Wikia

LyricWiki

Talk:Administrators Portal

Back to page

1,797,533pages 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)

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
Fairness

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:

6x9:
  • 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"?)
Senv:
  • Changing LW:PN: no
  • How and When: not a policy issue: too complex, would make things mandatory, rather "recommendations"
Pat:
  • How: use various artists or Cast prefix
  • Being flexible on shortening
LW:
  • 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.

Synthesis
  • 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)

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 for 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)

People are wondering what's next in this department. I am one of them. Senv, since you brought this to a halt: Can we now start making drafts (@LW:DocUpd as already started) or do you still object to this motion?  · Lichtweber talk service  16:22, December 10, 2015 (UTC)

Actually I haven't brought anything to a halt - just asked some questions, and I'll be honest - some answers still seem slightly superficial to me. But I've never told that I'd veto such decision, if taken - even if I had such permission :). Btw, - why don't you want to know a 6's opinion? --Senvaikis (talk) 20:20, December 10, 2015 (UTC)
I really wish we had more distinctiveness in our conversations, e.g. you could've just written: No, no objection, and Yes, we can continue with the draft. Now, I just have to assume that this is what you meant to say.
As for 6: I'm sure he knows where to post. And if he doesn't post - well, there's an old saying in German: "Wer schweigt stimmt zu" (He who remains silent agrees)  · Lichtweber talk service  16:00, December 11, 2015 (UTC)
I could quote Einstein's variation on that saying… instead I'll just say that, in my view, "Silence means consent" is right up (or down) there with "Those who are not with us are against us".
I'm strongly against moving singer notation to subpages. Apart from all the necessary manual work to convert existing pages, it means replacing a straightforward, intuitive and easy-to-use system with a more complex one, plus additional documentation and doubled maintenance. As for Echo's "Given that lyrics are to be transcribed as sung", that's not relevant here since we aren't talking about lyrics but about additional notation. (Therefore no inconsistency in the docs here either.)
I also find it sad that, while absence is readily interpreted as approval, none of you even bothered to acknowledge 123F's very important point: that this issue should really be discussed on the CP first, rather than decided by admins. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:01, December 11, 2015 (UTC)
(just in case you were referring to your LW vacation:) I never said (and I never would say) that absence should be interpreted as approval; you were present when the topic started and you are back for a while now.
Because of the additional admin work I think it should be adminship first to decide whether or not they approve of this idea. After all, we're the ones to implement it. Only if admins agreed, it would make sense at all to discuss this at CP. And if we did that: What should be the conduct then? A vote? For how long? ...
On the merits:
  • Imo it is indeed contradictory because additional notations simply do not belong to lyrics.
  • "No vocalist notation" is very straight forward too.
  • Maintenance: we have worse: Think of all the album pages: Total redundancy for the sake of few additional info from ext sources.
  • LBNL: less cause for edit warring because both parties happy.  · Lichtweber talk service  21:45, December 11, 2015 (UTC)
  • So your "Wer schweigt stimmt zu" was purely facetious then?
  • You can't be serious. We do the work, therefore we decide what work we do and how we do it? Is that what you tell your boss?
  • The help page states explicitly which additional notation is allowed in lyric tags, so again, not contradictory. Nowhere does it say "never put anything but lyrics between the lyric tags". (That would mean the instrumental template too.)
  • "No vocalist notation" is not sufficient, or would you leave the subpages undocumented?
  • "We have worse" is not a valid argument.
  • … except for the party who thinks that even more subpages, and templates, and duplicated lyrics, are unnecessary in this case, because what we have now is perfectly fine. — 6×9 (Talk) 08:58, December 12, 2015 (UTC)
  • It was a bit ironical too, but also descriptive: That's how things have been decided before.
  • In this picture, it goes like this: Before I make a proposal to my boss, I would want to make sure that my colleagues and I are prepared for the outcome.
  • What I'm saying is that this would be a very easy to follow rule - no arguments (given that we do the docs properly).
I've seen pages where people not only noted every single line with the singer of a girl group, but they also noted the names of the background singers in parentheses. In this extreme example we sometimes had up to three v-notations in one single line. This, imo, is covered by our current policy, but it turns the lyrics unreadable. If we had /vocals, people could do that and at the same time we still had pages where the lyrics were readable.
  • This is my statement: We can bear the albums, so we can handle /vocal too.
  • ...perfectly fine except for the quarrels (see #3).  · Lichtweber talk service  13:10, December 12, 2015 (UTC)
As for extreme examples: they can always be found, and dealt with with a bit of common sense (e.g. only 1 notation per line). As for preparedness: that matter has been thoroughly adressed (we can handle template & docs, but not changing all songs). So do you agree there's no longer a reason not to go to the CP? — 6×9 (Talk) 14:26, December 12, 2015 (UTC)
