But since it already has many releases attached, what’s the best approach to changing it? Removing them all from this one and then changing it seems impractical.
Create a second series and add them to that, then remove them from this and maybe merge the two series in the end? Also seems clunky, but at least less change of some release groups going astray in the long run.
We need a script where it is possible paste in a heap of MBID URLs in one go. It is fairly easy to copy URLs off of that page en-mass, just need a target to drop them on. A bit like the track parser window.
It doesn’t take that long to rattle through a series like that - even a manual copy and paste. Soon get into a routine of it. Who do you think put that series into order by adding the numbers? Yeah - this mad soul was tidying it up during that discussion. Whilst also making series up for some of those Billboard Hits lists examples.
Just start by creating a new Release Group series and add a few from the top of the list. If I get bored later I’ll start at the bottom and work up. The beauty of this series is it is very easy to spot if anything is missing from the new RG series as the years make that clear.
Have added the 1990s. And due to the short name it is quick to add more.
Done the lot. Took about 10 mins total.
Just need to make sure to enter the numbers for the order manually as the colon \ comma will actually stop the auto-sort working due to the title differences… LOL
note: There is some daftness of the MB DB complaining about having a Release Series and a Release Group series with the same names. For now there is (RG) in the disambiguation text of the new group. that can be removed when the old series is deleted.
-=-=-
Next Step: notice how there are not actually that many less members of the RG series than the R series? There are clearly some RGs that need merging in that list. No duplicates for merging.
-=-=-
Notice the obvious differences between a Release and a Release Group series - the type of data that is shown on the summary.
-=-=-
Anyone want to do a check to see if I missed anything? Pretty sure I got the lot. Always good to get another eye over it.
-=-=-
I do wonder how much in common some of those RGs actually have… but my work for today here is done. I’ll leave you with the series to play with. My OCD has done its work of hammering through the creation of the series. You lot can play with the details now.
I may be a grumpy git at times, but there is also positives to my madnesses.
I’m used to being misunderstood on here. And I hope you realise there was never anything personal in that Rock: On: 19:76: Dance in; the Summer, discussion. Just the confusion as to why it is OK for some people to bend the rules and other people aren’t. Or how many times rules just plain are not written down and changes agreed in some obscure edit note like that one. So now series have double colons in them… how many other unwritten rules are there…
It is funny how something like “create a series” is a trivial thing for me and I don’t see the effort in it. A set of repetitive tasks like that means I take satisfaction in helping out. I’ve made up a few series like that when it gets clear there is a whole collection. Especially for things lost in the Black Hole of Various Artists.
Now the problem is I think this new series has started to show up that not everything in this series should be in this series…
What’s funny to me is you and I are in complete agreement on the basic principles and general pefectionism, it’s only the specifics we differ on.
I worked for one of the biggest academic libraries in the US for several years. You would have lost sleep over some the messes we had in periodicals and multi-volume publications. I remember some sort of super-dictionary/linguistic analysis thing that was so huge it was being published over many years and had at least four layers of numbering (series/volume/part/number, etc) AND it wasn’t even being released in order. So Volume 5, Part 1 might have been published in 2000, and Volume 2, Part 6 hadn’t even been released 10 years later. I was at least able to have some impact on making sure it was all catalogued correctly. I guess MusicBee fulfills that part of my brain now.
Didn’t spot the other OT reply - better reply to that quick before this whole thread is shattered into a dozen sub-topics. Sorry sub:topics.
What is that old quote - Great Minds Think Alike, Fools Rarely Differ. I know you are one of the sensible ones around here. We are both chasing quality in the same way.
The mad thing here is we are trying to get a world wide audience to agree on a common ruleset - which then gets magically re-written without being published. What looks neat and correct in one lang(u)age then looks weird in another. I’m surprised any consensus happens at time.
Your description of that large analysis thing seems sensible to me. It may be out of order, but still has a natural rule to follow. Something is agreed and it will fill the pattern in eventually even if that is not in chronological order.
Oh, yeah, it makes sense in theory. But you’re super lucky if everyone involved manages to be consistent over time in how things are numbered, how they’re catalogued, etc. Much as with MusicBrainz, a significant part of my job was noticing when there were typos and other problems that caused things that should have been together to be separated, and fix it to the best of my ability. I wasn’t an official cataloguer, but I could fix inconsistencies with call numbers, series numbering, and so on. And this is why we have authority control, because what do you do when the publisher is the one screwing it up? (Maybe that’s why I don’t put much stock in “artist intent” for series like these.)
I see patterns. And I like the balance a good pattern gives. I see things that stick out. Which is what initially triggered me to investigate Rock On: 1976 as it looked “odd” to me. It also is against the written guidelines, which is confusing.
That is why I went a hunting to see what else was out there. When I then started to find both types of titles - with and without colons - I could see that it was a discussion that had clearly had multiple results before.
I have to now keep away from that list as there are now multiple styles in there which makes my head spin. But if you have problems in a vote anywhere in getting the titles corrected - kick me via this thread and I’ll support ya.
Talking of patterns… just added 1980 to the RG series as I had missed that one… See, I’m still checking it in case I missed something…
Really… no. I don’t want to be dragged into another debate on it. The way I’ve seen this place work at times that debate will probably come down with the answer in the other format leaving edit wars kicking off from both camps.
When I said I didn’t look, I meant it. I am not the Style Guru and only enter into areas that overlap my interests. No point me adding pointless comments to something I have no real knowledge of.
I didn’t say anything about it being colons. Changing 80’s to '80s is beyond obvious. Unless all of those albums belong to Mr 80 there is no reason to have an apostrophe there.
Though I noticed I have a comically idiotic spell check on this web browser that seems to think that 80’s is spelt right but '80s is wrong… stupid spellcheck is stupid.
BTW - I notice someone has already deleted the Release Series for some bizarre reason. I hope they actually checked it before delete. Now it is done, I have put in the edit to clear the disambiguration text from the RG series to make sure it is all neat.
See - this is why I didn’t look… I end up typing tons of cr*p about nothing and wasting everyone’s time and energy. I am not a database prettification unicode freak. I really an here only for the music.
Seems unnecessarily complicated to maintain, that’s all.
Update: Further thought on this… any release group series would by definition also be a release series. Therefore it should stay at the release group level, because going any further is creating a lot of work for no particular benefit.
I was also thinking about “Release Group Series vs Release Series”. Especially when one looks at them both on screen. They show different type of summary info with the Release Series being far more useful on screen as a list as it shows real media details.
Problem is the Release Series is hard to keep up to date. If someone adds a new release they may not spot to add to the series. Once one or two start going missing they are hard to spot what else isn’t there.
The Release Group series will naturally pickup up and add new Releases as they are added. As long as enough years have been covered with the currently created RGs then everything is kept together in a neater way.
When @psychoadept initially suggested the RG series I thought it was a pointless duplicate - now see it is a better fitting, easier to maintain replacement for this type of collection.
Oh - and not sure why I thought the R series had been deleted. Clearly got that confused when looking at something quick.
The beauty of this series is it is very easy to spot if anything is missing from the new RG series as the years make that clear.
You lot can play with the details now.
But if you have problems in a vote anywhere in getting the titles corrected - kick me via this thread and I’ll support ya.
I don’t want to be dragged into another debate on it. The way I’ve seen this place work at times that debate will probably come down with the answer in the other format leaving edit wars kicking off from both camps.