aka Chris

Bureaucrat Admin
127,627 Edits since joining this wiki
June 15, 2008
  • I live in Aachen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  • I was born on October 14
  • My occupation is Software Developer
  • I am male

Working link Edit

I left it unlinked because the actual categories replace "Template Name" with the first param... — 6×9 (Talk) 16:22, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Ah, okay, sorry. I thought you didn't want the template page to appear in that category and had forgotten about the colon method. Personally I don't think that this replacing is that clever though. The following paragraph is the conclusion of all my theoretical thoughts about categories in LyricWiki, thoughts I had when I was designing the theoretical T-Line drafts:

A short essay about our categories Edit

There are three types of categories that LyricWiki has: 1) System categories, 2) organizing categories and 3) Maintenance categories.
1) is really easy, it's the categories like Category:Song that are necessary to make something (in this case the random links) work. They are usually sensibly grouping pages together, however they are not actually meant to be used by users to find contents.
2) are also grouping pages together, but they are meant to organize the large number of pages in a way that users can search target-oriented and find pages by attributes. The pages are intended to stay in the categories.
3) they are grouping pages that have a certain problem in common. Opposed to 2) these categories are watched all the time, usually only by admins or at least experienced users. The target is to keep them empty (that is a very important difference).
That said, it might be clear where I'm heading with this: while it is good to split the category tree of 2) into very fine branches*, we should aim for as few as possible 3). As I said the target is to keep them empty, so by default every page in maintenancr categories of the same type is equally important. A large number of 3) results in problems like the accented character categories; formerly it was sensible to differentiate by language, so people could pick the pages of languages they knew. Meanwhile, a bot (I think it's Senvaikis' Lwt) is silently updating the reported pages with anew copied lyrics that do not contain the errors any more. Right now, one has to watch 43 categories to monitor accent errors. If someone enters any other language, the error might not be seen at all. The same would apply for the IncludeGuard categories. We generate a dozen of categories that we have to monitor although they are ideally all empty and thus all would be equally important. If a page contains a duplicate template, the person fixing that should know which one it is.
I'd also be happier if we had one "invalid parameter" category per template-type (header, footer, flagging, info) opposed to one category per paremeter. The sortkey could be filled with the parameter name so that only a few parameters have to be checked if a page appears in "Invalid parameter in Footer".
* One addition about the fineness of the category branches: sometimes our template system overdoes it; typical examples for too fine sifting are the categories about award winners that are grouped by the years, because typically each year has only one winner.
-Chris 17:20, July 2, 2013 (UTC)
Funny; just after I hit the publish button I thought that this might not have been one of my better ideas. Changed it now to a single category (sorry, couldn't think of a better name).
Good point about reducing the number of maintenance cats; I suppose they've just grown organically. Easier (short-term) to add more cats to existing ones than to reorganize the whole litter.
Awards: I always thought that the by-year lists would be better off as just that (i.e. lists) than cats, but never got round to fixing it (and probably won't for the next few weeks). — 6×9 (Talk) 19:16, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Couple questions, old friend... Edit

Question #1: I'm adding info to some of Vast's tracks. One of their albums was available as both a retail version (April) & as a digital download (April Online Version). The versions are different. So, when I put the headers on each track, do I label the online version as a digital download, a download album, an online album, or what? For example:

{{Song|April (2006)|Vast|album2=April Online Version (2006)|type2=online album|star=Bronze}}

Question #2: It feels weird labelling a song a cover that was co-written by two artists, but recorded by the other 1st. Two Examples of this would be Carly Simon:You Belong To Me/The Doobie Brothers:You Belong To Me & The Go-Go's:Our Lips Our Sealed/Fun Boy Three:Our Lips Are Sealed. Isn't there something else we can do for cases like this?

(I'm sure my questions are answered somewhere, but it's difficult to search when my sight is not totally back yet.) BeatriceBlue (talk) 05:40, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to step on Chris's toes, but I happened to see this, and I do have opinions about the answers to both...
Answer #1: In a case like that, it shouldn't be separate album pages; there should just be one page for the album April, with both track lists (because the track lists are so different -- if it were the more common case of the online version having a couple of bonus tracks, then there needs to only be one track list plus the bonus tracks).
Then, for a song that's on both the CD and the digital release, you only need to list the album once.
For a song that's only on the digital release (for example), you can identify it like this:
{{Song|April (2006)|Vast|type=digital release of the album|star=Bronze}}
That makes the text read: "...appears on the digital release of the album April (2006)"
If we were talking about an album that were only released digitally, I would see no reason to identify it as anything other than just "album" on the song page -- no need to do "type=digital album" or "type=online album" or anything like that.
Answer #2: Doesn't matter -- they're still cover songs, and the definition of what constitutes a "cover song" is based on the performances of the song (and when they were released), with no real regard for the writers. I note in that first example you gave, the writers are not "The Go-Go's" and "Fun Boy Three," the writers are Jane Wiedlin and Terry Hall. The fact that one of the writers was a member of the Go-Go's and one of the writers was a member of the Fun Boy Three is incidental to the "cover song" concept.
That kind of thing seems to me to be an example of potentially interesting music trivia, rather than something that has to specifically be called out on the page by treating them differently than other cover songs. I think it's pretty much handled by listing the writers under the Credits heading below the lyrics, as well as the Wikipedia link if applicable. Trainman (talk) 06:28, August 3, 2013 (UTC)
#1: Copy that. I'd recommend to merge both tracklistings on one page with {{h4}} headers, and then either use
  • {{Song|April (2006)|Vast|star=Bronze}} for a song on both versions,
  • {{Song|April (2006)|Vast|type=retail version of the album|star=Bronze}} for a song only on the retail album, or
  • {{Song|April (2006)|Vast|type=digital release of the album|star=Bronze}} for a song only on the digital release.
#2: I'm not sure I got that correctly. But if a songwriter writes a song for a different band and later covers this song with his own band, that's still a cover. Smile - Chris 16:38, August 3, 2013 (UTC)
I love you both! Thank you. - BeatriceBlue (talk) 19:01, August 3, 2013 (UTC)
Trainman, did you hear that? She loves us both! She's two-timing both of us! Cry - Chris 23:54, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

Formatting National AnthemsEdit

Hey Chris,

you (and anyone else) wanna comment on my suggestions here? Thanks!  · Lichtweber talk service  11:35, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

-> worst case scenario ;)  · Lichtweber talk service  12:04, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Question Regarding Hymns and Christmas Songs Edit

Hi. I posted this on another admin's talk page, and he suggested that I ask another here it goes....

