Send to a friend

From LyricWiki

We have recently upgraded the server to the newest version of MediaWiki and things are bound not to work.

As you see problems, please report them here. When in doubt, please be bold, we're not afraid of duplicates.

Contents 1 Known Problems 1.1 Ringtone un-smitability bug 2 Think these are fixed: 2.1 Images in Signatures 2.2 API Line-breaks 2.3 Images/Ranking Stars:

[edit] Known Problems

[edit] Ringtone un-smitability bug

The ringtones are supposed to disappear when you turn them off, but they don't always (possibly an article-caching issue). See discussion on ads page -Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 05:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

My test pages = Egg. I think you are right Sean about this being a caching issue. I just checked them. No new edits and all the ringtone ads have now disappeared from pages.  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 23:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Think these are fixed:

Items here are things we think are fixed but could use some help from other people to double-check:

[edit] Images in Signatures

• The Esperanza logo is not showing up. (Noted by Redxx)

  Can someone fix this please? Redxx

  You're referring to the logo in the signatures, right? -Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 01:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  Yes the logo in signatures Redxx

  Well I created a new signature for Mischko and Kiefer has gone back to his old signature so the problem has not been resolved but overcome.  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 23:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  Surprisingly, this one was quite difficult. They banned "img" tags in MediaWiki (because people were hotlinking to images on other sites, then the owners of those sites would get upset at the stolen bandwidth and then replace the images with horrible stuff... so I can see why they did it). Surprisingly, this isn't very easy to fix: you can't just re-whitelist it, and none of the extensions to fix this problem were either terribly good, did what we want, or were easy to use/understand. Glad we've worked around it, I think the no-hotlinking rule is just something we'll have to live with for now (although it'd be cool if you could link to images on your own site :P. Oh, well.

  -Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 05:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Not that I really understand much about this, but does this mean I shouldn't really be linking to the emoticon images as they are on other sites? (I got the idea from another user).  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 23:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point. If possible, please upload them to this site & link to them on here. At the very least that's just the nice way to do it so we're not stealing their bandwidth (even though emoticons probably aren't breaking the bank ;)).

-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 05:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sean. I shall remember that in future.  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 19:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I find myself using lame, ASCII emoticons a lot and was wondering what you thought of an extension such as this. It could be fun! --Åqüã†ìкí ƒ_Δ^Σ ¶ 18:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Lame????!! My emoticons aren't lame!! And yes, you are probably right Aqua, but that page had far too much writing on it for my liking. Probably Sean's too (lol). I'm going to upload some anyways so if you want to use emoticons that aren't lame ;)  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 23:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely, he didn't mean your emoticons were lame :) ... only the text-based ones (oops, like I just used). I think that extension would automatically replace them with images.

-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 04:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Sean! Red, what I meant is that I hate having to turn my head everytime someone types :-) to see what emotion it is. This add-on for the site I'm suggesting, would mean that every time you type :-) the website would automatically change it to . Yours are not lame, but mine are. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒ_Δ^Σ ¶ 10:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hee hee. Well most people do use emoticons a lot (lame or otherwise ), so if they were installed I think it'd be fun. Certainly would be another plus for our site too...!  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 14:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] API Line-breaks

• Line breaks disappeared in some clients that use the API. Currently waiting for reply from Harmonix for more info. See page history for more details.

  Harmonic works fine now, only GimmeSomeTune has line break problems, informed the author. EchoSierra 09:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  Haven't heard anything about this in a while. We never really figured out what was different, but no API users have contacted us in a while about it, so it must have been manageable.

  -Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 19:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

  Senvaikis uses API.  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 00:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images/Ranking Stars:

• Ranking stars show up with a black background (instead of white/transparent) – same with wikipedia icon in {{Wikipedia}} template.

I'm not having this problem. Redxx

Maybe it depends on the skin...? (I'm using the default MonoBook.) 6 times 9

I'm using the default MonoBook too Redxx

I just saw the same thing. Maybe it's a browser thing? What's everyone on? This puppy's on IE 6. NYCScribbler 19:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Also IE6. Now waiting for the inevitable "Why don't you use Firefox?". 6 times 9

I use Firefox and various add-ons, e.g. Greasemonkey, NoScript, etc. Redxx

Works fine with IE7, Firefox 3.0.1, Google Chrome beta -team a

I'm pretty sure it's an IE6 issue and not to do with the upgrade. IE6 can't handle transparent PNGs. There are lots of fixes available though. Twomeanings 21:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

...except that before the upgrade those images displayed just fine, transparency and all. And in Help:Contents/Editing/Cheatsheet the background of the wikipedia icon is still the same light blue as the rest of the box, so obviously transparency still works. -- 6 times 9 22:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason you prefer IE6 to IE7? IE8 has been in beta for awhile now too, should be out before too long -team a

To ask the inevitable question: Why don't you guys use Firefox? :P

King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 17:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm running Win98 (ancient hardware), so no IE7 for me. (I use Maxthon as frontend though, which has all the additional options I need... and then some.) I tried Firefox once – it took ages to load. -- 6 times 9 17:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

On this machine here at work, the images appeared fine before the upgrade. Now they look crummy. IE 6, Windows 2000. --Aquatiki - T - E 11:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Ha! It looks like transparency didn't work before the upgrade, either: the background was just light grey instead of black. By searching archive.org for an older version of 50px-Wikipedia.png, I've found this – and in my browser at least it displays with a light grey background, while the current thumbnail has a black background. The source image displays correctly, though, transparency and all. -- 6 times 9 00:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok Here's something else for you. Although there is no difference with the first or last images, the second image displays correctly in Firefox but incorrectly in IE6, i.e. it displays with black background.  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 23:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes..definitely an Internet Explorer related problem. I have both browsers and use Windows XP.  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 23:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixing Internet Explorer 6 transparency issues seems like it could be quite an undertaking and possibly not worth the time compared to other things... however, having black background on the page ranking Stars could be rather confusing especially since one of the stars is black. To try to fix this, I set a default background color of white (for when transparency isn't available) for all of the stars and re-uploaded them. I'm not near IE 6 at the moment, but I can check later (or if anyone else sees this message and has IE 6, please let me know).
Does anyone see a problem with just fixing the stars? Do we have transparency in other places that matter and/or is it ugly in other spots?
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 11:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep stars all show fine now :-) But just thought I'd show you this. Certificate screen shot in IE6. Obviously would be OK (asides from "Not Applicable") if certificate background itself was white.  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 13:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks for the screenshot :)

Fixed the Not applicable. Unless, I hear otherwise, I'm going to consider this resolved for now. Almost done!

-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 04:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the black stars were the only ones that didn't have a black background before you fixed it... Now all looks good! Thanks! -- 6x9 (Talk) 04:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)