On 4 August 2011 07:24, voiceinsideyou <chad.wil...@gmx.net> wrote: > Given the manner with which I quit mb-style 18 months ago, please consider > the mental effort it has taken for me to rejoin for the purpose of putting > my utmost weight behind this most sensible proposal. > > +1 >
Thanks! It is VERY much appreciated. At the moment, I can very much understand why you would quit... > Also worth noting > > drsaunde +1 on http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?pid=14774#p14774 > moss +1 (not explicit) > > I personally think this is best done alongside RFC/V-333 (which I also > wholeheartedly support) as having different feat style on tracks to > recordings will just be impossible to maintain (especially with most editors > adding recordings automatically via the RE) and immensely confusing to newer > editors. I agree. I want to see 333 go forward to. I think the current situation is more of a problem as currently it seems to be assumed that track listings are 'as on release' which means using feat. in the artist credits (at least that's the edits I've seen). So getting this RFV through would bring recordings and track listings back in line again. But yeah we definitely need to sort out the difference between the two. > > Chad / voiceinsideyou > > -- > View this message in context: > http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV327-Featured-artists-tp3706578p3717774.html > Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > -- Andii :-) _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
