On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is how things look like from my (modest, "lambasting") corner: > 1. the bulk of classical releases in the database is still an > horrible mess, a shameful mass of freedb like pile of **** (which > confirms my opinion that classical editors are lazy :-]) - at least > from my experience of it, which is: *each time* I hit a French > composer
> > 2. the main page of the official documentation (ClassicalStyleGuide) > was transcluded back during one of the previous Classical Raving > Werewolves Full Moon Night, *two years ago*, and hasn't been updated > since. This was made (supposedly) so that the CSGGeeks can sort out > their things and produce a new revision. I let you contemplate the > massive effort they put in doing that in two years, here: > > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalStyleGuide?action=diff&rev2=49&rev1=40 Hey, you are cheating. You are forgetting OperaTrackStyle. <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalStyleGuide?action=diff&rev2=49&rev1=40>3. The Classical part of the documentation is the *one and only* part > of the documentation where the amount of discussion and proposals > exceed the amount of official documentation I agree. But I believe this should be expected. After all, there are only a few classical editors to handle several hundred years of music which was never thought to be stored in a database (the only limit was probably the time it took for a candle to bun), and is mostly public domain (which means unregulated). OTOH most of modern music is heavily formatted to fit into commercial constraints, and is still handled by legal systems. > 4. Most of the CSG documentation is in an horrible shape, with mix of > brain-dumps, completely outdated stuff and random free-wheel > "agreements" that a pair of editors make in dark corners and decide to > apply without any proper approval - just look at > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalMusic which supposedly is the > *homepage* for all that "doc" > 5. Even the pages that did actually suffered enhancements during the > past two years are in a completely impossible to read state - not even > speaking about editing it - (and I'm supposed to be a *major* > WikiContributor, used to the kinda awkward formating) see > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalTrackTitleStyle for example Hey, this is not awkward, I feel this to be clearer than box-less indentation. 6. A handful of classical editors are making decisions (good!) and > think that's enough to make things official (bad!). If it was > discussed in http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalStyleGuideDiscussion > (*or even worse, in EditNotes*), then that's good, let's make it the > new way to go! And let's tell newbies that the Official documentation > no longer apply and that they ought to rather follow what they are > told by the vigilantes, or be voted down! Yes, I saw this happen and this is terrible. > 7. I'm under the impression that the late discussions on the style > list completely forgot the *current* *reality* of that nice database > we have, and pretended that we were having something else (possibly > NGS) and that we should act and discuss accordingly Hmm, what are you referring to? Now, I'm concerned about the following points, which I would really > like that you, fine Classical Editors, sort out: > 1. Your documentation *sucks* big time. Not because you haven't > thought (or discussed) enough about things, but because you're not > actually turning these into reality (eg: documentation) > 2. The attitude consisting in telling people in edit notes that the > doc ought not to be followed but rather some unwritten knowledge hold > by a pair of senior editors is extremely bad - the least reason for > that being that whenever these seniors will take vacation, the > "knowledge" will vanish > 3. All these discussions are for a good part disconnected from > reality. Reality being: the classical releases in the db are in bad > shape (IMHO, largely worth than what we have in other sections of the > database), and we have a somewhat limited system right now that > doesn't allow (yet!) for all the fancy super things you have in mind - > learn to live with it! Worse, I agree, but I don't think we can realistically expect much better until NGS comes. Hence my (very modest, bashing) suggestion would be: what about > focusing on trying to find a decent, reality based *compromise* about > things, so that you could actually make the official documentation > evolve *incrementally*, and be actually *of any use* for these who > don't like to read your kilometers-long half-sensical chitchat? :-] > > The problem currently is *not* what MusicBrainz could be in the future > (if you're intersted in that, just go to > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalFuture and stay there! :D), but > rather how to turn your mess of releases and documentation into > something better. You are only half-right IMO. Both are linked. If we work as if NGS was never to happen, I believe we will agree on different style rules than if we believe it will. I agree we should stay pragmatic, though. > This mail, Dear Classical Editors, contains fun (bashing) parts which > doesn't call for an answer. If you really feel it's not that fun, and > got hurt, I sincerely apologize. If you feel it's not that fun, and > think I deserve insults for it, mail them privately please - there is > enough traffic on #style :-]. > > > If you actually found the funny parts funny, and agree that there is > some truth in what I wrote, then maybe **WE** could move onto the > first step to sanity: > Turn http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalTrackTitleStyle into a > *concise*, *helpful*, *up-to-date*, **adequate**, *manageable*, and > not too controversial page. > > > Actually, in any case, there is no need to answer that mail at all :-). > > > Good style decisions are not the one that satisfy the über-puristic > views of a handful of persons dealing with *a couple of releases*, but > these which actually help the majority of people enhance the overall > quality of the database. > No insults, but this definitely needs an answer. And a discussion. -- Frederic Da Vitoria
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
