#musicbrainz

Why?

It informs you an artist you're supposed to care about has been deleted

You can take action on it, for example by re-adding it with links this time

(which is the problem for most people who get that mail :p)

And if you added it by mistake and that's why you didn't use it, now you can happily know it's no longer there

:)

Well, in this case it was a merge.

So, you can shout at them if it was wrong :p

(but I think with merges, you end up being subscribed to the artist it was merged into... maybe not though)

(if not, you probably should be...)

I think I was already subscribed.

That's what usually happens to me :)

I add it, find out I added it years earlier with a hyphen or something, merge

can I complain about the fact that it gives the artist number instead of a name?

Yes

:p

(now I’m just digging for things to complain about)

You definitely can complain about that one

(not sure how simple a fix it is)

I would guess simple, but I dunno either

Ah, the reason I was thinking it was warning me every day is because I had it happen twice, and didn’t notice that the number was different

one was a merge, one was an auto-delete of an artist I accidentally duplicated and then didn’t use.

reosarevok: should this be olvídate instead of olvidate on the tracks? http://musicbrainz.org/release/a8d02212-6c60-4a...

:)

reosarevok: hm, we have capitazilation guidelines for disambig comments?

No, but we have none that say "use wrong caps" either :p

ok, fixed.

Hmm, http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17748486 seems to do absolutely nothing.

Yeah, that’s not working.

Also, the system isn’t letting me cancel http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17574797

Is something Very Very Broken, or is it just me?

Oh, it got closed about half an hour after the no-vote

and about 5 minutes ago

Can anyone else swap ’round the track/recording associations for tracks 8 and 9 of disc 2?

of http://musicbrainz.org/release/e6c60285-04dc-46...

huh

They do have the same name as the tracks...

Should I change those too?

I don’t know; I didn’t.

It’s apparently a misprint on the cover

I just want to get the recordings changed so I can re-do that edit.

heh

blank edit note

Can you report? :)

Sure

hawke_1: have you linked to the correct edit?

ocharles: Yes?

No. :-)

Updated to the correct one

hawke_1: the edit actually looks correct

the display is the broken bit

i'm going to try approving that and seeing what happens :)

hawke_1: tracks 8 & 9 are what we're looking for a change in, ya?

ocharles: I think so

yeah

k, don't think that worked

ocharles: actually, it did

it did?

Yeah

it didn't do what I expected then

I was expecting track 8 to have mbid 4faeba10-39f5-451a-9c00-2c1ab64c2c27

Apparently they were wrongly ordered, and hawke_1 didn't change titles on the release because he was going to merge it anyway

So he only switched the recordings

Right

search on beta is fuxored

i'm off now!

reosarevok: wow about what I see in beta… :) I don’t really need Album+Live why not just Live ? But overall it’s better, of course ! sadly I will be quite not available next week to review all this stuff be quite busy… Hope to get the chance to read and “vote” in http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Ove...

jesus2099: as I said, it's only temporary until we reach a decision on what to do in the long term

So mostly, the doubt was if it looked more useful

Good to see it does

Yes it does, but rthat’s maybe just my opinion :) but it does as it is closer to what it was before and what it was before was better than what it is now, IMO ;)

urg it is hatefull that i wasn't logged in when i signed wikipedia

erh s/wikipedia/mbwiki

do i have to do "+1?

Well, you can always log in, remove the signature and re-sign

yepp, i did that

but can i vote with somethingerlse than "+1"

What would be the point? You want to vote with a +10? :p

no i want to not be a head in the crowd

Well, the idea is that it's clear what the vote is for. If you want to put "Plus I" to feel special, do so :p

altough +∞ would be cool

look at my bithcin' signatire :P

look at my bithcin' signature :P

jesus2099: what’s the difference with official/all, isn’t all=unofficial

I mean, either have two lists, one for official stuff and one for everything, including official stuff

Or two lists, one for official only and one for unofficial only

i like the idea of differnt views

remind me tomorrow of this reo, it's hot and i had a great day at the beach

now i am sleepy

regarding “no status” I think it makes a lot more sense to assume they’re official — that way someone looking at the “main discography” ;-) can correct it and mark it as the right status

That was my idea about it, yeah

reosarevok: Regarding compilations— is “hidden until requested” still showing them among all the others when requested, or having a hidden compilations section that appears when requested?

Feel free to give your opinion by your vote :p

heh

looking at the comparisons of what others do: soundunwound sucks, discogs is good, allmusic sucks, RYM is OK

correction, RYM is better on their list display

All on one page, hide bootlegs.

E: 140720640530176 20:44:48 Network request error for http://ofa.musicdns.org:80/ofa/1/track/: Error downloading http://ofa.musicdns.org:80/ofa/1/track/ - server replied: Invalid "cid" (QT code 299, HTTP code 400)

Trying to scan for PUIDs in Picard gives me this error.

qt 4.8 I guess

they broke compatibility in that version, only the git version can work with 4.8 and newer

Indeed, 4.8.1

And PUID sucks anyway. ;-)

luks: do you have time to do a picard release anytime soon?

What's the status of… whatever fingerprint is supposed to replace PUIDs?

There :p

acoustid?

bitmap: yes, I should have time during the weekend or even today (assuming my windows vm still works)

Clint: Yeah, I think this was it.

it works

KRSCuan: it's on the Picard options already

about one month away from having more data than PUIDs actually

grr, 2-0

luks: my problem is getting my vm updated, but I could conceivably do that today or during the weekend.

Haha, first time I look at the options entry.

KRSCuan: http://musicbrainz.org/doc/AcoustID

but it will not work with qt 4.8 either :)

True

hm, "Please reduce your request rate."

the CAA seems to be having problems :/

Yeah

Again

I think this time it works sometimes

Another fan failure? ;-)

Who knows

Arghh, so close :(

luks: Has the new-acoustID submission rate been pretty linear?

or has it petered out a bit?

(as people have already submitted the most common stuff)

we want graphs!!!

derwin: http://acoustid.org/stats

hawke_1: I'd say it's about linear for some time now

still having more new acoustids every day that mb has puid submissions

luks: Are those new acoustIDs (or new fingerprints at least) only, or any submission even if already known?

well, the question is how much *unique* music you have, versus the other people who've submitted -- but you should definitely acoustid everything you have anyway :)