On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 10:39 PM, Sheamus Patt <musicbrainz.r...@ncf.ca>wrote:
> On 03/11/2013 09:47 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > > 2013/3/11 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <reosare...@gmail.com> > >> The guidelines for type on http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Release_Groupare >> incorrect now that we have compilation as a secondary type that doesn't >> have to be selected on its own. >> I propose changing that section to what you can see in >> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Release_Group#Type >> >> Expected RFV date is Mar 18. >> Ticket at http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-199 >> > > The Type section starts with a sentence about secondary types, my first > reaction was: "what happened to primary types?" I believe it should at > least first explain that there are Primary types and secondary types. > Further explanations would probably be more for a user guide than for a > style guide. > > > I had the same reaction. Even if the details are found on the linked style > page, this paragraph should say something about Type first. Perhaps: > > Type defines the overall layout of the release. Any secondary types ... > > (I don't particularly like 'Layout' here, but 'format' means something > else; maybe someone else can think up a better term). > Style pages aren't the place where we explain what stuff *is*, we've never done that before at least - see http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Release I mean, I could add a line saying "There are no specific guidelines for primary types", it just seems a bit pointless to be but if people think that's useful or clearer... -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