Hello there. I've been trying to edit a bunch of Christmas songs and other hymns, and I noticed that there isn't a consistent system for handling these. Some people use Traditional and some people use Unknown and some people use Christmas Song, while others use Christmas Songs 2. However, I don't think that any of those labels should be used when we know the person who wrote the lyrics. I think the author of the lyrics should be the original artist, and all these other pages should redirect to those pages, but I wanted to check with an admin. If we don't know the author of the lyrics, then I think that Traditional should be used. What are your thoughts?
Many of the people who wrote Christmas hymns also wrote hymns that are sung all year round -- the two biggest are Isacc Watts and Charles Wesley. I have several hymnals, so I can look to see the credit information of each of these songs to assure that we get the correct lyric writer for a given song.
If Original Lyric Author Is Known:
So, my thought is this:
Original Author Of Lyrics:Song Name
Then, other pages would be created that would redirect to the above, just in case someone searched for it under another heading. So...if it was a Christmas hymn, I would suggest this:
Traditional:Song Name (redirects to Original Author Of Lyrics:Song Name)
Christmas Song:Song Name (redirects to Original Author Of Lyrics:Song Name)
Unknown:Song Name (redirects to Original Author Of Lyrics:Song Name )
Hymn:Song Name (redirects to Original Author Of Lyrics:Song Name )
If Original Lyric Author Is Not Known:
Traditional:Song Name
Then, other pages would be created that would redirect to the above, just in case someone searched for it under another heading. So...if it was a Christmas hymn, I would suggest this:
Christmas Song:Song Name (redirects to Traditional:Song Name)
Unknown:Song Name (redirects to Traditional:Song Name )
Hymn:Song Name (redirects to Traditional:Song Name )
That makes sense to me, but if you think that it should be different, let me know what you think would be better.
Also, would it be possible to create a page where hymns on the site could be listed so people could find them, but they would be listed under their original author. I don't know if this would work as a list I would need to have in my space, or a parameter would do this, that would be displayed by the site, etc. Or how would I go about doing this? Would I just create a list?
The same for Christmas songs.
Some songs are both hymns and Christmas songs.
What are your thoughts? Thanks. --Arwen4CJ (talk) 00:54, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
I want to add something else. The reason I suggest identifying hymns (including Christmas hymns) by the lyric author is because some people use different tunes for the same song, and there is often more than one hymn that uses the same tune. So identifying songs by the lyric writer would eliminate confusion. Also, this is a lyric site, so searching by the author of the lyrics makes sense. --Arwen4CJ (talk) 00:56, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure about whether you are talking of "author" because you want to differentiate between "author" and "artist" as "writer" and "performer", or if you meant "artist" all along.
I'll use "artist" because LW is artist based, not lyricists based. If you meant to distinguish between artist and author, we need to talk again.
Of course, if the original artist is known, the song should be placed where it belongs, i. e. Artist:Song, like Wham!:Last Christmas. However I don't think it's a good idea to put everything else at "Traditional". "Traditional" reads like "This song is hundreds of years old and is well known to everyone, but nobody knows who composed it." which implies there's no chance to identify an artist. Imagine someone who didn't know who performed "Last Christmas" would add the lyrics - it'd be "Traditional:Last Christmas". What I like about the "Unknown:" prefix is that it makes clear that you can possibly identify the artist and move the page. "Unknown:" has a sort of "needs some work" feeling, whereas "Traditional:" reads like "don't even try" to me, you know?
Futhermore I'm not so sure about the benefit of "Hymn:" redirects. Personally I've never heard the term "Christmas Hymn", and as we have no page that uses "Hymn:" so far it appears to me that "hymn" might be how some people see some songs and how they call them informally. It seems to be subjective which songs are hymns and which aren't. The only term I have ever heard of is "Christmas Carol". But anyway we should not use the prefix to group songs of different artists together - that's what categories are for.
The real problem about the "Unknown" page is that there's nobody who tidies it up. The system itself is quite fine, it just lacks a person who is eager to tidy up, a person who "adopts" the page and spends a ridiculous amount of time to identify the artists of the songs listed there. - Chris 19:45, September 3, 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for responding to this. I actually posted this message on another admin Talk Page, too. I wasn't sure which one of you would answer first User talk:6 times_9#Question_Regarding_Hymns_and_Christmas_Songs. I don't know if you want to have the main discussion there or here. Feel free to move it to that Talk Page, if you think that would be more appropriate. I will answer your questions, though :)
First, let me explain what hymns are. Hymns are songs that are sung in church services and found in hymnals -- most of them are older, although there are modern ones, too. Amazing Grace, Crown Him With Many Crowns, Nothing But The Blood, Joy To The World, Silent Night, It Came Upon A Midnight Clear, Hark! The Herald Angels Sing, The First Noel, etc are all hymns. I can look up these songs in the hymnals that I own and find them. And, yes, many Christmas Carols are hymns, but not all of them. There are secular Christmas carols too (songs that have to do with Santa Claus). Songs talking about Santa Claus are not hymns.  :)
If the song is a Christmas song about Jesus or is based on the Bible, it's a Christmas hymn and carol.
If the song is not about Jesus, but is instead about Santa, winter, snow, decorating, etc., it isn't a hymn, but would be a carol. Songs like Jingle Bells, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, White Christmas, Deck The Halls, We Wish You a Merry Christmas, Here We Come a Wassailing, O Christmas Tree, etc., then it is just a carol.
Is that clear?
If no one else would be interested in seeing list of hymns, I would -- as I would like to keep track of covers of hymns and such, so I could create a list of them just for me, but I would need help with setting it up, as I've never created a list on here before.
