2011/7/18 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <reosare...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Andii Hughes
snip... >> Ok, let's take a step back then. If the current guideline only >> applies to recordings, >> should I alter this proposal to also just concern recordings and release >> groups >> (i.e. the bit about moving the feat. part to the artist credit)? > > I think that would avoid any vetoes and allow us to go forward. We can > argue about tracks in another proposal :) Done; see the revised version at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Featured_Artists > Of course, some of the > questions still apply: is "con", that translates as "with" but is > sometimes used as "feat.", to be changed to "with"? to "feat."? :) > I don't really feel qualified to judge on these (the only ones I've ever seen are 'with' and 'feat.') and the previous guideline didn't cover them either. I'd say we need a separate guideline that maps them to either 'feat.' or ' & ' (collaboration) at recording level. For the featured artist proposal, the join terms are mandated as 'feat.' then ', ' and ' & ' for multiple featured artists. FWIW, 'with' sounds more like ' & ' than 'feat.' to me. -- Andii :-) _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
