#musicbrainz

Hi, I'm adding a spotify release of an album originally released in CD in 1982 (that release is already in MB). In spotify, the release year is said to be 1982, should I use that? or just leave it empty? (since I don't know when the album was released in Spotify)

yea don't use 1982

you might be albe to use archive to see when it came online (atleast year and/or month)

I'd just leave it empty really

If iTunes or some other digital place has a date that seems legit, you could use that

beatport has a very prominent date

eh, does beatport eve nhave releases that whre originally on cd in 1982?

https://music.apple.com/es/album/happy-together... that doesn't seem to help

CatQuest: with https://web.archive.org/web/20190301000000*/htt... would you use 2019 as year?

oh, i never thought archive could save spotify pages, this is neat

Reminder: MusicBrainz will be down temporarily today at 17 UTC for our schema change upgrade! It can take some time to backup and vacuum the database, but we hope to only be down for about an hour or so, starting with some read-only time before going fully down. Thank you for your patience!

You can see when that is your time at https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?i...

Reminder, going down in 5 minutes! Finish your editing!

what will I do with all my free time now

elomatreb[m]: hopefully it won't take that long, you can just think about what you want to fix later :p

try some dollmaker? https://www.dolldivine.com/weekend-at-the-overl...

I need some opinions here... https://musicbrainz.org/release/5f5f3343-3afd-4... / https://musicbrainz.org/edit/73701317 / https://musicbrainz.org/edit/89644251

I think it is obvious that the *digital release* cannot be purchased at the URL in question, as the URL in question links to the *vinyl release* and it seems that the editor in question does not understand this distinction. Or, I suppose, I am wrong and it's appropriate to add a relationship for the vinyl release to the digital release?

In any case, I feel like if I remove it again it will come across as "edit warring" so I welcome opinions/involvement.

it's appropriate to add a relationship for the vinyl release to the digital release?

no. vinyl url shoudl go to vinyl release

this seems very obvious to me, but apparently not to the other editor in this case.

so i'd say add the vinyl release and add/move the url to there and then

yeah, I suppose that's a way to make the point without it seeming confrontational or edit-warry

I left a comment but I'd agree with CatQuest's suggestion, if you can be bother

ed

bleh, the bug where matches-artist-and-track-title-but-blank-length produces no results for recordings.

blank length is not wrong length, it's blank length...

Was there a ticket? That seems sensible, although all that code is some weird black magic to me

for trackparser?

I did submit a ticket on the topic back in the day, yeah.

I feel like I remember it being improved, but apparently not.

is there a report "digital releases with 'purchase for mail order' relationship" ?

.. i think ther is actually

No, because that has always seemed a lot less common than the alternative

(which does have a report, https://musicbrainz.org/report/ReleasesWithDown...)

erh

I think that it woul be fairly common too actualy

Normally people add a download link to CDs, it's a lot less common in my experience to add a physical link to downloads

one error one way, why not error other way

That said, we can add one

+++

Ticket?

(not today, obviously, but)

CatQuest: you going to or should I?

be my guest

MBS-12385: report for "digital releases with non-digital relationships"

Added to my list

Thanks

aaaaaa this fucking sucks!!

why has my connection crapped out *again*??!!