User talk:FauxFaux/NotDuplicateReleases

From MusicBrainz Wiki

FauxFaux: Feel free to remove the last 2 I added, as they ignore your second bullet point, but I think just "go fix the times" is a bit difficult, when someone doesn't actually have the releases to fix the times from. Shouldn't this be for clearing out the dupes, to avoid other people wasting time trying to also figure out that release pair isn't a dupe? (Now, setting the DQ on each in the pair to low, as we can't know which has the wrong times... that's an alternative way we could handle these.) -- BrianSchweitzer 07:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I fixed both. And please don't do that. Crap ought to live in reports whose purpose is to list crap... If you start listing them here instead, what's the point of the report? Please add such comments (eg: what needs to be done) directly into the release annotation instead, and let them appear where they are actually useful (in the report). Cheers. -- dmppanda 16:52, 08 November 2007 (UTC)
    • It was after discussion with FauxFaux that I added them here. In the case of the Heartbeat release, nice work fixing the times - but as those 2 are not dupes, they still don't belong on the report of possibly duplicate releases, thus the exclusion here. For the other, I think you're jumping the gun. You went to freedb, but ignored the original source import for both from freedb, and are removing the one more likely to be correct. I, instead, went through the archive.org backups of the group's page back to when each cd had a tracklist available - and both tracklists showed as correct. Again, not dupes. That one or the other has the wrong structure and/or times? Yes, agreed. But exclusion here was also entirely correct. By definition, if two releases are not duplicates, ignoring all other issues they may have, they ought to then be excluded from a "dupescan" report. -- BrianSchweitzer 21:46, 08 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I didn't ignored the original source import. Your facts are wrong, and apparently you're confused about how freedb works and what data it has. They were imported from two distincts entries, one of which being certainly bogus. They *were not imported from the same freedb entry*, and from what I gathered I'm removing the one *likely to be the bogus one* (again, if you ever have any additional infos that we don't, please share them - link please! not words). -- dmppanda 09:37, 09 November 2007 (UTC)
        • dmppanda - Since we got this resolved, and so we can clear out old comments from here (so they don't clutter up this page), if you are agreed, I'd be fine with clearing all these comments (ie, ok on my end for a DeleteWhenCooked for this entire set of comments :) ). -- BrianSchweitzer 06:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)