INLINE STUFF :: See more info

MusicBrainz
1

This is a userscript that does only display, it will not make edits.

mb. INLINE STUFF

Release page: Inline recording names, comments, ISRC and AcoustID. Displays CAA count and add link if none. Highlights duplicates in releases and edits.

Release page enhancements

Displays recording name / track name discrepancies.
Default set‐up is var markTrackRecNameDiff = "%track-name%%br%%recording-name%"; but you can just display an asterisk like in older versions, with var markTrackRecNameDiff = "%track-name%*";.

Display recording comments (disambiguations, versions, etc.) directly in track list. MBS-12274

Exposes (with show/hide toggles) tracks’ ISRC and AcoustID inline directly beneath track names in releases.

Each track gets (with show/hide toggles again) recording tool links: Edit, Open edits, +relate and +merge.

In sidebar, you have Tracks, Works, ISRC and AcoustID totals and you can show/hide each category (ISRC / AcoustID), this setting will be remembered and can be changed any time.

Displays COOL CAA TAB: CAA count or upload link if none (Cover Art → Cover Art (xx) where xx is the number of pictures or is Add Cover Art when no picture yet.

There is also a AcoustID and ISRC Duplicate Finder™ thing that highlights duplicates.
Useful for clean/fixing or recording merges.

Recording page enhancements

The ISRC Duplicate Finder™ works here as well.

2 Likes
2

I have created this topic for @culinko to be able to discuss things more openly here and to limit the use of GitHub tickets to simple tasks. :slight_smile:

I have turned the original post into a wiki because I just realise now that I can no longer edit my original posts in other user scripts topics (only editable for a short period?) nor turn them into wikis now either.
So feel free to fix or enhance it, any user.

3

I plan to merge mb. INLINE TRACK ARTIST into this.
Please comment if you feel like it.

4

Many thanks for doing this!

Reposting my last question from the github ticket:

There is one additional thing I was wondering about today, this time regarding the tooltip. In row 270, there is:
ntit = (ntit ? ntit + " —\u00a0" : "") + "track name: " + aRec.textContent + "\r\n≠rec. name: " + recnameNet[mbid].name; which looks like this:

tooltip1

Can I ask why is the ntit value compared in (ntit ? ntit + " —\u00a0" : "") and why are the additional things (the title and dashes) displayed? I removed the mentioned part from the row so only ntit = "track name: " + aRec.textContent + "\r\n≠rec. name: " + recnameNet[mbid].name; would remain, which would look like this (imo much more clear):

tooltip2

So I am wondering, am I losing any functionality with this change?

The example images are showing the first track of the David Bowie’s release you linked before: https://musicbrainz.org/release/26a3ccee-93cd-48a9-b250-08b94bf30e98/.

1 Like
5

Thanks @culinko for moving here.
Could you link your example, please (in your post above by editing it)? :slight_smile:

6

And these are the other two feature requests from the github ticket that I’d like to see, the second one could be probably split into sub-tasks:

  • AC highlight on release page: I’d like to request an AC highlight on release pages whenever track AC doesn’t match the recording AC, similar way as when it’s displayed on recordings (currently in mb. INLINE TRACK ARTIST). The only question would be how to fit it in and also dealing with releases which don’t have the Artist column (releases where all tracks match the release AC), in which case you could position the artist name near the rating column. This is my mockup how it could look like for both types of releases: http://imgur.com/a/ZQCeJ.

  • Release group/release comparison: I was wondering if the script could be expanded from track/recording differences to release group/release differences as well for both title and AC differences. It could show the differences on these 4 pages: artist’s release page, label page, release page and release group page. I did some mockups for these as well, though the 2nd and 3rd images don’t look so pretty: http://imgur.com/a/AKZjP.

These requests would help greatly with spotting cases where an editor edited the track but didn’t edit the recording and where they edited the release but didn’t edit the release group and vice versa. Also all of my mockups display heavily modified stuff which does not represent its mb data, if anyone was concerned.

1 Like
7

Thanks for your ideas, I forgot to create tickets for them, here they are but I cannot guarantee I will work on them soon… :confused:

1 Like
8

I have a question about using “mb. INLINE STUFF”.

image
image721×573 116 KB

When I see this on a release, I understand that it is showing me that the recordings attached to this release have different names to the tracks. In this case the recordings all have corrected Unicode punctuation, but the tracks on this release are still using keyboard punctuation.

Is there a simple way of correcting this release without having to manually edit every track one by one?

I am asking for a “copy recording titles to tracklist” type script. Does one exist?

Or is there a way I can interact with the brown highlighted text and just hit a “go on then, fix it” button?

(Note - there are 5 CDs in this set meaning over 100 tracks. Not something I fancy correcting manually)

9
  1. Edit the release
  2. Go to Recordings tab
  3. Click all Edit buttons to expand each medium tracklists
  4. Go to the bottom of the page and check the Copy all track titles to associated recordings. checkbox
  5. Go to Edit Note tab (back at the top of the page)
  6. Type your edit note and click Enter edit :slight_smile:
10

@jesus2099 I believe that’s the procedure for the opposite situation.

I don’t believe there is an easy way for this situation.
If there is another release with the same tracklist and correct titles one could maybe use the track parser.

3 Likes
11

What @IvanDobsky wants to do is the inverse of this. He wants to copy recording titles to the track ones.

4 Likes
12

Ah ok I got it wrong. :rofl:
Then what I use in your case here usually is the search and replace tool from TRACKLIST_TOOLS from SUPER TURBO script.

3 Likes
13

@paulakreuzer and @Freso have understood my copying direction here. I want to bring those corrected recording titles back across to the tracklist. I often make use of the checkboxes @jesus2099 points to when going the other direction. I was hoping there was a simple way of doing this in reverse.

I have used the track parser before, but it is not really going to be feasible with so many tracks on so many disks. It depends how easy it will be to lift a “clean” set of track names. I’ll add it to my TODO list of experiments.

As to SUPER TURBO Search and Replace - it has already been handy to use elsewhere, but just too much work here. Trying to get all 200+ of those speechmarks done would drive me up the wall. :laughing:

14

I wished for this feature more than once :wink:
I think we rely too much on userscripts to enhance MB, and since redesign is on the work it would perhaps make sense to integrate such feature (see Your favourite User Scripts for MusicBrainz?! (so that they can be used while redesigning!)).

@chhavi ?

2 Likes
15

Yep - agree with you Zas. Though the language of MB is a complex barrier for noob editors stuff like this needs to be slightly hidden to avoid total disasters. At least when Scripts are installed and activated that is a chosen step by the user.

On the current GUI there are these two boxes:
image

The language here is confusing already. When I am doing updates to a track list I will often make use of these. But what does “all track titles to associated recordings” actually mean? Does that mean it is only relevant to this page and ticks all the boxes for me on the page to copy from track to recording.

OR is it also going to sort out ALL of the associated recordings in one go?

It is this latter reading of it that was leading me to hope I could some how use these to push the “good” recording names to all linked versions of the recordings. A one to all copy if that makes sense?

1 Like
16

I would think that if the recordings are correct than there would exist a tracklist somewhere with those correct names. Perhaps you could find it and use copy and paste with the track parser.

2 Likes
17

As you say, this feature needs to be “hidden” so new or inexperienced editors don’t mess up the data too much. Also, we already have a ticket for that: https://tickets.metabrainz.org/browse/MBS-2970 - it would be great to be able to propagate the recording change in one release and in multiple or even all releases (e.g. fixing a typo).

3 Likes
18

You can try this:
Shift+click the Search→replace button so that it applies on all mediums.
Then use the regular expression Search: /"([^"]+)"/g — Replace: “$1”.
But the simplest is Billy’s advice:

19

Actually, the ticket that I posted only talks about recording -> track, not about all recordings on release -> all tracks on all releases so we might need another ticket or have this to be a part of MBS-2970

2 Likes
20

@Billy_Yank and @jesus2099 the example I am working on here is extreme. We are talking huge “audio drama” set of disks. Twenty Five CDs with average 20 tracks on each disk. Many of those tracks are multiple parts so multiple speechmarks opening and closing.

The example above is part of that larger box set. So we also have this as separate releases. And that is where the hiccups start as some of those separate releases have had the speechmarks done, but others haven’t.

Yeah, I can see how with search and replace and messing with various rules I can try and catch the speechmarks - but this is complicated by the Unicode need of different quotes for opening and closing. And then as we have quotes in quotes (see track six above) there is going to be quite a weird rule that needs constructing.

Copy and Paste will be similarly messy as I’ll need to have a staging post in Notepad++ where I clean up anything I move. Though that is going to be the least complex to do I think.

I’ll work something out. I came here hoping for a “magic button” as I assumed I wasn’t the only person who has seen this occur. There must be many places where a recording appears on multiple releases. I’ve often had to manually go through multiple copies of the same to propagate a correction back up from the recording to all the separate releases.

1 Like