Send to a friend

From LyricWiki

Contents 1 Ratings (21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)) 2 Questions 3 Sssh...don't tell Kiefer 4 Can you help me out here? 5 High time you got one of these... 6 Slow your roll 7 Duplicating Green star on Album 8 I was going to let you sweat it out ... 9 Albums/Green star 9.1 Transclusion 9.2 Autogeneration 9.3 Simmer 10 8Ball & MJG 11 Icons 12 I'm going to bed but... 13 Implementation 13.1 CSS/Tables 13.2 Song 14 When u got a minute... 15 The problem is that you keep coming up with ideas... 16 Well Deserved!

[edit] Ratings (21:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

I'm still trying to understand the ratings system. If anyone has any advice about rating songs and setting up the song footer properly (or quickly), I'd appreciate them. As far as I know, I could be the only one editing lyrics for the artist I'm working on (T.I.).

Can I both certify and watch a song's lyrics? I have been basing corrections on actually listening to the song in question, but I can double check, I suppose.

I'm not sure I understand your questions but hopefully I can give you a few pointers.

1. Firstly, I have updated the artist template on T.I.'s page. Now you have all the parameters showing that you need to complete for artist page ranking (you can also copy and paste this onto other artist pages). Search help pages to find how to locate the required information, e.g. iTunes, MusicBrainz, etc.
2. The easiest way to establish if anyone else has recently been working on any page is by clicking on the "History" tab that appears at the top of every page.
3. Yes you can be a watcher and certifier, in fact that is usually the case. Watcher means you are "looking after" the page, protecting it from vandals, etc. Certifying means you have listened to the lyrics and compared these to what is on song page.  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 13:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

• Is there a restriction against using profanity on a user's personal page?

I don't think so. For songs there is a Help:Contents/Editing/Formatting/Songs#Parental_Advisory_Template.

• Is there a way to list producer credits at the header and footer of pages? I would really like to contribute to this feature, if possible

Commendable. Add a "Credits" section (under lyrics and before Songfooter). See Foo Fighters:Times Like These.

• How do I upload album art? I've been trying, using upload file in the toolbox, but it hasn't been working. Could be a connection timeout issue

"hasn't been working" ? Not too big? If the problem is still persisting, please provide more detail as to exactly what you are doing, at what point it goes wrong, etc. and I'll endeavour to assist. Help:Contents/Uploading Content/Album Covers

 _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 05:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

UPDATE: Although it was working when you posted this message, uploading isn't working atm due to site upgrade.

I noticed that it's on the list of things that need to be fixed, so I'll try it later. However, I can get a lot further than before - i think it was a timeout issue, having a new server is faster. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› @16:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a LyricWiki user page. This is not a LyricWiki article. If you find this page on any site other than LyricWiki, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than LyricWiki itself. The original page is located at http://www.lyricwiki.org/User_talk:Team_a.

[edit] Sssh...don't tell Kiefer

FOR SONGS:

{{Star Box}}
{{Song Rank|Green}}
{{Song Info
| fLetter   = unknown
| album     = unknown
| artist    = unknown
| song      = unknown
| video     = unknown
| audio     = unknown
| language  = unknown
| asin      = unknown
| iTunes    = unknown
| wikipedia = unknown
| credits   = unknown
}}
{{Watcher|}}
|}
__TOC__

FOR ALBUMS:

{{Star Box}}
{{Album Rank|Green}}
{{Album Info
| fLetter     = unknown
| album       = unknown
| artist      = unknown
| release     = unknown
| genre       = unknown
| length      = unknown
| cover       = unknown
| asin        = unknown
| iTunes      = unknown
| musicbrainz = unknown
| wikipedia   = unknown
| allsongs    = Black
}}
{{Watcher|}}
|}
__TOC__

FOR ARTISTS:

