« Return to Thread: For the love of god, let's sort out this (feat) nonsense
RE: [mb-style] For the love of god, let's sort out this (feat) nonsense
by Cristov Russell
::
Rate this Message:
I guess I get first crack at this.
> OK gang, I'm pissed off.
>
> For about the third time in a week, I've come across Mo
> automodding away "collaborative" artists on compilations and
> in doing so losing valuable data, and polluting database values.
>
> http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=tra
> ck&orderby=desc&object_id=966605
> http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=tra
> ck&orderby=desc&object_id=857331
> http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=tra
> ck&orderby=desc&object_id=966605
1st: I can find nothing wrong with mo's mods, he followed the SG exactly and
corrected your incorrect use of the Artist field data.
2nd: I see no data loss whatsoever.
> I'm sick of it. I want the damned style guide changed, and now.
>
> For the uninitiated, here are my two previous threads on the subject:
>
> April '05:
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-
> April/020491.html
> May '05:
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2005-
> May/000107.html
3rd: Railing away and making demands probably won't get the support of
myself or other members of the SC. This is a long standing problem that no
one really likes but for which there is no simply solution. This has already
been reiterated in each thread you mentioned by several members of the SC.
> Once again, my arguments:
>
> 1) ID3 tags and MP3 players (both hardware and software)
> have a field for "Title" and a field for "Artist". In 99% of
> cases, we should be populating these with the Title and
> Artist shown on the CD case.
Normally this is probably true but I won't agree with 99% since there are a
lot of multi-artist compilations.
> 2) The "put (feat.) in the title" hack was only in place
> because there was no way to link artists to collaborations.
> Now there is.
> It's AR. It works.
Wrong. AR does NOT work ANY tagger...yet. Until it can, the hack is
necessary.
> 3) In "The Future", we may have smarter taggers, or a
> different DB schema that can assign more than one artist to a
> track. But we're not in the future, we're in the present.
> And presently, the best way to store this data, SO THAT IT
> CAN BE ADAPTED TO FUTURE WHIMS is to use AR to specify collaborations.
The initial release of AR was never intended to replace the SG, only to add
more functionality.
> 4) Deleting collaborative artists, picking one at random,
> stuffing the other in the text Title field ONLY MAKES IT
> HARDER FOR THIS TO HAPPEN in "The Future".
It's what makes sense with the current schema.
> Please, for my sanity's sake, so that I don't want to punch
> the otherwise hugely helpful mo in the groin, can we change
> the styleguide?
Not yet.
> Thanks,
>
> Rod.
________________________________
Cristov (wolfsong)
Nasty little hobbits! We didn't mean them no harm! But they jumps on us like
cats on poor mices they did, my precious... - Gollum
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
> OK gang, I'm pissed off.
>
> For about the third time in a week, I've come across Mo
> automodding away "collaborative" artists on compilations and
> in doing so losing valuable data, and polluting database values.
>
> http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=tra
> ck&orderby=desc&object_id=966605
> http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=tra
> ck&orderby=desc&object_id=857331
> http://musicbrainz.org/mod/search/results.html?object_type=tra
> ck&orderby=desc&object_id=966605
1st: I can find nothing wrong with mo's mods, he followed the SG exactly and
corrected your incorrect use of the Artist field data.
2nd: I see no data loss whatsoever.
> I'm sick of it. I want the damned style guide changed, and now.
>
> For the uninitiated, here are my two previous threads on the subject:
>
> April '05:
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-
> April/020491.html
> May '05:
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2005-
> May/000107.html
3rd: Railing away and making demands probably won't get the support of
myself or other members of the SC. This is a long standing problem that no
one really likes but for which there is no simply solution. This has already
been reiterated in each thread you mentioned by several members of the SC.
> Once again, my arguments:
>
> 1) ID3 tags and MP3 players (both hardware and software)
> have a field for "Title" and a field for "Artist". In 99% of
> cases, we should be populating these with the Title and
> Artist shown on the CD case.
Normally this is probably true but I won't agree with 99% since there are a
lot of multi-artist compilations.
> 2) The "put (feat.) in the title" hack was only in place
> because there was no way to link artists to collaborations.
> Now there is.
> It's AR. It works.
Wrong. AR does NOT work ANY tagger...yet. Until it can, the hack is
necessary.
> 3) In "The Future", we may have smarter taggers, or a
> different DB schema that can assign more than one artist to a
> track. But we're not in the future, we're in the present.
> And presently, the best way to store this data, SO THAT IT
> CAN BE ADAPTED TO FUTURE WHIMS is to use AR to specify collaborations.
The initial release of AR was never intended to replace the SG, only to add
more functionality.
> 4) Deleting collaborative artists, picking one at random,
> stuffing the other in the text Title field ONLY MAKES IT
> HARDER FOR THIS TO HAPPEN in "The Future".
It's what makes sense with the current schema.
> Please, for my sanity's sake, so that I don't want to punch
> the otherwise hugely helpful mo in the groin, can we change
> the styleguide?
Not yet.
> Thanks,
>
> Rod.
________________________________
Cristov (wolfsong)
Nasty little hobbits! We didn't mean them no harm! But they jumps on us like
cats on poor mices they did, my precious... - Gollum
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
« Return to Thread: For the love of god, let's sort out this (feat) nonsense
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
