Issues identifying single release

edit

https://www.discogs.com/master/185405-LTD-Every-Time-I-Turn-Around-Back-In-Love-Again-

Somehow there are four different 45 RPM 7" vinyl released in the US with the specific catalog code of "1974-S" all released in the same year by the same recording company A&M Records

How am i supposed to know which release should be added to (Everytime I Turn Around) Back in Love Again / Material Things (Q131520654)? Trade (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC) (Not gonna lie, i have no clue how you manage to keep track of so many releases with identical titles)Reply

Since we're (generally speaking) not allowed to use cover art in most cases, I simply don't think it's any point in trying to maintain release variants / pressings with only visual or other extremely tiny differences. If all that is different is the cover art, pressing plant, etc. and the tracklist is otherwise identitical, then I treat them as the same release.
Discogs is heavily skewed towards collectors, sometimes with huge sums of money separating one variant from another, so their focus is a little different.
What I do in these situations is to add all the Discogs release IDs that for all practical purposes are the same. A Wikidata single release can also have multiple MusicBrains release IDS if it's only a visual difference in the MB db.
45cat is an example of a database of vinyl singles that uses "our" style of modelling. Moebeus (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I should also mention that I normally try to not mix promo copies from Discogs in with the regular releases. Unless a single only came out as a promo, I don't spend time time on it, our backlog of regular releases is long enough. Moebeus (talk) 14:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Which backlog are you referring to? Trade (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
So in short, if a release variant does not exist outside of Discog then it's probably not worth adding Trade (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
For something else, am i correct in assuming this album is instrumental? I find it difficult to tell if the background noise is from a vocalist or just the instruments Trade (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
You don't have to assume, there is a source for it: Alatyr - Zemou zabudnutia - Encyclopaedia Metallum:
This album is without vocals due to the dissatisfaction of the original vocal mix Moebeus (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any suggestion on what to do with Vocaloid music? I cant figure out who to place as the performer of The Fox's Wedding (Remake) (Q131106186) (MASA WORKS DESIGN (Q131105797) (they are the Vocaloid-P (Q85873795)), Hatsune Miku (Q112748598) (VOCALOID software), Hatsune Miku (Q552682) (VOCALOID character) or Saki Fujita (Q1066065) (voice actor for Miku)--Trade (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm no expert on vocaloid, I would suggest mimicing what MusicBrainz does, more people over there invested in the genre who have already done much of the heavy lifting in terms of modelling? Moebeus (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Doesnt seem like they have done anything for Vocaloids specifically. Looking at Masa Works' Musicbrainz profile specifically it's essentially just a 1-1 copy of his Spotify page with little in the way of modeling. likely just scraped from the site itself Trade (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Any protests over this change? Feels like a more appropriate qualifier to use in this case--Trade (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is it appropriate of me to use director and manufacturer on Green, Green / The Banjo (Q11300529)? I presume so given the constraint errors--Trade (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I wish you wouldn't use "role named in credits as", it doesn't make sense on this class of entity. And even if it did, does role named in credits as = "by" add any value? I don't think that it does.
director does not belong on singles or albums, and is indeed inappropriate as indicated by the constraint warning. I'm assuming the property you are looking for is either musical conductor or choral conductor? Moebeus (talk) 13:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
When you say "this class of entity" are you referring to singles specifically? Trade (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
singles, albums, EPs. These are groupings of releases, and there isn't anything printed on them that can be verified. If you're going to use it, it should be on a single release, album release, EP release etc.
This is why I was hesitant to vote for the property proposal. Moebeus (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
I will take a look at the issue the coming week since it bothers you. In the meantime would you mind giving your input to the latest Music identifier proposals? Trade (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2025-03

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 01:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2025-04

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 01:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Axel F (Axel F (Q113532005))

edit

I must say i am bit confused about this being marked as an instrumental track. May i ask what your reasoning was? Trade (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The original is an instrumental and my ears started bleeding after listening to "ring ding ding bem bem ring ring ding ding bem aaaam da rem bam da da" for twenty seconds? That would be my guess :)
If any actual lyrics are sung then just channge it to a vocal track, I am happy for any mistakes I've made to be corrected. Moebeus (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Do you agree that all of these statements should be moved to distribution format (P437)? --Trade (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
That query is timing out for me. What are you looking to do and how is it related to Axel F? It's easier for me to follow a discussion if you start a new thread when you change the subject. Moebeus (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Got it. Here's the statements Trade (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I see. Yes, these certainly need to be moved, but there's too many of them for me to confidently say the should all be moved to distribution format, looks like at least some belong in "has quality"? I'll spend a little more time spot testing just to make sure if that's okay with you. Moebeus (talk) 12:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Merging music videos

edit

Do these music videos deserve seperate items in your opinion? Could not decide myself on it --Trade (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Generally speaking, if the audio track is different (like, if sung in different languages), then yes, they need to be separate items. Music videos are part of the music model, each are assigned a unique ISRC identifier, and as such are in a weird spot between an audio track and a short film.
If someone wanted to expand on the model they could possibly massage it so that three music video items all share the same visual (a hypothetical 4th item then, handled by Project Film?) but I'll leave that for others to decide, I try to stay focused on the music. Moebeus (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply


Tech News: 2025-05

edit

MediaWiki message delivery 22:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply