question: for a 2 disc release, there are two versions: 1. standard version. 2. japanese version where disc 2 has a bonus track. So in MB there is only one disc 1 (with two release events), and two disc 2 (each with 1 release event). Should the PartOfSetRelationshipType be applied to both disc 2s?
2009-06-15 16630, 2009
MClemo
two different sets, so I would guess yes
2009-06-15 16636, 2009
MightyJay
I would think so too, but it looks weird at disc one, having two disc 2's ;)
2009-06-15 16640, 2009
pronik has quit
2009-06-15 16616, 2009
nikki
I would say they should have the box thingy ticked though, 'cause the second disc only applies to certain release events, not every release event... but it's kinda confusing 'cause the wording changes
2009-06-15 16615, 2009
ruaok
wow. street clashes in tehran and LA.
2009-06-15 16630, 2009
ruaok
one over democracy and one over... basketball.
2009-06-15 16643, 2009
MightyJay
maybe the AR should be on the release events instead of the release ;) but NGS will fix all that..... (I have no idea, but I can pretend ;)
2009-06-15 16654, 2009
nikki
it will
2009-06-15 16602, 2009
MightyJay
woohoo \o/
2009-06-15 16606, 2009
aCiD2 has quit
2009-06-15 16605, 2009
mutemathic joined the channel
2009-06-15 16617, 2009
nikki
I seem to remember suggesting that we have an attribute to say that the next disc isn't a part of a set with every release event so that ngs could convert the data easier and that's what the linking text implies to me...
2009-06-15 16632, 2009
nikki
but the page to add the relationship says 'bonus', so does the wiki, which means something else to me
2009-06-15 16641, 2009
nikki
well, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't
2009-06-15 16603, 2009
MightyJay
as far as I can tell, the current AR only speaks about it being a bonus disc or not
2009-06-15 16616, 2009
lancerocke joined the channel
2009-06-15 16630, 2009
nikki
like I remember linking a disc where one release had extra tracks plus a bonus disc... the bonus disc always came with the release with extra tracks, there's no release events on the main disc which don't have the bonus disc
2009-06-15 16602, 2009
nikki
so to me it makes no sense for it to say 'may be part of a set' when it's always part of a set in that combination
2009-06-15 16657, 2009
MightyJay
that makes sense
2009-06-15 16629, 2009
nikki prods warp
2009-06-15 16643, 2009
warp was prodded.
2009-06-15 16650, 2009
nikki
indeed you were.
2009-06-15 16655, 2009
warp
hi! :)
2009-06-15 16606, 2009
nikki
do you remember what we intended the attribute for the part-of-set relationship to mean?
2009-06-15 16616, 2009
warp
which one?
2009-06-15 16625, 2009
nikki
the bonus/optional/may-be-part-of-set thing
2009-06-15 16614, 2009
nikki
i.e. was it supposed to be used for when the second disc didn't apply to all of the release events, or when the disc was a bonus disc, whether it applied to all the release events or not
2009-06-15 16609, 2009
warp
"If the first disc in this relationship is available separately without the second disc, the second disc is a bonus disc. A checkbox is used to indicate whether the second disc is a bonus disc."
2009-06-15 16607, 2009
nikki
what about when there's release event X, with discs A and B, and release event Y with discs A and C? there's always a second disc, but not always the same one?
2009-06-15 16616, 2009
warp
that's the wording in the guideline, from that I think our intent was that a release which always has two discs shouldn't have the bonus disc checkbox checked (regardless of wether the second disc is called bonus disc or not).
2009-06-15 16635, 2009
ruaok smiles
2009-06-15 16644, 2009
nikki wonders what ruaok is smiling about
2009-06-15 16648, 2009
warp
this may not have been communicated clearly enough, so I don't think we can rely on everyone using it in this way.
2009-06-15 16649, 2009
ruaok
nikki and brianfreud are back. and keeping warp busy.
2009-06-15 16604, 2009
ruaok
it feels more like MB here now.
2009-06-15 16609, 2009
warp
:D
2009-06-15 16624, 2009
nikki
I know it wasn't clearly defined, I was just trying to find out what we originally intended
2009-06-15 16630, 2009
warp needs to repost the BBC javascript with brianfreuds comments fixed.
2009-06-15 16606, 2009
nikki
I know my original intention was for it to say whether the relationship applies to all release events or not, but I don't know about other people :)
2009-06-15 16630, 2009
brianfreud
nikki: what about when disc 2 is a 2 in 1 but only iion of the set, whereas the other version has 3 separate CDs instead? ;D
2009-06-15 16635, 2009
warp
nikki: yeah, technically the wording in the guideline agrees. the wording of the checkbox itself really doesn't make it clear though.
2009-06-15 16643, 2009
nikki
what's an iion?
2009-06-15 16644, 2009
MightyJay
I have the feeling that most people apply it on a "is titled a bonus disc or not" basis
2009-06-15 16655, 2009
brianfreud
iion = in only one version
2009-06-15 16637, 2009
warp
brianfreud: pagh, weird edge cases :P
2009-06-15 16622, 2009
nikki
the wording does make sense for both meanings though, in most cases
2009-06-15 16627, 2009
nikki
so it could just be that we overlooked the ones where the meaning diverges
2009-06-15 16658, 2009
nikki
it's too late to really change it now, I guess, anyway... but I was still curious
2009-06-15 16651, 2009
brianfreud
warp, I know, just teasing :)
2009-06-15 16644, 2009
brianfreud
if anyone else uses the LMA, btw, I have a LMA GM import script in testing - going for a nap now, I'll be putting it up on userscripts tonight (along with the amazon import script)
2009-06-15 16610, 2009
mmic_alt has quit
2009-06-15 16657, 2009
nikki
there are only 81 discs which are the left side of more than one part-of-set relationship anyway, so they can be reviewed by hand
2009-06-15 16646, 2009
MightyJay
ah, that's not so bad
2009-06-15 16600, 2009
nikki
and 26 discs which are the right side of more than one
