#musicbrainz

Would you say I'm wrong?

(I of course refer to North American bands, and their albums that release overseas with the same title.)

actually, most Japanese releases I've ever bought for the bonus tracks, those tracks were available only on the Japanese release

*never* released anywhere else?!

yep

buuuuuuh?!

I would love to see this, just because it is so different from my recollection.

I've not bought *any* Japanese bonus track CDs in maybe 10 years, but I seem to recall NIN and Tori Amos both having some like that

and there was a French Nirvana CD I imported only because it had a track avail only on the French version of the CD - but that's the only non-Japanese case I can think of

overseas in generally works

this seems just another case of that to me

just kinda oddball in that it's the first and last tracks, instead of the last 2 tracks

The Fragile [JP] seems to be identical

anyhow, the votes are against me, and I'm willing to be convinced to cancel :D

:(

all I am asking is, what is different about the audio?

the mix from track 1 -> 2, and 12 -> 13, or whatever the last two are.

that's it?

yeah, 12->13

so, the start of tracks 2 and the last track are distinct.

err, blah

for a "continuous mix" CD, wouldn't that make all Japanese bonus track CDs a separate RG then, even if they did share the same title?

end of 1, start of 2, end of 12, start of 13

The distinction I'm drawing is 'new content' vs. 'old content' really.

simplest case: both have same release title, and the release is continuous mix: 10 tracks in the US, 11 in JP: would that then make that 11 track JP one so distinct that it would need a different RF?

*RG?

not enough detail :P

too high-level

(I know, I am a flippant pain in the ass)

ok, the theoretical releases are both identical in all respects, except for that extra 11th track, and the minor changes to the 10th track that would make it mix into #11

but my argument is not (unique acoustid != same RG)

Personally, that isn't different enough for me to say it's not the same RG.

I admit that I'm way conflicted at this point.

I've seen different accoustids between file formats. Esp not knowing the source for that single fingerprint on the JP release, I'm not comfortable using it as a differentor.

*differentiator

And I'm not using it as a differentiator :P

I'm not saying we should mix the recordings, or even merge the mediums. I'm just saying that the JP deadmou5 looks to me like it's "yet another JP bonus track release", with the extra confusion of the tracks being 1 and 13, instead of 12 and 13, and there being no release title.

here... I see you edit deadmou5 far more than I do :P

indeed

MAU5

AAAAAAAAAAAA

GET IT RIGHT ;_.

;_;

haha

I've been so annoyed each time you write it wrong :P

lol; he's one I listen to far more often that type... and crazy leet spellings like his drive me nuts :P

Rather than we try to make some last minute decision, I'

CatCat, could I request that you elaborate further on http://musicbrainz.org/edit/15982557 or change your vote?

I'll cancel the edit, and just ask that you think on it.

I've been thinking, a lot

also ^^^

and when you decide it ought to happen, then you do the edit - you'll then be in a better place than I, maybe, to argue for it. :)

sound fair?

no

because I just changed my vote

hence my ping to CatCat

LOL

it's not distinct enough. I'm fine with that. irked, but I'll live.

I do agree, though, it's rare enough to have pretty much the same release with different titles, let alone any other confusion.

"Infer track durations from associated recordings" neat

I think I've only seen it before w/ Mingus, Coltrane, and a pair of Nirvana bootlegs ("Live Tits" and "More Live Tits" - both the same exact CD :P)

do those release titles correspond to Nirvana bootlegs?

also, how annoying, this import from bandcamp script is not picking up durations.

and I clicked through too fast to pay attention. Which also means I didn't guess case

lucky me, guess case doesn't do anything to these releases

...and then you get the fun of going through 1x1 and fixing the case on recordings :(

been there, done that

I think that one's murdos'? Leave him a comment about durations - he's responsive, and he ought to be able pretty easily to clone the duration code from the Discogs script over

yeah, believe so. I might take a stab at it myself here in a few.

maybe. I'm pretty JS-terrible.

despite it sharing my initials, but whatever.

but ty :)

have you been around when I've ranted and raved about having to fix release-level tracks and their recordings? I've done it a few times. soooooooooo frustrating

I keep being tempted to write a "sync" script, to sync times/titles/artists from releases to/from recordings (good for everything), and from recordings to/from works (good for non CD/vinyl bootlegs)...

or you could just use beta.mb

they implemented unified editing?

you can apply the same edits to recordings by ticking a box on the recordings tab there

Honestly I'm not sure how I feel about that :P

seems ripe for completely unintentional edit warring.

nikki: beta.mb has support to let me rename all recordings and tracks from work titles, to set recording times from tracks and vica versa, and to change artists on recordings from tracks and vica versa?

go try it out!

that's what it's there fow

-w+r

lol

maybe when I wake up, but for now, bed :)

hold that thought for like, 3 minutes

if you can

lol, ok

... hopefully just three minutes.

code?

something fancy pants.

lol

BrianFreud: feel like doing some javascript troubleshooting?

sure, I'll take a look

It's to do with that FF 9 bug on the wiki: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/-/skins/common/wiki...

When that's disabled, the bug is gone.

Or at least I think so.

when which bit of it is disabled?

WHY DOES USERSCRIPTS USE THAT GARBAGE 'oh god huge download button' AD, ZSRGIAWHRIGHAUROEHGAOERGH

looks like the reason durations don't work is because "durationstr" doesn't exist anymore.

CallerNo6, these will be of great interest to you, I think: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bu... http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/medi... https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=67...

I can fix this!

BrianFreud: the wiki page includes the script page I linked to above. When that link is removed, the navbar displays where it should.

did UserScripts prevent the ability for any user to upload/"improve" another user's script?

whatever the change in FF9 was that broke mediawiki, etc, is being backed out in FF10

or is it just behind a login?

(I suppose I could log in and find out.)

VxJasonxV, afaik, it's always been that way

when it's been needed, we've just uploaded a new script and made mention of it being a fixed version of the other one. murdos' Discogs script -> my improved version -> migrated into his, and I took mine back off. (Hence the mention of me on that script's page)

CallerNo6, the FF team does mention that it only affects older versions of MediaWiki - is our install that out of date?

yeah, years out of date

seems the best fix might be to just upgrade?

CallerNo6, yeah, someone traced it to these 4 lines in mediawiki: http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk...

Right. Same script. "wiki bits"

yup

that's what happens when you try to feature detect :P

technically, though, the FF team was right, I think...

That's what happens when you run mediawiki 1.11.2 , circa 2007

Navigator.taintEnabled() was depricated in Javascript 1.2, scheduled for removal in 1.3; that predates even ECMAScript 1.0. And JS1.2 dates back all the way to June 1997 and Netscape Navigator 4.0 :P

that it's still in FF at all is bork

so umm

copy / paste js into favorite editor

edit

save

drag file into firefox

test

success?

profit :)

you forgot the ??? first

from bugzilla, "Our experience is generally that people just ignore the warnings. The only value that they add is us being able to say "hey, we warned you"."

I love how when I start using a new language, I just make language assumptions

hmmm, js rounding

what are you trying to do?

Math.round apparently

someone wanna tell me if this is valid js: return minutes + ":" + seconds

return minutes + ":" + seconds;

i.e. yes with semi colon which I obviously forgot but would likely but on

I had it on every other line :P

wow bandcamp's site is noisy... looks like someone forgot to turn off logging of js debug text

heh