Talk:Administrators Portal

1,837,621pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Archive Index

An Attempt to Clear the Mess

I post this here cuz I assume this is not a public space A few weeks back I started to clear the Disney mess (loads of pages misattributed to Disney as performer, long lists of non-English lyrics pages on bad shaped album pages, and so forth).

The reason I started this is to get some well formed song and album pages as an example that can be followed when setting up new pages or sorting songs. Maybe for a future User Guideline or How-To. I am guessing you agree that this is a task worth trying.

Most of the Disney soundtracks deriving from animated (children's) movies are released in many languages. This is why I started to create seperate album pages for those releases. Now, you, Senv, reverted an edit I made, stating I should prove the existence and set up the page. That didn't help, because I think it confuses users. I think we should rather support each other.

For many of those non-English releases you can hardly find satisfying refs anywhere, but they do exist anyway. (for the one in question I only found this one Wikipedia16. Apart from that I didn't have the time to set up a new page and do all the research right away). Would you be so kind to please restore the link, Senv?

For the future, I'd be glad if you guys could first get back to me on my talk page if sth is unclear. This way we spare users from getting confused, and us from being embarrassed.

If you like, we could discuss how this is done the best way. F.i. I am not sure about the use of {{Ainfo}} for the list of releases (language wise). Maybe we should create a new template for that task? Thx      Lichtweber       talk    service   15:42, May 21, 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, I'm leaving and just can't respond suitably right now. Will be able to do so only on Monday.
May say only one - you are starting to frighten me. Hope my fears are baseless...--Senvaikis (talk) 12:26, May 23, 2014 (UTC)
Well-spent weekend served me a good favour - I've lost almost all that initial irritation, caused by your strange attempts to deceive other admins. That's why now I limit my msg to just a short note.
Have you really expected that other admins not noticed, who (and how) has started this sequence of revertions? Moreover - they surely could notice, that atm of this edition mentioned release page even haven't been created. Even now, after belated your editions this "release" page still doesn't meet even minimal LW requirements for album page (any release info, any external links, missing full tracklist etc). So, you repeatedly re(re)verted other admin editions, making that in contradiction to current LW policy and without any discussion with that admin. Well, that's not the first time for me. But claiming me in edit war or lack of support after that? You should be more fair, Weber. And revert you edition by yourself - I'm not going to participate in any edit war with any admin.
I do appreciate your attempts to "clear the Disney mess". Just one, last note: if you are clearing one room, dropping all its garbage into another rooms (simultaneously creating additional garbage, often - in geometric progression) - don't expect any admiration from these rooms inhabitants. Album pages without any reliable release info, without album arts, without any external links, often - without any blue link, sometimes - even with incomplete or just plaintext tracklist; songs by artists having no page on LW etc - all these objects are some kind of garbage (in terms of LW policy), and someone should clear them in the future. Maybe it would be better if such releases as Norvegian or Polish still remained in their subpage state - just as list of known songs, contained in these releases, untill there's no info about them available? Hope you still remember - LW is lyrics site...
--Senvaikis (talk) 09:16, May 26, 2014 (UTC)
Reading your reply with words like "attempt to deceive" and "garbage", I sense a lot frustration and even anger. So I am glad that we are talking about that now, and get a chance to sort things out. I am sorry that some of my edits are causing such emotions. and I want to do better. Maybe I should have brought up a request for counselling earlier (because that is what I am trying to do here, really). But on the other hand I trusted that you guys would tell me if I was on the wrong path. And in regard of the emotions mentioned above I really think it would have been better to tell me in a post rather than in a revertion (that still is dubious to me).
Actually, you are pointing at some issues where I was uncertain:
  • plain text: I admit, I thought it no use to build links for score tracks only to being forced to insert a (false) "performer" i.e. the composer. Still a big issue for me. But if you insist, I will redo all of them, and won't create new ones. Do you?
  • creating homeless pages by replacing "Disney" and such by an actual performer: I was under the impression that this is what our policies demand. And since all of those pages are listed on an album page (or a list page), bots won't create one-song artist pages, right? If you don't think this is the right thing to do - please tell me what you would rather do?
  • Album pages: I considered it sufficient if there was at least a WP link referring in some way to listed songs. And I delivered those links on all the album pages I set up. I didn't always link to the song section, though, but I saw that you fixed that on some pages. I still do not understand why you removed this link from the polish album page, though, instead of completing the link to the song list? (please note that it wasn't me who created that page). That is what I meant when I said we should support each other: Rather add than remove, and give newbies (Xfactor1234, in that case) a chance to learn.
In general I usually set up album pages whenever I can get reliable sources. If I cannot, I set up a link with the proper name of the album and then redirect to a list page, where I put the available songs temporarily until all needed information will be retrieved. Is that ok, or would you do it differently?
Now, in the case in question, and in others too, the above newbie changed those lists into album pages and moved them. I didn't do anything about it yet because I am still hoping that she will add more information. But we should give her a chance to do that, right? (on the other hand she messed up Annie (The Musical) real bad, so one of us should probably talk to her soon).
In conclusion: No matter what you guys think of my approach, I think we should agree on a consistent solution for that kind of pages, because they are popular and users should be given an example of how these pages should be built.
OK, I hope I made my points and hopefully hear your opinion/suggestions soon      Lichtweber       talk    service   21:51, May 26, 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to return to emotional aspects of the issue, but preamble of your response necessitates me doing that, although that positively will take an additional hour(s) (you know - I'm not very hot at English). Btw, my bad English is one of reasons (after laziness) why I usually prefer an exemplary edition with short comment instead of long instructions how it should have been done ;)
  • preamble:You should not be mad on me for some words/phrases you didn't like - it would be much worse if I decided not to discuss with you at all. Once again - keep in mind my bad English, sometimes making my posts being understood with a vice versa precision :)
    • "garbage": First of all let me notice, that you extracted this word from context, where it was used more in allegory about room clearing, not as direct characteristic of particular editions. But every allegory features some shade of reality. You surely know that Lwt is one of inhabitants, living in (and supervising) these "other rooms" (AAWA, AMCA, HLSP, HLSP,, etc etc. And not some additional job at these "rooms" clearing/fixing is the main problem here, - the main problem is that this job just can't be done following current LW policy (but about that - later).
    • "attempt to deceive": take it easy, but contrary to above allegory, this term was used literally. I do believe that native Englishman could find a better, more gentle term for that, especially considering possibly subconscious nature of such attempt, but I just couldn't find any better translation for Lithuanian expression "bandymas suklaidinti", defining any attempt to misinform someone, describing events in a wrong sequence or interpretation. Sorry if my expression was too "hard", and I'm even ready to bring my apologies then, but I'm sure that it's better to let you know how some your movements may look like to seasoned admin eye. Both we are admins, thus in addition to "rooms", supervised by Lwt, we are supervising some other, much more important "rooms", populated by "LW policy", "Friendliness", "Goodwill", "Fair play", and other high-sounding-titled inhabitants. We should strictly safeguard them against any violation by anyone, admins included. So, if some admin reverts any other user legitimate edition, motivating revertion by illegitimate reason, you should remind him about LW policy. Remind him also that revert just can't seem well-meant, if that reason (regardless - valid or not) even doesn't exist at the moment of revertion. Recommend him also avoid using exclamation marks in comments to such editions - some users may interpret them as unfriendly shouting, warning or expression of your dumbfounded astonishment. Yes, I didn't like this revert, but no more, - thus just rereverted it, supplying according reasoning. You found this undo "dubious". I'd understand, if you asked me to explain in more details the reasons of this undo. But no - you just rereverted my edition, telling me to go to AP if I wanna know the reason. And what I found here? Terrible story about unfriendly admin, suddenly and reasonless rereverting your editions and confusing other users. That sounded indeed unfair, especially right after another, very fresh our "discussion". I'm old and experienced, thus it's not easy to confuse me or make me anger. I know about your good intentions and this knowledge dims any possible momentary irritation. But not all our users have such experience or patience... Now try to answer honestly yourself: which edition could confuse and misguide mentioned newbie?
  • post-preamble:Well, sorry for such oversized preamble comments - hope they didn't made things even worse ;). Let's try to return to other your questions. But before that we should bring more definition and discuss some terms to make sure we are speaking about the same objects. Let's take term "Album" and statement "These albums do exist anyway". Hope with "Album" we have no any disagreements: one of most fundamental requirements for any LW-Album - it must be released; any my home-made audio CD or MP3 collection isn't an Album in LW terms. (there are more restrictions, but let's omit them). Things are more complicated speaking about the meaning of statement "This release does exist". It may be based on several quite different raison d'etre:
    • religious (based on belief): "I can't prove that, but Album (God) does exist anyway - I just trust in that"
    • scientific (based on facts and logics, often quite sophisticated): "Album (Black Hole) does exist - I can prove that logically from known (direct and indirect) facts, even without having possibility to see/touch it"
    • pseudo-scientific (based on mix of ignorance, un/intentionally selected invalid "facts" or/and awry logics): "Object does exist - I can prove that scientifically calculating the position of star Algol in the constellation Perseus, the most evil star in the sky"
    • sensory: "Object does exist - I can see/touch it"
    • informatics: "Any object doesn't exist till some (direct) information about this object existence is available"
You may like that or not, but current LW conception of Album existence evidence actually is based on the last approach: Album doesn't exist, if we don't have any reliable information about its release. Neither "scientific" nor even sensory arguments can't change this definition. I agree - that's very strict and limited approach, but for a while we don't know any other way to protect LW from flood of all kind fake objects. If you disagree with such policy - initiate, discuss and make required changes in it, but the most general schema of trusted editor work will remain the same:
  1. Strictly follow LW policy
  2. If some task goes in contradiction to the policy - change the task or policy if possible and follow #1. Otherwise - follow #1.
  • plain text: So, if Album does exist, LW-page may be created for it, and then this page should contain a complete tracklist, where each track is represented as link to its page (exception may be done only in rare cases, for albums with some non-musical tracks aside with songs). As you know, this requirement is valid even for songs without any lyrics (instrumentals). Thus I'd strongly recommend not to create any albums with incomplete (or "black") tracklists, using a simple list of songs with known lyrics instead, if such list is required for some reasons. For searchability reasons actual Album page then should contain only redirect to that list until it's incomplete.
  • homeless pages: Yes, indeed - our policies demand replacing producers, composers and such by an actual performer of the song. And that's valid for all songs, residing on artist and/or album pages. As was mentioned already, once album page was created, it should contain a full list of songs, titled according this requirement (lw:pn). But what if that's not an album (in lw-terms, discussed above)? What for should we violate lw policy, creating countless pseudo-album pages, with countless links to homeless, artistless, albumless and, what's the most strange - lyricless songs? Again - why just a simple subpage, listing only known songs, performed in particular language, can't be used? I see - you say that someone performed a big job, making a lists of these songs in each lang? Yes, it wouldn't be very wise (and fair) to just wipe it. But contrary to Album, simple subpage with songlist isn't an object of mentioned limitations of policy, ergo - it may contain not only incomplete, but "black" list also, if that's desirable.
  • Album pages (or WP and mutual support):
    • WP: No, "WP link referring in some way" isn't sufficient for using it as wp-link for any object until that's not a link to an article or at least a section, dedicated to that object. Our object is LW-Album or, to be precise, soundtrack album release. Have you checked these wp-links? Seems you've mentioned you have. But then you should have notice, that only root page of your project have a wp page, dedicated to this soundtrack release. All other wp-links lead us to the articles about film, even without any sections, dedicated to soundtracks. Strictly speaking, most of them don't contain any info about soundtrack release at all, thus all of them can't be used as any evidence of soundtrack release, ergo - should be removed (like mentioned Polish wp link)
    • mutual support: That's strange, but that's not the first time I hear your references to some lack of support, addressed to me. I even used to plead not guilty, trying to explain such strange your opinion by radical differences in the scope of our activities. Do you remember my explanation that my experience and the power of Lwt hardly may be effectively used for most of tasks you are supervising? Do you really think it would be better to use me together with my LWT for manual-editing-speed job instead of using bot for its native, multithreaded tasks? And finally - do you really think my contribution to LW and support for users are insufficient? Then I'm glad we started this discussion - I'd like to hear how I could improve my efficiency and user-support (mutual, surely).
  • resume: Resume is actually very simple: while policy isn't changed, it should be followed (after any change it should be followed also - that's exactly what it was created for... :)). And use better valid songlist subpage instead of invalid albumpage (wasn't that mentioned in my previous response?). Damn, what then I was talking about all this time (it took almost entire day)?! :). Once again sorry for oversized msg, - just one more evidence of my inability to explain something in a short and clear form. And take it easy, if you find some my wording improper again. That's all my broken English... :)
Cheers, --Senvaikis (talk) 12:56, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

Questionable translations

Can some of you check these translations in the languages they're familiar with? The German ones were horrible machine translations, and I suspect the rest are no better, but I'd like someone to check at least one other language before deleting the whole bunch. Thanks! — 6×9 (Talk) 07:32, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

This French one's a googlation, too.      Lichtweber       talk    service   11:50, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! — 6×9 (Talk) 20:17, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

Other Songs & {{split}}

For those who haven't followed the discussion on Senv's talk page, here's a quick recap:

  • The {{split}} template should be displayed on the artist page itself, not the talk page, where hardly anyone will see it – here is an example how it might look.
  • The severity thresholds should be raised somewhat; more importantly, for artists with few OS (e.g. less than 10) tl:split should be left off; instead {{stub}} should be added if there are no albums at all.
  • Some flexibility could still be allowed; like a lower level when OS count is near the lower threshold and more songs are allocated to albums than in OS.

Any objections or suggestions? We still need to agree on thresholds; 10/30/80 seems reasonable to me, or maybe 10/30/90 for multiples of 3? — 6×9 (Talk) 14:10, October 16, 2014 (UTC)

Yep... any response - depressive picture :(.
Well, 6, - what's then your suggestion - start making changes, based on our opinion or try to wake up other admins?
--Senvaikis (talk) 10:23, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
Sounds very reasonable to me. Pics could be half the size, imo :)      Lichtweber       talk    service   16:05, October 20, 2014 (UTC)
@Senv: Let's make it a full week and wait until Thursday; I doubt the OS will disappear :-) (And if they do – even better!)
@both: reduced size even more; I don't think going smaller than that would be useful… — 6×9 (Talk) 16:50, October 20, 2014 (UTC)

Week's up: I have updated the template documentation (going with 10/30/90). Someone please check that the wording is clear & I haven't missed/left out anything… @Senv: if you're OK with these rules, don't hesitate to let your tool loose – I know you want to :-) — 6×9 (Talk) 18:40, October 23, 2014 (UTC)

Documentation looks good to me. Trainman (talk) 01:30, October 24, 2014 (UTC)


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 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)

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)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki