Talk:Administrators Portal

Back to page

1,772,426pages on
this wiki
Archive Index

Updating the Docs

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

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

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

Special Artist Needed

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

Definitely useful for cases like this (see also MB's bogus artists). I don't think we need to change all that much to allow them: basically a sentence on artist help page detailing when it is appropriate, and a small note/infobox (+ category?) on the artist page. — 6×9 (Talk) 10:23, May 3, 2015 (UTC)
When would it be appropriate? Your ideas are welcome @ User talk:Lichtweber/Special Purpose Artist, then I'll fix sth. @6: Would it be possible to modify let's say the colour of the artist box to immediately show that this one's an SPA?  Lichtweber talk service  11:58, May 13, 2015 (UTC)
Basically the scenario you described above – when there are numerous actual artists with no songs outside the show. Re: colour, change is simple enough but requires a parameter, like |special or |type = special. — 6×9 (Talk) 15:00, May 13, 2015 (UTC)
From my perspective, SPA would be the last resort i.e. if no human artist or "real" band could be credited. It would be great if Nic could share his thougts since we have an actual case.  Lichtweber talk service  17:49, September 2, 2015 (UTC)

Song titles

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

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

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

I like it, but I'm not a fan of the grey border - looks odd on an actual song page. A yellow-orangey (#FFE39C) border like other song page templates might look nicer? - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 17:47, August 7, 2015 (UTC)
I've added a lyricbox for comparison – you're right, the 50% grey didn't look good. I've switched to #CCC (same as lyricbox & CreditBox). The peachy border doesn't work too well with the same-coloured title bar, I think; it also seemed a bit too bright so I played around with the values (though that probably depends on monitor & resolution). — 6×9 (Talk) 06:14, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
IMO, the grey border like CreditBox looks more appealing to the eye; the orangey border looks a slight bit too garish. Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 10:08, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
The lighter grey looks much nicer! I prefer that over the peachy one, now that I see them all together. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 15:42, August 13, 2015 (UTC)
I like #9. Too late? X-)  Lichtweber talk service  20:18, September 5, 2015 (UTC)

Minor updates to the talk page parameters

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

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

I'm not sure what these parameters are for? If they're optional, they can be used or not, right? No need for any change, is there?  Lichtweber talk service  15:02, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

