rswarbrick: sure, but it should be to the ones who won't stfu about their tags :p
2012-02-18 04905, 2012
rswarbrick
I like the MBChatLogger comment :-)
2012-02-18 04915, 2012
ianmcorvidae
since being on an official body (or sending feedback to one) imparts at least some sense of accountability
2012-02-18 04937, 2012
ianmcorvidae
but that's an even more general and potentially problematic can of worms than CSG, so :P
2012-02-18 04917, 2012
kepstin
well, such an official body would probably contain the people who can't agree now, and they won't be able to agree then either
2012-02-18 04922, 2012
nikki
rswarbrick: yet it seems to be the people who want to tag their files who are like "no! no! it has to be the composer on the release! think of my tags!!" :/
2012-02-18 04922, 2012
rswarbrick
Well, in the absence of a BDFL or BCFaYear, maybe we can come up with some sort of agenda along which people agree to work with symphonick on CSG.
2012-02-18 04949, 2012
ianmcorvidae
kepstin: well, that depends -- the premise was more "these people can't agree because they aren't doing their homework"
2012-02-18 04959, 2012
ianmcorvidae
if that premise is correct, a sense of accountability could solve the problem
2012-02-18 04900, 2012
rswarbrick
nikki: In fact, that sort of includes me. Frankly, the artist credit for pretty much anything in classical is silly, but the current version is at least predictable.
ianmcorvidae: Yes, I agree. Maybe "Get involved in hashing out the following proposal or stfu" is an acceptable starting point?
2012-02-18 04954, 2012
rswarbrick
Especially if we can delimit exactly what the proposal will cover.
2012-02-18 04903, 2012
rswarbrick
(As in, not the entire CSG at once)
2012-02-18 04917, 2012
ianmcorvidae
I think without some sort of official responsibility to be involved (i.e. a discouragement of drive-by participation, something I'm admittedly guilty of with CSG) is necessary, though
2012-02-18 04938, 2012
rswarbrick
Well, "We'll ignore you if you haven't taken part in the discussion" might work...
2012-02-18 04941, 2012
ianmcorvidae
otherwise you just get what we have now, where people point out the flaws for whatever their particular corner is without necessarily considering the whole picture
2012-02-18 04923, 2012
nikki
rswarbrick: yet getting picard to switch to composers as artists based on some tag or a new flag would be pretty straightforward
2012-02-18 04938, 2012
rswarbrick
nikki: Cool, in which case I'm happy.
2012-02-18 04950, 2012
ianmcorvidae
now we just need to convince everyone else! ;)
2012-02-18 04907, 2012
reosarevok
nikki: yeah, the only issue is teaching it *not* to do it unless it's classical :p
2012-02-18 04912, 2012
rswarbrick
:-) Well, more seriously, software is easyish to fix. The problem is coming up with a schema and an editor workflow, surely.
2012-02-18 04926, 2012
rswarbrick
reosarevok: Ahah! We need a "classical" flag :-D
2012-02-18 04946, 2012
rswarbrick tries to confuse anyone reading their scrollback
2012-02-18 04902, 2012
ThomasGHenry joined the channel
2012-02-18 04916, 2012
ianmcorvidae
actually, a proposal for a non-automatic, must-be-edited-in classical flag isn't a terrible idea; there will still be edge cases but it does solve the major case
2012-02-18 04918, 2012
kepstin
you should be able to tell if something is classical by the work type imo
2012-02-18 04928, 2012
rswarbrick
kepstin: NO!
2012-02-18 04933, 2012
ianmcorvidae
kepstin: doesn't work for pop-group covers of classical works
2012-02-18 04945, 2012
nikki
reosarevok: well $inmulti was added to picard recently, so we can check for a tag that exactly matches "classical" now (you can even tell picard to only use your own tags too if you think everyone else's tags are stupid)
2012-02-18 04946, 2012
ianmcorvidae
classical tagging is almost certainly a release-level attribute
2012-02-18 04953, 2012
nikki
although a proper flag would probably be nicer
2012-02-18 04955, 2012
kepstin
ianmcorvidae: per track, really.
2012-02-18 04908, 2012
rswarbrick
kepstin: Are you suggesting some work hierarchy where every classical work is at least of some standardised type?
2012-02-18 04912, 2012
nikki
kepstin: and the release artist? :P
2012-02-18 04937, 2012
xplt joined the channel
2012-02-18 04952, 2012
rswarbrick
nikki: I like the idea of a "misanthrope" option :-)
2012-02-18 04954, 2012
ianmcorvidae
a release that's "mostly classical" track-wise should probably be tagged classically; a release that's "mostly non-classical" should probably be tagged non-classically
2012-02-18 04904, 2012
ianmcorvidae
which is why I say release-level
2012-02-18 04908, 2012
ianmcorvidae
obviously always edge cases
2012-02-18 04939, 2012
rswarbrick
I agree with this completely. Is there a way this suggestion could be put into the RFC/RFV process?
2012-02-18 04901, 2012
rswarbrick
I think that being able to delimit what we're talking about would make other consensuses easier to come by.
2012-02-18 04907, 2012
reosarevok
rswarbrick: yes, you can make an RFC for it :p
2012-02-18 04916, 2012
reosarevok
Well, wait
2012-02-18 04922, 2012
ianmcorvidae
rswarbrick: the basic "add a classical flag" suggestion, you mean?
2012-02-18 04925, 2012
reosarevok
Do you mean delimiting classical, adding a flag, or both?
2012-02-18 04931, 2012
rswarbrick
I'll happily do that, but I was asking whether it fell within the scope of RFC/RFV.
2012-02-18 04935, 2012
rswarbrick
Yep, that's what I meant.
2012-02-18 04945, 2012
rswarbrick
Er, sorry.
2012-02-18 04900, 2012
rswarbrick
I meant add a "classical" flag at release level.
2012-02-18 04901, 2012
ianmcorvidae
it might come up against objections if there aren't guidelines for its use from the start, admittedly
2012-02-18 04904, 2012
reosarevok
The flag adding itself might not, but delimiting what-is-classical for that flag, yes
2012-02-18 04919, 2012
rswarbrick
reosarevok: Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean
2012-02-18 04933, 2012
reosarevok
might not fall within the scope I mean
2012-02-18 04939, 2012
ianmcorvidae
rswarbrick: re: it being RFC/RFV material -- the adding of the flag itself is more a server feature
2012-02-18 04953, 2012
reosarevok
The "allow to set specific flags for releases" isn't really so much a style issue
2012-02-18 04954, 2012
ianmcorvidae
but it's possible the devs wouldn't want to make the server feature exist without guidelines
2012-02-18 04956, 2012
rswarbrick
Yeah, but devs won't want to do it unless it agrees with the style wanted.
2012-02-18 04900, 2012
rswarbrick
^^
2012-02-18 04903, 2012
reosarevok
But what those flags are, that's style
2012-02-18 04909, 2012
reosarevok
And how they're used
2012-02-18 04910, 2012
nikki
if we want it, we should get a move on
2012-02-18 04912, 2012
reosarevok
So yeah
2012-02-18 04925, 2012
reosarevok
Hmm
2012-02-18 04931, 2012
reosarevok
Why a release flag though?
2012-02-18 04937, 2012
xplt
Why SoundCloud page will show(if it will) only after peer review, while MySpace/Twitter/Discogs show immediately?
2012-02-18 04937, 2012
ianmcorvidae
oh, a general flags feature without necessarily defining any actual flags that use it, that's almost certainly outside of RFC/RFV scope
2012-02-18 04940, 2012
reosarevok
Why not a "classical" attribute for RGs?
2012-02-18 04944, 2012
xplt
is it a bug/feature?
2012-02-18 04946, 2012
rswarbrick
reosarevok: Well, where else should it go?
2012-02-18 04947, 2012
reosarevok
xplt: it won't
2012-02-18 04949, 2012
warp
hello!
2012-02-18 04955, 2012
xplt
pfffff!!!
2012-02-18 04956, 2012
rswarbrick
reosarevok: Ah. RG maybe makes more sense.
2012-02-18 04957, 2012
ianmcorvidae
hm, RG might work
2012-02-18 04959, 2012
reosarevok
xplt: it hasn't been added to the sidebar yet
2012-02-18 04906, 2012
rswarbrick
warp: Hi.
2012-02-18 04907, 2012
reosarevok
xplt, it is on the "Relationships" tab
2012-02-18 04917, 2012
nikki
the next schema change is may, so it needs to be proposed and accepted so the devs can work on it in time
2012-02-18 04930, 2012
xplt
reosarevok: yeah, lol :P What the point in it, then?
2012-02-18 04931, 2012
nikki
warp: just in time :P
2012-02-18 04937, 2012
rswarbrick
Ok, I'm going to make some pasta and then try to write something sensible as a proposal. Are you guys going to be around in an hour or two to poke holes in it?
2012-02-18 04942, 2012
warp
nikki: uh oh
2012-02-18 04951, 2012
reosarevok
xplt: people claiming there are too many links there :p
2012-02-18 04905, 2012
xplt
oh, c'mon <_<
2012-02-18 04916, 2012
ianmcorvidae
isn't there a userscript to add more things to the sidebar?
2012-02-18 04923, 2012
reosarevok
xplt: not specifically about soundcloud, more about why we don't show every link
2012-02-18 04924, 2012
nikki
warp: we were just discussing a flag for releases (or release groups) to mark releases as classical releases, is that something that the devs would implement? :P
2012-02-18 04935, 2012
nikki would rather not have a repeat of the no barcode stuff
2012-02-18 04936, 2012
reosarevok
xplt: in any case I want SC there myself, so I should work on that
2012-02-18 04939, 2012
rswarbrick wanders off in search of sustenance (and will read warp's reaction when he gets back)
2012-02-18 04944, 2012
warp
nikki: seems to specific.
2012-02-18 04902, 2012
reosarevok
warp: it's not more specific than a "soundtrack" RG type...
2012-02-18 04916, 2012
nikki
hmm!
2012-02-18 04926, 2012
ianmcorvidae
warp: I think it would initially be a general "be able to add flags to entities"
2012-02-18 04931, 2012
nikki
if we got those release group attributes, we could have a classical one
2012-02-18 04943, 2012
nikki
so a release could be album + classical
2012-02-18 04945, 2012
reosarevok
hawke_ wanted to make an RFC for those
2012-02-18 04947, 2012
reosarevok
hawke_, ping
2012-02-18 04952, 2012
ianmcorvidae
with the classical flag being our use-case, submitted for RFC after the feature existed (or concurrent, perhaps)
2012-02-18 04906, 2012
warp
nikki: that sounds slightly better.
2012-02-18 04917, 2012
ianmcorvidae
I think the server feature, in other words, is "extensible non-AR attributes"
2012-02-18 04944, 2012
warp
it seems similar to "soundtrack"
2012-02-18 04946, 2012
xplt
reosarevok: If anyone against the links, it should be like in a releases with the "show/hide credits" button >_>
2012-02-18 04947, 2012
nikki
yes
2012-02-18 04900, 2012
nikki
and soundtrack will most likely end up as album + soundtrack in most cases
2012-02-18 04900, 2012
ianmcorvidae
soundtrack is another potentially useful flag
2012-02-18 04905, 2012
warp
(in it not being a genre, but still some sort of categorization of release groups)
2012-02-18 04907, 2012
nikki
so album + classical seems like a logical choice
2012-02-18 04919, 2012
warp
I expect there to be a lot more edge cases (== disputes) over whether something is classical or not, compared to soundtrack.
2012-02-18 04934, 2012
nikki
we have a voting system :P
2012-02-18 04952, 2012
ianmcorvidae
yeah, certainly -- but I think there's a large block of things that are easily defined as classical that would benefit from this, well before we get to the edge-cases questions
2012-02-18 04955, 2012
nikki
and we already make that distinction by whether we use the old classical guidelines or not
2012-02-18 04907, 2012
ianmcorvidae
e.g. for varying tagging based on these flags
2012-02-18 04907, 2012
nikki goes off to attempt to cook
2012-02-18 04947, 2012
hawke_
what'd I want to RFC?
2012-02-18 04936, 2012
reosarevok
hawke_: the release group split thing
2012-02-18 04939, 2012
reosarevok
Didn't you?
2012-02-18 04930, 2012
hawke_
I wanted releases able to go in multiple release groups, if that's what you mean
2012-02-18 04929, 2012
reosarevok
hawke_: I meant the having two RG levels, one for album/EP/single and other for the rest
2012-02-18 04905, 2012
nikki
hawke_: I commented and said I disagreed with album + interview, remember :P
2012-02-18 04930, 2012
Dremora joined the channel
2012-02-18 04900, 2012
ten13 joined the channel
2012-02-18 04956, 2012
ocharles joined the channel
2012-02-18 04944, 2012
rswarbrick
Thinking about writing this RFC. Should I basically be making a copy of http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Group/Type and then editing it? Or should I be making a list of changes to that document? Or both?
2012-02-18 04938, 2012
hawke_
nikki: Yeah, I remember. Your comments made sense. :-)
