Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > Secondly, we're not "changing" the meaning of anything. The feature is > new; we're defining it for the first time. So don't paint it as if > someone is skewing the original developer intention of the concept - > that's not the case, and you're weasel wording. > > > "Bring together variant versions of an album into a single listing" > was the original intent. The proposed guideline respected this, even > to the point of specifically stating that different recordings of the > same show shouldn't have their RGs be merged. So how am I then > skewing anything? The wording in the guideline is quite clear, and > nothing in "variant versions of an album" encompasses "same concert", > "same book", etc.
Shall I remind you that _I_ wrote most of the guideline incorporating pronik, gioele and navap's work? The term "variant" isn't even on that page, so I don't know what you're talking about. The bootleg clause was inserted by navap, IIRC, based on maybe one or two people's comments on IRC or a talk page. That clause was never part of some "grand plan for RGs". > >From my perspective - you're trying to skew it to fit your own obscure > > view of what an RG is which lessons the utility to everyone else with > > > Obscure? My view is exactly what is written in the guideline, now. I'm talking about your argument about why recordings should be separate; that somehow they are not what an RG is for. It's foolish to invoke the current guideline as some sort of backup. The only reason that clause is still there in the guideline is because of your bitching on the talk page at the time. I didn't remove it because I wanted to write a guideline that had a hope in hell of passing initially; to be augmented and tidied up later. So much for that. > Define it then. "Same somethingness" is not a consistent definition, > and we've never defined any entity type using a different basis > depending on the type or status of the entity. Look brian, others have told you what it means to them about a thousand times. You don't listen. It's fundamentally subjective - it's music!? As for "we've never defined any entity type"; absolutely untrue. We debate often about whether a set of mp3s on an artist's website are NATs or a Release. We debate endlessly about whether a remaster should be a separate release to the original, or merged. This is no different an argument. From the other side's perspective, it's /you/ who are trying to treat live bootlegs differently. Trying to introduce now that you have to take into account the "recording". THAT's obscure to most people. > Well, I honestly feel that the Release Group concept is broken if we > decide it to be something which is subjective, and where the > definition differs, depending on the particular type, status (and > voters voting on that RG merge edit). I feel RGs can be quite useful, > and I see them as useful already, using the "same audio" defintion, > for albums. As of yet, I've seen no rationale provided for the > proposed confusing definition you want to use, except that it makes > the artist listing "cleaner". IMHO, "cleaner listings" vs "clearly > defined entity" and "easy and consistent applicability of the entity > definition, no matter the release type and status"... easy choice. I'm quite happy for you to think it's broken; since you flatly reject everyone else's arguments. Saying "no rationale provided" is plainly offensive to others who've actually bothered trying to debate with your brick wall. Chad _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