{{Star Box}}
{{Artist Rank|Green}}
{{Artist Info|
| fLetter      = unknown
| artist       = unknown
| hometown     = unknown
| genre        = unknown
| other        = unknown
| related      = unknown
| cover        = unknown
| iTunes       = unknown
| musicbrainz  = unknown
| wikipedia    = unknown
| officialSite = unknown
| mySpace      = unknown
| allsongs     = Black
| everyalbum   = Black
}}
{{Watcher|}}
|}
__TOC__

Thanks! So you saved this somewhere and copy and paste it each time? Well, I guess I've done this myself from the help pages. Is there any way to just use a template to avoid all the typing? I'm going to try to make my own user pages for this, should be a lot quicker, I hope... ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb›

Yes, I copy and paste this onto talk pages. But bear in mind that you have to change each parameter as you complete each requirement. And no, you have to do it like this I'm afraid, because if you simply enter the template i.e. {{Artist Info}} you don't get the list in edit mode to complete.  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 12:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed this recently. At first, I created the template to add the checklist to a series of songs, but adding it to just one and filling in the data requires two edits: one to add it in, and the next to edit the actual values. Still, I've found it much easier than tracking down the information and copy and pasting it, although in the future I might just open my template in a different tab to copy and paste instead. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› @18:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can you help me out here?

Now I know this is not a Santana song Santana:Gimmie Dat Freestyle (rfl) but do you know who it is by? I managed to allocate/redirect all the others in the OS list, just not this one :( So I would be ever so grateful if you could assist.. Thanks!  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 00:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on it. These things can take awhile to figure out, for a few reasons other than the one you pointed out. This applies to a certain category of songs that appear to have been created as follows: 1. One site has a section of an artist's page that includes songs the artist is featured in. A second site incorrectly grabs those lyrics and lists them with the featured artist as the actual artist, sometimes (especially in this case) taking only the verses the artist actually performs (see this site). Third, LW takes the lyrics from site #2 (in addition to site #1, which LW might sort appropriately) and there you have it.
I'm 99% sure that this is by Juelz Santana, but that he's only the featured artist, not the main artist. I haven't been able to find the lyrics in Santana:Gimmie Dat Freestyle in any other song by any artist with the same or similar song title. I'm 80% sure this is from a street mixtape, and probably appears on 4 or 5 mixtapes total, 2 or 3 of which are official. Or, even the name of the song could be totally wrong - it might also be "Gimme dat (remix)" or "Juelz Santana Freestyle" or something like that.
Now, this wouldn't solve the problem, but I suggest turfing this page to the Juelz Santana page, because I'm sure he's the artist in question, even if it might be only a partial song (definitely not one of his official releases), because I bet it's not the only hard to categorize song on his page (it's entirely Other Songs), and whoever sorts that out will have a better chance determining what the song really is, because they might actually have to look through all the songs (like I did for T.I.). ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 02:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[1] ∃cho⚡ierr∀ (☏)02:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Good thinking. I forgot that iTunes has been putting so many mixtapes in its store... seems that somebody figured out that this was a good way to profit off what you can normally get for free. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 04:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

EDIT:Listened to the entire track, it doesn't match the lyrics at all. No idea what song the lyrics actually match. So, there's nowhere to forward it... if it weren't for the fact that this page might be generated again, I'd delete it. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb›} 04:43, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I drew a blank too, so I moved it to Juelz Santana for the reasons you said above team a.  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 17:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] High time you got one of these...

Love the hard work. Good attitude, great heart. --Aquatiki - T - E 05:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys - I really appreciate it. Nice to know that what I've been doing has been noticed. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 06:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slow your roll

You might wanna add some -sleep:2 -pt:20 to your B.O.T. Looks like you're hittin' the server more than six times a minute with changes, which (in combination with all the other bots that are going) is a bit much. --Aquatiki - T - E 05:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I had -putthrottle:2, I assumed that meant wait 2 seconds in between changes. I'll go with what you said from now on, thanks. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 06:00, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicating Green star on Album

This happened to be on my watchlist...[2] One thing I learned is that the regex best be written so that subsequent passes on the same page will have no effect ∃cho⚡ierr∀ (☏) 18:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed. The problem is that I adapted something I developed for another purpose, and the changes seemed to work (I checked all the pages). Then, I ran it again, and that's where the problems started. I'm already running a command to fix my mistake. If there are still problems after today, let me know. Thanks for pointing this out! ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 19:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I was going to let you sweat it out ...

