On 23/03/2008, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Chris B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 22/03/2008, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 5:53 PM, Chris B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 22/03/2008, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Chris B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 21/03/2008, Frederic Da Vitoria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > If you generalized this procedure, how would you enter > (in the current > > > > > > > > > state of the MB database) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://musicbrainz.org/release/86a78b3d-08d6-4b42-990b-30463b66fc98.html > > > > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My mail concerned Bach passions. It is not so common to > mention the BWVs > > > > > > > > for them (and I know I have Händel oratorios which do not > mention the > > > > > > > > HWVs - I recently checked some - yet this is *never* a > problem). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, you know that this is contrary to the CSG? > > > > > > > > > > > > the un-agreed on CSG! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, actually, it's also contrary to the *official* CSG, massively > > > > > outdated as that guideline is. > > > > > > > > The *old* CSG was never 'officialised', as far as i know. > > > > > > > > > Let's not start down the path of trying to claim CSG was never more > > > than a proposal, like gets claimed when we discuss SoundtrackStyle... > > > > > > http://musicbrainz.org/doc/ClassicalStyleGuide > > > > > > "Status: This is the currently official version of the Classical Style > Guide." > > > > > > CSG was last revised and made official in December 2006. > > > > well it's not been made official...properly. it never went through the > > process (we've always had a process). anyone saying it's 'official' > > back in december did it in good faith, i'm sure, but i don't recall it > > ever going through the process. > > > > i'm not saying it has no weight, as a lot of guidelines that are worth > > following never made it through the process, but there you go. anyway, > > does this really matter? > > > I'll not quibble much over "process" - you're using that as if it > means one single method, whereas we all know the means for anything to > become official has been continually changing...
i know it means various processes, but there always was one. i've been here since it was the styledude, and then the council, and now the current system. > Not to be totally sidetracked, though, the point here you may think is > unimportant, but I would disagree. If we go around saying that this > or that guideline is unofficial just because it never went through > this or that proposal process, we'll never get anything done. > Partially, esp with regards to CSG, the reason I reacted is because I > have myself run into situations where even autoeditors have made the > claim that "that guideline isn't technically official, so we're free > to disregard it". Open that door for classical, and we'll have chaos, > where what I think we all would love is to find a way to make both > sets of classical guidelines, for tracks and works, happen. > > So let's not nitpick on the degree of "officialness" in guidelines - > imho, it's either official, or it's not, whatever process was used to > get it there. If it says in a doc that's now 16 months old "This is > official", then take that at its word, let's not go searching for > excuses why it's maybe only 93.746% official. :P well then it's *not* official! it's not any % official! as far as i can tell, someone said it was official when a re-write was happening, so we can highlight what the 'old' CSG was, but the old CSG was never official to start with. history fans: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2004-January/004406.html - but i don't think tarragon was styledude at this point, it was still neil. moreover, it never made it into the old guidelines until long after, as far as i can tell. at that stage the wiki was 'unofficial' like i said, it's not important. either way, the whole thing is being re-written. if it stemmed from a consensus (which it did) then it is/was worth following. but it never mentioned anything about HWVs or whatever! _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