Okay, I think you and I are agreed upon what Traditional means :) And that is exactly my point. If we know who wrote the songs, which we do for many of these hymns -- for example, I can look in my hymnal and see that Isaac Watts wrote the lyrics to Joy To The World. Therefore, I think the song should be listed at Isaac Watts:Joy To The World rather than Traditional:Joy To The World. However, other people disagree with me, which is why I wanted to bring this up.
Yes, I see what you are saying about Unknown vs. Traditional. This is why we really need to discuss it. Some people think that if a song is in the public domain, it should be named Traditional:Song. But if we know the author, then that makes no sense to me.
Thanks for your response:) --Arwen4CJ (talk) 20:49, September 3, 2013 (UTC)
I guess, I am this "someone", so I have to say it again: Please read carefully!
I wrote: "all others (imo): various artists EXEPT you have a specific recording you want to list AND you can handle the outcome (i.e.: artist pages and such)."
I just don't want random songs appearing on one of the artist pages, I feel responsible for ( like Friedrich Schiller). Handle the outcome! | @Chris: FYI  · Lichtweber talk service  22:15, September 3, 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't meaning to attack you, as you aren't the only one with that view. I just meant there were differing opinions, which isn't a bad thing. And maybe I misunderstood what you were suggesting earlier, and maybe I haven't been clear either. I'm not talking about specific artist recordings, but rather the page that we are calling the original...the page that all other recordings are said to cover.
I'll use the example of Joy To The World again. A lot of artists have recorded it. Okay, so then what do we call the original one? Do we call it Isaac Watts:Joy To The World or do we call it Traditional:Joy To The World. That's the issue that I'm trying to work out. I think that it should be Isaac Watts:Joy To The World since he wrote the lyrics for it. But other people think it should be Traditional:Joy To The World because the song is in the public domain and a lot of people have covered it, etc.
And I'm trying to establish some system so that my mistake that I made earlier on Friedrich Schiller doesn't happen again. --Arwen4CJ (talk) 23:38, September 3, 2013 (UTC)
Here is a summary of the discussion so far -- just to make sure that we are all understanding each other:
(If I have misunderstood or misrepresented anyone's opinion here, please correct me)
1.) I'm mostly asking about songs that are in the public domain -- Christmas songs and hymns, not specific recordings of these songs.
2.) The main question is this: How do we name these pages? There are several different opinions on this, and there is inconsistency on LW. I think that all four of us in this discussion so far agree that we need to come up with a consistent system.
3.) Lichtweber and 6 Times 9 think that we should name all these pages Traditional:Name Of Song, regardless of whether or not we know who wrote the song.
4.) LWChris and I think that if we know the writer of the song, they should be called Author:Name Of Song. LWChris thinks we should avoid naming a song Traditional, as that implies that we don't know the author, and we have no hope of ever knowing who wrote it, so he would prefer naming songs Unknown:Name Of Song, if we don't know who the author is.
5.) Lichtweber wants to make sure that created on a given page would really belong to the author, and that we don't have random pages created that don't really belong on the artist page.
1. If we used the Traditional:Name Of Song, what guidelines should be followed for determining whether or not something is Traditional? In other words, when would we use Traditional, and when would we use the Name Of Author? How would we define "Traditional?" (There are additional questions which would follow, but let's answer these first)
2. If we used the Name Of Author, then what happens if historical sources do not know who wrote it? Should we then then use the name Traditional, or should we use the name Unknown? --Arwen4CJ (talk) 12:22, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
At first: thank you for explaining what a hymn is (N.B.: you needn't explain it so extensively, I actually got it from "Hymns are songs that are sung in church services and found in hymnals").
They, I want to add a correction to #4: I said it should be "Artist:Song". It should not be "Author:Song", if "author" means "writer of the lyrics". The LyricWiki page names are X:Y, whereas X refers to an artist, i. e. a person or group who performed the song. If I write lyrics for an existing instrumental song, and I put the lyrics in a hymnal and 100 people in church sing it, it does not make me an artist. If I write a poem and someone else adds a melody so it can be sung, it does not make me an artist. That's the difference. A lyricist is not that kind of artist we are talking about when we say "Artist:Song", I think.
I think, these songs should be treated as "Hymn". I think you can compare them to national anthems and it is maybe a good idea to actually have them at "Hymn:Name" so that actual performances of that song (famous Gospel Choir recording, etc.) can reference the same page. "Hymn:" pages should be listed at "LyricWiki Lists/Hymns", which has a redirect at "Hymn". You'd be "responsible" for tidying up the page if Janitor adds "Other Songs".
Performed songs with unknown artist should remain at "Unknown:", songs that are usually not "performed" (e. g. African traditional songs) should be "Traditional" as the description implies. - Chris 22:29, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
Oh, okay -- thanks for correcting me on your position.
No problem -- I'd love to work on a hymn list and maintain it :)
New questions -- what should I do with the existing Christmas song pages...should they be redirected to the hymn page, such as the ones that are at Traditional:Name Of Song? And what about the Christmas songs that are not hymns? --Arwen4CJ (talk) 23:15, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
I just want to point out that the above was my position, not a final decision. I need to read what 6x9 wrote, first, but I've got no time right now (it's 1:28 here and I have to go to work tomorrow). Will answer tomorrow. - Chris 23:27, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
Right. No problem. Take as much time as you need. I assume that the final decision will be a joint decision that the admin make, and I understand that you guys are busy. --Arwen4CJ (talk) 00:57, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