...cos I'm kinda mean like that but looking at your user page
sooooo...
Notorious B.O.T.
 _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 02:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SO much!! ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 02:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Albums/Green star

[edit] Transclusion

K, I can't quite remember now what it said but was just wondering if you created the excellent transclusion thingy for album pages? By which I mean when you click on green star it tells you "This sets up page ranking template.." (or something similar - lol)? Because if so, there is a vital bit missing, i.e. the {{Album Info}} template that provides the bit you actually need to complete. (Great idea btw - thanks)  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 11:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been rating unrated albums to green, which also includes fixing a lot of non-standard or broken parts of album pages. I think I'll probably be working on albums for a little while. I'll add that to the list of things to fix - I don't think that there are any checklists that have been added by a bot for any page type, unless Aqua has been adding them. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 19:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I never do anything! I managed to get Sean, however, to make talk pages auto-generate. --Aquatiki - T - E 23:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Good thinking. It's missing the parameters for the checklist, though, and I wonder if someone who is clicking on the star necessarily knows anything about these parameters. I am sure this is coming, though, as all of the new page templates have progressed over time. Also, I think that checklists should probably be added by bot as well, although there are a lot of other important things to do with page ranking before then (and on my list of bot edits to do, which i'm sure isn't as long as yours) ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 08:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that can wait. Plus, once the pages are there, it's a cinch to get bots to add missing things via regex. --Aquatiki - T - E 10:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

let's assume for the sake of this "automatic creation" that it is a user not experienced with Page Ranking. What you say is true, but if a(n) (inexperienced) user clicks a star, they expect to see some kind of checklist. At least, that's what we want them to see. Adding to the already-created page might not happen for a week or more, so the user isn't directly drawn in to the process of checking things off and upgrading the stars. Also, it's much easier to throw up the whole correct star box and related templates on non-existent pages (using a text file, perhaps, and knowing that the type of checklist you want is determined by the category of the page)? If editing albums has taught me anything, it's that when users throw up parameters in templates in any order they want, the result is more than a little messy, takes a long time to fix, and fixing it can't be confirmed. Also, after having thought about it, I realize that putting in the right templates could potentially be more difficult than I thought, but I think it'll be worth it. Without having an actual "checklist", I don't think your brilliant idea of auto-generating checklists (stunted here without Semantic, I know) has really accomplished its goal. As it stands, I think it might make page ranking more difficult or confusing. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 10:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the kind of asinine crap I see anonymous writing on talk pages, and the near-total lack of productive edits, I don't think Joe Public is gonna do anything with an automated checklist, and such pages will only proliferate a mess upon our categories like Needs Amazon or Needs iTunes. On the other hand, users who bother to log in are likely to read the stuff on {{Song Rank}} and figure stuff out for themselves. I may be wrong, but I think we're OK testing this new feature as it stands right now. --Aquatiki - T - E 11:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a point there - I expect that users tend to focus on low complexity edits, like just lyrics, or higher complexity, and the latter can find out (or already know about) page ranking. Also, I agree with adding and testing the feature, I don't think it will hurt, and it could be the groundwork for everything that follows (besides having bots fill in the correct checklist, which will take forever) until Semantic. However, I'd like to ask something about how this works, so I might be able to help out later. When a user clicks on a star, it just opens the talk page in edit mode, since the same result is produced from creating a talk page without clicking the star, right? It's the syntax of the new page's title that determines what blank template is chosen, it seems, which is how the song, artist, and album templates are chosen in the main namespace. Could you just do something like this: using the same means that the artist, album and song blank templates are currently guessed, but using the talk namespace? (Don't know if I referred to namespace names correctly) Then just have 3 blank templates, each with appropriate data. I have no idea if this is right, or what kind of complexities might lie behind it on the mediawiki/server end, but just a suggestion. Or, on the template side, have the template link to something like this: (For artists) http://lyricwiki.org/index.php?title=talk:User talk:Team a&action=edit&template=ARTISTSTARBOX where "ARTISTSTARBOX" is the name of a new blank template, and this link is generated using {{Star||Artist}}, with the song version being generated in {{Song}} and the album version in {{Album}}. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 11:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Autogeneration

I'm not sure what your question is... The way it works on the server side is as follows. When a new page is created, the name of the page is compared to several regexes. Basically, if it has a colon, the SONG template is used. If it ends in a number in ()'s, the ALBUM template is used. Otherwise, the ARTIST template is used. Once that is determined, the namespace is evaluated. If it's TALK, the appropriate Page Rank jazz is used. If it's MAIN, the appropriate song/album/artist template is used. Otherwise, do nothing. Does that answer what you were asking? --Aquatiki - T - E 13:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think so. So you already created 3 new templates, and they're each being used, but they are all exactly the same? ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Just one template that's smart enough to know the difference: MediaWiki:Lwtemp-talk-template --Aquatiki - T - E 20:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! That's going to make setting up the checklists really simple. And thanks for explaining all of this to me, I really appreciate it. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 20:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok so can I assume from the above that the omission of the {{Album Info}} is not an error but deliberate Aqua? Deliberate so as not to include the album in categories, e.g. needs iTunes, etc.?  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 16:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. These talk pages will be created by every passing stranger, so we'd quickly be overwhelmed (we few who watch those categories). I bet someday we will make that automatic, but I'm for holding off now ... until we change over to having Green be the default on everything, even without a star=. --Aquatiki - T - E 16:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Aqua.  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 18:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So do people look at the categories that indicate a non-filled-in value, like Category:Songs_Needing_iTunes_Help? My question is, isn't there a difference between "I need help with adding iTunes" and "I just haven't gotten around to adding iTunes yet"? Maybe the {{Album Info}} and the other checklist templates should add pages with |iTunes = unknown to Songs missing iTunes information or something like that, so we don't hold up with making use of the checklists. I feel bad now because I sometimes put the checklist on a page to show that it's officially been watched by someone, but i don't necessarily need "help" with adding the value, and I don't want to distract people who have other things to do. Maybe there can be an instruction in the top infobox to "fill in values with 'help' if you are having difficulty with a parameter" or something like that. Then, we can make the auto-generating blank template actually provide the parameters without overtaxing people trying to help out with pages.

I'm sure I don't have to tell either of you what a pain in the ass it is to try and edit really old pages that haven't been converted to the new version of templates. You can't predict what order the parameters will appear in, whether they even exist, or whether there are two of them. The last thing we want here is to have to spend more time later re-formatting the checklist - Imagine if |iTunes= and |language= had existed on every song page, and {{SongFooter}} did too? How many problems have been caused by trying to make complicated regex statements to edit those, often causing some pages to be missed, or to have 2 of the parameter instead of one, or for the page to not show up in the wrong category? We can easily head that off here because we already know 90% of what is going to be on our {{Song Info}}, but if we start creating pages with {{Star Box}} or {{Album Info}} with no parameters, who knows how some pages will turn out. But, make them all the same, and adding things like |timed= (or whatever it is) to the end will be a piece of cake, and with much less possibility of regex screwups that people might or might not ever detect. Does that sound reasonable? ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 04:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, A, I can relate 110% to what your saying. In my time in wiki-land, I have been nothing but frustrated with people's unwillingness to go along with my well-planned, reasonable, effective, top-down ideas for large-scale implementation. If we did it right the first time, it wouldn't need doing again! However, one of the bugs (features?) of wiki-land is its über-democratization of decisions. None of us, even Sean, have the power to dictate how things will be beforehand. Sean's abiding by this principle is why LW is so big, and my failure to abide it is why I'm the only one on my wiki. Now I dare say, my wiki is much more organized than his, but I have no community. While I'm not saying we can't make changes to the process, I am saying that there must always be "wiggle room" on a wiki, and that'll lead to massive overhauls down the road. Se la vie. --Aquatiki - T - E 17:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simmer

I can understand that, and maybe I need to take a step back. However, surely this principle doesn't mean that such changes can't be made, but rather that there needs to be broad consensus about them? I'm not saying this is a "vote" or anything like that - I admit that I'm not experienced enough to know how big changes are made. As far as I can tell, the only big change here would be renaming the categories applied by {{SongFooter}} (but by extension, {{Album}} and {{Artist}} as well). Yes, this is big, but it might be something that most people would agree to. After that, it seems more cut and clear: we already add in the necessary parameters using the blank artist, album, and song templates for new pages, even including the spacing between the parameter name and equals sign. Doing it for Artist/Album/Song Info wouldn't be a big thing, it would just match what is done for the pages themselves.

I understand now what you mean by waiting a bit and maybe making the changes later, when people get used to them. I'll definitely consider this principle in the future, too. If you really think we should hold up on this, I'll listen. Is it possible to ask around and see what people think, though? I'd already be doign that, but unfortunately the only people I really know here have already posted in this section... ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 20:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to quell your lust for improvements. I think you should post a question to the Community Portal talk page. I just you to know that the reason for the old categories and formats is because it was the best idea at the time and they went with it. Did you know that before the >lyric< extension, they made all the lyrics part of a >pre< by starting every line with a space! You can still find some relics around. You know I am itching to overhaul this site and go semantic, but multi-month patience is a virtue ... and must! Most people don't even know about this automatic talk-page generation, so bring it to their attention and build a consensus. Politics is everywhere! --Aquatiki - T - E 01:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And so say ALL of us hee hee  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 01:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 8Ball & MJG

Where did you get the list of songs from?  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I used a past version of Eightball & MJG, before the redirect and batch move. Since all the pages were moved, I figured I'd take the old list and just change the artist name. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 03:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Aaah now I understand. Thank you!  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 00:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Icons

I obsess over icons and since the Page Rank system is my baby, I thought I'd better think about the icons for "help" verses "unknown" even now, before it's decided. The current icon for "unknown" (a box marked with questions) says to me "who knows what's inside?", a good way to visualize "unknown". My ideas for "help" are as follows:

I think people asking for a life preserver is good, probably better than a plain life preserver itself. The red cross is good too. Thought? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒ_Δ^Σ ¶ § 17:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I always thought your attention to finding good images was commendable. I think I like the regular life preserver and medical cross the most, because the icon won't be that big, and the meaning should jump out. These would fit the existing icons the best. Of these, I like the life preserver a little more, but I'd be happy with both. The life preserver and the top half of the cross need a little darkening, but otherwise, they're good choices. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 22:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I vote life preserver too. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒ_Δ^Σ ¶ § 23:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too !! (hee hee)  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 00:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If I'm totally honest, I'm not altogether sure I'm keen on the aqua Aqua, but I'm sure glad someone's now got a more colourful signature than me!!

[edit] I'm going to bed but...

if you wanna pester some people on their talk pages about LyricWiki talk:Community Portal#Auto-Generating Star Checklists, maybe we can achieve cloture and move forward ... if you want to --Åqüã†ìкí ƒ_Δ^Σ ¶ 16:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Implementation

While the {{Album}} discussion is raging on (I came back from dinner out and there were three more pages!), nobody seems to be discussing {{Song}}. I'm about ready to just change it, but I know I should be more patient. Is there a discussion somewhere I'm missing? If not, let's hit up Kief or Red for an opinion. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒ_Δ^Σ ¶ 13:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask you to put that through but didn't want to rush it either. I don't think the Star and Song edits involve much by way of cosmetic changes. I know the star edit might need some discussion, or just double-checking, but I'd like to do that one first, because Song relies on it. Once Star is put through, then I think I might have to edit Song just a little bit. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 22:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There'd be no harm (other than the server load) in doing the Star changes now, right? Where is your version? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒ_Δ^Σ ¶ 23:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't done any work on star or song since I posted them on LW:PR. I'm going to do a final check. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 01:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, take another look at User:Team a/Sandbox/Star. Could you help me test it? Also, I was thinking that if the second parameter (type) is spelled wrong or something, we should create a category for that, rather than having a link to a non-existent category, which someone else will have to deal with. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 01:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking we ought not to worry about that since {{Star}} will only be called from within other templates now. {{ArtistHeader}} removes the last place it was called bare, so I wouldn't think that'll ever come up. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒ_Δ^Σ ¶ 07:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 00:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I did it. Keep me abreast of the (any?) debate over your Song version, and I'll do that too. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒ_Δ^Σ ¶ 00:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Aqua. I suppose this is a bad time for me to realize that stars aren't square, the dimensions are a 15:14.33 ratio (for Black, and each one is a slightly different size). This means that because I scaled both X and Y, I resized the image wrong. Let me get some more work done with this beast, and I'll fix it with parser functions. Anyway, there might be more failsafes I could think of later. For now, it's good: with my album edit or song edit, or an edit to {{ArtistHeader}}, all unranked songs will be ranked black. Then, I can die a good death.
For status, my album edit will probably be nailed down in 2 weeks to a month, based on the new functionality and new ideas people are suggesting, and the song template needs to have another look (with {{Star}} edited) and I'll post it on the {{Song}} page and see if I can get the champs of LW to scrutinize it. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 03:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Please bug Red or somebody on their talk page about your Song stuff: it's really good and should be done! As for the square star images, I don't think it matters that much as that resolution. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒ_Δ^Σ ¶ 05:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a "We'll get to it when we have to edit Star anyway" type of thing. By the way, don't hesitate to comment on my album edit (At Template talk:Album) - I'm probably going to do a big post within the hour. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 05:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little behind on all my conversations, especially that one. I'm no fan of saving up your edits for one, big, mega-change. There are so many on-going projects and long-term goals that is makes no sense to store-up many edits. I just want one more set of eyeballs on your {{Song}} changes and I'm gonna do it. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒ_Δ^Σ ¶ 05:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, okay, I'll look at it. Ignoring your common sense was starting to make my head hurt anyway. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 05:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CSS/Tables

Problem here. How do you truncate something in html or css - I have seen it before, its a class where anything that overflows doesn't show... and how do you wrap text effectively, that would be magic... but what I really want to know is, how do I get the page width (in some css style sheet?) and subtract x pixels? I.e. if I want something to fill the entire width of the screen except 15px. Before you dismiss this post as stupid because it's about a problem that will never occur except through vandalism, please let me know if you can answer my questions! ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 05:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a website (A List Apart) that is the Bible for CSS gurus, and they said something the other day that really surprised me. CSS and Standards are cool and everything, but tables are sometimes for effective and way less work. If they say that, it really means something. (I.E., a table with a width of 100%, one column unregulated, the other 15px wide. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒ_Δ^Σ ¶ 06:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at every table I've ever made :P I know you always go for css/html over tables, but I'm glad I don't look too foolish for learning all that (even though they don't have wide use in the type of templates we use around the site, so far). Unfortunately, unwrappable text exists - I blame MediaWiki! Actually, I'll probably figure out how to fix it eventually - I'm going to check out the website. What I want to get into more is sortable tables, and collapsible tables, considering that these are just about the only bits of script that can be snuck into a page. I've even seen a collapsible table that collapses into nothing (should be easy to make), so we can always pester new users with them :P What do you think about the template, is it a go? ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb›} 07:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I use those collapsibles and everything on my own wiki. They're really cool. See also wikipedia:Template:ShowHide. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒ_Δ^Σ ¶ 07:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look. All your urging to finish the template has gotten me anxious, though. I hope you're looking it over! ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 07:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You haven't touched User:Team a/Sandbox/Star in a while: is that where you're making changes? --Åqüã†ìкí ƒ_Δ^Σ ¶ 07:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with Star. I thought you were talking about Song. Look at the post below. I'm not planning to make many changes to Song, the major reason I edited it in the first place was for the star and to make the text appear at the top of the page. I don't think it has the potential that Album does. See below (to keep it short) ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 07:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. I'm getting tired and should go to bed before I make a site-wide mistake. I already implemented your Star changes. Reading your mega-post... --Åqüã†ìкí ƒ_Δ^Σ ¶ 07:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Song

OK, I think I'm reasonably done, barring words that are over the page width, which won't wrap no matter what. Take a look at User:Team a/Sandbox/Star On Song Page now - I've even included the documentation, so it's a cut and paste job (if it holds up to your scrutiny, and I'll see if I can recruit some more people, unless you wanna just put it though). Note that I didn't include putting the template in any categories - whoever switched over to the documentation system forgot to put them on the doc page. I'll also fix the doc page when the template is put through. I didn't touch much at all except adding the table to the very beginning and end, changing how the final period appears, and adding a 6th featured artist (because I can). This one was probably even less tinkering than my Star edit; it's basically cosmetic. EDIT: One more thing, you're going to need to restrain my enthusiasm about something. I wanted to add categories for the featured artists, i.e. [[Category:Featured/{{{fa2}}}]], so that {{PAGESINCAT:Category Name}} can be used on the artist page to list the number of songs an artist is featured in, and link to a list of them. That's the one thing that needed discussion, and I was really hoping for. To hold me back and get me to shelf it, tell me that we'll do that even more effectively when we get Semantic. All I want for Christmas is Semantic...♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 06:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, looked it over and it passes muster. I can't wait for Semantic where we'll be able to query any page for all artists used on it. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒ_Δ^Σ ¶ 07:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the things I'm looking for most is what it could do for artist pages - list tiny icons of the albums, finally arrange the art properly, provide so many statistical or useful links (and I promise to only 150% overdo it). I could really use the simplicity too - I haven't certified a song in a week, and maybe 1-2 weeks before that one. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 07:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but don't you think that current placing of song star attribute in tl:song is slightly illogical? Imo star is a parameter of song page, not the particular song record in particular album, hence it shouldn't have any possibility to have separate different values for the same song page. Current song page structure hasn't any trigger preventing me from setting different star parameters in different song tl's for the same song page (you can try that :)). It may be a source of possible future problems while starring songs, especially for botified starring (needless checking of all tl:song items, additional rules for conlicts resolving etc.). What do you think about that?--Senvaikis ^(talk) 08:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the most important thing is to do what can be done without human intervention for right now. Let's save all our mass-edit stuff until we get Semantic and it's 1,000,000 times less effort. Page rank data can be auto-calculated by the website itself, and there will be no star=___. --Åqüã†ìкí ƒ_Δ^Σ ¶ 08:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If I understand what you mean, Senv, you're saying that leaving a space above the first {{Song}} text line suggests that the star is for the whole page, but without that space, it is implied that the star might be for just the first album listed. You do have a point there. However, this still seems like the better play to go with right now, considering that most songs only have one album, and it seems unlikely that anyone who knows the basics about LW:PR would think that the star only indicates the one item. If there are problems, we can easily find them with a bot to manually edit them. Perhaps we should update the help and talk page descriptions to clarify, though.
To respond to your first few points, I think adding the star to {{Song}} is positive because it cuts down template use, which can be distracting when viewing the editable text, and it requires less text for editors(|star=Green instead of {{Star|Green|Song]}, and even then, you should only have to change the parameter value for the star, not add the whole parameter. And, it helps newcomers in that changing a few words has a more logical result, while adding a new template might be counterintuitive. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 08:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] When u got a minute...

Can you look at the edit war going on on this page and if you know the correct words (whether it's "it" or "you" correct it please?) Timbaland:The Way I Are. If you don't know don't worry, I'll go check song out on YouTube. Thanks!  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 02:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Note that the youtube version is different from the album version (another verse, repeat of bridge and chorus). I added links to both audio and video. If anyone tries to edit those parts again, I'll take it up with them. Also, I wonder if there is some welcoming to do with our anonymous editors for that page - registered users are easier to talk and explain things to. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 00:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you team a! I have put welcome notes on the pages of the last two unregistered users who edited that page.  _♫Яєd_{xx ♪}♫♪_♫♪^Talk 18:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The problem is that you keep coming up with ideas...

I've actually been working on my own version of your template that I knicked from you tonight. What I am going to try to do also is remove the Namespace references from the parts that do not effect categories, clean up the code, and come up with some alternative ways of doing some of the stuff that you have already done. I think we will be doing some code consolidation at some point in this progression. But if you want to see what I've got so far (it isn't much yet) it's at User:Kingnee1114lyrics/Sandbox/AlbumMockup because I am unoriginal.
King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 07:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I'm happy that anyone would want to tinker with something I made. You should realize that I'm constantly updating mine - I must have done it over thirty times tonight - so that might be a difficulty. Right now, I'm working through a major error in the upper right link, so be advised. Are you planning to change around the formatting? What do you have in mind? EDIT: I hope all the useless formatting tools described in the sandbox don't throw you - they're all going to be removed when I reach an almost-final step. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 07:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

What I've fixed so far is the splits in the title link. Now will say 'Split Studio Album by Artist, Split, Split2 and Split3'. Would you mind if I put in that the official (read: your) version? I would like to say that I have now gotten the namespace references, but I would like to talk about not keeping different template reactions for namespace, or at least as prolific as you have it here, for reasons of simplicity and sustainability. This template existing on userpages makes that make sense now, but when this is released into the wild, the usefulness of having all that extra code, about 100 characters per instance, is outweighed by the idea of ease of maintaining this template. That may or may not be me being a fogey.

King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 08:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no. I do understand those are just tools for figuring out the formatting without having to tinker with the code itself each time. No, I mainly mean just random bug fixes/small formatting bits, and then namespace.

Yes, you can definitely put the split fix that in the main version. About the "type", though, we don't want it to only appear for split releases, so maybe it needs its own field in the bottom text box. I'm going to post about the direction of "type" pretty soon on Template talk:Album, once I've fixed some of the more annoying tiny bugs and the formatting has been all lined up. Feel free to edit the "Demonstration" page too, especially in adding reported bugs, or to fix any of those listed. Because I do a lot of edits, there could be edit conflicts, so you might want to fix things in yours if I'm also in the process of editing. PS, I'm almost done fixing the upper-left link - take a look in 10 minutes. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 08:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The beauty of my fix is that 'split' shows up separate from the type. It is just a little code before the type 'if split, then say "split" else nothing'. In my demonstrations there were split mixtapes, split singles, and all sorts of wacky things. I will wait until your edits calm down and add in my fix later.

King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 08:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll probably be done in 15 minutes, and I'll be busy studying for an exam tomorrow. Don't worry about my formatting, just add it in the appropriate place and I'll look at the edit history to see. Also, I wanted to say that I agree about trimming down a lot of things, I plan to do this near the end or when lots of new functionality or rearranging won't be happening on a daily basis. Also, to remove a lot of the namespace checks, I've thought about moving every category to the end. That way, the namespaceid box can list the category that a page would have been included in, without actually including it. The only concern is separating what I spent awhile putting together, which is getting almost all the {{#if:{{{PARAMETER|}}}}} checks together in the same place, so a later editor won't think he or she has fixed something, when it has to be done in multiple places. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 08:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, not tonight, but I'm close. ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 09:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Well Deserved!

P.S.the next one will be for the number of posts per minute .

Thanks, Red! Your encouragement means a lot to me! ♠team a ‹_talk•ctrb› 18:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC) how about words per post? haha