#musicbrainz

I would expect "Loosefingers" to sort as "Loosefingers". The proposal to use a real name as a sort name was pretty controversial.

Ian_Corne, I no longer have the Juno page in front of me, but that looks pretty fine :)

Not sure myself

It's there in the title

But not in the cover

That's why I am not sure myself :)

http://www.discogs.com/Cassius-I-Techno-2011/re... but no there

Oh, crap :P

yay, contributed my first acoustID! :)

It turned Pocket Piano into Pocket (piano)

CallerNo6, you can only submit after scanning

(and if it doesn't find them alone, I think)

reosarevok: I'll try next time I add a disc then, thanks. Anyway, was there a more specific question about sortnames?

Not really

:)

Once you scan them, it doesn't find them, and you move them to the right pane somehow (via lookup or whatever) Submit will un-grey

I think of sortnames as being on the same level as Release Artist. i.e. really just an answer to the question, "Where would I expect to find this in a music store?" IMO.

Aww

So cute

Members of the music-store generation

Okay then, "where would I expect to find this artist in my rolodex?"

:D

Oh. Weird. You can still buy those things? Who knew?

Part of my new game, Stump the Translator.

If someone is bored, there is this nice http://mb.lmfao.org.uk/reports/urlstatus?status... list of Wikipedia links that redirect that needs some love

Or rather, can but it would take soooo long

So if someone's bored, feel free to take a letter

Also, I hate Wikipedia pages for singles :)

Tsk, I was doing W, person who is clashing with me! :p

:p

I don't like M :P

for no reason!

Ok, ok

You can go on with V :p

:P

nomnom

Is Fear and Loathing really worth reading too?

yeah that book is worth reading

imo

+1 for Fear and Loathing

if only because it's as quotable and Monty Python

er, "as Monty Python"

the movie is pretty faithful to the book actually

then I concur with the "worth reading" assessment :)

:)

no relationships?

yeah

unused urls still don't get removed

when they get in my way, I just edit them to point to http://www.example.com/

ah, I found one of those but didn't know what it meant. Or, I guess I could look for a song to relate this to. Thanks.

I would update my scripts to just ignore unused urls, but the ref count column also doesn't get updated ¬_¬

CallerNo6, URLs are entities

same as artists are

(they have MBIDs and everything, don't they?)

So it makes sense that ModBot needs to go and remove them (as artists)

And seeing that it still doesn't remove RGs nor labels, it's unsurprising that it doesn't remove URLs either

Yeah, I was just going to type "but then why doesn't modbot delete them?"

does it remove works yet?

reosarevok: they used to be automatically deleted before as soon as they were no longer used :P you don't add a url in the same way as you add other entities so it makes sense that you don't remove a url in the same way either

as far as I know, we don't delete unused tags now either, they just hang around in the db cluttering up the tag search results, and they're not entities

we already have label types :P

:p

(holdings not showing)

it probably just involves adding "and not type:holding" to the query it uses

quite a few of http://musicbrainz.org/search?query=type%3Ahold... have releases :/

is logging

Users on #musicbrainz: sha0lin Tykling adiblol ddaydj VxJasonxV sampsyo Leftmost flamingspinach Freso uptown rburton srotta iarp nikki` hangy vinci Muz dukeleto CatCat Jormangeud lidel reosarevok nikki czaja luks adrianw LotR toehio gnu_andrew

22:50] *CallerNo6 doesn't understand how an unused url remains in the database, but that's hardly at the top of the list of things he doesn't understand.

same as tags

if is edited (like misspelling)

or an unused tagt

it's still in database

there's some things done to save space: specifically, a given URL or tag only exists once, even if it's linked multiple times

what this means is that changing something is a matter of pointing to a new line, not modifying the old one

and you'd have to check explicitly to see if the old one doesn't have anything pointing at it -- which, presumably, nobody bothered to actually write