On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Andii Hughes <gnu_and...@member.fsf.org>wrote:
> On 21 July 2011 00:53, Ryan Torchia <anarchyr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Andii Hughes <gnu_and...@member.fsf.org > > > > wrote: > >> > >> Please be advised that vetoing this proposal will retain the current > >> recording guideline of including 'feat.' crediting in the track title > >> for recordings and release groups. > >> I have seen no-one in favour of this position during the RFC stage, > >> but yet there have been explicit intentions to veto from some on > >> indeterminate grounds. > > > > I would definitely prefer sticking to the current practice over moving it > to > > the artist field at any level. These generally aren't collaborations; > > they're guest appearances. It would be more accurate to leave the (feat. > > Blah) comment attached to the recording name or release name than > attaching > > it to the artist. > > > > Are you planning to veto on this basis? I don't think your dislike > should count as a veto, > but if it does, then under the current system, your preference > overrules everyone else's. > > This is why I'd personally prefer we had majority voting on guidelines > as everywhere else. > That seems a bit harsh. This is a major change to the DB structure, and I don't think there's anything wrong in taking a little more time to see if this is the best solution. Anyway, I'll respond to the second RFV, so the discussion is a little less cluttered. --Torc.
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