Artist of the Month nomsEdit

So, looks like we're out of noms again, eh? I told you this would happen Tongue With school starting and all, I can't write a nomination right now (nor do I want to right after mine was already AOTM in August) so could you possibly ask some other users to make some more noms that'll last us a few more months? Thanks in advance, man! XxTimberlakexx (talk) 10:39, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

I'll remove the section. - Chris 19:13, September 3, 2013 (UTC)
Wait wait wait, what do you mean "remove the section"? Are you removing it entirely, or are you just removing it from the main page until we get another nomination? You were really vague there. Personally, I really hope it's not the former, because this site won't be as jazzy with only Song of the Day. It needs something more.
I don't know why you couldn't just ask some users for nominations like I suggested, though. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 20:01, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
As you can see I removed the section from the mainpage. I asked some people to nominate their favourite artist, they didn't react. I tried to make up a nomination, but it's too hard to write the things I want to say in English. I'm also working from 8 a.m. til 8 p.m..
I've no stats for you, but I think the main page is hardly visited anyways. I bet most come to any page by either a mobile app that displays lyrics to the current song, or by googling for certain lyrics. If some people come across the main pages, it's likely not a page they are going to read anyway.
And I think the AOTW and AOTM projects showed that user generated content is deemed to be not-working-out by now. People use their smartphones to surf in the Internet, and I can fully understand that they don't want to type texts on a smartphone. People tweet 150 characters, people comment on videos like "lol" or "i watn 13 secons of my live bcak", people hit stupid "Like"/"+1"/"Thumbs up"/"Share"/"Post" buttons a hundred times a day. But next to nobody wants to write valuable texts that even contains wiki syntax which is a horror for smartphone users. I can tell from the SOTD that even 50 chars seems to be way too much for most of our users. - Chris 20:25, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
Well, that just sucks. So, are we going to cancel the short-lived Artist of the Month project too, now? If so, you should state that on its page. You make a very good point, though. I think we'll be good with Song of the Day for a while, since it seems to be the only thing that's going strong on the main page, even if the majority of the noms are by IPs and you never know what to expect. The thing that's good with Song of the Day is that it doesn't have to be nearly as long as AOTW and AOTM noms had to be - so that's why I think it'll stay active for a long, long time.
Nonetheless, thanks for trying a new project, at least - I thought it was a cool idea, but unfortunately, as you said, not a lot of people these days are eager to write a good, solid paragraph for a nomination. We tried, and we learned from the result that we probably shouldn't try this again. Tongue XxTimberlakexx (talk) 21:47, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, well, I just put a notice on the Artist of the Month page since you didn't do it, saying that it has been put to an end. While I was at it, I moved all the recent AOTMs to the archive and also moved your nomination of D from months ago as AOTW to the archive as well. Should we remove the rest of what's on those pages, too? (e.g. the box that explains what AOTM is about) XxTimberlakexx (talk) 23:58, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
The reason I didn't do it is simply because it is not put to an end. I think we have tp stop with this "always or never" routine. We should display the section if we have an AOTM, and hide it if not. It's as simple as that. I've just not gotten to design the alternative section to display, like "What's your favourite artist? Care to introduce us? Want to accolade the artist page you worked on?" - something like that. Please don't get ahead of yourself by dismantling everything just because it's hidden from public view atm. - Chris 23:22, September 5, 2013 (UTC)
You see, you never told me this. That whole thing you gave me about how people aren't willing to write paragraphs for nominations and how you worded your response made me think that you were getting rid of it for good.
But thanks for letting me know. Make sure to get to that alternative section when you get a chance :P I apologize for getting ahead of myself, by the way. XxTimberlakexx (talk) 21:49, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
I'm working 13 hours a day. I'm moving. I'm studying. All at the same time. I'm kind of busy at the moment, so I had no time to explain plans that I hadn't even thought over. For instance the idea of making the section optional was born some hours after you wrote. You said "are we going to cancel AOTM? If so, you should state it on the page." and two hours later you tore the page down. I'm not that fast with making up concepts, you know? Wink
I just hid the section to make the main page look better, a quick thing that's easy to undo if needed.
If you've got time to maintain the main page: the queue for SOTD is empty for days and I can't spend 3 hours to refill it now. Honestly, most of the nominations are lousy and need a lot of work before I can accept them (add video, add goear, correct typos, remove slang, remove cursing, sort out spam, check if already nominated)... - Chris 23:29, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

