as much room as possible for Artist of the Month since those nominations will be considerably longer. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 01:04, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
The sorting is independant from the colour scheme.
I already re-arranged the main page because otherwise the right column would've been significantly longer than the left column and that made the page look ugly. - Chris 01:35, May 5, 2013 (UTC)


I edited Placebo, putting in ordered lists for bonus tracks, as per instructions on the artist help page. I know that a lot of people don't use ordered lists because they find them too complicated to understand, so they just put comments for the bonus tracks instead.

EchoSierra reverted my edits within 15 minutes, removing all the ordered lists, and just putting comments for the bonus tracks.

This destructive edit is just another in a long line of nonsense. I'm getting really sick of Echo stalking all my edits, and his constant whining and negativity on my talk page, with no attempt at being constructive.

I'd leave if I hadn't been here so long. How many others has Echo driven off with this sort of pettiness, never to be seen again? Eeepy (talk) 08:07, May 17, 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean. ES, what is wrong with this edit? You reverted it, you warned the user. Why? Maybe a few related artists too much, and he forgot the pipes in front of the template, but regarding everything else this was a good edit.
  • You may enhance OS with additional information
  • {{ArtistInfo}} is one of the most basic templates
  • He did not add blacks or redlinks
  • The structure was good
  • All genres are correct
May I remind you of one very important policy of LyricWiki: Improve over remove, insert over revert. That means: instead of removing non-perfect content by deleting a new page or reverting an edit, you should try to improve the content by inserting the correct content. So would you please stop your endless circle of "observe edits, revert edits, lecture user"? Thanks. - Chris 17:46, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
After multiple notes about ranking and to check the documentation, on ranking, I inserted the relevant portion of the docs on his talk page, then he promptly removed it from his talk page, I noticed. Wasn't that enough, Or do we need those docs translated and lectures and videos added? --ES (talk) 18:12, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
What do any of these have to do with reverting a good (except for a missing pipe) edit? — 6×9 (Talk) 19:32, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
The point of all this was....So he learns to do it right? right? He put the same edit on the same page twice without looking at it in preview. An editor learning is more important or a revert to get their attention? --ES (talk) 19:57, May 20, 2013 (UTC)
P.S. All of which has so far failed so far.
What was he supposed to learn from reversion of a good (except for a missing pipe) edit? To not bother? — 6×9 (Talk) 20:39, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

Oops... It happened somehow that I haven't been here for a long time, - and should say I don't like what I see. @ES: if you really think the main goal of lw is teaching, then you'd also learn one thing: ability to say sometimes: "yes, my bad..." --Senvaikis (talk) 05:18, May 31, 2013 (UTC)

[1] --ES (talk) 01:50, June 2, 2013 (UTC)

Artist collab


Your last post on your talk page shows you still haven't understood - I'm not going to diminish the reputation of adminship, keeping discussion in such unfair manner on public-available space. Have no other choice - let's try once more here, on our sequestered spot, unavailable for ordinary users.
. Well, let's list once more some issues, related to your recent edits on artist collabs, and try to discuss them (without ruffle or excitement, if possible):
  1. legitimacy of artist collab "obsoleteness": I'll not repeat this question again - your stubborn reluctance to answer this question made me conclude that was your own decision
  2. Mixed-type redir: you are redirecting "obsolete" collab pages to their release pages. But you don't need to be a programmer to understand that such mixed-type redir is faulty per se. Redirection normally is applied to the objects with the same type of content. We just say: yes, this object has a different title, but its content is the same (or almost the same) as the target of redir. This seemingly theoretical point of view isn't as abstract as may appear on the surface - most further issues are nothing more than consequences of this type-violation
  3. Multiple releases: if redirecting collab artist to its single release may seem partially justifiable, it becomes absolutelly irrational for collabs with multiple releases. Why should Björn Ulvaeus & Benny Andersson be redirected to Kristina Från Duvemåla (1996), not to Lycka (1970)?
  4. "Unresolvable redir": current LW architecture is still unready to dispense with collab artist object completely. If "Various Artists", pointed as the albumartist for albumart of some well-known two artist collab looks good enough for you, we may take another, maybe more obvious for you example. Let's take such templates as {{Cover}}, {{Covered}} etc, which requre param artist. How are you going to resolve this issue? (Notice that release page, opened from the cover "performer" link, even doesn't contain the covered song!)
  5. Janitor - hope comments are needless - that's just one of above-mentioned consequences...
  6. Unused images: this (and furher) issue isn't directly related to mixed-redir problem; however you are admin, and any your action is supossed to have some good reason, - that's why I'm just curious - why almost all images of artist collabs were left unused? If you haven't deleted them before making redir, maybe you were going to repost them somewhere else?
  7. Songs: if you decided to redirect artist collab page (in other words - "delete" such an "artist"), wouldn't it be desirable to make according changes to all the songs of this collab? Once more - you are admin, and all your edits should serve as an example of "how things should be done here". Is that a suitable editing model to be followed? And how would these songs look like if now someone just "resolved" current redirs, replacing song artist (ex-collab pagetitle) by release title?
@Others: As all you know, it's not very easy task for me to write more or less orderly sentence in English without a risk to be misunderstood, especially when other side doesn't show burning desire to understand ;). Thus please, help us, joining this discussion - I'm pretty sure it's far from being finished ;)
tia, --Senvaikis (talk) 17:48, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

P.S. sorry for all possible typos & errors - just spent too much time for writing that and have no more time left for spellchecking and rechecking :)

The reason I didn't bring this up with ES as soon as he started removing tl:Coll from artist pages is because I suspected* the following discussion would go the way it now did between Senv and ES. Sometimes I hate being proven right. *) Well, that and I've really got my hands full with non-LW activities these days.
@Senv: you pretty much summed up all my concerns and even added several I wouldn't have thought of. Nice job!
@Echo: Your tendency to "shoot first and ask questions later" is really getting out of hand. AlbumCollab was explicitly created to avoid artist pages for one-album-collabs; there never was any talk of ArtistCollab becoming obsolete, nor did you ask for confirmation before emptying Artist Collaborations of all but one of its members. This behaviour is unacceptable. — 6×9 (Talk) 12:15, June 7, 2013 (UTC)
  1. legitimacy of artist collab "obsoleteness": Other Sonsg list. Songs performed in collaboration exist on both artist's OS lis, attributed to one or the other artist, in addition to existing copies of the song attributed to both artists. By bringing the collab albums on both artist pages, we can identify duplicated songs. Recall the Italian duo for which we had three Artist pages, one for each individual plus one as X & Y. Many examples of those exist yet.
  2. Mixed-type redir: Thanks for the clarification, at the surface such redirs didn't seem out of place but their consequence goes much further. I'll correct all the artist to album redirs.
  3. Multiple releases: Justification: to whichever release the collabArtist is redirected to, on the target page we have links to both artists of the collab, which leads to either artist page which contains all their collab albums.
  4. Janitor As if I am unaware of what janitor does! Is this issue not unlike janitor adding OS lists to Disambiguation pages? Why have I been religiously (you may say) correcting all the disambig pages, a task yet unfinished... as everything else.
  5. Unused images: Strange, every album that I added the collabAlb header to, I also edited it's albumcover template and amde sure the cover correctly displays on the album page.
  6. "Unresolvable redir": Obviously big boo boo on my part, redirect of the collab artist should only go to either artist.
  7. Songs: Certainly all songs of the collabs need to use {{SongCollaboration}} (assuming the songs are true collabs, and not single artist songs on colabAlbs). I asked 5 weeks ago, right here on AP, and nobody has yet answerd. I take it the answer is yes?
further: Did it go unnoticed the existing faux collaboration Songs and albums that I corrected, (shooting after getting no response) in addition to new collaboration albums and songs of which you are mercifully ......?! While your storm in the teacup was brewing!
In case it has gone unnoticed, I am not here to work on my pet artist pages, and there is no task that I call donkey work, So make a priority list and I will go at it (The entire albumCollab category was one, before your post). Recall that the work lists on your stat page are not labguishing in neglect, and for every dangling image or bad redirect I have left behind, there are hundreds I have fixed. ;) cheers --ES (talk) 10:53, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
Once again you completely ignore the main issue: There never was any explicit or implicit consensus about tl:Collab becoming obsolete, nor did you ask for any confirmation before you went ahead and removed it.
To answer your last question: No, all collab songs should not use tl:SC; only those where no collab artist page exists (because there's only one album or even only one song).
And listing the same album on several artist pages? That's a logistical nightmare; won't be long before you end up with several different tracklistings for one album, because not every editor knows or can be bothered to check all places. — 6×9 (Talk) 12:51, June 8, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been around here in a while -- too many other things going on in my life at the moment (new job, mostly). (Also, for some reason, I'm not getting updates from this page, but I'll try to remember to come to the site to check it more often.)
I seriously cannot tell exactly what is supposed to be done with collaborations now, although from what little I can glean, I don't think I like it. Is there a reason this doesn't seem to have been discussed
Did anyone think to change the help pages to reflect the apparent new method of handling collaborations? For example, the artist editing help page still points to using the {{Collaboration}} template for "limited-time artist collaborations," which I gather is not entirely correct anymore. Seems to me if we're going to change "the way we do things," the applicable help pages should be the first edits, before going whole hog on editing song/album/artist pages to conform to the "new rules." I'd volunteer, but as I said, I have little to no idea what's going on in the first place. Trainman (talk) 04:45, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
You're right – often, in the rush to "fix things", the documentation is forgotten. Large part of this is probably my fault; I moved a while ago, plus work is sometimes pretty crazy, so way too often I just cram in a few LW minutes in between other stuff. And next week I'm off on a holiday, with no LW access at all.
Special problem in this case is that apparently there were a few crossed wires. I think we were pretty much all in agreement (correct me if I'm wrong) that {{SongCollaboration}} was desirable, to avoid one-song-only artist pages. {{AlbumCollaboration}} for one-album-only collabs seems reasonable as well, though it's not as clearcut. (Maybe we should have a vote on this?) As is evident from the above discussion, ES thought it was meant to replace artist collab pages entirely.
So yeah, maybe we should vote on this: Do we want tl:AlbColl at all? If yes, only for one-album-collabs or to replace artist collab pages entirely? Are we all agreed on SongCollab? (Technically, AC sorta implies SC, so you only have to vote on SC if you don't want AC.)
My vote: AC yes, for one-album collabs, not to replace artist collabs entirely. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:11, July 12, 2013 (UTC)
I can't vote whether AlbColl should replace any ArtistColl page, until I know who's going to be responsible for updating album pages using AlbColl when a second collab-album is released, respectively who's going to check whether there's not simply x AlbumCollab albums with x > 1? - Chris 22:39, July 16, 2013 (UTC)



I think there was a section were somebody (Sean?) informed us that MusicBrainz now features backlinks to LyricWiki with a very short step-by-step solution of how to add them. Does anybody remember or know where this section is? - Chris 00:10, August 14, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for belated response, - next to TM, I'm not getting any info about this page updates also. If you still need some help on the subject, - hope this Jingo may help you :) --Senvaikis (talk) 11:02, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
Wow, thanks, this helps a lot! I found something like this in a very special section of the documentation: but the forward link phrase "lyrics page" made me think this was not the right type of relationship. Thanks for helping me out! - Chris 20:51, September 10, 2013 (UTC)


You're all probably aware of this discussion (and if you weren't, you are now). Before this drops below the radar and is forgotten in Senv's talk page archive, let's strike while the iron is still hot:

  1. Is anyone opposed to genres for songs?
  2. If not, should we keep Artist and Album genres or remove them?
  3. Suggestions/ideas on how to implement it?

For starters, here's my take: (1) I'm not. (2) Remove them (after giving Lwt time to add albums' genres to songs). (3) Simplest and cleanest way would be a genres parameter in SF, but we'd need to unhide all genre cats. If we want more visibility, {{CreditBox}} might be an option, but it's not widely used yet. I'd rather not put {{Genres}} on song pages, since I don't think we should allow for more than one genre. — 6×9 (Talk) 17:35, September 29, 2013 (UTC)


Hey guys... I'm back for a bit. More infos here: LyricWiki_talk:Community_Portal#Licensing_restrictions_are_relaxing
-Sean Colombo (talk) 20:50, October 29, 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Sean! It's been quite a while. Congrats on the marriage, btw :) XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)22:21, November 22, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! :D :D :D
-Sean Colombo (talk) 01:10, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick question

Not that I'm against this or anything, but where did the discussion take place for creating all the "Songs by *artist*" categories? They seemed to have popped up out of the blue and I don't recall seeing any discussion on creating them. I'm just curious, I actually think it's a pretty good addition; like I said, I'm not against it. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)22:21, November 22, 2013 (UTC)

I briefly discussed it with Senv here. Since they're largely intended for maintenance, and the change doesn't affect "normal use" of LW (most users won't even see them unless they enable hidden cats in their profile), plus their usefulness and even necessity in our current system was pretty much a given, I decided to implement the change without additional discussion.
The next logical step would be to do the same for albums. In this case, I think categories should only be created when they're populated; we have too many artists who never released a proper album. I'd actually intended to do this last weekend already, but didn't expect such a huge fallout from SbA…
Finally (and this I planned to discuss here first) we can replace the "Browse all pages by…" link in the ArtistHeader (which isn't true for aliased or disambig'ed artists anyway) with links to these two categories instead. Or should we keep both? — 6×9 (Talk) 09:43, November 23, 2013 (UTC)

Reconsidering Hard4me's adminship (take 2...)

Hello fellow admins. This is something that I brought up on the admin portal over six months ago, but removed it because I was really scared how it would turn out, because really, it's not a pleasant subject in the slightest. But, lately as I was seeing more and more of Hard4me's unconstructive edits, I realized I should man up and bring this up here, yet again, without chickening out this time. Because, let's face the facts, this will need to be discussed at some point, and I really need to get this off my chest.

Here is the original post I made here last August:

"This has been on my mind for a while, and I'm wanting to know what you guys think. I feel like since Hard4me's been administrator, he hasn't done a whole lot of..."administratorly" things I guess. I also know that he's caused some controversy with me and Senv in the past (1 - 2). In these two cases, me and Senv were trying to teach him how to do things correctly and him for ignore them (deliberately or accidentally, though, that I don't know). Of course, when he did finally acknowledge them, not only did he provide a one-word response in my case, but in Senv's case, waited weeks to respond, and continued to make the same mistake despite being reminded multiple times. I should note that he got very defensive towards me when I tried to help him. He's gotten into multiple edit wars from what I remember, as well (though I will admit, one or two of those was with me, but we resolved that shortly after).
