User:FauxFaux/NotDuplicateReleases: Difference between revisions

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(@BF (Imported from MoinMoin))
((Imported from MoinMoin))
Line 46: Line 46:
[[User:FauxFaux|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.) -- [[Brian Schweitzer|BrianSchweitzer]] 07:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
[[User:FauxFaux|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.) -- [[Brian Schweitzer|BrianSchweitzer]] 07:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">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. -- [[User:dmppanda|dmppanda]] 16:52, 08 November 2007 (UTC)
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">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. -- [[User:dmppanda|dmppanda]] 16:52, 08 November 2007 (UTC)
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">It was after discussion with [[User:FauxFaux|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. -- [[Brian Schweitzer|BrianSchweitzer]] 21:46, 08 November 2007 (UTC)
</ul>
</ul></ul>

Revision as of 21:46, 8 November 2007

Here exists a list of release-pairs that http://faux.uwcs.co.uk/dupscan2.html should ignore. Please include a link and a reason, one 'pair' per line.

Do not use the following reasons, they should be fixed elsewhere:

  • Trans*ated. (go add the AR)
  • The times on one of the discs is wrong. (go fix it)
  • ..is a later/earlier release of.. (go add the AR).

The list:

  • No. From the *very page* from which you copied the informations, these discs *are the same*. This should be merged, really (specially given one of the two doesn't even have any release information making it specific to the other). -- dmppanda 16:58, 08 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

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)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=User:FauxFaux/NotDuplicateReleases&oldid=7567"