hrm. the remove rating script destroys AcoustID page :<
d4rkie joined the channel
LordSputnik has left the channel
Nyanko-sensei joined the channel
D4RK-PH0_ joined the channel
JoeLlama joined the channel
kurros
what would be the best way to clean up a merge that was mistakenly set to append? just marking medium 2 for removal would orphan the track ids, I assume. not sure if that is a concern. http://musicbrainz.org/release/578b7de4-f225-48...
edit was two weeks ago, too. missed it :/
mezod joined the channel
the only disc id is attached to medium 2, too
CallerNo6
are track IDs even exposed anywhere?
I guess I could be asking that on devel
It seems like, if trackids aren't exposed anywhere, then merge-rather-than-delete doens't really matter. so it'd be safe to simply more the discid and then remove medium 2.
*if*
kurros
well, Picard tags them. i don't know to what extent other things might use it. i think the recording ID is probably more important.
JesseW joined the channel
CallerNo6
are you sure you're not thinking of recording id?
kurros
ah, disc id moving has improved since the last time I did it years ago. easy enough.
CallerNo6 opens picard 1.2, doesn't see anything about track id. has that changed?
This time it's a live album with multiple headlining acts
reosarevok
7 artists? I'd probably go with VA for that tbh
(assuming the list on the left are artists)
hibiscuskazenek1
they are
but the implication with Various Artists is that the release is a compilation
(and Picard sorts it accodingly)
accordingly*
reosarevok
Dunno, I guess it depends on the definition of "compilation" :)
I've added plenty of various artists albums which aren't MB compilations
hibiscuskazenek1
The vast majority are (in the sense that the material contained therein was previously released elsewhere or pulled from another source)
reosarevok
Dunno. I'd think a VA + Live without compilation is clear enough about it not being a comp (Picard will probably by default add the itunes compilation tag but that's really unrelated)
(I wish we'd rename it "thing that iTunes wants because it sucks")
Although it might have the unintended effect of attaching "Remix" to the main single RG, so that should probably be changed if it does get merged
I guess the thing is - if that was the original song + the remix it'd clearly be included in the main single RG, so it makes sense to have it there anyway. But I don't think there's a clear consensus for this
_5moufl
my thoughts too
CatQuest
atleast until we can set release-specific type
randybias joined the channel
reosarevok
But why is it relevant
?
Normal singles are full of remixes too most of the time
ariscop joined the channel
ariscop joined the channel
hibiscuskazenek1
The issue is that one single is a remix of the other
The_Freso joined the channel
CatQuest
reosarevok: well *now* a days sure.. but go back a couple a decades and no such thing
making a remix single of a one fo those release.. that would be a different RG.. but again I don't know tis particular case that good either
you'll notice I didn't vote on it :)
it was more an aside to wanting to be able to set release spesific type i guess
The_Freso joined the channel
The_Freso joined the channel
The_Freso joined the channel
arx8 joined the channel
arx8 joined the channel
arx8 joined the channel
hibiscuskazeneko joined the channel
arx8 joined the channel
STalKer-X
blah ;p
arx8 joined the channel
arx8 joined the channel
arx8 joined the channel
Freso joined the channel
arx8 joined the channel
Gentlecat joined the channel
arx8 joined the channel
JESUS2099 joined the channel
arx8 joined the channel
JESUS2099
STalKer-X : « the remove rating script destroys AcoustID page » is it about the HIDE_RATINGS module of my TURBO script ? what AcoustID page is it about ? acoustid.org’s or mb’s ?
STalKer-X
JESUS2099 you have one, too? :D
JESUS2099
STalKer-X: for « Advanced search by default » you don’t need script… in my browser, typing mr followed by anything, will make a release search that is advanced mode