From docs: If a lyric is sung by several different singers, such as the parts sung by the individual performers in a musical, each singer or character can be entered immediately above the relevant section in bold text:
That covers The Simpsons, what about the rest of +VN songpages? --ES (talk) 14:28, December 12, 2015 (UTC)
Is there a Canadian version of the help page that says that it only applies to the Simpsons? What else would make you think that all other cases need to handled differently? — 6×9 (Talk) 14:52, December 12, 2015 (UTC)
  • Those examples just show that our current policy covers them as well.
  • As stated before I am confident that we as a community actually can change all songs in time.
Just to be clear: I do not say we should not ask the community. What I'm saying is that first we have to agree to a plan which we can present to the community. Only then the community has something that they can actually vote for.
  • Quarrels ahead because technically we'd have to allow those extreme ones.  · Lichtweber talk service  17:55, December 12, 2015 (UTC)
Wrong except for #1, which is actually a good thing. Not all our policies cover extreme cases.
The CP is there for discussion, not putting finished plans to a yes/no vote. Even if it were, the thing to vote on first would have been if we wanted to change the current system to a subpage based one… which, in case of a "no", would have made 95% of this discussion pointless. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:33, December 12, 2015 (UTC)
It's a trainwreck trying to sift through this discussion, and I'm confused what we agreed on (if we even agreed on anything at all). I'm bringing this up again because I recently re-formatted a song that RWDCollinson certified to make it look better, and he wrote me asking why I removed the vocalist notations. So before I do put the notations back, I just wanted to know what decision we came to regarding this.
Relevant, I checked the protection log the other day and noticed Licht protected John Travolta & Olivia Newton-John:Summer Nights. I checked the edit history and I see an IP tried to remove the vocal notations repeatedly. Though I must ask, why are Licht and Pat singling this page out? I looked at the contribs for those IPs, and they removed vocal notations from many other songs and we didn't restore those. So that just adds to my confusion. Maybe you guys are secretly big fans of Grease? Wink XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)11:36, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
I personally "singled" out the Grease page as I used it as an example earlier, but I agree we should come to consensus (including CP) on whether notations should be allowed (as per current policy), and if so, how it should be formatted to avoid making the lyrics difficult to follow (maybe an extension of the relevant help page section) - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 12:11, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
TBH I don't really know what else I can bring to this discussion on my behalf, as I've voiced my opinion on vocalist notations several times. But I'll see what others have to say and go from there. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)15:39, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
If we bring this, i.e. Pat's initial post, to CP, and we want to achieve a distinctive decision, I think we need a clear setting:
  • How long do we want to discuss this? -> time limit?
  • How do we reach a decision? -> vote? To answer your question, Nic: I became aware of the edit war at this page, so I took action. · Lichtweber talk service  17:39, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
Well, considering we've been discussing this on-and-off for over 2 months, what do you mean? Do you mean additional time? And I'm not really sure how we could reach a decision, truth be told. Should we get a vote of who is for and against vocalist notations or something like that? Or would it have to be more in-depth? XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)20:40, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
The fact that we didn't get anywhere with this discussion is the reason that I think we need a code of conduct for discussing policy changes - here @AP in general, and in this case @Community Portal as well.
The question to vote about @CP would be wether to move all vocalist notations to a subpage or not, except noting characters from a play/musical. @123: That is what you had in mind when suggesting to ask the community, right? · Lichtweber talk service  16:39, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, pretty much - a community (not just admin) discussion would be good on ideas like this. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 11:56, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
In that case, should one of us get a discussion started over there? Wink XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)18:31, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
The question of how to conduct this to get a valid result is still open. 123 and 6, you wanted this, so what are your ideas?  · Lichtweber talk service  18:54, January 19, 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't "over-bureaucratise" it: Present issue/proposed solution and ask who is for or against or has other suggestions. If we get a strong majority one way or the other, we can skip the voting, otherwise we wait until the discussion (if any) dies down. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:27, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

Current bugs

We have two major bugs atm: The parentheses bug, i.e. album creation not possible without work around, and afaik still the SOTD bug (since February iirc). Do we have a tech-person at wikia whom we can contact directly? If not, what's the appropriate address to ask for bug fixes @wikia? And: Shouldn't we announce those bugs to the community at CP or at the start page?  · Lichtweber talk service  15:19, December 2, 2015 (UTC)

More minor, but there's the blank page glitch as well. A note on CP would be helpful to direct people having issues - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 15:24, December 2, 2015 (UTC)
You may want to take a look here, to recall that actual nbugs >3, and some of them are quite old... --Senvaikis (talk) 17:27, December 2, 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. So I guess there's no use in filing a report for the SOTD bug since it's not critical for running LW? Be that as it may: could you please reveal how such a ticket should be filed? Just in case...  · Lichtweber talk service  17:47, December 2, 2015 (UTC)
Special:Contact/bug --Senvaikis (talk) 12:52, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
Thx
  • Did you also report the SOTD bug?
  • Do you know anyone in the community who might have the skills to fix this bug?
  • Dear NES admins: Who of you is up for a lil text @ CP to inform our dear members? (I can't: sick)  · Lichtweber talk service  16:06, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
  • no, as you might have noticed from link above
  • no, sry, though I'd like to - I'd have a lot of questions to him... :)
  • as you should have knew, not me, - sry
--Senvaikis (talk) 16:19, December 3, 2015 (UTC)

