#musicbrainz

I guess reject if if not clear majority is sane, but +4 seems a bit excessive

Where are you seeing it? :)

Can I get you to drop a y-bomb on http://musicbrainz.org/edit/18057922 so that I can add the third disc in an hour?

I'm just reading http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Data_Quality, no idea if the code reflects the docs

Oh

I would guess http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Edit_Types is the actual conditions used in the code though, otherwise what's the point

But finding anything in our code is HARD

reosarevok: "git grep" :D

Freso: I know... but I was hoping to avoid connecting to the sandbox :D

reosarevok: "git clone" :D

Of course, it's also hard to know what exactly I'm looking for

what, you don't have a local clone of the mbs just sitting around?

But I guess I can try "quality"

kepstin-work: not in this laptop

One more vote on http://musicbrainz.org/edit/18057922 and I'm good to go after the bot's next inspection.

("This is Ibiza" releases in general needs to get cleaned up a bit...)

Cue comment on Ibiza being a traditional hippie paradise

trance comps are pretty far down on my list of things that need fixing :P

Wizzcat: Well, their not exactly my top priority either - but I just stumbled across them, as a reggae compilation CD's freedb lookup returned one of these ibiza ones as "(disc 2)", so I went to see if I could merge it together to a proper NGS release.

I couldn't, but I found this other release that I could. :p

So, nikki found the code

kepstin-work: http://musicbrainz.org/edit/18057922 - vote? :D

It does pass on expiration with one yes vote

reosarevok: is that also true of the edit to convert something at high data quality to normal?

It does seem like it

I linked to the code on style anyway

right, so I like the "rename it to protected and reduce the immediate apply threshold to 3 votes" then :)

Freso: I was just kidding, lord knows I've edited my fair share of weird music

Wizzcat: :)

So have I... So have I.

trance is extra evil though since there are so many dumb DJs who don't have existing artists in the db, not to mention mashups

Wizzcat: poor trance DJs. They're not (always) dumb. Just not very original

really? high quality edits pass with only one vote? that was less harsh than I expected

kepstin-work, Wizzcat, reosarevok - thanks! :D

Wizzcat: I think the point is just to make sure that they've been reviewed by *somebody*

that 5-votes required to instant-apply thing is just stupid.

reading that code high quality only comes into apply when edits expire without votes

s/apply/play

I guess the edits to change quality should also become normal 14-day, 3-vote ones

(dunno if "change to protected" and "change to unprotected" should need at least 1 vote to pass too)

hey"

I've been trying to find info that comproves this RG

but no success

any opinions?

"Uh, is that country, quick, run away"? :p

didn't get it

if you're asking yes it is country

Nah, just that I like you more when you edit rap :p

I have never heard of this stuff... I see drsaunde has done a couple small edits on it - you don't happen to have any info on this, right?

oh thanks ;)

(guessing he doesn't...)

can I remove it?

And the original editor signed up, added this, and disappeared

Dunno about removing it, but I'd say at least change to low quality

well, entered the edit, http://musicbrainz.org/edit/18058141

this seems that the editor was adding a compilation but only added the first track

but even though I can't find it so well, ...

and don't worry, will be editing hip hop in a few seconds ;)

Good :p

(which is far from my stronger area)

I have been editing as I go. meaning when I add a new release I try to correct the things on the related artists. but sometimes I don't verify. is there anyway to verify what is there to be done?

like, featuring on the track name that should go to the artist credits and things like this

What do you mean?

Oh

exactly

thanks :=

:)

http://musicbrainz.org/report/PossibleCollabora... god page 1 of 492

uou http://musicbrainz.org/report/FeaturingRecordings page 1 of 3079

:)

That's why I don't use them, yes :p

keep in mind that since the reports are automatically generated, each entry in them has to be individually and manually reviewed.

yes that's what I was thinking

e.g. there's a fair number of groups that have '&' in the name and aren't collaborations.

yes, naturally

For the feat. one, though, 99% need changes

yes

so so many

:/

either moving to the artist credits or, if they're classical releases, moving to the new classical style

I never edited classical so I guess that if I have to I will have to study first :)

Well, the point is that the feat. in titles thing was the "correct" option (or well, the least bad we had) for years

So there's loads of stuff to move

yes I assumed that

I will continue on correcting as I go

And you can ignore classical, really. You have more than enough fixes for a lifetime without having to touch it

(if only I listened to my own advice sometimes...)

and if I have extra time I will try to contribute using this reports.

http://musicbrainz.org/report/NoScript is ridiculously small nowadays, with our automatic script-setting bots :)

ahaha

oh that's right

2 pages

it is impossible to have a list of artists that don't have their discographies completed right?

(wikipedian, yes ;)

Pretty hard

if we could figure that out automatically, we'd probably be able to add the missing stuff automatically, as well :)

kepstin-work: not necessarily

I mean, we can compare what we have for an artist to what discogs has, or even (slightly more complicated) to the discography in the wikipedia page

But discogs imports almost always need some human corrections, and wikipedia often lists only titles

but that doesn't work in general; you'd need to have a discogs or wikipedia link, then assume that the discogs/wikipedia links are complete

Ok, call it "artists for which we seem to miss stuff" :p

Adding more stuff is useful even if that doesn't complete it, after all

don't know if the goal of MB is to "clomplete" artists but if it is maybe it's necessary to verify each one but that's soooo complicated

complete

Yeah, "complete" is a very subjective and complicated thing

"Add all you can find" is easier

yes

I mean, the goal is to have EVERYTHING by EVERYONE

ok ;)

well will continue on editing

thanks ;)

But that's a platonic goal more than a realistic one, so "more and better" is more like it :)

Cool!

http://opentofire.bandcamp.com/ http://soundcloud.com/open-to-fire

it seems that there are two releases

and on that release we have both

how do I split that into two?

Badly

so, I was temporarily distracted and didn't realize the track parser had not, in fact, detected the track lengths and included them as part of the track titles instead.

all sorted now, but can I canvas for a few well-placed votes on the edits?

reosarevok yes, noticed that you tried to convince the editor to comment the edits with no success.

tri_marianaaf: add a new release for one of them (preferably the digital)

That one mostly, but if people feel like it, there are the recordings corrections too, at http://musicbrainz.org/release/1454900f-8b9c-44...

(the 4xtrack digital, I mean)

it seems that both of them are digital

(reuse the medium)

MJ: approved

I'd argue for a 'grace period' even, where editors get to correct mistakes like these within a 15 minute window, say, without needing votes.

tri_marianaaf: yeah, might be :/

thanks reosarevok

MJ: you're not the first. Problem, it seems, is that it's easier to propose than code :)

Yeah, I am aware of it.

a bandacamp release is worldwide right?

Yeah