I think that artist pages/sites that carry streaming music are covered well enough by other ARs to official sites/myspace etc. As you say, most artists sites will offer streaming, but the location of the streaming might be such that it's impossible to link to (a java player that sits on every page, for example) or they don't have much longevity/stability as URLs. The intention here is to link to services rather than artist sites. So I'd say yes, it does need a whitelist. And I think Jamendo and Archive.org are good additions. I would say that Wikimedia commons content is a bit patchy and also covered by the standard Wikipedia entry URL?
best Peter ________________________________ From: musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] On Behalf Of Brian Schweitzer Sent: 20 August 2010 10:57 To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFV: - 'Add Music can be streamed for free at' Does this AR really need a whitelist? Many labels' and artists' pages that I run across these days are have streaming music. Isn't it a fair assumption to think that, if a label or artist is providing streamed music, it's safe to assume they'd want people to know about it - ie, to link back to them? Yet going through the whole permission whitelisting and RFC for each and every such URL would be sufficiently troublesome that I know I'd never do it. Re non-artist/label streaming sites, I'd also suggest Jamendo, Wikimedia Commons, and Archive.org be added to that list. Re the wording, I'd agree that "Artist music can be streamed for free at URL" is awkward. Perhaps "Artist has music which can be streamed for free at URL"? Brian On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Conkling <and...@andrewski.net> wrote: On Aug 18, 2010, at 10:40, Nikki wrote: > jacobbrett wrote: >> I think "Artist music can be streamed for free at URL" looks odd, shouldn't >> it be "Artist's music can be streamed for free at URL"? > > It's not possible to do that because link phrases always have a space > before and after. The download and purchase links use "<artist> music > can be ... at <url>" which is why I suggested the current wording. "<artist> has music that can be streamed for free at URL" sounds more natural, IMO. _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
