2014-01-27 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <reosare...@gmail.com> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria > <davito...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> 2014-01-27 Brant Gibbard <bgibb...@ca.inter.net> >> >> Not meaning to be a wet blanket, but I’ve just managed to located one of >>> my CDs (Deutsche Gramophon) that does translate Tonmeister into other >>> languages. The results are most unfortunate! >>> >>> >>> >>> Before the name of the engineer being credited is this quadrilingual >>> statement: >>> >>> >>> >>> “Tonmeister / Recording Engineer / Ingénieur du son / Ingegnere del >>> suono” >>> >>> >>> >>> Thus two of the four language versions use something reminiscent of >>> Sound Engineer, which of course is a completely distinct MB term, and >>> another uses Recording Engineer, again a distinct MB term. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Brant Gibbard >>> Toronto, ON >>> http://bgibbard.ca >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto: >>> musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] *On Behalf Of *Frederic >>> Da Vitoria >>> *Sent:* January-27-14 11:24 AM >>> *To:* MusicBrainz Style Discussion >>> *Subject:* Re: [mb-style] RFC [STYLE-290] Add Balance engineer >>> relationshiptype >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-01-27 ListMyCDs <musicbra...@listmycds.com> >>> >>> On 27.1.2014 18:05, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: >>> > This RFC is to add Balance engineer to the Engineer relationship types. >>> > Balance engineers are often named in classical releases and just >>> > entering them as "engineer" seems to be losing valuable information. >>> >>> +1 for this RFC. >>> >>> >>> >>> I forgot to give a link to the wiki: >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:DavitoF/Balance_engineer_AR >>> >>> The link sentences were copied from >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:DavitoF/Balance_engineer_AR . I'd feel >>> more comfortable if someone who knows English better than me would check >>> them. >>> >>> Also note that the original RFC separated balance engineer from >>> Tonmeister. I suggest that MB does not need this distinction, especially >>> since many releases seem to consider those as equivalent. >>> >> >> I suppose this could happen with other engineering types. This means >> we'll have to take this type of situation into account. I suggest something >> like: "In case of conflicting engineering types, prefer the one of the >> original release language, usually the first language in the order of >> translations". >> > > Wouldn't "In case of conflicting engineering types, use just 'engineer'" > make more sense? >
Yes probably. I edited the wiki accordingly. -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