It feels like he has trouble following directions and keeps wanting to do things "his way" and deems all other ways incorrect. Also, this probably has nothing to do with it, but I feel like he's a little young still, so this may purely just be him being naive (then again, I'm only a year or two older than him, if I remember his age correctly, but I don't make nearly as many mistakes as he does).
All in all, from what I've seen, it seems like Hard4me is a somewhat naive administrator who isn't always capable of being taught the right thing and continuously formats things incorrectly. This may be just my opinion, so I'd like to see some input from other admins. Of course, it would be nice to see some input from Hard4me on this as well, and he could hopefully provide some rebuttal on why he should stay administrator, and might even vow to improve (as long as he actually sticks to his word this time). I think he just needs some direction, because this is stuff that he can easily improve on, and I believe that he can do it. He never checks this portal though so he would have to get a reminder on his talk page to check it."
So, I don't really want to reword my original post too much, because it's still pretty much what I have to say on the issue. However, one of the main problems I can see here that I'd like to add is actually breaking this news to Hard4me in the first place, because as we all know, he almost never bothers to check his talk page, which bothers me beyond belief. Because of this, I have no idea how we're going to contact him. So, if we wanted an input from him on this, well, I can't imagine us actually getting one. So if the admins actually come to a valid decision, we may have to just demote him without him even knowing about it. I'm not sure how this would work...
Another addition I'd like to make to that post is where I say in the last paragraph that we can easily teach him to improve and give him some direction to do the right thing. I've realized this is not exactly as easy as I made it sound, taking into account the fact that, despite that me, Senv, and other admins tried to give him help on his talk page before, he very rarely followed it. In fact, he usually ignored it altogether or simply gave it a one-word response, and then continued to make the same mistake.
Well, that's about all I have to say. Not looking forward to this discussion, but it's something that we have to get out of the way... XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)13:19, March 22, 2014 (UTC)
I have little to add, except that h4m hardly ever uses his admin powers other than to delete pages, or move without leaving a redirect, both of which he shouldn't have done in many cases… — 6×9 (Talk) 12:55, March 23, 2014 (UTC)
Have nothing new to add also, or, to be precise, - I'm not eager to repeat an evident truth: h4m always was and still remains a negative magnitude in sense of adminship. --Senvaikis (talk) 07:56, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
Completed. I'd like that unpleasant job was done by Chris, but he's too rare guest now on LW. Anyways, I'm sure he'd agree - that should be done long before imo...--Senvaikis (talk) 08:24, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
Good going Senv, it's probably best to get the dirty deed out of the way than to drag it on longer than it needs to be. Plus, I feel like we would be the only three to comment on this either way, and I'm sure this has been on the administrators's minds for a while. I just wonder how Hard4me will react to this, or if he'll even react at all...
But Senv, I'm starting to wonder, if Hard4me was always such a "negative magnitude" as an administrator, then why wasn't his demotion brought up sooner? He was administrator for ~2 years before we demoted him. A better question would be: why did we even promote him in the first place? I'd like to know, because I never heard the reasons behind his promotion. Chris promoted both me and him the same day, and while Chris told me why I was promoted, he didn't mention why H4M was. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)20:23, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
I guess you'd have to ask Chris, if I read this correctly he suggested it to Sean. (Hope this doesn't come across as fingerpointing…) IIRC his edits back then were fairly consistent, and he did a lot of work on Album of the Week. — 6×9 (Talk) 10:47, March 25, 2014 (UTC)
Ah okay, that makes more sense. So it seems that his editing quality slowly decreased ever since his promotion. Interesting... XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)21:06, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

New promotions

When Hard4me was demoted, it got me to thinking that maybe it's about time for some new promotions. Over the last 2+ years (ever since the last bout of promotions, that is) I've seen quite a few users that I think are worthy of consideration. The main ones that come to mind atm are:

  • Dr. Beat - Very friendly user who I've talked to a lot. I've taught him many things (such as uploading images and other facets of wiki editing) and he is a very diligent editor. Recently, he's been working hard to reduce the OS categories (Low, moderate, and severe) which I greatly applaud him for, and I think he'd be a perfect candidate for administrator
  • Lichtweber - Another hard worker, and has been actively engaging in wiki discussions lately (even making that proposal for using writer's names as an artist prefix)
  • Arwen4CJ - Don't really have much to say about him (only because I haven't talked to him that much); mainly the same stuff I said for Lichtweber, but they both definitely know what they're doing. His edits impress me and he does a great job in maintaining a wide array of articles.

On the contrary, should we keep Redxx promoted or not? I've seen from logs that she was an extremely helpful admin back when she was around, but she hasn't edited for a little over four years now...I don't know what the consensus is for demoting admins if they've been inactive, but four years is a long time and I don't know if she'll ever be coming back.
So, what do you admins think? Should we consider promoting/demoting any of these users? XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)21:06, March 25, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should concern much about Redxx admin grants, Nick, - actually they neither endanger LW nor require any additional resources. Btw, there are other currently-inactive-admins with even older last-loggin dates, one of them still wears a hat of bureaucrat, why then ask about R only?.
And one more note: don't know about others, but personally I don't like any discussions about any admin demotion in a public namespace.
Now about pretenders.
  • Dr. Beat, silently promoted by me to trusted yet in January, is undoubtly one of the most diligent, consistent and trustworthy editors atm. I wouldn't be so sure about his communicational habbits though (the bad example of one admin could be the possible reason), but I'm technician, thus may sweep that aside in hope that will come with time.
  • Lichtweber was asked to think about a possible adminship yet in September. Then he's expressed some doubts about his readiness and time availability. It would be unfair if I not confessed - later I've thought that was a wise decision. Still can't forget my friend Echo - I still miss him, but can't forget also the problems, caused by his reinless activity... Anyways, we may reask Weber what he thinks about that now.
  • Arwen certainly has no concurents in his thoroughness. That's good, especially for a job he and his friend are ready to start in our docs. With one condition: he should promise us not to make LW a Christian-only-lyrics-site ;).
--Senvaikis (talk) 12:46, March 27, 2014 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't entirely sure if Redxx's adminship was a big deal or not - that's why I was asking what the consensus is for inactive admins ;) So, I get what you're saying - doesn't really matter if inactive admins are still promoted, because it's not really harming anything. And yes, I understand you don't like talking about admin demoting in public namespace, but 1) it's really the only place to discuss those things and 2) we had to discuss a demotion one header ago, and while it's not a pleasant subject it's not always an avoidable one either. Also, wait a minute...EchoSierra's a male? Coulda sworn she (he?) was female. But yeah, I don't know what happened to her - when she came back for a while, she was a real solid admin, but then disappeared yet again out of nowhere.
Anyways, back to the admin candidates. About Dr. Beat: I know communicating habits aren't even remotely a factor for adminship (I got your allusion to Hard4me there, so point taken), but I was just throwing that in because he's a good friend of mine and I've observed his editing for a long time.
Pushing the communication factor aside tho, you can't even compare his edits to Hard4me's - they're a lot more in-depth and he's a lot more diligent than Hard4me's ever been. Honestly, I think he'd do great and I have high hopes for him. I mean, I wouldn't want to guilt trip myself for suggesting this though if he does turn out like Hard4me, but judging by his edits, I highly doubt he will, and I trust that he'll make an excellent admin.
The deal with Arwen and Weber sounds good - definitely contact Weber about this, I'd like to see what he wants to do. And heh, I don't see why it matters what Arwen edits - he's into Christian stuff, so if that's what he'd like to edit, so be it.
I wanna see what 6 has to say before we promote anyone of course, since you, 6 and I seem to be really the only ones active in the AP these days SmileXxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)00:37, March 28, 2014 (UTC)
You're surprised Echo is male… and you both call Arwen "he"? Mind, I can't remember whether she ever confirmed her gender, but since she named herself after a female character…
I've been waiting for other opinions because I was kinda undecided… Turns out Senv has pretty much the same concerns, and spelled them out clearer than I could have done. I didn't think of Echo when I considered Lichtweber (though by the time I started on LW Echo was already an admin, so I don't know what he was like before that), but I did occasionally notice some potentially problematic attitudes. But maybe they were just born out of frustration on the root pages policy not moving forwards…
So I'm okay with all three.
PS. I've already taken the liberty of promoting Arwen & LW to trusted; well-deserved I think, regardless of adminship. — 6×9 (Talk) 08:38, March 28, 2014 (UTC)
Oops... Now, after a longish journey through multiple Inet accounts, I see - 6's right again.
The French are right - it's always better to bring apologies to a woman, especially if that's not your guilt ;) My apologies, Melissa :) --Senvaikis (talk) 11:35, March 28, 2014 (UTC)
Heh, well, genders are always an ambiguous thing online unless someone openly states whether they're male or female... To be honest I always assumed Echo was a girl because he had Sierra in his username, plus I always had a really female vibe while talking to him.
Anyways, it seems like we all agree on Dr. Beat and Arwen being promoted, so should we start by promoting them now, then? It seems like we should ask Weber first before we promote him because of the aforementioned issues he may have with his availability, so we should probably hold off on him for now until we hear from him on the matter. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)22:04, March 28, 2014 (UTC)
It's probably good form to ask all three of them first. Would you like to do the honours? — 6×9 (Talk) 11:06, March 29, 2014 (UTC)
I guess I could. I actually didn't think I needed to ask them, because when I was promoted, I was never asked; Chris just told me I was getting promoted and I just went with it. But alright, I'll do that. I just asked Dr. Beat on Facebook via PM (waiting for a response), and I'll ask the other two now. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)13:29, March 29, 2014 (UTC)
Just one nuance: it would be better not to keep a long pause between questions to Arwen and Weber... :) --Senvaikis (talk) 13:56, March 29, 2014 (UTC)
That wasn't my fault, Senv, I had to eat breakfast after I asked Arwen Wink I have a life and whatnot. Plus, I don't see why it matters when I asked them: I still asked them both.
Anyhow, Dr. Beat says he'd love to, and Arwen has accepted as well.
Weber, on the other hand, stated that as an admin he wants to have a distinct responsibility for things such as root page stuff. Do you two think this could be arranged? XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)17:46, March 29, 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the new admins (now that they can see this page)! I know, I know, I have to keep poking my head in every so often so people realize I'm still around. Trainman (talk) 19:40, March 30, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.  :) I went ahead and added the Dr. Beat, myself, and Lichtweber to the List of active admin so that users could find us easily. --Arwen4CJ Talk 19:57, March 30, 2014 (UTC)

My First Batch Move

I want to make sure that I do everything correctly. Del Tha Funkee Homosapien (and any song/artist under artist name) needs to be redirected to Del The Funky Homosapien. I am guessing I would need to batch move the songs and albums first, and then the artist page? Anything I need to know before I do this? --Arwen4CJ Talk 16:28, April 3, 2014 (UTC)

The order (batch move/artist page) doesn't matter. Batchmove also fixes the song links on the album pages; it doesn't fix Song and Album templates, or any other links to the artist page. You might want to leave those to Senv or me – too many to do by hand!
If a target page already exists (there's two with "The"), BM will slap a merge template on both pages. You can avoid that by previewing first (always a good idea) and see if there's any pairs that need to be merged. Have fun! :-) — 6×9 (Talk) 17:21, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. So am I all ready to run batch move then? --Arwen4CJ Talk 18:08, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead (that's what I meant by "have fun"). — 6×9 (Talk) 19:06, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
Oops, I accidentally did it twice. I didn't think it had worked the first time because it gave me a blank screen when it was done. (I've been having trouble with my Internet connection the last couple days, and I noticed that earlier today lyric wikia was having problems.). How do I fix the extra ones? Can I just delete the extra pages that just have merge templates on them, as well as the merge templates themselves? --Arwen4CJ Talk 21:16, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
Never mind...I see what put the merge template on the old page name, not the new one. So how do I "merge" them into the correct one? I might play around in my sandbox a bit to see if I can figure it out. --Arwen4CJ Talk 21:39, April 3, 2014 (UTC)
Running it twice shouldn't matter, since it ignores redirects. Looks like the merge templates were added because most pages at "The" existed as redirects, but the redirects were badly formatted: #Redirect[[...]] instead of #REDIRECT [[...]]. They work either way, but BM is unfortunately picky about that kind of thing. So the next best thing is to manually move source to target, and when LW complains that target exists, click the checkbox to delete it. — 6×9 (Talk) 04:54, April 4, 2014 (UTC)
I've deleted the malformed "The" redirects, so if you want to give it another go, batchmove should now handle the remaining pages without problems. — 6×9 (Talk) 17:29, April 4, 2014 (UTC)
Arwen, I know I'm mighty late on this - but I just wanted to say: don't feel bad for messing up your first batch move. Trust me, my first batchmove was a disaster (I'm sure Senv remembers that Korn to KoRn batchmove I made 2 years ago...) - it takes some time to get used to the tool. Wink XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)03:31, April 12, 2014 (UTC)

Now I did one too: Aaron -> AaRON. Strange: I had to move the artist page by hand. No idea why. One of you guys care to check?      Lichtweber       talk    service   18:06, April 17, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Batchmove's always been like that - it'll move all of the song/album pages (and even change the artist name on all the album pages), but the artist page itself, the Song template artist link, and the artist name for the songs on the artist page need to be manually changed. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)22:05, April 17, 2014 (UTC)

I've started a batchmove guide, since this will probably come up again in the future… Feel free to update/correct/amend it! — 6×9 (Talk) 12:23, April 19, 2014 (UTC)

Visual changes

FYI: Content team is re-doing the skin a bit. Thread here has more info: LyricWiki_talk:Community_Portal#Visual_changes
-Sean Colombo (talk) 00:52, April 15, 2014 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki