First obvious bit: there's no need to insist on "*Recording* Title" and "*Recording* Artist" when we're already in Style/Recording. No other Style/Entity page does that.
I see you're still insisting in changing the guideline for recording artist at the same time, even though that's an unrelated change. I really would prefer to see that changed separately, if at all. "A disambiguation comment should be used to identify distinguishing features of a recording where two or more recordings share the same name" is a bit weird - shouldn't it at least be the same name *and artist*? I'm not sure what the point of the sentence is in general anyway to be honest. Is it just that you thought you needed to say something general before the particular live recordings bit? If we don't have a specific guideline for comments on non-live releases, we don't need to say anything about them. Note also that in moving the live recording thing to a Disambiguation section you dropped the part of the guideline that says "(live) isn't part of the recording title, which means the guideline has changed. I imagine this is not the wanted result. What is the problem with keeping this on its own "Specific types of recordings" section anyway? Is there any reason why "recording" is sometimes capitalised around the page? I'd just keep it always lowercase. The parts that actually *are* on topic seem generally good to me. I think the "Number of Audio Channels" bit adds unnecessary complexity to it and that we should merge them (it also goes against the way almost all our hybrid SACDs have been entered, with one medium and one tracklist to represent the whole thing). But the other paragraphs seem perfectly fine. On the Merging Recordings section, "Different volume fades at either or end of multiple tracks" seems like it needs a proofread :)
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
