Picard-geeks, if I wanted to tag tracks based on their relationships, could I do that with tagger script stuff?
(some guy is complaining about us not having performers on artist for classical)
reosarevok: as a german my answer is "jein", a mixture of "ja" and "nein" - you *can* use tags like %performer:violin% (or any other instrument) in the file naming script, but you have to know the instrument or whatever beforehand
german is so much more fun for answering questions
God, that's horrible
There's no way to select all performer tags? :/
(in theory, one could write a plugin to merge all performer:whatever tags into one multi-valued %allperformers% tag though)
I guess the guy is right then in that there's no good way to tag classical with Picard, meh :(
I was hoping to prove him wrong!
nikki still thinks our classical style is pointlessly as difficult as possible for everyone
Yeah, having composers *and* performers on tracks would probably make more sense
(composers still make no sense on recordings though)
Of course the ideal thing would be not to have any arbitrary artists and just use relationships for all, but
reosarevok: So... what other tagger does he know of that does this well and easily since he's complaining that Picard can't?
None, that's what he's complaining about :p
(that not even Picard can do it well, so the only choice is doing it by hand)
Wait, is he complaining that there's no tagger in general or that Picard can't specifically?
Well, he was complaining not even MB does it well enough
Because the first is definitely a valid issue, but the 2nd is moot if there are no other taggers that can do it, IMHO.
It was basically "meh, all taggers suck for classical, even Picard which is good for the rest"
Which seemingly is true :(
And I mean, that no other taggers can do it shouldn't be a reason we can't do better, we're supposed to be better than them anyway ;)
Is there something missing from the AR extra tags picard gives you?
Yes, any player that can use them :p
Isn't that a player issue, and not a picard issue?
snartal: You didn't say the missing thing had to be a Picard issue.
Technically yes, it's a player issue
In practice, us having no clear way of letting users put the performers somewhere their player can see is kinda both :/
the point of tagging your files is to add information to the files that you can use :P
we could start stripping all tags except for mbids and claiming it's a player issue if they can't fetch the data from mb, but that wouldn't go down well
larsduesing: Obviously, you're welcome to take a shot at coding/implementing it yourself. That should increase the chances of something happening drastically.
that redirect is used int the above mentioned series wiki page
I'll fix that then
thx, I'll be off soon. Shouldn't start new stuff now
well "off"... afk (I should go off more often)
Freso, reosarevok_: If I could be of any help tell me..
Freso: But implementing something which is in discussion is a little bit foolish :)
larsduesing: It'll be in discussion until long after it's been implemented.
We're still discussing Areas (added in May) and Places (added in October).
Not to mentioned Recordings and about everything else...
I should have a look at the database...
Freso considers brining the "part of series" relationship back to -style
reosarevok: In the context of making a Series entity or some such, would it rather more benefit from some series entries already linked together or more detract to have relationship to deprecate and ultimately remove?
reosarevok doesn't really know
If they were easy to just import, probably benefit? But dunno if enough for it to be worth it to make the user effort
if we were going to do it now, I'd be more in favour of having series as types of works (which has the advantage of having url relationships available)
(and also the advantage of not needing to add all the parts of the series to link them all to the same thing)
No ordering, but yeah
santiissopasse joined the channel
Of course, it helps that works are the more "thing"-like entities we have
I think pre-Series-as-entity, ordering is less important than just getting the series entries grouped together.
we could just order them by release date by default when migrating, I bet that would give pretty reasonable results
or try to parse titles :P
It's just it would also give some cases of wrong ordering, so it'd be moving from not-there to wrong
eh, we're gonna get wrong stuff anyway, since apparently we're not going to implement unordered stuff until we've done ordered stuff
So a Release Group <-> Work relationship "is part of the series" or something?
Not so easy :p
Sometimes we share RGs for stuff in different series