I can't quite answer what "timed" is for exactly, but "download" is used when a legal download can be provided to the song. Yes, you said they're optional and you'd be correct (though I don't think Timed can be used at all atm, just Download), but I created this header because I wanted to know what their status is at the moment, whether they're outdated, can still be used, etc. Senv partially answered my question but he said some things I don't understand, such as "comming DPL upgrades" and a "new DPL-enhanced Info page". XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)15:54, August 3, 2015 (UTC)
DPL seems sth 6 is working on. Don't exactly know what it is though, but seems 2 b basic 4 many templates. Maybe 6 can explain. Btw: Timed lyrics are still possible, had such a page a while ago.  Lichtweber talk service  16:08, August 3, 2015 (UTC)
I'll have to ask 6 when I get a chance to come over to the Admin Portal, then. If I may ask, what is the purpose of timed lyrics, and what are the pages like? I haven't seen any around here and I'm not exactly sure what it is. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)19:02, August 3, 2015 (UTC)
See description of {{timed}} and example  Lichtweber talk service  19:26, August 3, 2015 (UTC)
Hmm....interesting. Though I have to be honest (and I must emphasize this is just my opinion) but I don't see any real use for these timed pages. They seem outdated and I can't see anyone using them, because services like Spotify and SoundHound offer timed lyrics, but do it better, as the lyrics actually scroll by themselves in time with the music. This just looks clunky and I don't see what it achieves, because I doubt someone listening to a song will be constantly checking where they are in the song at each line to make sure it matches. Unless I'm missing something I don't really understand this. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)20:15, August 3, 2015 (UTC)
They're not usually for manual use. You can use them with some media players for, like you say, lyrics scrolling in time with the music. Check wikipedia:LRC (file format) for some more info on the format. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 20:28, August 3, 2015 (UTC)
Do people still use that format? I'm sure there is a minority that does, however I'd imagine Spotify's scrolling lyrics are most likely more accessible to most people because it doesn't involve extra steps of converting files and is simpler - which is the route most people want to go nowadays. And does LW provide downloads to the .lrc format on these pages? I didn't see any links to download those in .lrc format in the SongFooter or anything. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)20:33, August 3, 2015 (UTC)
Of course they do! I don't know Spotify, but it's not hard to imagine they store their timed lyrics in a similar format. I'm not sure what you mean converting files and providing download? The text you see on those pages is already LRC format - it's not anything complicated - and I don't see any issue with having them here.
Regarding your original question: 'download' is definitely still applicable, and 'timed' has been hidden since 2010. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 09:04, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
You don't know Spotify? It's a popular music-streaming program, and they offer a "lyrics" button for each song. When you click it, if the lyrics are timed with the song, they'll scroll accordingly. I say "converting files and providing download" because you said you have to use .lrc files with your Media Player. So, the page can't just be here, you'd have to download it so your Media Player can read it, correct?
So clearly 6 had a reason for hiding "timed" back in 2010 - what I want to know is why. However, this is confusing because Senv is saying it's still usable in whatever the "DPL-enhanced info" is, yet 6's edit implies otherwise. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)15:06, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
Oh no, I know of Spotify, I just meant I don't use it myself. That's correct, but there's no need for downloads: you copy & paste to a text document and save it as a .lrc file.
I wasn't around here back then, but I believe the talk page 'timed' parameter was used in conjunction with 'lrcdb' songfooter param, and the lrcDB site went down a number of years ago, so it was probably commented out in case it came back up. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 18:27, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
Oh, okay, gotcha. Guess I learned something new today Wink
Yeah, I knew that lrcdb is an outdated tag and I remove it whenever I see it in the SongFooter. So, with that said, since lrcdb is down, does that mean timed should be removed? Probably not - I'm assuming we should wait and see if we can re-implement it a different way. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)21:10, August 4, 2015 (UTC)
123f is correct –'s shutdown was meant to be temporary (hence commenting out instead of removing), but proved to be permanent.
Not sure what you mean with "see if we can re-implement it a different way" – that's what we have done with {{timed}} (to create a home for the couple lrc pages that users have added since, rather than deleting them). Also not sure how that template could be improved with DPL, apart from fetching song title from SF (which it already does).
Be that as it may, I think timed & download as song ranking parameters are pretty much pointless: we can't make them required (it's nearly impossible to put "not applicable"), so they don't influence ranking; they just say "the info is there", which you already know if you come from the content page (as users usually do). So, while they're not exactly outdated, I still think we should remove them. — 6×9 (Talk) 17:33, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for a clear and concise response, 6 - Senv's response was ambiguous, but I know that's not his fault due to English being his second language (iirc).
Anyways, I definitely agree with what you're saying. Talk page parameters should be able to be easily fulfilled, but Timed and Download don't fall into this category. Timed can be fulfilled but is incredibly tedious to make and isn't important for page "completion" that Gold strives for, and like I said before, a legal download cannot be provided for every single song. So as you said, it's impossible to mark these as not applicable and they're really both pointless additions to the talk page parameter - they don't influence page "completion" in the slightest. At least everything else is clear-cut and can be easily fulfilled or not.
With that said, do you think you're going to go ahead and remove them now or wait on input from Senv and other admins before doing so? If you're waiting on input, then I'll start with a resounding yes from me to remove the parameters. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)20:17, August 5, 2015 (UTC)
@6: "A new DPL-enhanced Info page" doesn't need any DPL-improvements in {{Timed}} - my note was about possible DPL-improvements of {{Song Info}}, supposing that both "download" and "timed" params could be automatically taken from song page, by including them and setting to the only one possible value "done" only when according info exists. You say, not much sense in that, and I agree, - as in the whole {{Song Info}}, strictly speaking :) --Senvaikis (talk) 07:23, August 6, 2015 (UTC)
Automatically filling in SI would defeat its purpose – "done" not only means "is present" but also "checked by a human to be correct". Where DPL could come in handy is weeding out invalid dones (marked as done but param is missing), though that will get messy for things like video or audio where we allow different sites, or even have different ways of linking for one site (like {{youtube embed}} vs. — 6×9 (Talk) 14:53, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

