On 25/02/2008, Kuno Woudt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 09:44:39PM +0000, Chris B wrote: > > On 25/02/2008, Kuno Woudt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > i disagree with the use of 'style' here. > > > Please then discuss that in a seperate RFC. This definition has > existed in this form since atleast 2005. I am merely giving it > a less confusing name. > > To re-iterate: > > > > > NOTE: This RFC is merely intended to clear up the confusing > > > surrounding ConsistentOriginalData. It attempts to clarify > > > current practice. Any changes to the wording or the meaning > > > of either page will have to be discussed seperetaly, it is not > > > part of this RFC and I will not partake in any such discussion > > > at this time. >
ok, well provided the two separated pages are still classed as category OpenStyleIssue i suppose it makes no difference :) however i now don't see the point of 'ConsistantData'. 'original' and 'official' mean the same thing in this context (ie the source are explicitly or implicitly endorsed by the artist). what you're putting in ConsistantData originally only applied to *original* (official) data, so i don't think renaming the page is appropriate here - in fact i think it makes it a lot more ambiguous (removes the nature of the data source from the wikiname) rename ConsistantOriginalData to ConsistantOfficialData makes sense to me, but otherwise i don't see what the conflict is between what the StylePrinciple says and ConsistantOfficialData says (other than the fact the former is slightly more ambiguous, but then the latter never got fleshed out - see my suggested amendment on http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ConsistentOriginalData ). _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
