I guess you're right. It doesn't matter if it's legally water-tight as long as it's entirely clear what is expected of editors. If people don't want to read the rules or deliberately misinterpret them they will!
On 16 April 2013 16:14, symphonick <symphon...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2013/4/16 Tom Crocker <tomcrockerm...@gmail.com> > >> I don't know how many entries I get: >> In MusicBrainz, a Recording is an audio track or the result of mixing >> and/or editing one or more audio tracks. >> >> My only worry with this (and possibly the others) is that we might be >> letting in remastering etc. by the back door. The usage examples would >> cover it but I'm not sure the definition does (but can't think straight >> enough to decide). >> > > If we add masters to the remaster-exception, I think we're good. IMO it's > not totally unreasonable to ask editors to read the entire page. > "New recordings should not be created for different masters/remasters." > and so on. > > /symphonick > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style >
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
