On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria <davito...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 2013/7/7 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <reosare...@gmail.com> > >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <davito...@gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>> 2013/6/30 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <reosare...@gmail.com> >>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria < >>>> davito...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 2013/6/27 Tom Crocker <tomcrockerm...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>>> Looks much better to me >>>>>> >>>>>> On 26 June 2013 22:32, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren < >>>>>> reosare...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Tom Crocker < >>>>>>> tomcrockerm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm guessing that the guidance on case isn't meant to be different >>>>>>>> between ETI in general and remixes. Beyond the pointer to the oc remix >>>>>>>> series does the remix section need to be there? Isn't it covered above >>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>> could be if you put "(e.g. edit or (re)mix)" after the trackversion >>>>>>>> link? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Er... now that you mention it, it does seem quite redundant. I've >>>>>>> merged it all into 4 paragraphs, and I'd say it looks much more readable >>>>>>> now: >>>>>>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Titles/Extra_title_information >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Opinions? I won't fully reset the RFC since I didn't actually remove >>>>>>> stuff as much as reposition it, but I'll extend it a few days to Jun 30. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I'm still missing something about recordings. Is this supposed to >>>>> apply to recordings or not? Your answer from june 13 seems to imply >>>>> recordings are included. If so, I think it should be mentioned. The >>>>> problem >>>>> I see is that some users could think that they should use this for >>>>> recordings too while other users may think not, and pointless edit >>>>> discussions might ensue. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right now, no - that's why it explicitly mentions just tracks and >>>> releases. Recordings are trickier since a) we don't have guidelines for >>>> that now at all, except for the "live" comment thing, and b) they do have >>>> disambiguation fields which means they will probably be dealt with >>>> differently sometimes. So I was hoping to just improve the existing >>>> guidelines, and leave the recording part of this to someone who has a >>>> stronger opinion about it than I have - "er, dunno, do whatever I guess?" >>>> isn't a great guideline text :) >>>> >>> >>> I understand this. What I meant is that I'm missing the mention that >>> this does not currently apply to recordings. I think this should be written >>> here. >>> >> >> I don't know. I don't really like the idea of writing what the guideline >> does not apply to when it already says what it does apply to - but do other >> people find this confusing? Maybe I should do it whether I like it or not, >> if it is. >> > > Put yourself in the shoes of a newbie or of a distracted user (such as me > :-P ) You are looking for Recordings ETI. Currently, the most obvious page > where ETI is mentioned is this one, no pages is about ETI for Recordings, > this one does not say that it does not apply to Recordings, so the user > would probably apply this guide. I don't think it would hurt much, because > the Recordings ETI guide will probably be close to this. Perhaps adding a > mention that this applies to Release and Track titles *only* would be > better than just saying it does not apply to Recordings. > Hmm, I guess you're right. I've added a note, does that seem and read OK? -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
