Hrm ... Separate releases for a physical CD and its (iTunes/Amazon) download? (No bonus tracks or other differences.)
2012-11-17 32216, 2012
kepstin
uk: yep.
2012-11-17 32256, 2012
uk is pondering how to easiest make the separately-entered Digital Media version reuse the existing recordings. Merge, then add again using "based on CD release"?
2012-11-17 32233, 2012
kepstin
merging then adding again is evil, because it'll make everyone who has already tagged have the wrong mbids.
2012-11-17 32236, 2012
uk
Or first add again, then merge into that?
2012-11-17 32252, 2012
kepstin
you could just merge the recordings.
2012-11-17 32258, 2012
uk
Yes, that's probably better.
2012-11-17 32211, 2012
kepstin
jesus2099 has a userscript that can do recording merges between two otherwise identical releases in one step
at least nobody's confused 'meridian' for 'median' yet
2012-11-17 32208, 2012
kepstin corrected a typo where some wrote 'hundreth' instead of 'hundredth'
2012-11-17 32210, 2012
kepstin
hmm, I used a search on the keyword 'meridian' to find those, I would have missed one if it used 'median' instead :)
2012-11-17 32230, 2012
uk
Regarding the mass-merge userscript, it is shown as active on the tracklist page by Greasemonkey, but there is nothing in the sidebar.
2012-11-17 32241, 2012
uk
What does "You need to activate ratings for this script to work." mean?
2012-11-17 32205, 2012
uk
(Ratings are shown, though there are none on this particular release.)
2012-11-17 32209, 2012
reosarevok_
Some people have ratings hidden
2012-11-17 32213, 2012
reosarevok_
If so, it won't work
2012-11-17 32229, 2012
uk
OK, I don't. But it still does not work. ;-)
2012-11-17 32243, 2012
reosarevok_
Dunno, it works for me in Chrome but I don't know about FF
2012-11-17 32242, 2012
kepstin
I don't have it enabled right now, but I know that it used to work on firefox :/
2012-11-17 32224, 2012
uk restarts the browser, just in case.
2012-11-17 32259, 2012
uk
No success.
2012-11-17 32238, 2012
kovacsur
anything in the console?
2012-11-17 32232, 2012
uk
Ah, yes: Not enough arguments [nsIDOMCSSStyleDeclaration.setProperty] (at line 363 of the userscript).
2012-11-17 32237, 2012
function1 joined the channel
2012-11-17 32221, 2012
kovacsur
uk: looks like this is related to a bug in FF that was fixed a while ago, what version are you using?
2012-11-17 32209, 2012
function1
if a recording is not associated with any track/release, will it be removed automatically? just found out from liner notes that a recording is the same as that on another release, so i changed the track/recording association
2012-11-17 32220, 2012
uk
Debian testing (Iceweasel). However, I think I got it fixed now.
2012-11-17 32225, 2012
kepstin
function1: no. recordings are not automatically removed
2012-11-17 32227, 2012
kovacsur
cool. :)
2012-11-17 32236, 2012
kepstin
function1: you should manually merge that leftover recording.
2012-11-17 32242, 2012
uk
Added a bunch of "" third arguments to all setProperty() calls.
2012-11-17 32257, 2012
uk
At least the interface appears now; let's see if it works.
2012-11-17 32209, 2012
function1
kepstin: ah, merge. i tried to delete, but was still associated with track since edit hasnt passed yet
2012-11-17 32236, 2012
kepstin
function1: don't delete things! then if someone has that mbid and tries to look up using it, it won't work!
2012-11-17 32239, 2012
kepstin
always merge if you can.
2012-11-17 32203, 2012
function1
kepstin: k. i added the release and new recording just a week ago. i suppose i should try not to fill the db with dupes as well :)
2012-11-17 32210, 2012
kepstin
function1: you could really have fixed this in one edit by just merging the recordings from the start, of course.
i just cancelled the afformentioned edit, and am merging as you say. have i messed anything up?
2012-11-17 32256, 2012
kepstin
function1: that should work fine.
2012-11-17 32218, 2012
uk
The userscript successfully submitted three recording merges. Now it seems to hang, but I'll be patient. ;-)
2012-11-17 32211, 2012
reosarevok_
It can be slow
2012-11-17 32227, 2012
function1
kepstin: now... should i add relations to the old recording or the new recording? given the chronology of the edits (merge then add relationships), will everything work out okay? seems pedantically proper to add relationships to the redundant recording that i created
2012-11-17 32251, 2012
reosarevok_
function1: wherever you add them, they'll end up on the merged recording
2012-11-17 32256, 2012
function1
mkay
2012-11-17 32257, 2012
reosarevok_
So it barely matters
2012-11-17 32201, 2012
kepstin
hmm, so relationship apply edits still work if the thing you're adding the relationship has been merged in the meantime?
2012-11-17 32207, 2012
kepstin
That used to cause them to fail...
2012-11-17 32235, 2012
reosarevok_
Pretty sure they work, yes
2012-11-17 32258, 2012
reosarevok_
I seem to remember we adding some dupes because of that and hawke being irritated :p
2012-11-17 32205, 2012
reosarevok_
*us
2012-11-17 32219, 2012
uk
OK, so it worked after all. Thanks everyone!
2012-11-17 32246, 2012
reosarevok_
np!
2012-11-17 32252, 2012
reosarevok_
Go fix more stuff! :D
2012-11-17 32211, 2012
reosarevok_
(oh god I'm turning into noobie :D )
2012-11-17 32246, 2012
reosarevok_
Go fix more stuff! with a very serious and not smily face.
2012-11-17 32231, 2012
Freso
:D
2012-11-17 32256, 2012
Freso
The grave Spanestonien is loosening up!
2012-11-17 32257, 2012
LordSputnik
adding 13 mediums and their recordings is not fun. D:
2012-11-17 32206, 2012
ijabz joined the channel
2012-11-17 32255, 2012
Freso
LordSputnik: + works, disc ids, ISRCs, AcoustIDs, work relationships, recording relationships, release relationships, release group relationships, artist relationships for all involved artists, ...
2012-11-17 32241, 2012
LordSputnik
all of that's done besides the disc ids :)
2012-11-17 32253, 2012
LordSputnik
and ISRCs because there are none and it's pointless anyway
2012-11-17 32240, 2012
Freso
Pointless for you, perhaps.
2012-11-17 32201, 2012
LordSputnik
Pointless in general because they're not done properly :P
2012-11-17 32238, 2012
Freso
Henrik from Spotify noted that ISRCs were one of the criteria they matched against, and they're useful to provide hints about duplicate recordings.
2012-11-17 32231, 2012
LordSputnik
only if they've been correctly assigned and are known :P
2012-11-17 32248, 2012
LordSputnik
anyway, isrcs aren't known in this case, unless I can get them off the discs (which I haven't tried)
2012-11-17 32244, 2012
Freso
LordSputnik: isrcsubmit.py is great for that.
2012-11-17 32251, 2012
Freso
That's the only way I enter ISRCs.
2012-11-17 32208, 2012
LordSputnik
I'll look it up :)
2012-11-17 32229, 2012
LordSputnik
although it'll probably give me the wrong ISRCs, since theyr'e remasters :P
2012-11-17 32246, 2012
Freso
It'll use whatever ISRCs are on the disc.
2012-11-17 32225, 2012
LordSputnik
exactly :P
2012-11-17 32238, 2012
ianweller
what should i fix on musicbrainz today, i'm bored
2012-11-17 32213, 2012
Freso
Hm. I guess I have another RFV that has passed by now.
2012-11-17 32203, 2012
Freso
We need a "random artist" function.
2012-11-17 32211, 2012
Freso
To help ianweller with his woes.
2012-11-17 32216, 2012
ianweller
yeah
2012-11-17 32218, 2012
ianweller
:)
2012-11-17 32222, 2012
Freso
Or "random release"
2012-11-17 32228, 2012
ianweller
because i bet you 8 times out of 10 artist pages could be fixed up a bunch
2012-11-17 32229, 2012
Freso
Or generally "random entity".
2012-11-17 32235, 2012
ianweller
i still haven't finished merging all of OK Go's recordings
2012-11-17 32237, 2012
Freso
Yep.
2012-11-17 32248, 2012
ianweller
(that need merged, that is)
2012-11-17 32249, 2012
kepstin
hmm. scan cleanups complete - and caa is even more down than it was when i started.
2012-11-17 32200, 2012
Freso
ianweller: There you "go"! Now "go" merge! :p
2012-11-17 32208, 2012
ianweller
ok, go!
2012-11-17 32220, 2012
kepstin
ok, now go merge?
2012-11-17 32232, 2012
Freso
nikki: Are there tickets for somehow going to "random $entity"?