High goals - that's good. Particularly if they are achievable. And even better - if their implementation is based on something more serious as compared to the good intentions and hopes. Do you still remember the results of some ranking info reliability investigations, made by Lwt? Do you hope that current pageranking info is much better synchronized to the actual page content? I don't. That's why I think that any system of this synchronization control would be desirable, giving at least some sense to pageranking -Senvaikis (talk) 19:19, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

It's been a week now, have we reached a consensus now on how to deal with timed and download? The only reason I didn't respond to the above few messages is, again, because I didn't understand what they were talking about XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)17:10, August 13, 2015 (UTC)
I thought a consensus was reached, as 42's already been going around removing them. Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 17:29, August 13, 2015 (UTC)
I didn't realize - 6 never mentioned that his bot was doing that Tongue So the bot's removing both parameters? Fantastic, I guess this discussion can be closed then. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)18:12, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

What is DPL?

Thx 6. And now the other question: What exactly is "DPL"? Lichtweber talk service  17:46, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

Found it!. :)  Lichtweber talk service  17:55, August 5, 2015 (UTC)

Simplified Song Page Names

I moved this topic from my talk page, this here might be the appropriate place for it.  Lichtweber talk service  18:17, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

While there were discussions about simplified pagenames, they never made it to policy, so if it's a true collaboration, removing any collaborants from the pagename violates our current LWPN. FWIW, I'm strongly against unfairly shortening a list of (what should be) equal artists; if we have to do shorten pagenames (and I agree that for more than three artists it would be a good idea), I'd rather use "Various Artists:Song Title". — 6×9 (Talk) 17:00, August 7, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this is a good opportunity to settle the "oversized page names" issue for good.
Right now I can see no cons since all the attributing is done by templates. The pro is easier editing.
I'm not sure if it's a good idea to use "various artists" - isn't that confusing since we have a list by that name where all unresolved song pages accumulate?
Thoughts? Do we have to change LW:PN for that?  Lichtweber talk service  17:14, August 7, 2015 (UTC)
Can we make it so "oversized page names" only apply on soundtracks by cast members, because some popular releases recently have had 3 or more artists with lead credits which don't really overinflate the title that much (see here and here) Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 17:46, August 7, 2015 (UTC)
I think we should agree on a code of conduct that keeps us flexible in our decisions wether or not to simplify page names.  Lichtweber talk service  15:53, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
Any substantial cons vs. simplified? Come on guys, let's settle this once and for all, shall we?  Lichtweber talk service  15:53, August 8, 2015 (UTC)
Any cons would depend on how exactly a page name is to be shortened, I'd think. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 20:22, August 14, 2015 (UTC)
…and on when – do we always use a fixed number? Do we shorten only (or at a lower threshold) if the listed artists have no non-collab songs?
Above-mentioned VA confusion wouldn't be a problem – the list is called "Unknown Artist", and any pages with va prefix can be quickly batchmoved. — 6×9 (Talk) 12:46, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary Notes: I don't think we have to turn every little bit of handling into a policy. In this case, I think it would be enough to document our considerations for admins and interested editiors so that they can make an informed decision. So maybe we should introduce some kind of "commentary pages/green pages" and link them wherever they may come in handy. (e.g. LW:RvW)

Attributing System

As I understand our system (please correct me if I'm wrong) all the attributing is done by our templates. The page naming makes sure that we have unambiguous names for each song page. While there's also the possibility to sort (and search for) prefixes, this tool becomes weaker with every additional name we add to the prefix: With two artist names, we have two possibilities to note them: A & B and B & A. With three artists we already have 6, with four artist 24 and so on. (not to mention how the're separated: by "&" or "," or "and", or a combination of them)

How to Shorten

Having said that, I don't think it really matters how we shorten the prefix, as long as

  • the pagename is unambiguous and it contains
  • at least one "true artist", i.e either performer, or lyricist or composer.
  • {{Song}}, {{SongCollaboration}} list all performers/artists

Depending on the situation we could

  • shorten, i.e. "A & B:Song Title"
  • substitute: instead listing all performers, we could note the lyricist or composer (handy for "cast cases")
  • use "Various Artists", imo only when nothing else would make sense (can't think of any such case, though)

As I see it, the only two things we'd probably have to make policy are

  • how to list more than one artist in page names (I'd say we should make the ampersand mandatory, i.e.: A & B & C) unless usually noted differently, e.g. Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young
  • the order of listing more than one name (I'd say: alphabetically, e.g.: "A Naifa & Baba Khan:Song Title"), unless, of course, collabs are usually noted differently, e.g. Simon & Garfunkel

I don't see why shortened prefixes should be unfair, since the attribution is done by our templates (see above).

When to Shorten

Imo we should allow simplified prefix, respectively substitute cast for lyricist/composer, as soon as there's more than two artists: This way we can maintain a certain consistency for collabs: "A & B:Song Title" and/or "Casts": Lyricist/Composer:Song Title".  Lichtweber talk service  13:40, August 16, 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what to make of the silence - is it approval, is it indifference?  Lichtweber talk service  20:36, August 25, 2015 (UTC)
TBH, I'm with 6 in terms of using a "Various Artists:" prefix as opposed to picking specific performers. (Also mandatory ampersand for more than two artists in header looks ugly, would rather have comma separation until last artist: "A, B, C & D:Song Name" like we have with most collaborations on this site).
Also, why can't we have it so "Cast:Song Name" is used, but in {{SongCollaboration}} have the individual performers listed? Because from what I've seen people just dislike "Cast" as an artist page, not necessarily as a prefix. Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 20:48, August 25, 2015 (UTC)
The silence is caused by more complicated reason, not by indifference. Don't you think that "pagename simplifying" hardly may be considered as an object of any policy at all? Recommendations - yes, go ahead, but the policy makes any its requirement mandatory. Don't you think that the object of discussion is too versatile to be crammed into any single policy model? So I never agree to make a policy neither "alphabetic ordering", nor "joining by ampersand" or "replacing by most significant performer" etc. If I don't like some rule, but can't suggest any better universal rule, that may indicate that either a)I'm not wise enough for that or b)such a universal rule can not be created at all (hope you understand why I like the latter reason more... ;)) --Senvaikis (talk) 09:15, August 26, 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, now we're getting somewhere. From your replies I can see that I did not make myself clear, sorry for that. So let me rephrase the whole thing:
  • I do not want to change our policies to allow shortening, because
  • As far as I can see, nothing in our docs forbids us to shorten prefixes of song pages or substitute a long list of possible performers with lyricist and/or composer. But 6 doesn't agree? Please explain why.
  • By bringing the issue up here I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page
  • To prevent discussions being started over and over (not only with this specific issue) I propose expanding our doc system by introducing "commentary pages/green pages"
Imo, the only thing we need to settle this is to finally check if shortening is in accordance with current policies and to have a short feedback if you guys think we should introduce green pages or not. If yes, I'd come up with some suggestions on LW:DocUpd  Lichtweber talk service  14:37, September 5, 2015 (UTC)
Shortening: How is "as close as possible to the original name" or "Artist:Song" ambiguous (other than the pending definition on what makes an artist an artist on LW)? Me being the only one mentioning it doesn't necessarily mean I'm the only one to think so…
As for pagenames not having to list actual performers/artists because attribution is done in the templates, let me point at this ancient discussion (danger: might ruin your weekend).
Green pages: sound useful; maybe this way we could trim down some of our help pages (I'm sure they look dauting to a newcomer). — 6×9 (Talk) 11:16, September 19, 2015 (UTC)
  • "as close as possible to the original name": I read: The song title should be as close as possible to the original name. e.g.: "Somebody That I Used To Know" vs. "Somebody That I Used To Know (featuring Kimbra)".
  • "Artist:Song": I read: (At least one) artist ("artist" being singular)
So, at least to me, this is (and always was) ambiguous. But that's not a bad thing. It gives us the freedom to decide on the merits how to build the song prefix.
  • Ancient discussion: Didn't ruin my weekend, on the contrary made my day! So good to see a constructive discussion with more than two participants ;).
But I have to ask: Why did you link there? Is it because of artist namespace affecting API? Given those many possible ways of building a prefix when there's more than two artists involved, I don't think we can handle that either way. Please let me know if I'm off track.  Lichtweber talk service  15:26, September 19, 2015 (UTC)
Again, it's not ambiguous. "…as close…" refers to the pagename (it's a policy about pagenames after all), thus meaning both artist and song part in the case of song pages. "Artist" doesn't mean "person", else Pink Floyd songs (for example) would have to have a "Roger Waters:" or "Syd Barrett:" or "David Gilmour:" prefix. I'll admit it's written in a way that might be misconstrued with a bit of effort, but it's still pretty unambiguous – this is the first time I've ever seen it interpreted a different way.
As I explained, I linked to that discussion because it was about the point you made above – whether pagenames should list actual performers/artists when attribution is done in the templates. There's a reason we ended up with one Neil Young page but several different artist prefixes (and NY is one of the milder examples), thus having to deal with all that alias and albumartist stuff. — 6×9 (Talk) 16:35, September 19, 2015 (UTC)

As for LW:PN: I'm not hair-splitting. And if it happens to me it could happen to anyone. I am saying that LW:PN isn't airtight in that respect and that we should use this fact to solve oversized song prefixes. Be that as it may: I am trying to find a solution for a common problem, so if you don't agree, please make a proposal how it could be done.  Lichtweber talk service  17:05, September 19, 2015 (UTC)

Name any policy or rule that applies to real-world situations that is airtight. Do you really, as an admin that should set an example for other users, want to exploit a loophole in one of our most important policies?
If we want to shorten song pagenames, which violates the spirit if not the letter of LWPN, then we will have to amend LWPN. It's as simple as that. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:14, September 19, 2015 (UTC)
Why do you make it sound so vile? As I said: I'm trying to find a solution. You don't like it - very well. Please come up with another one.  Lichtweber talk service  18:27, September 19, 2015 (UTC)
Please point out where I wrote that I don't like your solution (as opposed to certain parts of it). — 6×9 (Talk) 19:24, September 19, 2015 (UTC)
Well, the very core of my solution is the premise that simplifying song page names is within the limits of LW:PN. So, what's yours?  Lichtweber talk service  17:57, September 22, 2015 (UTC)
If we want to shorten pagenames, which would violate LWPN, then we will have to amend LWPN. It's as simple as that. But I think I already wrote that. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:44, September 22, 2015 (UTC)
What should such an amendment look like exactly, in your opinion?  Lichtweber talk service  18:55, September 22, 2015 (UTC)
How it would look exactly would depend on exactly how and when we would shorten. Approximately, it might consist of specifying how and when it is acceptable to shorten at the bottom of the "Song Pages" section. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:47, September 22, 2015 (UTC)
And this would be the point where you present a proposal how and when to shorten (or stating that you can live with what I proposed in my initial post). This feels like squeezing blood out of a stone. :(  Lichtweber talk service  14:08, September 23, 2015 (UTC)
Funny, I had the exact same feeling during this whole bit of the discussion… How: See my very first post; When: currently leaning towards a variation on Pat's idea (cast members if 3+ or 4+, "regular" artists if 6+, maybe more or less depending on how long their names are). — 6×9 (Talk) 15:50, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

Non-Latin artists

I'm gonna give this another go: Is anyone else in favour of doing away with the "Native (Romanized)" naming scheme for non-Latin artists (CJK, Cyrillic etc.)? It's a hassle, it looks really ugly with collaborations, it's counterintuitive (Why this huge exception in LWPN? Why only for artists, but not albums/songs?), and now that UTF-8 and the fonts to display most chars are pretty ubiquitous I don't think it no longer serves any purpose.

Mind, if we do away with it it will mean a lot of work (page moves & link updates), but if we don't there's a lot of work anyway (because many artists still miss the roman bit). — 6×9 (Talk) 09:19, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

In favour --ES (talk) 10:15, October 4, 2015 (UTC)
I too have always found it a bit unnecessary, and it is especially daunting for new and even more experienced users who attempt to create pages for these artists, so I'm for the moves. But which shall we move them to, romanized or native? (I'd say per album covers like most artists). Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 10:17, October 4, 2015 (UTC)
Agree on per cover. Of course, in theory, if an artist uses the roman name we wouldn't have to do anything, since the artist page should already have the correct title… — 6×9 (Talk) 13:53, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki