Difference between revisions of "User:Ianmcorvidae/How To Write Edit Notes"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Line 10: Line 10:
 
# A '''URL with some sort of proof''' your edit is reasonable and correct.
 
# A '''URL with some sort of proof''' your edit is reasonable and correct.
 
# A link to relevant '''MusicBrainz [[Style Guideline]]s'''
 
# A link to relevant '''MusicBrainz [[Style Guideline]]s'''
# An explanation of '''what you're doing''', unless it's outstandingly obvious
+
# '''What you're doing''', unless it's outstandingly obvious
# An explanation of '''why you're doing it''', unless it's outstandingly obvious
+
# '''Why you're doing it''', unless it's outstandingly obvious
# There is a partial consensus on MusicBrainz that incomplete data is better than wrong data. Rather than adding detailed information "based on a hunch", without being able to find reasonable proof, add only what you can justify.
 
  
 
===What constitutes good proof?===
 
===What constitutes good proof?===
Line 19: Line 18:
 
# '''More than one''' of the below
 
# '''More than one''' of the below
 
# '''Scans''' of liner materials
 
# '''Scans''' of liner materials
# '''Official''' artist/label sites
+
# '''Official sites''' for the artist/label
# User-editable and other third-party sites '''with a review process''', such as  [http://www.discogs.com/ discogs] or [http://www.metal-archives.com/ Encyclopaedia Metallum]
+
# '''Other sites ''with a review process''''', such as  [http://www.discogs.com/ discogs] or [http://www.metal-archives.com/ Encyclopaedia Metallum]
 
# '''Reputable online shops''' like [http://www.amazon.com/ Amazon] and [http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/ iTunes]
 
# '''Reputable online shops''' like [http://www.amazon.com/ Amazon] and [http://www.apple.com/itunes/store/ iTunes]
  
Line 27: Line 26:
 
===What doesn't constitute good proof?===
 
===What doesn't constitute good proof?===
 
* '''FreeDB'''.
 
* '''FreeDB'''.
* Other user-editable sites that '''lack a review process'''
+
* Other user-editable sites that ''lack a review process''
  
 
==How to add edits notes when voting and answering==
 
==How to add edits notes when voting and answering==
Line 36: Line 35:
  
 
# '''If you vote No''' on an edit
 
# '''If you vote No''' on an edit
# If you '''need clarification or better proof''' in order to vote
+
# If you '''need clarification''' or '''better proof''' in order to vote
 
# If there is an '''ongoing discussion''' in a given edit's notes '''to which you can contribute'''
 
# If there is an '''ongoing discussion''' in a given edit's notes '''to which you can contribute'''
  

Revision as of 21:02, 8 May 2011

Whenever you edit MusicBrainz data, you will be asked to add an Edit Note. Most edits need to be voted on by other MusicBrainz users, to catch errors and bad data. Edit Notes are there to help the voters determine if an edit is correct.

If a voter disagrees they should add another edit note, describing the issue or asking for proof or clarification. If they don't, you should ask them in an edit note. Each edit note is sent by email to the original editor and everyone who voted on an edit but did not abstain.

How to add edit notes when changing data

The primary reason for Edit Notes is to help voters to decide if an edit is correct. It is optional to add an edit note, but you are strongly encouraged to add one. Edit Notes can also be useful later, when data is subsequently edited and past sources need to be consulted.

What should be included?

  1. A URL with some sort of proof your edit is reasonable and correct.
  2. A link to relevant MusicBrainz Style Guidelines
  3. What you're doing, unless it's outstandingly obvious
  4. Why you're doing it, unless it's outstandingly obvious

What constitutes good proof?

In approximate order of preference:

  1. More than one of the below
  2. Scans of liner materials
  3. Official sites for the artist/label
  4. Other sites with a review process, such as discogs or Encyclopaedia Metallum
  5. Reputable online shops like Amazon and iTunes

Note that online stores are often good proof of the existence of a release, but often have incorrect information about the release. These should be paired with other proof whenever possible.

What doesn't constitute good proof?

  • FreeDB.
  • Other user-editable sites that lack a review process

How to add edits notes when voting and answering

Anyone can add an edit note to an already entered edit. This includes already applied and not-yet-applied edits.

When should I leave an edit note when I am not the original editor?

  1. If you vote No on an edit
  2. If you need clarification or better proof in order to vote
  3. If there is an ongoing discussion in a given edit's notes to which you can contribute

What should I include in such an edit note?

  1. Say what you need, or why you voted No.
  2. Include links to MusicBrainz Style Guidelines or URLs with proof, if these are relevant
  3. Be concise, but also complete and polite. Especially terse edit notes are intimidating to new editors and unuseful to new voters; especially long ones may not be read. Impolite or angry notes will simply annoy everyone involved, or worse.

How should I respond to these edit notes, if I am the original editor?

  1. Be polite
  2. Provide clarification or better proof, if requested
  3. Explain further why the editor should vote Yes or abstain, if your edit received a No vote
  4. If you agree with the concerns of the other editor, cancel your edit and explain this in the edit note when you cancel