Dupe genres

Today I just noticed another one of these possible genre category dupes, as I did with Hip Hop vs. Rap some months ago.
I don't think punk and punk rock are particularly different, "punk music" on Wikipedia redirects to "punk rock" and I'm pretty sure the two have always been synonymous. The "punk rock" article on Wikipedia even starts with "Punk rock (or simply punk)...". So if this is right, "punk" is just a shortened name for "punk rock" and it should be merged just like Rap was merged with Hip Hop.
6's handy bot can do the merge again perhaps, but I thought I'd bring this here just in case anyone thinks otherwise. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)16:16, December 6, 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, "Metal vs. Heavy Metal" is the same deal (although many of the former should be changed to more accurate metal genres, but that's a deep rabbit hole). - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 16:28, December 6, 2015 (UTC)
Yup, that's another one. I'd imagine there's probably some others that have slipped my eye, but those are two on the table for 6 to merge with his bot. I agree with you on specific metal genres, but we don't even have some of the more specific ones, and a lot of the ones we do have are rather small in terms of how many pages are in them. So yeah, that would be too much to bother with if we got into specifics, just merging Metal > Heavy Metal should be fine since it's still in the same broad classification (which is better than no genre at all).
I'll start by recategorizing all the subcategories currently listed under Metal and change them to be subcategories of Heavy Metal. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)18:27, December 6, 2015 (UTC)
Agree on both counts. I'll fire up the bot. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:05, December 6, 2015 (UTC)
Then there's Gothic Rock and Gothic... — 6×9 (Talk) 21:16, December 6, 2015 (UTC)
Oh boy...and that one's actually more ambiguous too, since Gothic could mean Gothic Rock or Gothic Metal, and both actually are separate genres...not sure how we could work with that, personally. I'm sure the pages with the Gothic tag could qualify as either of them or just one, but I think the only way we could do this is to go through the 300-odd pages individually, which is a pretty herculean task. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)01:41, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
Found another potential candidate...Indie and Indie Rock? Though "indie" could also refer to "indie pop", so I'm a bit unsure about this one. Wikipedia has an article on "indie" music, but I don't think that's truly a genre and more of a recording approach. Indie rock and indie pop, on the other hand, are genres. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)22:27, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
Managed to get Indie down to about 3/4 by checking which artists already had I Pop or I Rock. Still a long way to go. — 6×9 (Talk) 10:36, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
Good, gotta start somewhere. While we're speaking of indie genres, should Alternative Dance be merged with Indietronica? Indietronica redirects to alternative dance on Wikipedia but it has its own subsection on the article, and it doesn't say it's another word for the genre. So it might be a subgenre of alternative dance, but I'm not sure. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)15:57, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
The section on wp doesn't say that indietronica is dance-oriented then again, it doesn't say it isn't, so alt. dance might be inappropriate. I'm pretty sure Indietronica should be merged with Indie Electronic though (on which allmusic has a page). — 6×9 (Talk) 19:05, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right on Indie Electronic at least, since that redirects to alternative dance on Wikipedia. So that can be merged (which should be easy, since there's only 24 in items the category). I think it should be merged with Indietronica though since I see more sources that name the genre Indietronica than I do Indie Electronic. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)21:02, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
Two more for you, 6 - Acoustic Rock > Acoustic and Christian Pop > Contemporary Christian. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)19:05, January 14, 2016 (UTC)
done BTW, the bot doesn't need the cats to exist as pages – there was no need to restore it.6×9 (Talk) 19:58, January 14, 2016 (UTC)
Oh okay, thanks for the info. I wasn't sure since I don't have much knowledge of bots. Also, I saw you removed Christian from I.D.O.4.'s genres, was that just one case or was that an implication we should remove the genre entirely? IDK, I think it's a bit broad but it can probably stay. Though a lot of what is in it is probably Contemporary Christian or Christian Rock, at least from the looks of it. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)20:08, January 14, 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do with it, but if an artist is already in one of its subcategories I don't think it needs to be in C:G/C as well. — 6×9 (Talk) 20:56, January 14, 2016 (UTC)
Ah, so you can probably do the same thing you did with Indie, check if an artist is already in Contemporary Christian, Christian Rock, etc. and change it to that. But that may take longer since there's over 750 items in this category. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)11:25, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
Should Parody be merged with Comedy? I know that parodies are based on already-existing music whereas comedy can encompass both parodies and just generally humorous music. Wikipedia has pages on both, yet the King of Parodies himself is labeled as "Comedy" (not a single page of his is labeled "Parody"). So I'm not sure. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)21:29, February 1, 2016 (UTC)
I think they should stay separate, as sometimes parodies aren't always comedic; they could be just drawing attention to something as opposed to making a joke out of it. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 21:58, February 1, 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Pat  · Lichtweber talk service  22:10, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

Inactive watchers

While checking Category:User watch categories for dupes & nonexistent users, I found > 100 users whose last contribution was more than 5 yrs ago. When we set up page ranking, the plan was to check on inactive users to see if they're gone for good or still lurking… we just somehow never got round to it.

Better late than never: I propose having a bot put a message on the talk page of any watcher who hasn't been seen in the last two years. If they don't reply within 30 days, they will be removed as watchers. What do you think? Are the timespans (2y/30d) realistic? Can anyone please improve the wording of the message? — 6×9 (Talk) 17:04, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 17:59, December 17, 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't one year be enough? Otherwise ok with me,  · Lichtweber talk service  18:33, December 17, 2015 (UTC)
One note regarding 30d response timeout - it would be quite sufficient, if not a specific time of the year (Christmass, NY, vacations...). On the other hand, that may be actual for a very minority of addressers - I'm pretty sure that > 90% these reminders would remain unresponded even if we set reaction threshold to 3 months :). --Senvaikis (talk) 18:38, December 17, 2015 (UTC)
@LW: We've had users return after more than 1 year… then again, as watchers they're supposed to occasionally check their watchlist, and if they do, no harm done, if they don't, better to detect them early. So 1 year it is.
@Senv: Good point about seasons – let's make it 60 days, that should be sufficient for even the most extended festivities. Worst case, if they come back after 61 days, we'll have the bot logs to restore them. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:03, December 17, 2015 (UTC)
Good call 6, I've actually thought about this in the past and wondered whether it truly makes a page "gold" or "silver" if the watcher is long dead. I do have some questions, though.
1) Would this actually remove the user from watching a page, or would it simply remove their name from the list?
2) How would the bot take care of demoting the page rank? I'm envisioning that for Silver songs, it would remove the watcher and downgrade it to Bronze, and for Gold songs, it would remove the watcher and downgrade it to silver (that is, if they are true Gold or Silver and actually have all info, otherwise should be demoted to Bronze - I've seen some Gold and Silver pages that are missing one or two things, so the bot may need to take note of that if possible). I just want to make sure the bot doesn't mess up page rank stats since many users have diligently worked on them.
3) So we all agree on one-year to be the time limit before the message is sent, and I concur as well. Though, this does make me wonder about those users that have sporadic "urges" to edit here and leave for a sizable amount of time inbetween said urges. Take my friend Smasher 101 for example, whom I introduced to the site over 3 years ago. He embarked on a project to watch all of the songs he likes in his music collection over the course of several months back in 2012-2013. He is one of those editors that only edits when he gets that urge. Hypothetically, if a year passed inbetween his urges and he failed to respond to the message (he most likely would, though, since I can contact him outside of the site, but this is for the sake of argument), would it be possible for all of his watches to be restored? I'm sure he'd be devastated just as anyone else would for all of their watched pages to be lost. So this sort of ties in to my first question, but here I'm more asking if watches could be restored. I'm assuming you can since you just mentioned you would "have the bot logs to restore" watches, but nonetheless I want to double-check.
Thanks, XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)20:52, December 17, 2015 (UTC)
1) It would remove them from the talk page's watcher template. Their watchlist stays untouched (only they and the sysops can access it). 2) Ag and Au will both be downgraded to Bronze if no watcher is left. 3) The purpose of a watcher is to look after a page. If they don't check their watchlist even once within 60 days, then they're not really watching. If they do check in, they will see the message. If they respond slightly to late (a couple weeks max), then the watches could be restored. If they only notice half a year later, there'd be little point. — 6×9 (Talk) 21:06, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

Created template. Flagged 264 of 418 watchers, that's almost 2/3! We'll see how many react within 60 days… — 6×9 (Talk) 10:54, December 31, 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of page ranking business

6, does your bot have the capability to find all song pages with Spotify and then mark the "audio" section on their talk page (if one exists) to "done"? I ask because ever since we implemented Spotify on the site and regarded it as acceptable for the "audio" parameter, there's a plethora of song pages with "unknown" audios when they really should be "done". There has to be more song pages with Spotify than Goear now, and I'd say it's a more accessible and popular "audio" site to use. So this would certainly help. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)20:52, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

I could, but any info should be checked by a human before being marked as "done". A bot can check whether the link is valid & live, but it can't listen to the song and verify it's the correct one. — 6×9 (Talk) 21:10, December 17, 2015 (UTC)
Good point - since Lwt added a lot of those links, chances are it added a good amount of incorrect ones. I was just curious, thanks for answering. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)22:02, December 17, 2015 (UTC)
Yes, most of spots have been added by a bot, but have you tried to evaluate at least approximately the reliability of these additions? Statisticaly it may be ~90%, if not better. Yes, I understand 6s position - as a bureaucrat, he is absolutely right - ranking is and should remain purely "human-being' business" - under definition. But let's take a look at this "business" from another, pragmatic point of view - we may change reliability of audio param from current ~30% to ~90% (of course, values are hypothetical). Don't forget, that watchers are always free to fix any noticed mismatch after such batch update, or to be precise - that's their duty. What choice is better then - to "follow the letter of the law" or to have x3 times(!) more reliable info? (...if it have any sense at all...) :) --Senvaikis (talk) 22:24, December 17, 2015 (UTC)
PS: One more (alternative) point of view: strictly speaking, such update doesn't outrage even "the letter of the law" - according to the definition and requirements to info page, actually it's nothing more than some "digest" of its "parent page" content, ergo - it should be synchronized to this content. If some spot or yt is invalid, watcher should fix/remove it on the parent page first of all, but info page should remain always synced to its parent. --Senvaikis (talk) 06:32, December 18, 2015 (UTC)
Just for curiosity: here are the results of brief statistic evaluation for gold songs only (assuming they should be watched the most carefully). So, atm we have 17823 Gold Songs (set A) and 783845 Spotified Songs (set B). Then the count of golden songs, which should have an audio param set to "done", may be taken from the set C = A ∩ B (intersection of A & B). It's equal to 11243. And only 5480 (48.7%) of them have this param set to "done". Yes, I should admit that my initial evaluation was too pessimistic (at least for golden pages). But anyways, - 5763 gold songs still are waiting for some attention. May you imagine what would be the results of similar stats for bronze songs? :) --Senvaikis (talk) 10:03, December 18, 2015 (UTC)
PS: despite to much better results for the set D=GoldGoEar (7996 pages with expected high 86.7% reliability), it brings additional 1064 pages to be checked, so the final count for Au is 6827.
Just to play devil's advocate – while watchers should, in theory, check any edit to pages they have "adopted", in practice they'll have to notice that edit first, which requires them to have "hide bots" and "hide minor" unchecked.
I see what you mean though. I'm really on the fence about this issue. Strictly speaking, any Ag/Au song with audio=n/a and spot should be changed to "unknown" and downgraded… hardly feasible or fair. Even more strictly speaking, "n/a" should have a timestamp, since n/a at time of checking doesn't necessarily mean n/a now. I guess in the greater scheme it doesn't really matter – so many pages have been ranked Bronze or above without the necessary checking of even basic things like correct pagename, or existence, that a few potentially wrong spotify links are hardly of any consequence. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:54, December 20, 2015 (UTC)
Quote by 6 times 9: "Even more strictly speaking, "n/a" should have a timestamp, since n/a at time of checking doesn't necessarily mean n/a now"
If you were really strict, 6, you'd apply the same statement for "done" also - see the lists of Au & Ag songs with currently unavailable yts (most of them positively have been available atm of setting their videos to "done"...) :) --Senvaikis (talk) 21:19, December 20, 2015 (UTC)

SongHeader

(no, I hadn't forgotten about it) I think I have eliminated most bugs & glitches. Are we agreed on the changes (all outlined at the top of the doc page) and the layout? If yes, I'd like to start by converting all pages using {{SongCollaboration}} first; hopefully any remaining bugs will manifest themselves before we go for the Big One ({{Song}}, that is, not Sean). — 6×9 (Talk) 18:09, January 6, 2016 (UTC)

(I've been looking forward to this) Looks excellent, 6.
My only qualm is reducing fas to 3, but that's just me, if others are fine with it I am (if I had my way we'd have infinite fas ;P) - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 18:18, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
They're not reduced as such, just relocated (to CreditBox). Infinite fas would make SH infinitely complex, whereas CB can take it* (just one param, list can be as long as necessary & even divided into columns). — 6×9 (Talk) 19:00, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
*) A lot, not infinity – that would break the internet.
Sounds fair enough Wink - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 19:06, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
Seems a little more complicated to edit now, but fine with me since I can see the improvements :) Good work and thx 6.  · Lichtweber talk service  19:09, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! It might be a bit more work for "normal" albums, but on the plus side there's no more hassle with albumartist, and SongFooter.album can finally be retired for good! — 6×9 (Talk) 20:35, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
Regarding "more complicated editing": complexity may be essentially reduced, using specific Auto-New Page templates; (some of them, including SongCollab, may need some corrections though). --Senvaikis (talk) 20:52, January 6, 2016 (UTC)
Very nice! I'd prefer the ranking star within the header to reduce the white space above, but that's fairly minor.
A side question: might it be better to move the language parameter from SF to SH? This would make Artist/Album/SongFooter more consistent (they'd contain ext. links, fLetter, categorisation), and means the language parameter + missing language message could be up top (more noticeable to new users - maybe they'll be more likely to fill it in!). I'm not sure if this could work with instrumental pages, though. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 17:59, January 7, 2016 (UTC)
I'm not happy about the wasted space either, but the alternative (stars inside the box) looks weird to me. Maybe we could make more use of it by adding a scroll icon for certified songs, or a flag icon for language? Provided we move the latter to SH… The no-language notice would still have to be handled by SF though (can't use variables that aren't defined yet, and dpl doesn't appear to work on same page – possibly disabled to avoid infinite recursion). Should be possible to relocate it through css or js though… — 6×9 (Talk) 21:42, January 7, 2016 (UTC)
If most of us are unhappy with a star-wasted space, wouldn't it be possible to "squeeze" it into a box, right-aligned to div#song-header-title, smth like this?:

Starbox

Yes, sometimes it would be "jumping", while resizing pages with a long titles, but is that so crucial? --Senvaikis (talk) 11:13, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
Just noticed, artist pages show the star on an otherwise blank line also. Speaking of CSS, another possibility could be to push the star up into the header (would work on artist/album pages too). Adding useful indicators with the star could be an interesting idea. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 14:04, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
In monobook, moving the star up with position:absolute is trivial. In wikia skin, not so: as soon as it moves out of #WikiaArticle, it disappears, because overflow is set to "hidden" (by design, I guess), and I'm not sure the wikia people would be OK with us overriding that. — 6×9 (Talk) 16:54, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
@Senv: I'm not really happy with the look, and we can't do that for artists (narrow box, not enough room in title bar).
Another option would be to make box not use up the 100% width: File:Space_for_star.png (if we add language and/or cert flags, they would appear in a column below the star). Of the two versions, I like the centered one better. But for artists it wouldn't work, and I think I prefer consistency over some 30 px of saved space… — 6×9 (Talk) 10:34, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
Agree, especially to consistency priority over 30px. --Senvaikis (talk) 17:07, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
Sh icons
On second thought, using national flags for languages would open a can of worms I'd rather not have to deal with… We could use the generic flags icon with hover text instead. — 6×9 (Talk) 19:21, January 13, 2016 (UTC)
Agreed also - like I first mentioned, the gap is fairly minor. I'd still prefer it in the header, but if Wikia people might have issues with it, I guess we can't. Agreed about flags too (flags aren't really languages), but that certified icon seems a handy thing to add. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 16:52, January 15, 2016 (UTC)
@ 6: No complaints, but can you please add the roman and trans params in the doc? I'll complain after it's online. Wink --ES (talk) 09:29, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
Do we prefer to deal with Fa's in two places? Can we send them all to CB by bot, and unclutter SH? --09:33, January 30, 2016 (UTC)
I'll have to write the doc first before I can add to it… (Currently it's only demonstration + list of changes from tl:Song… which does include the roman param. There is no trans param…) — 6×9 (Talk) 09:33, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Serious {{Cover}} problem

Ronnie brought this up, and it may be related to {{SongHeader}}, but 6 it seems this edit to {{Cover}} has broken it, and is seriously messing up pages once the cache updates. - Patzilla777 (talk - contributions) 13:28, January 7, 2016 (UTC)

Fixed, see help desk. — 6×9 (Talk) 16:57, January 7, 2016 (UTC)

Albums that aren't releases

For those of you who haven't seen the discussion on my talk page, Lichtweber proposed a few additions/changes to {{AlbumHeader}} to handle works like operas etc. I've implemented & described the changes here. Any additional suggestions, improvements, potential problems? — 6×9 (Talk) 09:12, January 23, 2016 (UTC)

Merged the changes into the template & updated its doc. Nuked 3-4 "Albums released in (< 1900)" cats. @LW: do you want to take care of the help pages? — 6×9 (Talk) 17:29, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

Thanxalot! Will do.
Now that we went live with it I noticed that categories need fixing:
I might be missing something obvious here, but… since you created the categories for the latter three, why didn't you make them subcats of work? Agree that wtypes are different things than genres – so why put {{Genrebox}} which puts the page into C:G on Mass? — 6×9 (Talk) 18:42, February 6, 2016 (UTC)
The obious thing is that those cats should be automatically be assigned to the proper ones, rather than manually ;)  · Lichtweber talk service  19:02, February 6, 2016 (UTC)
There is no such thing as automatic assignment to categories – you have to do it either manually or via a template (which still has to be added manually). — 6×9 (Talk) 19:28, February 6, 2016 (UTC)
Hm ok, my bad I guess, thx again!  · Lichtweber talk service  20:55, February 6, 2016 (UTC)
done, see Help:Albums#Album Types and new page Help:Classical: As always, fixes in content and language appreciated.  · Lichtweber talk service  00:15, February 7, 2016 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki