Difference between revisions of "User:HumHumXX"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Line 1: Line 1:
 
[http://musicbrainz.org/user/HumHumXX MusicBrainz] | [http://forums.musicbrainz.org/profile.php?id=3429 MusicBrainz Forums] | [http://www.last.fm/user/HumHumXX Last.fm]
 
[http://musicbrainz.org/user/HumHumXX MusicBrainz] | [http://forums.musicbrainz.org/profile.php?id=3429 MusicBrainz Forums] | [http://www.last.fm/user/HumHumXX Last.fm]
  
'''To Do:''' Fix record player, clean all records, re-add collection, watch collection.
+
'''To Do:''' Mend record player, clean all records, re-add collection, then watch it. Moan, whine, bitch and complain during every stage.
 +
----
 +
'''Modest proposals:'''
 +
* Warn, then ban exceptionally bad editors (more than 5% down-voted edits and/or no reaction to other editors' notes).
 +
* Highlight new editors, maybe on the front page. (BTW, why are people following auto-editors' edits, not those of new editors, who actually do need supervision?)
 +
* Get rid of "Yes" and "Abstain", introduce "Ignore" or "Don't Care" as a voting option; auto-editors should still be able to approve edits.
 +
* Mark accepted releases that have not been voted on as such, if possible even retrospectively; let editors additionally mark releases that have issues and serious issues. A note addressing the (potential) problem should be obligatory.
 +
* Revoke auto-editor privileges after, say, one year of inactivity. They should be able to apply for getting them back by simply posting to the list -- or the forums, see also below.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
* Let a bot adjust release group titles/artists to release titles/artists if there's only one release in a release group, or if there's two or more releases that are identical in those respects.
 +
* Let it do the same for recordings ... -- yeah, I know.
 +
* (... or, regarding artists, disable release group/recording artist ''credits''; except for collaborations, of course.)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
* Except for the artist or label level, do not allow linking to websites other than those that can guarantee stable links -- in short, death to purchase, download, discography ARs, etc., if they weren't dead already.
 +
* The remaster ARs are all useless and/or wrong, and I'm only slightly exaggerating. Get rid. No report, no fixing, get rid. Seriously. Maybe add an attribute instead.
 +
* Attributes! (I'll need to further elaborate on this on another occasion.)
 +
 
 +
 
 +
* Add "Series" as an option for labels instead of adding a hyper-complicated architecture for such a trivial concept.
 +
* Retain "Bootlegger" and "Holding" as label types, maybe "Publisher" as well, but remove the rest, unless ...
 +
* we let editors add companies (for (c) and (p), manufacturing, etc.). This is also the only way a meaningful parent/sub-label hierarchy can be established.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
* Do not show artist disambiguations except in search results.
 +
* Only show "core" edits to an entity in its editing history; for instance, *no* recording edits in a release history.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
* Close the user *and* the style mailing list, move to the forums. The regular internet user these days has no idea what a mailing list is, and they're clearly not missing out on anything.
 +
* Point users to IRC for the quick question, to the forums for more complicated concerns.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
* What exactly is the use of the docs and the transclusion mechanism? Why not use the wiki and simply lock the pages that need RFCs to be changed?
 +
 
 +
 
 +
* ...

Revision as of 10:13, 26 February 2013

MusicBrainz | MusicBrainz Forums | Last.fm

To Do: Mend record player, clean all records, re-add collection, then watch it. Moan, whine, bitch and complain during every stage.


Modest proposals:

  • Warn, then ban exceptionally bad editors (more than 5% down-voted edits and/or no reaction to other editors' notes).
  • Highlight new editors, maybe on the front page. (BTW, why are people following auto-editors' edits, not those of new editors, who actually do need supervision?)
  • Get rid of "Yes" and "Abstain", introduce "Ignore" or "Don't Care" as a voting option; auto-editors should still be able to approve edits.
  • Mark accepted releases that have not been voted on as such, if possible even retrospectively; let editors additionally mark releases that have issues and serious issues. A note addressing the (potential) problem should be obligatory.
  • Revoke auto-editor privileges after, say, one year of inactivity. They should be able to apply for getting them back by simply posting to the list -- or the forums, see also below.


  • Let a bot adjust release group titles/artists to release titles/artists if there's only one release in a release group, or if there's two or more releases that are identical in those respects.
  • Let it do the same for recordings ... -- yeah, I know.
  • (... or, regarding artists, disable release group/recording artist credits; except for collaborations, of course.)


  • Except for the artist or label level, do not allow linking to websites other than those that can guarantee stable links -- in short, death to purchase, download, discography ARs, etc., if they weren't dead already.
  • The remaster ARs are all useless and/or wrong, and I'm only slightly exaggerating. Get rid. No report, no fixing, get rid. Seriously. Maybe add an attribute instead.
  • Attributes! (I'll need to further elaborate on this on another occasion.)


  • Add "Series" as an option for labels instead of adding a hyper-complicated architecture for such a trivial concept.
  • Retain "Bootlegger" and "Holding" as label types, maybe "Publisher" as well, but remove the rest, unless ...
  • we let editors add companies (for (c) and (p), manufacturing, etc.). This is also the only way a meaningful parent/sub-label hierarchy can be established.


  • Do not show artist disambiguations except in search results.
  • Only show "core" edits to an entity in its editing history; for instance, *no* recording edits in a release history.


  • Close the user *and* the style mailing list, move to the forums. The regular internet user these days has no idea what a mailing list is, and they're clearly not missing out on anything.
  • Point users to IRC for the quick question, to the forums for more complicated concerns.


  • What exactly is the use of the docs and the transclusion mechanism? Why not use the wiki and simply lock the pages that need RFCs to be changed?


  • ...