Two different songs with the same title by the same artist Edit

What do I do when an artist has written two completely different songs with the same name? I found that MercyMe has two different songs named Beautiful. One song is on a CD that I have, and one is on an older CD. Thanks. I know I'm going to have to create a different page for one of them, but what do I call it? --Arwen4CJ (talk) 22:55, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

Two options: if one of both songs is a lot better known than the other, put the better known on the page MercyMe:Beautiful and add {{WrongPage}} for MercyMe:Beautiful (Disambiguation) with {{Disambig}}. The other song goes to "MercyMe:Beautiful (Album Name)" and uses {{WrongPage}}, too. If both are equally known, I'd put the {{Disambig}} on MercyMe:Beautiful and add the album name to both songs. You could also put the year in parenthesis, but I think more people will search for it with the album name, not the release year. - Chris 23:24, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I would say the better known one is the version I have, as that is the Gracenotes version of it. However, to be safe, I'll include the album name so that it is clear which one it is. :) --Arwen4CJ (talk) 23:31, September 4, 2013 (UTC)
I moved the {{Disambig}} to MercyMe:Beautiful; if the page with the correct name doesn't contain either of the songs, it may as well be the disambig page instead of an additional redirect, I think. At least the way {{Disambig}} works makes me think this was intended, because the default is "PAGENAME may refer to:" and the pagename is only correct for the "X:Y" page itself, not on a "X:Y (Disambiguation)" page. - Chris 23:34, September 6, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. That was my first attempt at creating a disambigution page. I'm still learning :) --Arwen4CJ (talk) 00:20, September 7, 2013 (UTC)


Hey Chris, a question came up. Your expertise might be needed. :)  · Lichtweber talk service  12:10, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

Our ProposalEdit

Hi Chris, I wanted to invite you to discuss a modification of LW:PN with us. I hope ou can make time for that one :) Cheers,  · Lichtweber talk service  21:01, October 18, 2013 (UTC)

Some questions came up. We really need your input now. Cheers,  · Lichtweber talk service  17:35, November 18, 2013 (UTC)

Hi if you need help on writing new lyrics contact me--Kyleroering (talk) 07:42, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I answered your 'talk' of yesterday about my 'botlike editing'. I'm looking forward to your answer on that! :-) --Markcoutinho (talk) 10:46, January 1, 2014 (UTC)Mark Coutinho, 01-01-2014

Bando Da Lua Edit

Hi Chris! Diese Seite wurde von dir gelöscht – ich nehme an aus urheberrechtlichen Gründen. Was auf der Seite genau stand, kann ich nicht mehr herausbekommen. Ich habe stattdessen jetzt diese erstellt, da die Gruppe das Stück, mit einem eigenen Text, unter diesem Titel herausbrachte. Ich hoffe damit gibt es keine Probleme. --Ignor-the-ant (talk) 15:42, January 14, 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, die Löschung fand damals im Rahmen des "GPP" statt, dem Gracenote Placeholder Project. Im Wesentlichen war die Seite schon vor der Löschung gesperrt, allerdings durch einen vor Bearbeitung geschützten Platzhaltertext. Im Rahmen vom GPP wurden diese reinen Platzhalter-Seiten entfernt und anschließend vor Neuerstellung geschützt. Mehr Informationen zu diesem Vorgang findest du auf User:LWChris/GPP. Viele Grüße und melde dich, wenn noch etwas unklar ist. - Chris 17:45, January 16, 2014 (UTC)


I have a song that begins with an unusual character... the octothorpe. Beckah Shae:#putyourloveglasseson doesn't work. This (Beckah Shae:#putyourloveglasseson) just links to the Artist page that needs to be created, not the actual song. How does this get fixed???


SPIRAL (talk) 04:09, January 30, 2014 (UTC)

done Done, - see lw:docs for documentation and song page for implementation.
hth, --Senvaikis (talk) 12:32, February 1, 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Senv. Technical explanation is that the hash (#) is a reserved character to tell the browser to scroll to a certain anchor on the page. For example, the Link #Deadmau5 scrolls the current page to the headline "Deadmau5", since in MediaWiki each headline gets an anchor named like the headline itself.
Your link "Beckah Shae:#putyourloveglasseson" opens the page "Beckah Shae:" and scrolls to the anchor named "putyourloveglasseson". - Chris 12:56, February 1, 2014 (UTC)


I have already discussed this with User:Senvaikis but he/she asked me to ask you for permission as well and he hasn't decided yet. Basically, I would like to ask if I could redesign this wiki's mainpage. I have designed, and more!

So, please, can you unprotect the mainpage for a short time? You can always roll back the spam and etc. Thank you! :)

— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azending (talkcontribs), 04:25, April 3, 2014‎ (UTC).

Hi Azending,
I'm okay with a redesign, but can you deal with the translation system we're using? Smile I'll unprotect the page as soon as you responded to not leave it open for days before you even know your request has been approved.
Thanks, Chris 14:10, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting my requestEdit

Don't unprotect the page right now, I still need to make the stuff. :) What do you mean by translation??

Look at our current main page. Currently, our main page is available in
  • English
  • German
  • Spanish
  • Finnish
  • French
  • Greek
  • Italian
  • Japanese
  • Dutch
  • Norsk
  • Polish
  • Portuguese
  • Russian
  • Swedish
  • Tagalog
  • Turkish and
  • Chinese

We are able to translate every part of our main page into different languages, if we want to, thanks to our templating system. Do you think you could keep a similar system? - Chris 20:59, April 7, 2014 (UTC) P. S.: please sign your posts with ~~~~, thanks.

EDIT: nvm, talked to XxTimberlakexx and he helped me, thanks!

Tomi47 (talk) 00:19, June 22, 2014 (UTC)Tomi47

Lyrics Wiki PromotionEdit

Hi there! My name is Jamie and I'm on Wikia's Community Development Team. We're in contact with a potential content sponsor about the possibility of debuting a series of relevant music videos on the Lyrics community and drawing eyes to your work here on Wikia.

Is this something you think you and your community would find interesting? If so, let me know and we'll do our best to provide you more details when we have them. Let me know by leaving a message on my talk page!

Jamie @fandom (profile)•(talk)

Hey Chris,

Thanks for your message! Sorry for the confusion. Basically, you guys would get an exclusive first viewing access to a series of new music videos. We're still learning more about what the videos will be exactly, but they would be embedded on the wikia, I believe in the article pages. You guys really wouldn't have to do do anything specifically. It's mostly a fun promotion to give you guys exclusive access and to drive even more traffic to the wiki. Hope that helps! Jamie @fandom (profile)•(talk)

SOTD Problems Edit

Hi Chris, you're probably very busy right now, but maybe you could have a look at User talk:Lichtweber#SOTD. The SOTD system doesn't seem to work anymore (since May!) It is not possible to work the nominiation list at all and ÜberBot is firing error reports at Sean's for months now. What can we do? Cheers,  · Lichtweber talk service  10:54, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

Hi, well, I can use the admin page, it's just that it takes forever to load since there are so many nomination = a lot of source code to generate and render (there are currently roundabout 2480 nominations). I don't really know how to handle them, especially with the bug that nominations with the preferred date in the past are always shown accepted and thus are unmanageble. I need to get access to the PHP source again to fix that, it's merely one line causing the problem. Actually I should rewrite the whole thing, but I know myself - not gonna happen in 201#.
So what do you suppose I should do? Accept a bunch and then delete as many as possible? - Chris 01:33, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
Yes, emptying the nom list is a good first aid, I guess. As for the bug:
Can someone else take care of that, 6 times 9 for instance? Could you point him to what he should look out for?
And: Do we have to appoint a new "SOTD" manager (I assume you're not free anymore)?
And do we have to obtain special rights to work the nominiations?
Cheers,  · Lichtweber talk service  18:06, August 11, 2015 (UTC)
If I may chime in briefly, I just wanted to correct Licht and say that SOTD's been broken since February, not May.
Also, Chris, I'd suggest archiving your talk page - almost 50 headers and no archive for three years. Makes it quite difficult to navigate. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)22:02, August 16, 2015 (UTC)
Chris? Any chance you can help us here?  · Lichtweber talk service  22:44, September 5, 2015 (UTC)
Hi, as I said, the page is not broken, it only takes really, really long to load. The role you need to edit the nominations should be the admin role, or "sotdhelper", which however I cannot grant for some unknown reason despite being a bureaucrat.
I don't have a copy of the original SOTD special page code anymore. But I guess I can contact the Wikia staff to obtain a copy of the source again, I will try this out now.
And then I will go ahead and delete a large bunch of garbage or accepted nominations. - Chris 13:17, September 13, 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Well, I waited for the page to load and then I was trying to accept or remove noms, but it didn't take. But maybe after a good cleanup it will work again.  · Lichtweber talk service  14:55, September 13, 2015 (UTC)
I think I experienced the problem now. The page loads and you can select the status, but if you Apply the changes it says "unknown action". I am not sure whether that is due to an invalid request because it submits too many status codes for too many songs, or because the URL has now changed to incorporate the "/wiki/" part which was formerly not in the URL. I send the request and I also archived a lot of my talk page, including a post that seemingly caused an exception to occur on saving the page. Must be one of the posts in the 2013 archive now. - Chris 15:05, September 13, 2015 (UTC)

The Living SeaEdit

Hi. I'm a beginner here. I was adding The Living Sea soundtrack on the Sting page because someone had listed Ocean Waltz under Other Songs that were orphaned. I thought about whether you want to include an album which is mostly instrumental. I didn't know. So I added it. Then I got this error message and was directed to you. If adding this album is wrong, let me know. In which case Ocean Waltz will be removed from Other Songs anyway. Thanks. Looksharp (talk) 01:55, August 17, 2015 (UTC)

Hi, adding an album is okay even if it is mostly instrumental. I don't know which exact message you refer to by "this error message". But it seems like the page is working by now. - Chris 13:21, September 13, 2015 (UTC)

Song of the Day issues Edit

Hi there Chris! I recently sent in a message to Wikia about the SOTD pages not working correctly since late January 2015 and they referred me to you, as the author of the extension. If you have an opportunity, perhaps you could take a look at the code and see if anything is awry? Thanks, OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 11:09, September 1, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely missed the section up above until I posted the message! If you're able to take a look, the source is available on GitHub. - OneTwoThreeFall (talk) 11:15, September 1, 2016 (UTC)

Retiring the Song of the Day moderator group Edit

Hey LWChris, I saw from a previous conversation here that you're no longer able to promote users into the moderatesotd group. That's probably a result of some extensive user roles changes we've made a while ago.

Do you think it would be okay for us to remove that custom group entirely? We could add the moderatesotd right to the content moderator group instead (where thematically, it makes the most sense). Your content moderators would then be able to work with Song of the Day, and and you'll have no trouble promoting new people who you'd want to be able to work on it. Please let me know! Thanks in advance :) Mira Laime @fandom  (help forum | blog) 21:49, September 1, 2016 (UTC)

Hey Mira,
yeah I guess it's fine. The SOTD got out of hand a long time ago, because its admin page features neither pagination nor spam filters; hence I guess my former concept is quite outdated anyways. I'd have to rewrite the whole page, and I'll probably not do this within the next years, so go ahead, I think. Smile - Chris 00:04, September 29, 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Removing the group will require some work from our engineers. It may take some time, but it's already requested. Your content moderators have the moderatesotd right now, should it be needed. Mira Laime @fandom  (help forum | blog) 17:52, September 29, 2016 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki