From MusicBrainz Wiki
Revision as of 09:53, 29 October 2012 by Jesus2099 (talk | contribs)


I wrote some cross-browser companion scripts for musicbrainz editors (userjs/greasemonkey/userscripts).

Here is Bitmap’s awesome MusicBrainz: Set recording comments for a release (mirror).

Tools for me

After parsing subscription artists, voting A

REDO THESE (No votes received, desc)


See your subscribed artists' edits done by anyone but you since yesterday (not only open edits) (AUTOEDIT SPY)

See your subscribed artists' edits done by anyone but you since last week (not only open edits) (AUTOEDIT SPY)

some seemingly wrong rec. merges

Those one click edits require at least 10 edits to be fixed and the resulting split leads to clearing all lost info. It’s an illustration for ML thread

Template:lang fr-native Template:lang en-some Template:lang vi-some Template:lang ja-some

JIS to Unicode mappings

correct typographic characters

[Style/Miscellaneous] says « ''…'''typographically-correct punctuation is preferred.''''' » 
Unicode documentation for U+2019 ’ RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK says « '''''this is the preferred character to use for apostrophe''''' » and it’s true that it has been used in the printing industry for so many years (and looks more natural, you wouldn’t find papers with the computer apostrophe U+0027, or only kind of bad ones).
Likewise, Unicode documentation for U+0027 ' APOSTROPHE says « '''''2019 is preferred for apostrophe.''''' »
※ One of the extracts of the Unicode standard documentation

some advice to japanese edits

(from edit:18777709)

You are often using untrustful websites like anonymous/random/average Joe user edited wikis (discogs, wikipedia) who themselves don’t really backup their edits with proof.
It is better to get first-hand information for release addition (and websites that can bring trustful info for small details).
Your edits are not wrong, even they are quite good, but sometimes they diverge from the reality of the released tracklist for instance (not this one).
Especially if you don’t have the release (no first-hand) information, cross-checking is important.

It’s better to use better reference like : 
'''full pics'''
'''label''' confirm
'''jan''' confirm

Sorry I already told you that in another edit, but in Japanese because I confused you with another editor who is native Japanese (has same kind of user name, '''''machigaeta''' something'').
It’s better to user trustful reference.
* '''actual releases''' or '''pictures of actual releases''', '''OHP''' ('''o'''fficial '''h'''ome'''p'''age) of artist or label, for the whole release information release date etc.
* '''JASRAC''' for '''credits'''
* '''CDJournal''' for correct production (sub-)'''label''' attribution  -98% trust-
* '''Joshin web''' for '''JAN''' -100% trust but only contains non out of prints-
Sometimes the release date is wrong because you’ll have latest re-release date public only, check on sometimes to see the real date when you think there is something weird.

(bad japanese from edit:19387852)