Wikia

LyricWiki

Talk:Administrators Portal

1,731,928pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Archive Index


{{stub}}

Now that Lwt started his {{Stub}}-flagging tour, I come to find that we should work on this a little.

1. Appearance
For my taste it ruins the pages. Too big, too much unnecessary information. Suggestion: Split {{Stub}} into three separate tl:

2. Criteria
On which criteria selects Lwt the pages - sry if I missed sth from prev. discussions? For instance, the Chaim Topol page might not be complete but at least it has all required external sources and one complete album. Why flag this one a stub? Maybe we should work on the criteria, too?

And quite frankly: I doubt, if stub-flagging makes too much sense on our site because we are not an encyclopedia, are we? Imho it would be more important to mark misattributed song and artist pages in some way, for instance TV-Shows (Family Guy) as artists, or Disney as an LW artist. What do you guys think?

3. How to stop Lwt from flagging on his next tour?
Some artists pages will not ever become "non-stubs", for instance Friedrich Schiller: He's been dead for a while now, and I don't think we can expect any releases from him ;). So is there a possibility to fmark those "eternal stubs" in some way, so that the pages won't be flagged a stub again?      Lichtweber       talk    service   12:48, October 24, 2014 (UTC)

  1. I'd agree that info structure, produced by {{Stub}}, is little clumsy, but I'm not sure if splitting it into 3 different templates would be a good idea. (@6:Maybe it would be possible to make this split "internal", depending on the page type?)
  2. You've accepted this criteria ((OS<10 AND Albums.count=0) -> stub) as "very reasonable" just 1 thread above. As you understand, albs.count should include both blue and red albums, so in one way or other, but artist links or just page text should parsed to count them. What this parsing shoud be based on, in your opinion? Hope you agree - on lw:pn. So. Lwt counts album links on artist page, using pattern "===?\s*\[\[.+?:.+? \(\d{4}\)\|(.+?) \(\d{4}\)\]\]\s*===?". (hope now you'll notice the part of pattern, mismatched on your sample page). I agree that such evaluation may seem too strict, but Lwt has no better choice as strictly following lw:pn. So, some artist may be misattributed to stub just only due to the typo in display part, as it has happened with Død Trær or Dzep. But on the other hand - weren't these "misattributings" useful?
  3. Leaving this part for your discussion with 6 or someone else, - sorry, but that's too long story for me atm...
--Senvaikis (talk) 18:41, October 24, 2014 (UTC)
  1. Not sure such a split is necessary; maybe a |reason= parameter would be the best solution, certainly the most flexible (leaving some default text if it's omitted). Automatic splitting by pagetype is problematic; can't use variable because tl:stub usually goes above all other templates, and {{PAGETYPE}} magic word is too easily fooled – try it on a song ending in "(Live)" or "(Demo)", I'm sure you can guess what will happen… Design def. needs work, although ugliness could be an incentive to fix the page and remove it ;-)
  2. and 3. Yes, there are probably cases which, by Lwt's current rules, would never be unstubbed (like artists with only a couple songs that only appear on VA compilations or soundtracks). For a single run that's not really a problem, but for maintenance (i.e. repeated runs) we'll need stricter rules. What should get flagged are:
  • pages with no blue internal wikilinks whatsoever (ah+af only, or a.info with labels/genres but no linked rel.artists or members, or album(s) with only red links)
  • pages with OS < 10 and no albums whatsoever (including VA albums)
Schiller would be out in both cases. There are probably others where t:s is appropriate that I didn't think of… — 6×9 (Talk) 07:43, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
Back on pagetypes: if we do want to distinguish, the best way imo would be an optional parameter. I've put my version here. No categories added yet, but pagetype param would split into a/a/s subcategory. Pagetype-specific text would still be overridden by |reason. Colour could be switched for pagetypes too, else neutral grey would be the most… neutral choice (duh). — 6×9 (Talk) 09:08, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
I just want to chime in to say while I do like this on certain pages, it is completely unnecessary on pages where the OS are not on any albums (example), or the artist only has one or two songs (example 1 2). It's going to be a pain to find all of the pages like that but I guess it will have to be a gradual thing. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)12:34, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
1st example belongs to previous topic (though split was justified there).2nd example is badly chosen, since it's pretty much the textbook definition of a stub: 1 OS, no other internal links, hardly any header/footer info. If OS aren't on any albums, the section should be renamed from OS to "Non-album tracks" or such (as has already happened on 3rd example, so under stricter rules it wouldn't be flagged either).
What previous topic does it belong to? Admittedly sometimes reading Senv's posts can be difficult, so if you want to paraphrase which topic Brentalfloss belongs to that would be helpful. Secondly, Monkey Steals the Peach only has no info because no info can be found, this is the only info I can find, which doesn't say their hometown or any helpful information except for band members. Googling "Monkey Steals the Peach" mainly brings up a kung fu move of the same name.
Also, since when has "Non-album tracks" been an acceptable header for Other Songs? I always thought non-album tracks just went under Other Songs and there would be no problems. But I guess I never got that memo. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)13:21, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
Previous topic: the one right above this one, about {{split}}. The "Non-album tracks" header never made it onto the help page, but it does state explicitly that the ultimate goal is to remove the OS section.
RE: Monkey: list of members is hardly "no info", add that to {{ArtistInfo}} and it can be unstubbed. If really no info can be found at all, the page in question is a candidate for deletion. — 6×9 (Talk) 14:40, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
Ah, okay. So the "Non-album tracks" header is a relatively new thing for this project? Gotcha.
And that makes sense. But really, deleting an artist page even if a song of theirs has lyrics here? We've never done that before - we've always had artist pages for artists who only have a few songs, and they've always been there. Is that a new thing for this project as well? Strange - that'll take some getting used to. I mean, there's definitely more obscure artists out there who barely have any info on the Internet - if at all - so that poses a problem if we're just going to delete all of the artist pages with no info. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)14:58, October 25, 2014 (UTC)
If there are songs with lyrics, we'll need some sort of verification those songs actually exist – there's just too much garbage on other lyric sites that got imported here. I'm not suggesting deleting anything where mb & discogs come up empty, but if a page was bot-created and the only results on google are other lyric sites, then that's a fair candidate.
OTOH, if an artist is known to exist but there's still no info to put on the artist page, then it will have to remain a stub. I don't think removing a useful flag just because there are potentially pages that might never be unflagged is a good idea. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:19, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
I haven't read this entire thread yet, but have a suggestion: Can the description of the AlbStub be changed to include a ref to albs with no lyrics? Something like: If all the tracks on this album are red please try to blue at least one of them... (not being a policy wonk) methinks an alb with no song is a flub and a stub...
I have been flagging all red tracklist albs with deletion flag and seems I have really confused some folks, I am sure If Chris was around he would've read that flag to mean attention not deletion! ;) --ES (talk) 19:55, January 16, 2015 (UTC) tbc..

Minor, but peculiar changes to the site

As I wait for a response to my above message, I've noticed three things over the past few months that I wanted to bring up. I would have brought them up earlier, but I was waiting to see if they'd get fixed on their own - and they haven't. Hopefully it's not just me, but there's been a few minor things changed on this site, most likely glitches.

1) The "preview" button doesn't work on song and artist pages (it works fine on album and talk pages). When I press the "preview" button on song and artist pages, I am taken to a white screen and my work on the page gets destroyed, thus I have to redo my work on a page...especially frustrating if I'm checking to see how an artist page looks after cleaning OS. I mentioned this to Sean on FB a few weeks ago and he said he brought it up with the team that manages bugs, but weeks later there's still no fix.
2) When I create a page, I'm taken to the "Create a new article" pop-up box, that asks you to choose a page layout: top 10 list, standard layout, and blank page. Other wikis have this but we have never had it as long as I've been here - why is it arriving now? It's rather taxing to have it pop up for each new page I create - for example, when I'm creating pages for all of the songs on an album.
3) Much more minor thing, but the picture thumbnails for the "Photos" tab on the right of the Wikia layout have not been showing up. All I see are white boxes.
Hopefully I'm not the only one experiencing these changes, and I just wanted to mention them here. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)23:21, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the first one... it appears to be caused by the ToneFuze ad script. Hopefully a straightforward fix.
The second one is some extension... I forgot the name of it, but we could ask Community to re-disable it (LyricWiki has it's own solution for new pages that doesn't involve a popup and is more customized).
Haven't looked at #3 yet
-Sean Colombo (talk) 23:33, October 28, 2014 (UTC)
I submitted a pull-request for the bug, but I'm not sure when it'll be released. -Sean Colombo (talk) 00:09, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
As for the third issue, I only see blank white boxes also. Very weird (it's not like that on other wikis... I don't immediately see what's causing it). Probably worth sending to Special:Contact -Sean Colombo (talk) 00:13, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at this, Sean. Hoping for a fix soon Smile
And also, one more thing I forgot to mention - I noticed pages haven't been showing changes immediately like they have in the past, namely when it comes to links. For example, if I create a song on an album, that song will still appear as a red link on the album page for some time before it becomes blue. If I click on said red link, it'll take me to the "Create a new article" dialog box, but if I just press the "Add a Page" button on it it'll take me to the page I created. It's strange. Same goes for album art - it takes a while to show up, as well. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)19:55, October 29, 2014 (UTC)

Spotify vs Goear?

Hi all,

just wanted to ask you - haven't you ever thought why such limited source as goear is still used as the standard external audio source on LW? I'd be really surprised if anyone of you were using it as the main audio-source for your own needs... That was one of reasons why I trained Lwt to gather spotify info, - hope you've noticed already changes in the size of Category:Spotify/Artist and Category:Spotify/Album.
Now the main Q: what would be your opinion about the idea to move {{spotify}} into (Artist/Album/Song)Footer(s)?
Tia, --Senvaikis (talk) 21:39, November 17, 2014 (UTC)
The odd occasion I used goear, It didn't have what I was looking for. In the past two days since I been back I have used spotify at least two dozen times, and they are well stocked. I been keeping an eye on LWT, and surely it's spot on as usual.
ES (talk) 22:19, November 17, 2014 (UTC)
Spotify is fine too, but we should definitely keep goear since it's reg free.      Lichtweber       talk    service   15:53, November 18, 2014 (UTC)
Yay! I've always wanted a Spotify external link plug-in here, as it helps us who do have Spotify (like myself) get to high-quality music quicker. But I do agree with 'weber - despite Goear's various inconsistencies, glitches, and the fact that it's a Spanish language site, it should stay because no registration is required. However, if it was possible to replace Goear with Grooveshark, I would much prefer Grooveshark over Goear because it is also registration-free and a much more stable site (and in English, which helps) XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)23:13, November 18, 2014 (UTC)
tl:Spotify isn't exactly new… I've no problem with integrating it into SF, but I 3rd LW's & Nic's points about registration. — 6×9 (Talk) 06:29, November 19, 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what is the issue about registeration?! All one needs is a hole in the wall address (gmail, hotmail, etc.) ES (talk) 17:53, November 19, 2014 (UTC)
@6: I know it's not "new" technically, but I never saw it in the external links section once. The fact that it's now being implemented everywhere thanks to Senv, I'd say it's new in that sense.
@ES: Registration might be simple on those sites, but we want to link sources where registration doesn't hinder the person from listening so it's accessible to anyone who visits this site. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)22:06, November 19, 2014 (UTC)
Well, let's leave then sptf outside of footers, though I still think that we should do something to make ranking requirement for audio src more fair, not limited by one poor Spanish site. I just didn't expect that almost automatic access via gm or fb account may even bother current fb-hooked generation ;). Anyhow, I hope that doesn't make current Lwt "spotifying-job" needless ;)
Agree with xx regarding GS, but ufortunately I'm not able to get authenticated access to their api yet. And it has one more flaw I just hate - link to the same type GS-object may have different formats, and I don't understand what is the reason and algorithm of these differencies. Spotify is just ideal source from that point of view, - simple, clear, universal and easy fitting into a simple, user-friendly algorithm.
Regardless of result of this discussion I have two additional questions, both addressed mostly to Six:
  1. What'd you say about a little improvement of {{spotify}} - additional switch for "search" (empty template) regime? Lwt is too dumb to find all the lw-sptf matches, thus such option would make this task easier for users. Here are possible patterns for such search links:
    • "https://play.spotify.com/search/artist:{{#var:artist}}"
    • "https://play.spotify.com/search/artist:{{#var:artist}} album:{{#var:album}}"
    • "https://play.spotify.com/search/artist:{{#var:artist}} track:{{#var:song}}"
  2. As you've positively noticed, I'm using "play.spotify" instead of "open.spotify", currently used in template, - for 3 reasons. First of all, that's a real final address your browser is being redirected anyhow. Second - contrary to "open.." it allows searching. And third (partialy due to the 1st) - it's ~1.5x faster. In addition, such addressing doesn't start playing any random song while opening artist or album page. That's why I'd suggest to use it not only for search, but for lookup patterns too.
--Senvaikis (talk) 09:39, November 20, 2014 (UTC)
Unimpressed with their webplayer… IE11 is stuck with an empty grey background, icons on the left disabled, the forum is full of people reporting the same thing, but no solution. Opera 12 is stuck with "Connecting to Spotify", icons on the left disabled, the forum is full of people reporting the same thing, but no solution. Finally got it to work in Iron.
Implemented your suggestions in {{Spotify/Test}}, seems to work on the dozen pages I tried (incl. non-latin). Annoying that I can't just use urlencode, because they want pink%20floyd instead of pink+floyd… Also, am I correct in assuming that ID is always 22 chars long? — 6×9 (Talk) 10:30, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
  • That's sad to hear about O12's & IE11's problems (thought the latter shouldn't surprise anybody...). Let's hope these problems will be solved in a nearest future. May only say, that in addition to SRWare Iron, FF33 & Chr39 don't have any probs with sptf.player right now.
  • Never have checked that, but seems your assumption is right. Knowing your love to n-based number games that's hardly necessary, but just for others I may add that's a base-62 number :)
cheers, --Senvaikis (talk) 18:10, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
Cr is hardly surprising, since Fe is based on it… Unfortunately, knowing that it's [0-9A-Za-z]{22} is of little help without regex extension; checking for validity with available functions (unless using loops) would make this template bigger than sh+sf combined…
I'll merge it into the main template; if there are valid codes with len != 22 we'll find out soon enough, I guess. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:33, November 23, 2014 (UTC)
Yep... Just don't know, - good that or bad, but spotify became an undoubted leader in competition of external links :)
Btw, for those who don't mind spotify-"registering" or adding a few lines into user.js, I'd like to show, how spotified LW page may look like and how does it work on my box. (no need to say - not for ie admirers...)
cheers, --Senvaikis (talk) 09:06, November 25, 2014 (UTC)

RE: Grooveshark (and kinda related to the topic of Pandora on my talk page), they're unavailable in Germany (once again thanks to GEMA), so not an ideal alternative either… — 6×9 (Talk) 08:19, November 29, 2014 (UTC)

Spotify links also aren't 100% available, but this limitation is organized more in Youtube-style: each link has an "available_markets" field, specifying a list of countries it's available on. Should confess, that this field has been ignored by Lwt while "spotifying" lw. Result - some spot-links will "play" not in all countries... But the number of such limitatons shouldn't be high, moreover, - some of them have alternatives with a "wider market". Thus I'm still wondering - if pandora still resides in footers, - why spotify can't? :) --Senvaikis (talk) 09:59, November 29, 2014 (UTC)
From what I read above no one seems opposed to sf.spotify, so I suppose your actual question is why it isn't already? :-) — 6×9 (Talk) 13:32, November 29, 2014 (UTC)
While SF is about to go into the oven... How about search link for am as well?ES (talk) 13:47, November 29, 2014 (UTC)
Put both in {{SongFooter/Test}} – downside is that it displays spotify search even with link below, so the > 700,000 ids will have to be moved into sf quickly after merging. Or is anyone opposed to spotify search in sf? — 6×9 (Talk) 16:07, November 29, 2014 (UTC)
*crickets* Should I interpret silence as "no"? — 6×9 (Talk) 10:18, December 6, 2014 (UTC)

90.19X. Anon = Mkaloga?

Hi guys, I had to block several IPs starting with 90.19X. over the past weeks since Mkaloga was blocked. They all had the same pattern as Mkaloga, f.i. trying to recreate "Deekestrelz" or adding bad formatted "Flatlinerz" songs. Is there a technical solution for blocking all these anons automatically? Blocked IPs:

  • 90.194.217.120
  • 90.197.168.98
  • 90.197.170.72
  • 90.197.175.222

WHOIS (excerpt)

% Abuse contact for '90.192.0.0 - 90.199.255.255' is "abuse@sky.com"
role: BSkyB Broadband Hostmaster
address: Sky Network Services
address: 1 Brick Lane
address: London
     Lichtweber       talk    service   14:11, December 13, 2014 (UTC)

Before the move to Wikia we had an option for range blocks, now I'd guess only the W. staff could do that. Anyway, blocking a whole /13 range is probably not a good idea: that's > 500k adresses, way too much collateral damage. I think a better solution is to protect the pages/pagetitles in question from unlogged users (done for Flatlinerz & Deekestrelz), and put them on your watchlist. — 6×9 (Talk) 15:33, December 13, 2014 (UTC)
I tried diggin' up the range block IP discussion of years ago, no luck. Indeed range blocks were frowned upon. ES (talk) 15:53, December 13, 2014 (UTC)
Thx, 6! OK, now I have protected all the artist pages that have been affected by "AnonMkaloga": Gravediggaz, Ka, KA, Scream Thugs-A-Hair, Bone Thugs-N-Harmony. Does that mean that also the name space for those artists is protected from editing by anons?      Lichtweber       talk    service   17:32, December 13, 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately not… We'll have to keep an occasional eye on recent changes. But we need to do that anyways. — 6×9 (Talk) 15:48, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

Lists

I asked 6 about this couple of years ago, time to take his suggestion ;) I guess, after a lil nudge from Nick:

me:Take a look at Category:Lists - what is the correct namespace for lists? Main or LyricWiki:Lists/ ?
6:I'd prefer LW:L/ but it's never been policified; better bring it up with other admins on AP -- 6

So there. Where should lists go? I hope Nick will elaborate on his concerns in his own words. Hopefully this will lead to a short & sweet doc on list creation, now that we are moving some of the non-artists that have been pretending to be artists into the list-space. I'll do as much of the work as I can, but need input. ES (talk) 16:04, December 13, 2014 (UTC)

As always, I am for simple. So I'd go with Main. ES, what about categories for lists? Did you have some in mind?      Lichtweber       talk    service   17:35, December 13, 2014 (UTC)

I honestly was never ever a list user, but now I'm thinking the list prime category I'll use will be the one containing former artists (teevee shows, musicals, etc.). Here is Nic's comments, btw:
Nic:lot of the lists on here are all over the place - some have certain categories while some don't. Also, all of the categories on each list should be formatted like Category:Lists|Rock Band 3, for example, so they're alphabetized correctly. It would be nice if someone could do some maintenance work on the categories on the lists here. Also, is it necessary to have both Category:Genre/Soundtrack and Category:Genre/Soundtrack/Video Games on video game lists?
So I think if we consolidate the list namespaces into One, and properly organize and weed out the existing categories, then finding the right location for new lists should be relatively straight forward. That's what I have for now. My original concern waay back was only about bringing order to list space and nothing more!
(neat freak ;) --> ES (talk) 18:31, December 13, 2014 (UTC)
@6: What would be the cons, locating lists in Main?      Lichtweber       talk    service   12:25, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
Mainly a blurring between lists and "proper" artist pages; if lists occupy their own namespace, it's obvious even from the pagetitle what they are. Plus, they're easy to find via PrefixIndex even if category is missing. Of course, both of these could as well be achieved with "Lists/" prefix in main namespace. It's not a major point for me; if others prefer "unadorned" pagenames, I'll go along with that. — 6×9 (Talk) 15:30, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
OK, I changed my mind about where to locate lists: I'm for LyricWiki:Lists. That would be two in favour of LW:L and 1 (nic) in favour of Main, right? Can we move on now?      Lichtweber       talk    service  

Public LW Definition for Artist

moving discussion from my talk page here      Lichtweber       talk    service   12:25, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

Is Sesame Street and The Simpsons and a whole lot of fan generated music for various tv franchises (not Simpsons or SS, obviously) really artists? Where is our clear definition of what an artist is? I see what you did with FF yesterday and cheered u on from across the pond. It probably is not as simple as I think, so again, I'm all ears and want to hear what you got! ES (talk) 10:16, December 12, 2014 (UTC)

Afaik, it isn't defined anywhere yet, though when talking to Senvaikis I always get the impression that it was somehow. In the root pages discussion, we agreed that not only performers but also lyricists and composers are legit artists for LyricsWiki.
So, according to this agreement Sesame Street and The Simpsons are misattributed. But maybe it would make sense, as an exeption, to accept bogus artists with such a huge output as LW artists? I definitely would not want to have Family Guy as an artist, though... What's your opinion on this, Senv, 6, Nic and Dr. Beat?      Lichtweber       talk    service   13:18, December 12, 2014 (UTC)
Well imho size of discography under their name doesn't bring any significance, Homer still doesn't do anything real artists do :) I slapped a tl|Req4Edit on Power Rangers, and Backyardigans and erroneously moved Backyardigans to LyricWiki:Lists/The_Backyardigans, which according to 6 is iffy due to the already started discussion in AP. ::Appreciate if I can leave such dubious artist in your care until you need my help to deal with them, in the coming months and years. cheers! Oh and see my talk page about that espanol Amanda  :) ES (talk) 10:07, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
No way me moving all those pages without a bot. I guess we have to dicuss this one on AP , too.
On behalf of LyricWiki:Lists/The_Backyardigans I suggest you get in touch with Hornean since he seems to be into those pages.      Lichtweber       talk    service   11:56, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
"Artist" pages should def. be converted into lists – it's useful to have a show's songs on a single page, but that doesn't make the show an artist.
As for the songs themselves… "For songs from TV shows, cast recordings etc. there's the problem that with the current scheme we'd end up with loads of {{stub}}by artist pages (or wanted pages) for voice artists or actors who only ever contributed to one or two songs. Maybe it'd be better to use "Cast Of Show XYZ" as prefix and as alias in {{Song}} to avoid that (not to mention having unknown artists in there as well); the performers could be listed in fa or CreditBox instead." Yes, I c&p'ed that from Lichtweber's talk page. I'm lazy.6×9 (Talk) 15:43, December 14, 2014 (UTC)

OK, I went ahead and set up a draft for a definition of what an artist is in the LW sense. Help appreciated, especially wording, examples, etc.

I also made {{Misattributed}} in order to slap it on all the bogus artists, and list them on Category:Misattributed. I hope that's ok with you guys, any comment much appreciated.      Lichtweber       talk    service  

Looks good to me though I think 2px border is enough. I wouldn't even create a separate help page, but put it at or near the top of H:F/A. — 6×9 (Talk) 20:29, December 14, 2014 (UTC)
Updated Help:Artist (section of Help:Contents/Editing/Formatting/Artists, examples still wanted, though
tl|misattr: border 3px, "criteria" instead of "requirements"      Lichtweber       talk    service  
Ought to be some examples in here:
List of fictional music groups
Virtual band#Notable groups.2Fperformers --ES (talk) 10:45, December 15, 2014 (UTC)
There are also other types of non artists, besides tv and movie related objects. What I call non recording artists: artists who only exist on lyric sites, or myspace, they are essentially just a text string with so called lyric/poetry attached; the kind that we have started nuking recently. Then there are University bands and church ensembles that may burn a disk once in a while. The non artists that have no real definition and are in no list... --ES (talk) 13:44, December 21, 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why Universtiy bands and Church ensembles should not be listed here if their existence can be proved by external link(s).
So how would you put a help page section concerning those other non.rec artists?      Lichtweber       talk    service   22:57, January 3, 2015 (UTC)
All Church choirs perform the same hymns, which we either have or can fetch from dedicated sites, I think effort in providing translations would be worthwhile. My concern about uni's were unfounded!
As for the new way of dealing with pages like Simpsons, Strawberry Shortcake, I think we may define what things should look like so our enthusiastic editors don't end up creating mangled mess of red links and misattributions. Things like inserting featured singers in the middle of SongHeader while leaving the Composer/lyricist out in the cold. As a test case, i'd like to see how Simpsons/Seasame Street will be treated, also based on 6's comments further up. We need a Pink Floyd analogue for the non artist artists, a so called Oink Floyd :) --ES (talk) 10:43, January 10, 2015 (UTC)
I don't think (re)admitting XYZ-Cast as prefix is a good idea: I'm afraid it will confuse users. Maybe in such cases we can establish lyricists as artists for vocal tracks, composers as artists for instrumental/score tracks, and performing artists go into fa, if retrieveable. I think that would be easy and clean.      Lichtweber       talk    service   17:19, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
It all depends on our ref sites and quality of their listing. Any work by Rogers and Hammerstein or other composer/lyricist pairs is just a piece of cake; the pair are the AlbumArtists, singers/puppeteers and gafferboys sit in SH.fa and indicated as such in CB down below. Inadequately documented albums lead to cast etc. Please also note that in the case of Dr's fav show, "SB SC" is the performing entity, legally defined as such, for reasons that should be obvious, so let's all look far and think hard before making up policies. Licht would be great if you'd kindly set up a page for the tv/movie related discussions, if it seems to be a burden for AP. --ES (talk) 09:46, January 14, 2015 (UTC)
What is "LyricWiki:Lists/Strawberry_Shortcake"? Could you give me a link, please?      Lichtweber       talk    service   15:45, January 22, 2015 (UTC)
Next up: Special Purpose Artist      Lichtweber       talk    service   14:21, January 21, 2015 (UTC)

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

{{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)

Vocaloids

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)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki