#musicbrainz

It actually isn't

What's the chance of some Russian production in Russian playing in Manhattan? Or some Czech theatre? Dunno.

why would the number of uses matter? we're not removing these links, are we?

That's exactly what he wants to do.

huh?

No, I want to migrate them to "Other Databases"

Merge them into "other databases" and get rid of the specialized ARs.

While keeping everything else the same

That's pretty far from removing the links

So why not do that to all other DB ARS?

brianfreud: why not? exactly! reosarevok is attempting to do that for all database links.

no, he's not

not in his proposal.,

warp: admittedly, I'm not doing it for VGMdb. Though I am tempted to

brianfreud: one step at a time I presume.

(which is the only other genre database I think we have a rel for, the rest are generalistic?)

reosarevok: vgmdb seems fine as well, these database can always be isolated by their domain name.

So can discogs.

So can, for that matter, amazon.

brianfreud: the main point is, why IBDb but not, dunno, every single other small database?

that you can guess at what the url points to is irrelevant.

Because it's very unpractical

reosarevok, because in all the years, noone ever bothered to suggest any of those.

there is a strong benefit towards "empty blank filling" which having an AR provides.

I've been wanting to use them for a long time, but I didn't want to fill the relationship list with cruft

(several of the ones in the list)

Took a while for me to realise I could use the header instead...

I don't want a list of 40 database ARs

Is unpractical and gives no clear benefit

If an IBDb AR exists, and there is not one on a given theatre release, then there is much more incentive to an editor to add one, vs a generic "other dbs" AR./

huh?

There is actually one huge benefit which nothing else in the db can serve.

Any editor who cares enough about that stuff to know about IBDb should know that he can't do that IBDb

*-IBDb

Notice that I'm *not* proposing to remove the "IBDb" thing from the sidebar

Which is where that editor would see if there's one or not

(that's done via URL, not AR)

They are the only way to ID theatrical releases (vs all of the film/tv/game in soundtrack) - same for game and the vgmdb AR. Also to group such theatre releases, just as the IMDb AR groups disparate releases of a soundtrack.

" <reosarevok> Any editor who cares enough about that stuff to know about IBDb should know that he can't do that IBDb " wow, that is mangled. I meant that if an editor cares enough to know about IBDb, he'll notice whether there is such a page or not

The shared IOBDb or IBDb AR from n releases to 1 entry for a musical is the only common thing that different cast releases of the same show share.

And how would that change?

They would still share the same URL...

when there is no suchg AR?

The way you see if they share it is via the URL page

and nothing changes there, except the rel name

" Any editor who cares enough about that stuff to know about IBDb should know that he can't do that IBDb" makes zero sense :P

names are important.

See <reosarevok> " <reosarevok> Any editor who cares enough about that stuff to know about IBDb should know that he can't do that IBDb " wow, that is mangled. I meant that if an editor cares enough to know about IBDb, he'll notice whether there is such a page or not

(by seeing the sidebar has no IBDb link)

Anyway, plenty of time to debate this, if you have to go, go ;)

hi! i'm here voting some edits and I have a doubt. http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17489709 in this case I added a comment saying that I coulnd't find any source to verify. Do I vote? Or wait for an answer?

tri_marianaaf: if you look at their username, they look like the band

So I would assume they're the source

ok so vote yes?

I'd abstain

ok

As you said, you don't have a proof

done :)

I do think that part goes beyond the stated effect of the RFC though; "Open "Other Databases" for use" says nothing which would imply also removing 2 ARs.

You'd have to notice the one line tucked into the proposal.

But given that my opinion doesn't matter, as I can have no comment on style, I guess don't count anyhow.

work

brianfreud: it's part of the elaboration of the whitelist, and it doesn't seem that people have skipped that line, since two of you have commented on it

Anyway, I don't mind doing a second RFC for those at a later time and trying to convince people independently :)

Oh, tri_marianaaf: I didn't notice this was not the add cover edit

But an "add useless comment" edit...

I'd abstain on the cover add, but this seems useless enough to vote no on...

Country:

Philippines

rating 5 stars :d

thats their facebook page

oh had some extra time so was voting on edits.. if it's useless I'll do another thing :)

voting isn't useless..

oh sorry misunderstood what you said. yes I'll abstain on add cover edit. this one was just to add a comment.

corrected it ;)

:)

luks: What method is your bot using for artwork edits?

jacobbrett: black magic

With some human sacrifices

:)

tri_marianaaf (and your workmates too if they also edit hip hop): I'm proposing a "mixtape/street" secondary type, dunno if I mentioned it

It would be nice if you could tag mixtapes you come accross (with "mixtape" or whatever) so you can find them and edit them if/when that passes :)

oh that's great! and actually is only me with the hiphop. I'll do that and when that type becomes available I'll go back and add it to the ones I remember coming across.

:)

oh that's fine

thanks again

was going to add this album: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beginning_of_t... but when merging the recordings - there is one track that I already added in a compilation - noticed that there was already this album but instead of appearing in the UTP profile page is under an artist "Juvenile & the UTP" : http://musicbrainz.org/artist/45e28026-d874-470... there are two RG - need to merge

but associated with one of the RG there's an album with 9 tracks instead of 14. but there's a link to comprove... http://www.freedb.org/freedb_search.php?words=7...

opinions on what should I do?

Hmmm

FreeDB is notably unreliable

Also, any idea why that's under such an artist?

juvenile is from the utp

the cover doesn't seem to mention UTP, but it seems like it should either be under all 3 artists, or under UTP

wiki: The Beginning of the End is the debut studio album by UTP, released on May 18, 2004 through Rap-a-Lot Records.

it's the three that make UTP

Yeah, I see that - mostly wondering if UTP as a named collective existed at this point, and in any case, if we should follow the cover or not

But in any case, since Juvenile is a member of UTP... the artist still looks strange

I would add it under UTP the track nolia clap appears nowadays in compilations and the artist that shows up seems to be always UTP

and the track is on that first album

(also on the ep)

Guess it doesn't hurt

yeah.. and what about the album with 9 tracks? do I remove it?

Yep

I would

Say "Added from freeDB with no proof, a search doesn't seem to show any proof of its existence either"

Or something like that

unreliable source. and since it's dup...

is it ok? that's the text I added

the RG do I remove or do I merge?

(http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17653932)

It works for me... if someone asks more, you can say more

RGs, I'd say merge them all

(into http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/a3786f46-6... )

and probably merge the artist, too

does it make any sense to split?

Not really, I'd say

Since here the desired artist is http://musicbrainz.org/artist/e43ac48d-13a8-456... anyway...

I'll autoedit a change of artist on the 14-track release

ok I'll merge it then

oh thanks ;)

So that you can do the rest of the edits without worrying that they might fail

(artist merges are a pain sometimes)

and http://musicbrainz.org/edit/17654010

Changed http://musicbrainz.org/release/5a03dcc5-b60e-49... - feel free to make the rest of the fixes

guess that's all

yes will now add track lenght and fix the featurings

Cool :)

was re-verifying the credits on this album and itunes uses Juvenile, Wacko, Skip. Allmusic only have Juvenicel (I'm not sure they can use more than one artist) but on the rap-a-lot webside they have UTP under artists and there they have: UTP - Juvenile / Wacko / Skip ... this rap rio... on their debut album "The Beginning of the End"...

so, I don't need to worry right?

Since they have later releases as UTP, I guess that works better

In any case, it's an improvement on the old data, so I don't think you need to worry, no

;)