2011/7/14 Ryan Torchia <anarchyr...@gmail.com> > > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria > <davito...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> 2011/7/13, Ryan Torchia <anarchyr...@gmail.com>: >> > On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria >> > <davito...@gmail.com>wrote: >> > >> >> From my non-English's point of view, I prefer "with" to "With", >> >> precisely because it is different. I always find disturbing that there >> >> is no way to distinguish what we add to titles / names from what was >> >> actually in those titles / names. >> >> >> > The thing is, when "with" is used, it's because that's what was actually >> > used on the release (or track). It's never something we add; we default >> to >> > "&" as a joiner for collaborations if there isn't another word used. >> >> Hmm, you must have missed my second post :-) >> > > I saw it, but maybe didn't parse it correctly at the time. Still, it begs > the question, if "they" added it, why wouldn't it be part of the "real > name"? There's some measure of artist intent if the word "with" is used > rather than "and" or "&". Should we capitalize "with" differently in a name > like "Nurse With Wound" than we would in "The Dillinger Escape Plan With > Mike Patton"? Or if we assume the opposite, that "with" is just added > information, should we just normalize "with" to "&" (or "and")? >
Ok, sorry, I didn't read correctly your answer :-) Good point. -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
