Talk:Administrators Portal

Back to page

1,782,309pages 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 thoughts since we have an actual case.  · Lichtweber talk service  17:49, September 2, 2015 (UTC)
Please also refer to "Whose Line" discussion.  · Lichtweber talk service  18:20, October 18, 2015 (UTC)
I definitely think we should introduce some sort of "non-artist" format for these special cases like Whose Line and Sesame Street. I highly doubt anyone will have the time to fix all of their pages and they'll most likely stay in their messy state, so this would be a good idea. Perhaps a new type of Artist Infobox and page format.
I think this would work well, because I still despise the new look of the Whose Line page. It's a mess now, only certain pages have the performers on them when others don't, etc. The cast just fluctuates so much (outside of Colin Mochrie) that I always thought having one consistent label for them would work much smoother than listing individual cast performers. To me, it's all over the place now. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)10:36, October 21, 2015 (UTC)
I think special purpose artists would be a handy concept to have for these cases too, rather than using all individual performers, which can make pages harder to search/find/manage, or using "Various artists", which isn't at all descriptive. The Sesame Street and Whose Line ... pages, for example, seem fine to me - I'd consider them like a band or group, even if the "members" may change fairly frequently. Of course, it should be used only when needed and appropriate. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 17:31, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
I too agree with introducing SPAs (but I hope there will be some changes to {{Song}} so "Performed by Sesame Street" doesn't occur) - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 20:15, October 31, 2015 (UTC)
All in favour, that's great!
Now we need to find criteria that enables us and our editors to make a safe decision on wether a specific prefix is allowed as SPA. In addition, we have to make sure that we do not accidentally allow all possible one-time casts from musicals or (Disney) soundtracks as legitimate artists. This would happen if we had the "No songs outside show" rule as our sole criterion. Thus, we have to find additional criteria.
Right now we have de-facto SPAs:
  • Traditionals (no particular artist associated with them)
  • National Anthems, etc.(linking certain kinds of pages)
  • The Simpsons, Sesame Street, et al. (too many pple involved)
We have at least one prefix that is definitely not an SPA:
And we have borderline cases:
  • Alvin and the Chipmunks (only three main authors resp. performers over the years: Bagdasarian, sr & jr, Janice Karmen, exact allocation in time possible, but no other releases outside show)
  • Whose Line Is It Anyway?: Main cast consisting of 4 people only. Exact alllocation possible, at least one of them has releases outside show: Wayne Brady, no albums released afaik.
So how can we make a set of rules of that?  · Lichtweber talk service  20:33, November 2, 2015 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with them, but from a quick look I'd say "Alvin and the Chipmunks" should be a standard artist page, not under "David Seville" (as it is currently) nor as a SPA, just like how we have a page for "Gorillaz", not "Damon Albarn & Jamie Hewlett", even though they're the actual performers. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 09:25, November 4, 2015 (UTC)
I agree. But the question still remains: Based on which grounds (which we have to define just now) can we allow "The Chipmunks" and "WLIIA?", but not Strawberry Shortcake, Don't Hug Me I'm Scared? or any one-time soundtrack cast?  · Lichtweber talk service  23:04, November 5, 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)

Let me sum up the discussion. As always: correct me if I'm wrong:

  • Changing LW:PN: yes
  • How: Various artists prefix
  • When:
    • Cast members: if 3+
    • "Regular artists": 6+, more or less depending on name length (in bits?) (what are "regular artists"?)
  • Changing LW:PN: no
  • How and When: not a policy issue: too complex, would make things mandatory, rather "recommendations"
  • How: use various artists or Cast prefix
  • Being flexible on shortening
  • Changing LW:PN: no
  • Flexible on shortening
  • Use new type of doc pages to help making an informed decision

In view of this I agree with 6 allowing "Various Artists" prefix in Song Pages subsec of LW:PN. I agree with Pat to keep things flexible, but wouldn't want "Cast" prefixes to be allowed since it contradicts Help:Artist. I also agree with Senv that the exact how and when should not be object of any policy. This is why I propose linking a Green Page with a summary of our considerations to LW:PN, and keep Song Pages subsec as brief as possible.

