Musical Album

The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle: Either delete or split / merge

2008-05-14T17:41:41.0007Z

I don't think we even need to split. I think we can just remove the album type from the topic (it was added by a bot and has no properties associated with it). The article can then be merged with the other film article.

The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle: Either delete or split / merge

2008-05-14T16:52:51.0000Z

Split, don’t delete. This has important Wikipedia keys associated with it, and should not be nuked.

The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle: Either delete or split / merge

2008-05-14T14:55:49.0012Z

There are already separate topic entries for the record and film of this name, this entry duplicates them.

If we think that one topic should include the album and the film, then all of them should be merged together.

If we think that the album and topic should be separate, then we should split this topic into its respective types and then merge the splits with the other entries ... or just delete this entry if we don't think there's any unique data in it.

Complicated enough for you? ;-)

Look Mom, No Head!: Merge into the 12-track album

2008-04-30T18:50:02.0012Z

The 12-track version of this album should probably be the winning album topic. 12-track LPs were released in 1991 in several countries, but I've only found evidence of one 13-track release, which was the US CD, also from 1991.

Roadrunner United: Split album and supergroup

2008-04-24T21:19:59.0012Z

MusicBrainz considers “Roadrunner United” a group with an album called “The All-Star Sessions.” This topic needs to be split between the group and the album, and the MusicBrainz album merged back in.

Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me: Same album?

2008-04-21T18:51:36.0007Z

I say yes. The cassette release included an extra track ("Hey You!") that wasn't on the CD, but it's essentially the same album. Bonus tracks like this shouldn't result in separate album topics, I don't think.

Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me: Same album?

2008-04-20T22:01:14.0012Z

One album has 1 extra track, but essentially the track order and release date are similar. Should this be merged with /guid/9202a8c04000641f8000000002fa8828?

Zombies! Aliens! Vampires! Dinosaurs! And More!: Don't Merge

2008-04-19T20:15:12.0007Z

No, please do merge. Their releases should be distinct, but IMO, it’s the same essential album.

Zombies! Aliens! Vampires! Dinosaurs! And More!: Don't Merge

2008-04-19T09:54:24.0032Z

My bad, they're distinct albums. This one is a rerelease with additional songs.

Self-Titled: Merge?

2008-04-07T23:57:39.0025Z

Different tracks; don't merge

Trephine: Merge?

2008-04-07T23:57:39.0012Z

Different tracks; don't merge

Dream On (bonus disc): Merge?

2008-04-07T21:01:31.0025Z

Don't merge -- they have different tracks

Dream On (disc 2): Merge?

2008-04-07T21:01:31.0012Z

Don't merge -- they have different tracks

This Bliss: Why delete?

2008-03-26T15:02:58.0012Z

Unsure of why this is marked for delete - if someoe has a reason, please post it.

Musical Album: Review Fields for albums

2007-05-04T23:53:30.0006Z

Yep - they sure will. What you can do is create a music review type in your private domain to experiment with this. You can create a private type by going to the "My profile" page and adding the new type to the "types created" list. After adding a new type, click on it to edit its schema. The schema editor is fairly complex, but since this type is private, you can experiment without breaking anything.

Here's one possible schema for the type Music Review:

- reviewer [type: Music Reviewer]
- review blurb [type: text]
- rating (1 = worst, 5=best) [type:integer, or type:float if you want to allow 2.5, 3.5, etc)
- reviewed album [type: Musical Album]

Note that you don't need to add a title field for your review because the display name property is already there on the type you created.

Once you've created this type, you can create a new instance of it - a review. Give the review a name, fill in the fields, and you're done.

I've glossed over how to create the type "Music Reviewer," but I hope this gives you enough ideas to start experimenting. Also, look at how other types are structured by editing them. Don't worry about breaking any public schema - since you don't own them, your changes won't be saved in edit mode.

Musical Album: Review Fields for albums

2007-05-04T15:09:56.0012Z

Being new to Freebase, I'm not sure how to do this myself (I doubt I can without Admin access), the the Musical Album/Release/Track types should have fields for Reviews... I'm quite sure people will want to read critical praise/flames about albums they are perusing.

Musical Album: I've added a link back to Musical Release

2007-03-02T23:19:21.0012Z

Musical releases are like versions of an album, it will be useful for someone to be able to view a release list for a particular album.

Musical Album: Previous Release?

2007-02-08T01:05:02.0006Z

I agree. I've hidden these properties for now. We can bring them back if they become useful, or garden them out if they don't.

Musical Album: Previous Release?

2007-02-08T00:20:03.0011Z

The "previous release" and "next release" properties don't make sense to me. First, they encode ordering redundantly -- one can generate a time-ordered list of releases. Second, they are very unlikely to be filled in (because of the first issue), so they will never be queryable in any meaningful way.

I recommend hiding them as they only clutter the display and will probably not be useful to API users because of data sparseness.