#musicbrainz

Leo_Verto: Go ahead and fix the artist.

Freso: i did not mean it literally =X

Oh.

what a nice disambiguation: Dario (NOT the German band, NOT the Dutch singer, NOT the Danish singer, NOT the Croation singer)

via negativa \0/

too many darios.

and some people aparently don't care if an artist is the right one '-'

CatCat feat. CatQuest: you wanted me to do something yesterday?

i

'fixed' the disambiguation, but it takes a week before it's visible :D

SothoTalKer: Link the edit and it'll talk much less.

I'll vote for it if you add an edit note :-P

Freso: https://musicbrainz.org/edit/42994202

(well, a *meaningful* edit note)

never!

non serviam \ō/

I can wait.

CallerNo6: hi!

I was wondering: there should be a wikidoc somthing for "how do i add/request/whatever instruments

NYWAY I've WRITTEN UP A LITTLE BIT FOR THAT PAGE

oops accidental caps lock

hm.. it's getting kinda late for me. I'm going to head out, we'll discuss it tomorrow, ok CallerNo6 ?

so i've just had my first attempt at adding a release and already fucked up. anyone willing to help me figure out how to merge two release groups? I added two release groups on https://musicbrainz.org/artist/468513cf-1053-47...

Had a look at the documentation -> how to's but couldn't figure it out, soz.

there should be a way to select both these and chen a choice of "merge these release groups"

let me see

yes ,the checkbox outside to the leftmost

CatQuest, you did that on purpose, didn't you? :-P

of course :D

now under the two should be a button that says "merge release groups

quarternote: ^

right, i did that, entered in some reason, and hit 'enter edit'

which takes me to the release group I chose to have both merged into

right. I see that they are both yelow, so the edit has been entered in the edit que

oh ok.

meaning?

it'll pass in a week at most. i've voted on it for you

if you get 2+ more votes now, it'll pass faster

gotcha! thanks a bunch!

no problem

although now I see in there that it's in there twice lol

myyy bad

i'll figure it out eventually

it should have said "your edit blah blah has been entered into the voting que" or something to that effect at the topmost of the page, but occasionally that doesn't show.. also it's a bit unconspicuous

no problem, musicbrainz has a pretty steep learning curve. don't be afraid to lurk aroudn and ask more questions :)

will do!

ah, you can cancel https://beta.musicbrainz.org/edit/42991566 since it'll fail once the other one goes through (has 2 votes now)

done!

:)

That explains why I found both edits were good. :D

I did not notice the duplication, I've been fooled by cover art edits.

lol

this is getting as addicting as when i first discovered tvtropes :/

quarternote: yep, you'll have that.

Freso: I would have voted No instead of approving, because there is no evidence at all. SothoTalKer may have checked it, but how can we?

Is that materially different from "case in hand" edits?

maybe you need to be more trusting? :-)

Leftmost: Yes, that at least gives a source that, in theory, is verifiable. In this case, it may be that the editor simply guessed or threw some dice.

SothoTalKer: It’s not about trust. It’s about the ability to follow up sources, possibly finding more details or other related information later. Possibly years later, when you’ve already moved on. Or died, even.

(E.g. “From booklet: ‘Instruments built and played by Foo’”.)

I tend to use it for large edits such as creating or reworking a release.

why not scan and upload the pic somewhere?

i mean... we've all got smartphones

ewww

eww? that's exactly right quarternote, one can upload coverart to the coverartarchive hosted by the internet archive commonly called the "CAA"

Just as susceptible to long-term loss unless it's a scan of sufficient quality to be added to CAA.

I can't not believe i beat you with my long description type out like that leftmost :o

anyway, now I *really* must go to bed. natta all!

All joking aside, I strongly agree with chirlu. Citing sources is crucial to MB's goals.

wait there yo uare caller!

hi catblup

i replied to you

Leftmost: I'm actually kinda doing that o_O

CallerNo6: it's a bit late for me, can we do it tomorow/you cna read my comemnt in the pm to you and reply there and i'll read your answers tomorrow?

sure, sounds good

you have seen my pm?

seen but not read

alright

natta!

o/

\o

Natto.

no. not fermented beans

But they're tasty. :(

The docs are partly to blame. They frame edit notes as "proof", which implies lack of trust.

I think it'sa good idea to leave notes, but aggressively voting "no" and being hangry about it is not.. very usefull either

(on the other side (I can't help myself welcome to tvtro.. erh musicbrainz) agresivly saying "I won't give any proof" is kinda idiotic too)

i might have to look around the web for old musicweek issues

to get the releasedates correct :p

I am also to blame: I have gotten people commenting on literally 10 year old edits with "do you know why x" or similar and becasue i didn't leave an editnote I haven't a clue

SothoTalKer: a good idea :)

Good idea? Yes. Part of the 'code of conduct' for over ten years? Also yes :-P

if an artist, in an email to me, says they're changing how they're stylizing their band name, how do i mention that an edit-proposal?

I've gotten a bit better at making editnotes recently. I should even harder

quarternote: exactly that. say they said it in an email :)

gotcha. idk, with the whole trustworthy-sources discussion going on ;)

that is valid proof, not uncomon that editors will mail artist

never mind chirlu, he is especially harsh ;)

i don't make edit notes for obvious stuff like adding barcodes

how is that obvious thoguh?

If chirlu is harsher than I am about edit notes, I need to up my game!

hw do we know wher you got the barcode?