  • Changing LW:PN: yes: officially allow "Various Artists" prefix, and adding link to Green Page in Song Pages subsec
  • Considerations to be documented in Green Page
  • When: As soon as 2+ possible, not mandatory. Making an informed decision on the merits (no fix numbers) and Green Page doc.
  • How: Either use Various Artists or substitute with lyricist and /or composer

Is that something you all could agree to?  · Lichtweber talk service  12:10, October 11, 2015 (UTC)

Change "2+" to "3+" (maybe 2 if both artists have exceptionally long names, but even then I'd rather leave it) and I'm mostly happy. However, I'd rather hold off making final decisions and updating docs until we decided whether or not we should have Special Purpose Artists (see above). Would any other admins please weigh in on that? — 6×9 (Talk) 13:51, October 18, 2015 (UTC)
Can we use some other moniker for this purpose, instead of Various Artists? How about Collaboration? anything but VA--ES (talk) 18:07, October 18, 2015 (UTC)
3+ OK with me.
VA: 6 convinced me. What's wrong with VA?  · Lichtweber talk service  14:35, October 20, 2015 (UTC)
Various Artists is used here for other purposes, also on the net it has been much abused. I think Collaboration is a better label (maybe not the best, but better than VA), and causes less confusion. Not sure what is OK with 6...;) --ES (talk) 16:28, October 20, 2015 (UTC)
Let's close this chapter: I take it that Synthesis is agreed on with 3+ artists instead of 2+. I'll start working on resp. Green Page and LWPN text.
Now let's settle the SPA issue, please.  · Lichtweber talk service  14:26, October 27, 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)
Also in favour - simplifications are always appreciated! - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 07:48, October 7, 2015 (UTC)
+1 from --Senvaikis (talk) 06:44, October 8, 2015 (UTC)
PS (just would be desirable to start from updating lw:docs...)
Isn't this the same ES requested in LW:DocUpd#Internationalisation? · Lichtweber talk service  09:03, October 8, 2015 (UTC) done  · Lichtweber talk service  14:41, October 20, 2015 (UTC)

Since we already have a majority… I've gone and updated the docs: [1] [2] [3]. Please let me know if I missed any. I'll go and let the rest of the world know on the CP. — 6×9 (Talk) 11:43, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Some questions about this change of rules by one of our leading J editors came up at the Community Portal seven days ago. Could somebody please answer over there? At least indicate that thread is read and will be responded to? Isn't that common courtesy? sry guys, but that really bothers me  · Lichtweber talk service  18:01, October 30, 2015 (UTC)

Orphan Romanized songpages

We have romanized lyric song pages that have been tagged as lang=C/J/K, (strictly speaking they are roman C/J/K, so they shouldn't even have a lang param, or sh/sf)
Can we have such song pages identified, collected in a category, so we can bring in the real song page in C/J/K and attach the roman version to them? The pagenames may or maynot be in latin, but the lyrics would not contain any CJK char, though exceptions may exist. --ES (talk) 21:05, October 19, 2015 (UTC)

We could slap a {{OLM}} on it, adding them to cat "Original lyrics missing" for maintenance purpose.  · Lichtweber talk service  14:39, October 20, 2015 (UTC)
We already have {{RequestKanaKanji}} for J and {{RequestNativeScript}} for other langs. — 6×9 (Talk) 15:21, October 20, 2015 (UTC)
note to self:learn a new bit everyday! Thanks 6! --ES (talk) 16:31, October 20, 2015 (UTC)

Subpage for vocalist notations?

Seeing as this topic rears its head every now and again (one of the first topics I got into with 123F way back when), and seeing as my opinion has changed (since I started goldifying lyrics affected), can we have some sort of place for vocalist notations? I personally would like to keep them, but not on the main song page, but on a subpage like translations/timed lyrics. IMO this will keep members of both parties (pro-voc notations and anti-voc notations) happy. What do my fellow admins say. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 21:40, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Given that lyrics are to be transcribed as sung, then singer notation doesn't belong in lyrics anyway, and removal of such notations will not make the lyrics muddled. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by EchoSierra (talkcontribs).
@ES: Another inconsistency in our docs :( We should fix that.
@Pat: This might indeed be a solomonic solution. with a lot of redundancy, I might add  · Lichtweber talk service  23:08, November 5, 2015 (UTC)
@LW:I was hoping the re/creation of such subpages would be left to contributors...Subpages for trans/rom are highly desirable and as such we (as admins) ought to actively participate in their creation and upkeep, but singer-notation (like lrc/linked) subpages are a niche area that imho is best left for the (primarily Hip Hop) fans to deal with it, so the redundancy will correspond to the participation level of singer-notation fans/editors. --ES (talk) 09:01, November 6, 2015 (UTC) If that sounds too convoluted I'll rewrite it R2L ;-)
That was my idea: completely non-mandatory, but there for those (like me) who want to have some way for these notations to exist without impeding the quality of regular pages.
Huh, seems an anon has been waiting all day for this, and is cleaning up my gold pages for me. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 15:00, November 6, 2015 (UTC)
I cannot believe that it was deemed necessary to note the vocalists when they were all members of the band! I thought this was only used for collabs/fas. --ES (talk) 15:20, November 6, 2015 (UTC)
Yeah... me last year thought it was necessary, but not now.
Well, my gold pages have been purged of notations as of now; everything looks so clean Tongue - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 17:26, November 6, 2015 (UTC)
Now hang on a minute… The help page clearly states that singer notation may (not must) be added, yet suddenly anon users are blocked because they do that? And pages are protected (even worse, indefinitely) because they had such notation added?
It's sad that I should have to remind you (for some admins, again and again and again), but the order in which these things should be done is: (1) wait for consensus (and no, 36 hours is not enough to assume silent approval from those who haven't chipped in yet); (2) update the docs; (3) notify users who stick to the previous way of the change; (4) only if notification goes unnoticed may they be blocked or the page protected – for a limited timespan.
Until these steps have been taken, the following apply:
  • The current help page holds true, meaning notation of who sings what may be added as soon as there is more than one singer.
  • Such information may not be removed unless it can be, and is, sensibly put into the CreditBox instead. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 6 times 9 (talkcontribs), 09:05, 7 November 2015‎.
100% with 6, --Senvaikis (talk) 10:09, November 7, 2015 (UTC)
I apologise: It was sloppy of me not to limit the page protections. Will be more cautious in the future.
@6, Senv, sorry if I missed something, but I'm not sure how your statements should be counted as a vote on Pat's motion. Could you please put that straight? Thx,  · Lichtweber talk service  14:41, November 7, 2015 (UTC)
Let's not sidestep the real issue. (1) The main problem is not that you didn't limit the page protection, it's that the pages shouldn't have been protected in the first place. (2) My (and, I'm sure, Senv's) statement shouldn't be counted as a vote either way, because it isn't. — 6×9 (Talk) 15:10, November 7, 2015 (UTC)
No doubt about the course of action as you describe it. Of course, if premises are incoherent or even contradictory, things can get bumpy. From my perspective, his actually is the issue.
I acted in good faith, and I believe the other admin involved did that too.
Fortunately, we're about to resolve this. With 6 and Senv abstaining, we have a majority for the motion.
@Pat: care to set up a draft for changes to Help:Lyrics? I propose using LW:DocUpd#Vocalist Notation.  · Lichtweber talk service  14:20, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
Added my ideas to the DocUpd page. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 14:48, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
Considering a number of people are fans of this, this should really be discussed on the Community Portal first. Whilst I've never added these myself, I have no issue with vocalist notations as long as they don't clutter/overshadow the lyrics, and would prefer having a few notations on the lyrics over duplicating the lyrics just to keep notations separate. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 16:06, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
Quote by Lichtweber: "...With 6 and Senv abstaining, we have a majority for the motion" contains two false statements, 'cause:
  • no, we aren't abstaining - we just call you to refrain from hasty decisions, and especially - from hasty and inadequate actions
  • no, you do not have the required majority, - I regret being forced to remind you this
--Senvaikis (talk) 15:22, November 9, 2015 (UTC)
If your statements are not to be counted as abstaining, why don't you just give us an unambiguous vote then?
Or do you, by linking to the bureaucrats list, mean to say that this is not up to any vote at all?  · Lichtweber talk service  15:53, November 9, 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't 6 clear enough? Then I may repeat - we aren't speaking about voting at all, 'cause both we, as admins and bureaucrats, are concerned about more serious problems in adminship atm.
Btw, speaking about voting - that's a very symptomatic example. How may you expect some "unambiguous voting", while there's no any unambiguous proposal, formulated for the voting? I don't speak about Pat's suggestion - it's really worth to be discussed and prepared for one or another decision. But it's absolutely unacceptable to start applying administrative measures, based on unapproved yet policy. What a policy - even an unambiguous question for unambiguous voting hasn't been formulated yet...
--Senvaikis (talk) 16:59, November 9, 2015 (UTC)
  1. Two different discussions (though related) are mixed in one thread. This, imo, is not at all constructive. So I propose to open another thread (e.g. "Admin problems"), thus keeping them separate and restore constructivity.
  2. on topic:
Two distinct proposals were made:
  • Allow subpages for vocalist notation
  • Not to allow those notations on regular song pages. The exact how-to can be discussed at LW:DocUpd  · Lichtweber talk service  17:32, November 9, 2015 (UTC)
Well, keeping my promise to LW, I should try to explain why above proposal isn't suitable yet for voting imo.
Any voting imo should be the final state of process, started from some idea and followed by suggestions, discussions, and finally - by formulating of change-model proposal for voting. During this process all possible answers to the questions why, what for, what pros/cons, how, in what order etc should be considered and discussed. Change model (or limited set of possible models) for voting should include unambiguous answers to all these questions to avoid possible misunderstandings in the future, after changes in the policy. I don't allege that Pat's proposal hasn't been discussed at all, but while these discussions are scattered through multiple places, this thread still doesn't contain any didgest of answers to all the questions I'd like to ask before voting. Here are only some of them:
  • Q: "what for"
    • A1: clean lyricsbox, leaving only a "pure" lyrics. But I'm not sure, if I'd like to "clear" absolutely all pages. Yes, it's a nonsense to keep all vocalists notations for each member of a group. Then leave notations only for musicals, as Pat's suggested? So, this trio also should be "cleaned"? Again - I'm not sure if I'd like that - finally, is that so crucial for LW to eliminate any non-sung word from the lyricsbox? Finally, if we decide to leave notations for this type of songs, then what for should we complicate our life with additional templates, subpages, and their administrating, if they will contain only mentioned notations for group members? Maybe simple strengthening of the policy, forbiding such notations, would be enough?
    • A2: reduce the risk of edit wars. That would be nice, if not a small fear of possibility to have just a new battle-field for hostility.
  • Q: "How?"
    • A: "-" I'm not sure, but seems to me that this question hasn't been even discussed at all. Who is ready to realize this policy, if it were approved? I mean just simple lyrics "cleaning" on existing pages to make them legitimate (we are speaking about lw policy, aren't we?). Or you are going just to declare a new policy without making any changes? That hardly would help to reduce edit wars - believe me...
Sorry, but must shorten my list of questions, - should leave to a conference. I just want to add that these (and possible other) questions should not be considered as my voting against "Pat's motion", as you call it. Actually that's not so important to me. Just I'll never take participation in any voting while I'm not sure what I'm voting for. Thus I just hope to see more detailed, unhurried and completely unambiguous version of proposal for voting. It may contain several possible scenarious, but each shoud contain an answers to these keystone questions: a)what notations remain legitimate in a new policy b)how this new policy should be realized
regards, --Senvaikis (talk) 12:13, November 11, 2015 (UTC)
Alright Senv, I'll answer your queries as best I can Smile
  • Point a) You mention my idea of leaving notations for musicals and the like. I only suggested this because in a past discussion I vaguely remember someone mentioned that notations may be essential to understand a song (e.g. has two characters like John Travolta & Olivia Newton-John:Summer Nights) - however yes it seems silly to go through this work of "purifying" some pages if others will still have them (like musicals), so I'm happy moving all notations to the subpages (actually I'd prefer it; hence my "potentially" on LW's DocUpd page).
  • Point b) For how this can be done: it can be done like what is still being done with translations; offending pages have their notated lyrics moved to subpages when they become known (e.g. One Direction songs), remove the notations from the main page, and any users known for adding/removing notations (current and future) are informed of the (currently proposed) policy so they know where notations should and shouldn't be for future reference.
  • I'd potentially like to have a template to lead users to and from these notated pages, however our template wizard is currently on vacation, not to mention the fact that it could cause some clutter above the lyric tags (e.g. what if a song has translated, timed and notated lyrics - three templates before lyrics are seen - not good for a lyrics site), so perhaps a section of {{CreditBox}} can be used to lead users to this section? Could they be placed below lyrics tags (Like timed should be anyway according to {{Timed}} documentation)?
Hopefully this answers your questions. Other proposals for how from other admins are also welcomed. Whether my motion is accepted, the current policy of vocal notations being allowed stays, or vocal notations are removed altogether with no subpages, is fine by me (as long as there's consensus). Grin - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 14:45, November 11, 2015 (UTC)
  • What for: The less exceptions in a rule, the easier to maintain and the less chances of edit wars. Thus, Senv's example above could get an additional /vocal page: Regular page w/o notations, additional sub page /vocal with notations. Nothing is lost, it would just be on a new kind of a page.
  • Implementation:
    • Fix Help:Lyrics accordingly
    • Introduce {{Vocal}} to be put on both, regular and /vocal page, similar to {{timed}}
    • This is how vocal banner could look like, placed beneath lyrics on song page, above on subpages.
    • Handling of both page types similar to {{timed}}.
    • Inform users (especially those who love to tag all over the place) and
    • fix their pages. (preferably create /vocal, then purge regular page from vocalist notation). In addition, maybe bots can help.
    • As we go.
 · Lichtweber talk service  15:13, November 11, 2015 (UTC)
  • Implementation(fix): sry, but task is practically unbotable. --Senvaikis (talk) 18:17, November 11, 2015 (UTC)
    • on the other hand, simple declaring of a new policy, leaving pages unchanged (and thus de facto - ilegitimate) isn't the strongest part of this project
    • I, for one, will start fixing pages as soon as we're through with policy work  · Lichtweber talk service  22:57, November 11, 2015 (UTC)
      • ...and when are you going to be done, LW?... Sry once again, but both your and Pat's comments give the impression that you still don't realise the real magnitude of the problem. So, Pat, it just can't be solved "the same way as it was done (and still is being done) with translations", 'cause, as it was already mentioned, both tasks (problematic pages detection (categorizing) and fixing) are virtually unbotable. --Senvaikis (talk) 07:30, November 12, 2015 (UTC)
It will take as long as it takes, I guess. I'd rather have a clear cut policy with the chance of getting fixed pages in time than not do anything.
Maybe bot could make a list of song pages that contain bold text followed by colums in more than one line within lyrics tags
Similar: Square brackets and columns, etc., you might find more patterns,
Lists can then be checked manually in time. In a first course we could then add a label similar to {{Misattributed}} to them, if we can't fix them right away..  · Lichtweber talk service  18:15, November 12, 2015 (UTC)
Well, I hope you know what kind of task complexity you are talking about. Hope also that you know a bot, ready for such task, but that's definitely not Lwt... --Senvaikis (talk) 19:27, November 12, 2015 (UTC)
I never used a bot, so I guess I'll have to rely on the innovative powers of users who do, such as yourself. But let's not forget: we're a vibrant community. I'm pretty confident that we'll master that task in a joint effort.  · Lichtweber talk service  20:08, November 12, 2015 (UTC)
  • Template location: agree to Pat (moving all this clutter below lyrics given such decision would be taken...) --Senvaikis (talk) 18:36, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki