Re: [mb-style] RFC: Capitalization Standard for Transliterations: rewrite + Chinese

[Philip Jägenstedt]

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 10:38, Brian Schweitzer
 wrote:
> 
>
>>>
>>> >> I don't understand what "For any capitalization not specified by the
>>> >> transliteration system" means. It sounds like some system could have
>>> >> partial capitalization rules and we fill in the rest. I also don't see
>>> >> the significance of the indentation. If there are scripts which would
>>> >> fall into the "other section" and don't use sentence capitalization,
>>> >> we should simply add a guideline for it. If we could simply refer to
>>> >> "the rules of transcription system", we wouldn't need any of the
>>> >> specific or general guidance at all, right?
>>> >
>>> > I guess that I'm missing something in what you intended by this then -
>>> > "Transliterated releases should be capitalized and otherwise conform to
>>> > the
>>> > rules of the transliteration system used."  Should the 'be capitalized
>>> > and
>>> > otherwise' bit just be cut out?
>>>
>>> Originally the idea was to say "Transliterated releases should be
>>> capitalized and otherwise conform to the rules of the transliteration
>>> system used." followed by "Oh, by the way, here's the rules for some
>>> common cases so that you don't have to figure out for yourself what
>>> the rules are" and then "No generic rules because they would be wrong
>>> in some case".
>>>
>>> However, you suggested some generalized guidance, and I'm pretty fine
>>> with having that, because if we find another language which shouldn't
>>> use sentence case when transliterated we could just add it to the list
>>> of specific guidelines.
>>>
>>> I saw that you reverted your change, any idea how to make it clearer
>>> still?
>>>
>>
> It was the remaining language which still specifies the capitalization of a
> transliteration scheme which confused me.  Perhaps simply trimming that
> sentence down to "Transliterated releases should conform to the rules of the
> transliteration system used.", taking out anything about capitalization in
> the scheme?

Is my last tweak OK? The whole guideline is now rather minimalistic
(which I like).

> Re what to limit it to, is there any reason it shouldn't apply to official
> transliterations?  If this is limited to pseudo-releases, then there remains
> no guidance for those.

Official transliterations are rare (at least for Chinese) and I think
they are not in any great need of style unification. With NGS just
around the corner, I don't want us to spend time normalizing these
just to change them back (or rather, forget to) after NGS.

In the rare case where the official transliteration is too horrible, I
think we can create a separate pseudo-release that fixes it.

Makes sense?

-- 
Philip Jägenstedt

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Capitalization Standard for Transliterations: rewrite + Chinese

[Brian Schweitzer]

> >> I don't understand what "For any capitalization not specified by the
>> >> transliteration system" means. It sounds like some system could have
>> >> partial capitalization rules and we fill in the rest. I also don't see
>> >> the significance of the indentation. If there are scripts which would
>> >> fall into the "other section" and don't use sentence capitalization,
>> >> we should simply add a guideline for it. If we could simply refer to
>> >> "the rules of transcription system", we wouldn't need any of the
>> >> specific or general guidance at all, right?
>> >
>> > I guess that I'm missing something in what you intended by this then -
>> > "Transliterated releases should be capitalized and otherwise conform to
>> the
>> > rules of the transliteration system used."  Should the 'be capitalized
>> and
>> > otherwise' bit just be cut out?
>>
>> Originally the idea was to say "Transliterated releases should be
>> capitalized and otherwise conform to the rules of the transliteration
>> system used." followed by "Oh, by the way, here's the rules for some
>> common cases so that you don't have to figure out for yourself what
>> the rules are" and then "No generic rules because they would be wrong
>> in some case".
>>
>> However, you suggested some generalized guidance, and I'm pretty fine
>> with having that, because if we find another language which shouldn't
>> use sentence case when transliterated we could just add it to the list
>> of specific guidelines.
>>
>> I saw that you reverted your change, any idea how to make it clearer
>> still?
>>
>>
> It was the remaining language which still specifies the capitalization of a
transliteration scheme which confused me.  Perhaps simply trimming that
sentence down to "Transliterated releases should conform to the rules of the
transliteration system used.", taking out anything about capitalization in
the scheme?

Re what to limit it to, is there any reason it shouldn't apply to official
transliterations?  If this is limited to pseudo-releases, then there remains
no guidance for those.

Brian
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Capitalization Standard for Transliterations: rewrite + Chinese

[Philip Jägenstedt]

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 01:54, Brian Schweitzer
 wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Philip Jägenstedt  wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 01:17, Brian Schweitzer
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Philip Jägenstedt 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 16:42, Brian Schweitzer
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Philip Jägenstedt 
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 15:10, Brian Schweitzer
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Philip Jägenstedt
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 04:37, Brian Schweitzer
>> >> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
>> >> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 03:39, Brian Schweitzer
>> >> >> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
>> >> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Foolip/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> replaces
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> See the changelog for each small change that led up to it.
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> Basically, I wanted to add rules for Chinese to be able to
>> >> >> >> >> >>> get
>> >> >> >> >> >>> rid
>> >> >> >> >> >>> of
>> >> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >> >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Chinese
>> >> >> >> >> >>> (not
>> >> >> >> >> >>> official) and found that the existing version was overly
>> >> >> >> >> >>> "blabbery"
>> >> >> >> >> >>> and had its fair share of spelling and capitalization (!)
>> >> >> >> >> >>> errors. I
>> >> >> >> >> >>> stripped it down quite a bit and made what I think are
>> >> >> >> >> >>> improvements.
>> >> >> >> >> >>> If anyone misses any specific part I can put it back in.
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > I don't think the old 'conventions' section was well done,
>> >> >> >> >> > but
>> >> >> >> >> > I
>> >> >> >> >> > do
>> >> >> >> >> > think
>> >> >> >> >> > there was benefit in demonstrating that transliteration does
>> >> >> >> >> > not
>> >> >> >> >> > just
>> >> >> >> >> > mean
>> >> >> >> >> > (anything but latin) -> Latin, since we tend to forget about
>> >> >> >> >> > that.
>> >> >> >> >> > E.g,
>> >> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> >> > removed examples of:
>> >> >> >> >> >     * Japanese to Cyrillic
>> >> >> >> >> >     * Cyrillic to Latin
>> >> >> >> >> >     * Latin to Cyrillic
>> >> >> >> >> >     * Hebrew to Latin
>> >> >> >> >> >     * Latin to Hebrew
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Would it be enough if I simply mentioned some odd variations
>> >> >> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> >> introductory sentence: "e.g. from Japanese to Latin, Latin to
>> >> >> >> >> Hebrew,
>> >> >> >> >> Cyrillic to Latin, etc." ?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Sure; I just think there should be some sort of explicit
>> >> >> >> > mention
>> >> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> > transliterations aren't simply "anything else" to Latin. :)
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > You've also pretty much turned it from a general guideline
>> >> >> >> >> > about
>> >> >> >> >> > transliterated releases into a Chinese and Japanese-specific
>> >> >> >> >> > guideline.
>> >> >> >> >> > That I would object to.  Even if the Chinese and Japanese
>> >> >> >> >> > guidelines
>> >> >> >> >> > were
>> >> >> >> >> > incredibly short, those shouldn't essentially take over the
>> >> >> >> >> > transliterations
>> >> >> >> >> > guideline.  (Reference
>> >> >> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Hebrew
>> >> >> >> >> > and
>> >> >> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Yiddish
>> >> >> >> >> > for
>> >> >> >> >> > similar
>> >> >> >> >> > short capitalization standards.)
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > Now, going off of
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Foolip/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
>> >> >> >> >> > , there appears to be more clarity, but really, unless
>> >> >> >> >> > you're
>> >> >> >> >> > dealing
>> >> >> >> >> > with
>> >> >> >> >> > Japanese or Chinese, there still isn't any guidance - so for
>> >> >> >> >> > Cyrillic
>> >> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> >> > Latin or Hangul to Latin - the other 2 transliterations I
>> >> >> >> >> > normally
>> >> >> >> >> > end
>> >> >> >> >> > up
>> >> >> >> >> > dealing with - there's only a definition th

Re: [mb-style] Public reprimand (was: RFV: Clarify order of precidence of guidelines and principles)

[Brian Schweitzer]

Robert and the community at large,

I am in complete agreement that the guidelines, principles, and other
documents say what Chad, others - and myself - agree that they say.

I won't waste everyone's time with a point by point on the entire debate.
I have attempted to be as open as possible to finding compromise, on the
assumption that everyone here is willing to work, civilly, towards
compromise when there is disagreement.  I agree that Chad is an important
part of the community.  My disagreement with Chad regards his arguments that
guidelines are just indications of unwritten concepts, rather than whatever
the text says.

Given the amount of effort we all expend working on the text of a guideline
and proposal, I feel that it disrespects the efforts of everyone here to
simply ignore any decisions the style council has already made regarding the
interpretation of a guideline or principle, or to decide that the text
should be ignored whenever it differs from someone's own concept of a
guideline as currently written.

Thus I said to Chad that "They do not mean what you say."  I would just as
equally say that they do not mean what *I* say.  They only mean what we
*all* say they mean, when we make a guideline or principle official.  An
editor reads the text of the principles and guidelines, and can only work
from that.  He doesn't have Chad, me, or anyone else sitting there to
explain what the guideline "really" means - witness the recent problems
Glenn ran in to.  If someone thinks the current consensus differs from what
the text says, then I feel that that person should propose to change the
text, not simply ignore the text or use text from some other page to
'override' the principle or guideline's own text.

Brian
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Public reprimand (was: RFV: Clarify order of precidenceof guidelines and principles)

[Fred Marchee]

This very much reflects my thoughts on this discussion. This kind of 
discussions was also the main reason why I stepped away for almost a year 
from Musicbrainz...

But I'am back and stil got years of data to enter. From other editors I know 
that editing on Musicbrainz is: Listening to music, browsing in your books / 
internet for info on specific subject, correcting date (make stupid mistakes 
;-) ) Editing is very relaxing and fun for a lot of us. Please keep it this 
way.

Fred (fred576)

- Original Message - 
From: "Robert Kaye" 
To: "MusicBrainz style discussion" 
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:14 PM
Subject: [mb-style] Public reprimand (was: RFV: Clarify order of 
precidenceof guidelines and principles)


>
> On Apr 8, 2010, at 7:18 AM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
>
> 
>
>>
>> Guidelines and principles say what they mean.  They do not mean what
>> you say.  Period.
>
> 
>
>> Ignoring your implication that I and others here have not done just
>> the same, as I think every one of us who cares about style would fit
>> your description.
>
> ( Preface: In 2006 during the great debate, I got hammered up and down
> for dealing with troublesome people in private. When I went public
> with the issues at hand and rejected Keschte as a developer many
> people where shocked as what was happening and how things came out of
> the blue. Having learned my lesson, I am taking the steps to reprimand
> troublesome parties in public. Please bear with me. )
>
> Brian,
>
> It is the duty of the style leader to drive consensus and stop back-
> and-forth arguments in order to drive the style process to a
> meaningful conclusion. Your statements and actions in the style
> process of the past few weeks have been anything but that. I know of
> two people who have taken a step away from MusicBrainz because of your
> actions. Thats two people who have spoken to me about this, which
> means there are several more people who have quietly stepped away from
> MusicBrainz because of you. Your actions are damaging this project.
>
> Let's take one quote from you as an example:
>
> >  They do not mean what you say.  Period.
>
> Voice is part of the community and working hard to improve the style
> process. The style guidelines ARE what he says and what others say.
> Its is your job to drive the community feedback process towards
> consensus. It is not your point to shut down contributors that do not
> agree with you.
>
> I'm going to have to ask you to start behaving like someone who is
> driving the community process towards consensus. You need to take your
> personal interests out of the process and be inclusionary of other
> people's feedback. If you fail to do so, I will have to ask you to
> step down as the style leader. And, please spare me the long drawn out
> arguments as to why your actions are right -- they are not.
>
> --
>
> --ruaokThe answer to whether or not something is a good idea
> should not be taken as an indication of whether I want to do it.
>
> Robert Kaye -- r...@eorbit.net --http://mayhem-chaos.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> 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

[mb-style] Public reprimand (was: RFV: Clarify order of precidence of guidelines and principles)

[Robert Kaye]

On Apr 8, 2010, at 7:18 AM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:



>
> Guidelines and principles say what they mean.  They do not mean what  
> you say.  Period.



> Ignoring your implication that I and others here have not done just  
> the same, as I think every one of us who cares about style would fit  
> your description.

( Preface: In 2006 during the great debate, I got hammered up and down  
for dealing with troublesome people in private. When I went public  
with the issues at hand and rejected Keschte as a developer many  
people where shocked as what was happening and how things came out of  
the blue. Having learned my lesson, I am taking the steps to reprimand  
troublesome parties in public. Please bear with me. )

Brian,

It is the duty of the style leader to drive consensus and stop back- 
and-forth arguments in order to drive the style process to a  
meaningful conclusion. Your statements and actions in the style  
process of the past few weeks have been anything but that. I know of  
two people who have taken a step away from MusicBrainz because of your  
actions. Thats two people who have spoken to me about this, which  
means there are several more people who have quietly stepped away from  
MusicBrainz because of you. Your actions are damaging this project.

Let's take one quote from you as an example:

 >  They do not mean what you say.  Period.

Voice is part of the community and working hard to improve the style  
process. The style guidelines ARE what he says and what others say.  
Its is your job to drive the community feedback process towards  
consensus. It is not your point to shut down contributors that do not  
agree with you.

I'm going to have to ask you to start behaving like someone who is  
driving the community process towards consensus. You need to take your  
personal interests out of the process and be inclusionary of other  
people's feedback. If you fail to do so, I will have to ask you to  
step down as the style leader. And, please spare me the long drawn out  
arguments as to why your actions are right -- they are not.

--

--ruaokThe answer to whether or not something is a good idea  
should not be taken as an indication of whether I want to do it.

Robert Kaye -- r...@eorbit.net --http://mayhem-chaos.net










___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Capitalization Standard for Transliterations: rewrite + Chinese

[Brian Schweitzer]

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Philip Jägenstedt  wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 01:17, Brian Schweitzer
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Philip Jägenstedt 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 16:42, Brian Schweitzer
> >>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Philip Jägenstedt 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 15:10, Brian Schweitzer
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <
> phi...@foolip.org>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 04:37, Brian Schweitzer
> >> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
> >> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 03:39, Brian Schweitzer
> >> >> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
> >> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Foolip/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>> replaces
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>> See the changelog for each small change that led up to it.
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >> >>> Basically, I wanted to add rules for Chinese to be able to
> >> >> >> >> >>> get
> >> >> >> >> >>> rid
> >> >> >> >> >>> of
> >> >> >> >> >>>
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Chinese
> >> >> >> >> >>> (not
> >> >> >> >> >>> official) and found that the existing version was overly
> >> >> >> >> >>> "blabbery"
> >> >> >> >> >>> and had its fair share of spelling and capitalization (!)
> >> >> >> >> >>> errors. I
> >> >> >> >> >>> stripped it down quite a bit and made what I think are
> >> >> >> >> >>> improvements.
> >> >> >> >> >>> If anyone misses any specific part I can put it back in.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > I don't think the old 'conventions' section was well done,
> but
> >> >> >> >> > I
> >> >> >> >> > do
> >> >> >> >> > think
> >> >> >> >> > there was benefit in demonstrating that transliteration does
> >> >> >> >> > not
> >> >> >> >> > just
> >> >> >> >> > mean
> >> >> >> >> > (anything but latin) -> Latin, since we tend to forget about
> >> >> >> >> > that.
> >> >> >> >> > E.g,
> >> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> >> > removed examples of:
> >> >> >> >> > * Japanese to Cyrillic
> >> >> >> >> > * Cyrillic to Latin
> >> >> >> >> > * Latin to Cyrillic
> >> >> >> >> > * Hebrew to Latin
> >> >> >> >> > * Latin to Hebrew
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Would it be enough if I simply mentioned some odd variations in
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> introductory sentence: "e.g. from Japanese to Latin, Latin to
> >> >> >> >> Hebrew,
> >> >> >> >> Cyrillic to Latin, etc." ?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Sure; I just think there should be some sort of explicit mention
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > transliterations aren't simply "anything else" to Latin. :)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > You've also pretty much turned it from a general guideline
> >> >> >> >> > about
> >> >> >> >> > transliterated releases into a Chinese and Japanese-specific
> >> >> >> >> > guideline.
> >> >> >> >> > That I would object to.  Even if the Chinese and Japanese
> >> >> >> >> > guidelines
> >> >> >> >> > were
> >> >> >> >> > incredibly short, those shouldn't essentially take over the
> >> >> >> >> > transliterations
> >> >> >> >> > guideline.  (Reference
> >> >> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Hebrewand
> >> >> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Yiddishfor
> >> >> >> >> > similar
> >> >> >> >> > short capitalization standards.)
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Now, going off of
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Foolip/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
> >> >> >> >> > , there appears to be more clarity, but really, unless you're
> >> >> >> >> > dealing
> >> >> >> >> > with
> >> >> >> >> > Japanese or Chinese, there still isn't any guidance - so for
> >> >> >> >> > Cyrillic
> >> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> >> > Latin or Hangul to Latin - the other 2 transliterations I
> >> >> >> >> > normally
> >> >> >> >> > end
> >> >> >> >> > up
> >> >> >> >> > dealing with - there's only a definition that they are
> >> >> >> >> > transliterations,
> >> >> >> >> > but
> >> >> >> >> > not any guidance to use sentence case/etc, ala
> >> >> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Yiddish.
> >> >> >> >> > There
> >> >> >> >> > wasn't
> >> >> >> >> > on the current page either, but if we're going to rewrite the
> >> >> >> >> > g

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Capitalization Standard for Transliterations: rewrite + Chinese

[Philip Jägenstedt]

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 01:17, Brian Schweitzer
 wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Philip Jägenstedt  wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 16:42, Brian Schweitzer
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Philip Jägenstedt 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 15:10, Brian Schweitzer
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Philip Jägenstedt 
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 04:37, Brian Schweitzer
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 03:39, Brian Schweitzer
>> >> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Foolip/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> replaces
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> See the changelog for each small change that led up to it.
>> >> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>> Basically, I wanted to add rules for Chinese to be able to
>> >> >> >> >>> get
>> >> >> >> >>> rid
>> >> >> >> >>> of
>> >> >> >> >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Chinese
>> >> >> >> >>> (not
>> >> >> >> >>> official) and found that the existing version was overly
>> >> >> >> >>> "blabbery"
>> >> >> >> >>> and had its fair share of spelling and capitalization (!)
>> >> >> >> >>> errors. I
>> >> >> >> >>> stripped it down quite a bit and made what I think are
>> >> >> >> >>> improvements.
>> >> >> >> >>> If anyone misses any specific part I can put it back in.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I don't think the old 'conventions' section was well done, but
>> >> >> >> > I
>> >> >> >> > do
>> >> >> >> > think
>> >> >> >> > there was benefit in demonstrating that transliteration does
>> >> >> >> > not
>> >> >> >> > just
>> >> >> >> > mean
>> >> >> >> > (anything but latin) -> Latin, since we tend to forget about
>> >> >> >> > that.
>> >> >> >> > E.g,
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > removed examples of:
>> >> >> >> >     * Japanese to Cyrillic
>> >> >> >> >     * Cyrillic to Latin
>> >> >> >> >     * Latin to Cyrillic
>> >> >> >> >     * Hebrew to Latin
>> >> >> >> >     * Latin to Hebrew
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Would it be enough if I simply mentioned some odd variations in
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> introductory sentence: "e.g. from Japanese to Latin, Latin to
>> >> >> >> Hebrew,
>> >> >> >> Cyrillic to Latin, etc." ?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Sure; I just think there should be some sort of explicit mention
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > transliterations aren't simply "anything else" to Latin. :)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> > You've also pretty much turned it from a general guideline
>> >> >> >> > about
>> >> >> >> > transliterated releases into a Chinese and Japanese-specific
>> >> >> >> > guideline.
>> >> >> >> > That I would object to.  Even if the Chinese and Japanese
>> >> >> >> > guidelines
>> >> >> >> > were
>> >> >> >> > incredibly short, those shouldn't essentially take over the
>> >> >> >> > transliterations
>> >> >> >> > guideline.  (Reference
>> >> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Hebrew and
>> >> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Yiddish for
>> >> >> >> > similar
>> >> >> >> > short capitalization standards.)
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Now, going off of
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Foolip/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
>> >> >> >> > , there appears to be more clarity, but really, unless you're
>> >> >> >> > dealing
>> >> >> >> > with
>> >> >> >> > Japanese or Chinese, there still isn't any guidance - so for
>> >> >> >> > Cyrillic
>> >> >> >> > to
>> >> >> >> > Latin or Hangul to Latin - the other 2 transliterations I
>> >> >> >> > normally
>> >> >> >> > end
>> >> >> >> > up
>> >> >> >> > dealing with - there's only a definition that they are
>> >> >> >> > transliterations,
>> >> >> >> > but
>> >> >> >> > not any guidance to use sentence case/etc, ala
>> >> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Yiddish .
>> >> >> >> > There
>> >> >> >> > wasn't
>> >> >> >> > on the current page either, but if we're going to rewrite the
>> >> >> >> > guideline,
>> >> >> >> > let's make it generalized, not so obviously
>> >> >> >> > Japanese/Chinese-specific.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> The entire guideline is actually "Transliterated releases should
>> >> >> >> be
>> >> >> >> capitalized and otherwise conform to the rules of the
>> >> >> >> transliteration
>> >> >> >> or romanization system used." Would you lik

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Capitalization Standard for Transliterations: rewrite + Chinese

[Brian Schweitzer]

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Philip Jägenstedt  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 16:42, Brian Schweitzer
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Philip Jägenstedt 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 15:10, Brian Schweitzer
> >>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Philip Jägenstedt 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 04:37, Brian Schweitzer
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Philip Jägenstedt <
> phi...@foolip.org>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 03:39, Brian Schweitzer
> >> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
> >> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Foolip/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> replaces
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> See the changelog for each small change that led up to it.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> Basically, I wanted to add rules for Chinese to be able to get
> >> >> >> >>> rid
> >> >> >> >>> of
> >> >> >> >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Chinese(not
> >> >> >> >>> official) and found that the existing version was overly
> >> >> >> >>> "blabbery"
> >> >> >> >>> and had its fair share of spelling and capitalization (!)
> >> >> >> >>> errors. I
> >> >> >> >>> stripped it down quite a bit and made what I think are
> >> >> >> >>> improvements.
> >> >> >> >>> If anyone misses any specific part I can put it back in.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I don't think the old 'conventions' section was well done, but I
> >> >> >> > do
> >> >> >> > think
> >> >> >> > there was benefit in demonstrating that transliteration does not
> >> >> >> > just
> >> >> >> > mean
> >> >> >> > (anything but latin) -> Latin, since we tend to forget about
> that.
> >> >> >> > E.g,
> >> >> >> > the
> >> >> >> > removed examples of:
> >> >> >> > * Japanese to Cyrillic
> >> >> >> > * Cyrillic to Latin
> >> >> >> > * Latin to Cyrillic
> >> >> >> > * Hebrew to Latin
> >> >> >> > * Latin to Hebrew
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Would it be enough if I simply mentioned some odd variations in
> the
> >> >> >> introductory sentence: "e.g. from Japanese to Latin, Latin to
> >> >> >> Hebrew,
> >> >> >> Cyrillic to Latin, etc." ?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Sure; I just think there should be some sort of explicit mention
> that
> >> >> > transliterations aren't simply "anything else" to Latin. :)
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > You've also pretty much turned it from a general guideline about
> >> >> >> > transliterated releases into a Chinese and Japanese-specific
> >> >> >> > guideline.
> >> >> >> > That I would object to.  Even if the Chinese and Japanese
> >> >> >> > guidelines
> >> >> >> > were
> >> >> >> > incredibly short, those shouldn't essentially take over the
> >> >> >> > transliterations
> >> >> >> > guideline.  (Reference
> >> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Hebrew and
> >> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Yiddish for
> >> >> >> > similar
> >> >> >> > short capitalization standards.)
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Now, going off of
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Foolip/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
> >> >> >> > , there appears to be more clarity, but really, unless you're
> >> >> >> > dealing
> >> >> >> > with
> >> >> >> > Japanese or Chinese, there still isn't any guidance - so for
> >> >> >> > Cyrillic
> >> >> >> > to
> >> >> >> > Latin or Hangul to Latin - the other 2 transliterations I
> normally
> >> >> >> > end
> >> >> >> > up
> >> >> >> > dealing with - there's only a definition that they are
> >> >> >> > transliterations,
> >> >> >> > but
> >> >> >> > not any guidance to use sentence case/etc, ala
> >> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Yiddish .
> >> >> >> > There
> >> >> >> > wasn't
> >> >> >> > on the current page either, but if we're going to rewrite the
> >> >> >> > guideline,
> >> >> >> > let's make it generalized, not so obviously
> >> >> >> > Japanese/Chinese-specific.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The entire guideline is actually "Transliterated releases should
> be
> >> >> >> capitalized and otherwise conform to the rules of the
> >> >> >> transliteration
> >> >> >> or romanization system used." Would you like this to be in bold,
> >> >> >> would
> >> >> >> like the guideline to say something else or do you just want me to
> >> >> >> use
> >> >> >> more words saying it so it's more difficult to miss?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I have no in-depth knowledge of either Cyrillic or Hangul, but I'd
> >> >> >> be
> >> >> >> happy to add sections for those if a

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Capitalization Standard for Transliterations: rewrite + Chinese

[Philip Jägenstedt]

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 16:42, Brian Schweitzer
 wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Philip Jägenstedt  wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 15:10, Brian Schweitzer
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Philip Jägenstedt 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 04:37, Brian Schweitzer
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Philip Jägenstedt 
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 03:39, Brian Schweitzer
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Foolip/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> replaces
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> See the changelog for each small change that led up to it.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Basically, I wanted to add rules for Chinese to be able to get
>> >> >> >>> rid
>> >> >> >>> of
>> >> >> >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Chinese (not
>> >> >> >>> official) and found that the existing version was overly
>> >> >> >>> "blabbery"
>> >> >> >>> and had its fair share of spelling and capitalization (!)
>> >> >> >>> errors. I
>> >> >> >>> stripped it down quite a bit and made what I think are
>> >> >> >>> improvements.
>> >> >> >>> If anyone misses any specific part I can put it back in.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I don't think the old 'conventions' section was well done, but I
>> >> >> > do
>> >> >> > think
>> >> >> > there was benefit in demonstrating that transliteration does not
>> >> >> > just
>> >> >> > mean
>> >> >> > (anything but latin) -> Latin, since we tend to forget about that.
>> >> >> > E.g,
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > removed examples of:
>> >> >> >     * Japanese to Cyrillic
>> >> >> >     * Cyrillic to Latin
>> >> >> >     * Latin to Cyrillic
>> >> >> >     * Hebrew to Latin
>> >> >> >     * Latin to Hebrew
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Would it be enough if I simply mentioned some odd variations in the
>> >> >> introductory sentence: "e.g. from Japanese to Latin, Latin to
>> >> >> Hebrew,
>> >> >> Cyrillic to Latin, etc." ?
>> >> >
>> >> > Sure; I just think there should be some sort of explicit mention that
>> >> > transliterations aren't simply "anything else" to Latin. :)
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > You've also pretty much turned it from a general guideline about
>> >> >> > transliterated releases into a Chinese and Japanese-specific
>> >> >> > guideline.
>> >> >> > That I would object to.  Even if the Chinese and Japanese
>> >> >> > guidelines
>> >> >> > were
>> >> >> > incredibly short, those shouldn't essentially take over the
>> >> >> > transliterations
>> >> >> > guideline.  (Reference
>> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Hebrew and
>> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Yiddish for
>> >> >> > similar
>> >> >> > short capitalization standards.)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Now, going off of
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Foolip/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
>> >> >> > , there appears to be more clarity, but really, unless you're
>> >> >> > dealing
>> >> >> > with
>> >> >> > Japanese or Chinese, there still isn't any guidance - so for
>> >> >> > Cyrillic
>> >> >> > to
>> >> >> > Latin or Hangul to Latin - the other 2 transliterations I normally
>> >> >> > end
>> >> >> > up
>> >> >> > dealing with - there's only a definition that they are
>> >> >> > transliterations,
>> >> >> > but
>> >> >> > not any guidance to use sentence case/etc, ala
>> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Yiddish .
>> >> >> > There
>> >> >> > wasn't
>> >> >> > on the current page either, but if we're going to rewrite the
>> >> >> > guideline,
>> >> >> > let's make it generalized, not so obviously
>> >> >> > Japanese/Chinese-specific.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The entire guideline is actually "Transliterated releases should be
>> >> >> capitalized and otherwise conform to the rules of the
>> >> >> transliteration
>> >> >> or romanization system used." Would you like this to be in bold,
>> >> >> would
>> >> >> like the guideline to say something else or do you just want me to
>> >> >> use
>> >> >> more words saying it so it's more difficult to miss?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have no in-depth knowledge of either Cyrillic or Hangul, but I'd
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> happy to add sections for those if anyone else can provide the
>> >> >> actual
>> >> >> text. Feel free to edit my page directly.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm saying that there should be some generalized guidance, not that
>> >> > there
>> >> > should be specifically those.  If I'm transliterating Sanscrit to
>> >> > Latin,
>> >> > I'd
>> >> > look here for caps guidance - and at the moment, there isn'

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Clarify order of precidence of guidelines and principles

[Brian Schweitzer]

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 8:18 AM, Chad Wilson  wrote:

>  On 8/04/2010 9:39 a.m., Brian Schweitzer wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Chad Wilson  wrote:
>
>> On 8/04/2010 2:15 a.m., Brian Schweitzer wrote:
>> > "Track titles" would not, however, and the principle's page is quite
>> > clear that it is solely about track titles:
>> >
>> > "This is the Style Principle used for ambiguous track titles, where
>> > there are multiple track titles (sometimes with different spelling,
>> > capitalization or punctuation) for the same song.  If no definite
>> > proof can be found for the correct spelling/punctuation, the most
>> > common version of the track title is to be used."
>> >
>> > (yes, that is the entire text of COD.)
>> >
>>  This comment is completely irrelevant. We all know the principle is
>> poorly/insufficiently broad but using this as a basis for discussion is
>> ridiculous.This principle is a prime example of one of the principles
>> that is widely used and ingrained into MB editing in a very wide sense,
>> REGARDLESS of what the page says. Fixing our guidelines should be about
>> making the documentation more accurately reflect the reality the
>> community has slowly gravitated around in edit discussions, not trying
>> to find excuses to make reality fit outdated guidelines used for a
>> different or wider purpose than they were originally written.
>>
>> Kuno has already said that this page is contradicted/inconsistent
>> by/with other pages, so the specific text here is not really that
>> important.
>>
>> Please, please please stop citing existing documentation as some sort of
>> argument for how things /should/ be. COD has been used in a much wider
>> sense than that page for years now when its utility outside track titles
>> (in choosing the best artist attribution for an inconsistently credited
>> song, in release titles, in choosing the best release group title)
>> became obvious.
>>
>> As a side note I also highly doubt that NGS will instantly make the
>> problem COD helps with go away. Consistency in titling between a work
>> and its remix or alternate versions may be one such case; and it will
>> also have a role in determing the "correct" or "best" canonical
>> title/artist attribution to use for a work - since you can only pick one
>> from the possible many minor variations.
>>
>
> By the way, you've entirely ignored history in your broad claims to know
> the intent or meaning of the guidelines and principles better than the text
> itself says.
>
> To set the record straight, back when Style Principle became official,
> there were several related RFCs to change aspects of the principles, though
> only one modified a principle's page entirely.  That one principle was COD.
>
> We started in
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2008-February/006101.html,
>  talking about CSG and COD; note that the conversation is all about track
> and work titles.  (Which is where CSGv2 for Works originally comes from.)
>
> Warp himself then proposed
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2008-February/006112.html
>
> Then you find my email, and Warp's response, at
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2008-February/006124.html
>
> That "current situation (which has been in use since atleast 2005" would be
>
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2005-July/000293.htmlwhich
>  was also *only* about tracks.
>
> Then read the IRC conversation linked from that email;
> http://chatlogs.musicbrainz.org/musicbrainz/2008/2008-02/2008-02-25.html#T20-00-28-570892
>
> Note that we still are talking only about tracks.
>
> That proposal then was dropped after Gecks made modifications, and Jim
> *clarified* that COD was to only related to **tracks** in
> http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/3601 .
>
> Note, as well, that not only did warp agree about the wording of COD in
> August of 2008, but that that revision to COD came *after* the Style
> Principle page RFC passed.
>
> Even if you go all the way back, you get consistently (pun unintended) that
> COD is only about *tracks*.
>
> You may yourself be using COD as argument regarding choosing the best
> artist attribution, release titles, release group titles, or anything else -
> but you are then using it incorrectly and counter to what the text actually
> says.  The overriding concept of all MB is some degree of consistency, I
> think - however, that vague degree of consistency is not defined by COD, but
> rather, is perhaps the overriding 'MB philosophy' which sits unmentioned at
> 0 on the Style Principles page, even above Artist Intent.
>
> The wording on the Style Principle page was never intended to be a
> guideline.  That was even *specifically* stated multiple times in the
> discussions regarding that proposal.  The wording in the "Alternative
> phrasing" section was kept because some said they found the principles
> easier to understand if the principles were given in sente

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Clarify order of precidence of guidelines and principles

[Chad Wilson]

On 8/04/2010 9:39 a.m., Brian Schweitzer wrote:



On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Chad Wilson > wrote:


On 8/04/2010 2:15 a.m., Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> "Track titles" would not, however, and the principle's page is quite
> clear that it is solely about track titles:
>
> "This is the Style Principle used for ambiguous track titles, where
> there are multiple track titles (sometimes with different spelling,
> capitalization or punctuation) for the same song.  If no definite
> proof can be found for the correct spelling/punctuation, the most
> common version of the track title is to be used."
>
> (yes, that is the entire text of COD.)
>
This comment is completely irrelevant. We all know the principle is
poorly/insufficiently broad but using this as a basis for
discussion is
ridiculous.This principle is a prime example of one of the principles
that is widely used and ingrained into MB editing in a very wide
sense,
REGARDLESS of what the page says. Fixing our guidelines should be
about
making the documentation more accurately reflect the reality the
community has slowly gravitated around in edit discussions, not trying
to find excuses to make reality fit outdated guidelines used for a
different or wider purpose than they were originally written.

Kuno has already said that this page is contradicted/inconsistent
by/with other pages, so the specific text here is not really that
important.

Please, please please stop citing existing documentation as some
sort of
argument for how things /should/ be. COD has been used in a much wider
sense than that page for years now when its utility outside track
titles
(in choosing the best artist attribution for an inconsistently
credited
song, in release titles, in choosing the best release group title)
became obvious.

As a side note I also highly doubt that NGS will instantly make the
problem COD helps with go away. Consistency in titling between a work
and its remix or alternate versions may be one such case; and it will
also have a role in determing the "correct" or "best" canonical
title/artist attribution to use for a work - since you can only
pick one
from the possible many minor variations.


By the way, you've entirely ignored history in your broad claims to 
know the intent or meaning of the guidelines and principles better 
than the text itself says.


To set the record straight, back when Style Principle became official, 
there were several related RFCs to change aspects of the principles, 
though only one modified a principle's page entirely.  That one 
principle was COD.


We started in 
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2008-February/006101.html 
, talking about CSG and COD; note that the conversation is all about 
track and work titles.  (Which is where CSGv2 for Works originally 
comes from.)


Warp himself then proposed 
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2008-February/006112.html


Then you find my email, and Warp's response, at 
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2008-February/006124.html


That "current situation (which has been in use since atleast 2005" 
would be 
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2005-July/000293.html 
which was also *only* about tracks.


Then read the IRC conversation linked from that email; 
http://chatlogs.musicbrainz.org/musicbrainz/2008/2008-02/2008-02-25.html#T20-00-28-570892


Note that we still are talking only about tracks.

That proposal then was dropped after Gecks made modifications, and Jim 
*clarified* that COD was to only related to **tracks** in 
http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/3601 .


Note, as well, that not only did warp agree about the wording of COD 
in August of 2008, but that that revision to COD came *after* the 
Style Principle page RFC passed.


Even if you go all the way back, you get consistently (pun unintended) 
that COD is only about *tracks*.


You may yourself be using COD as argument regarding choosing the best 
artist attribution, release titles, release group titles, or anything 
else - but you are then using it incorrectly and counter to what the 
text actually says.  The overriding concept of all MB is some degree 
of consistency, I think - however, that vague degree of consistency is 
not defined by COD, but rather, is perhaps the overriding 'MB 
philosophy' which sits unmentioned at 0 on the Style Principles page, 
even above Artist Intent.


The wording on the Style Principle page was never intended to be a 
guideline.  That was even *specifically* stated multiple times in the 
discussions regarding that proposal.  The wording in the "Alternative 
phrasing" section was kept because some said they found the principles 
easier to understand if the principles were given in sentence form and 
in reverse.  Ho

Re: [mb-style] NGS: Mediums, vinyl, cassettes, laserdisc, dualDisc, etc?

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2010/4/8 Chris B 

> at least with vinyl, the most important 'split' is between LPs, rather
> than sides - you often have a thematic 'break' or style shift between
> 2 LPs of a double album, whereas the split between sides is often more
> of a necessity than anything.
>

I don't entirely agree: I know at least 2 releases where the last tracks of
each side were much shorter than the other tracks, thus giving a feeling of
conclusion to the each side. I guess other more subtle decisions were made
for similar reasons. I am convinced that many releases would have a
different track order if they had been originally released on a one-sided
medium such as a CD. And I can easily find some LPs in my collection where
one side is much more worn out than the other, but I guess this is not
really a proof.

I often thought that side A of some releases was the really important one
and that on side B tracks were assembled more to give a minimum listening
duration than for purely artistic reasons. Facing a similar issue with a CD,
the Artist and/or the producer might decide to distribute the minor tracks
evenly instead. Just like the page format for a comic book or the screen
size for a movie or the screen resolution for a tv show, these are technical
and physical limitations which the Artist would often rather not have taken
into account, but since he had to, these characteristics did have an
influence on the artistic result. Recording these bits of information is
relevant IMO. But obviously you agree with me at least partially.


i'd prefer splitting a 2xLP into 2, rather than 4, and if we're going
> to split it into 4 we also need a way of showing the 2, if you see
> what i mean! and a way that's beyond deduction, as you can get
> etched/blank sides that complicate things.
>
> i think my ideal scenario would be some way of storing custom track
> numbers (A1, A2, B1, B2, etc), as I think mp3 players/software are
> starting to support those (?).
>

I'd prefer splitting it in 2 x 2 which would be factually correct :-) But
this wouldn't probably work for multi-disks albums where you had to flip the
whole stack instead of turning each disk after the other.

-- 
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

Re: [mb-style] NGS: Mediums, vinyl, cassettes, laserdisc, dualDisc, etc?

[Chris B]

On 8 April 2010 10:55, Brian Schweitzer  wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Chris B  wrote:
>>
>> at least with vinyl, the most important 'split' is between LPs, rather
>> than sides - you often have a thematic 'break' or style shift between
>> 2 LPs of a double album, whereas the split between sides is often more
>> of a necessity than anything.
>
> Is that really true though?  Perhaps it was in the 60's and 70's, but most
> 2LPs I've seen lately are simply split that way due to the space available
> as CD length is moved to vinyl length.

well, even if it is a past thing, it's happened so we have to deal
with it :) but IMO it's still very much a current thing and all 2xLPs
i have i would consider to have that split, but maybe it depends what
you listen to.

> Again, with sides, that may have
> been true during those 2 decades, but today, it seems to simply be a matter
> of space available.  In any case, whether it's due to the space available or
> some thematic shift, I don't know that it's really important here; the point
> is that it's more than a little inconsistent to consider as 1 release 2
> different sides of a medium which physically cannot be played as a single
> entity without some manual intervention (to flip the medium over).  (And
> let's ignore auto-cassette-flippers for now :P).

you can get auto-record-flippers :) but still i agree they we need to
record sides, but not at the cost of forgetting about the records.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] NGS: Mediums, vinyl, cassettes, laserdisc, dualDisc, etc?

[Brian Schweitzer]

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Chris B  wrote:

> at least with vinyl, the most important 'split' is between LPs, rather
> than sides - you often have a thematic 'break' or style shift between
> 2 LPs of a double album, whereas the split between sides is often more
> of a necessity than anything.
>

Is that really true though?  Perhaps it was in the 60's and 70's, but most
2LPs I've seen lately are simply split that way due to the space available
as CD length is moved to vinyl length.  Again, with sides, that may have
been true during those 2 decades, but today, it seems to simply be a matter
of space available.  In any case, whether it's due to the space available or
some thematic shift, I don't know that it's really important here; the point
is that it's more than a little inconsistent to consider as 1 release 2
different sides of a medium which physically cannot be played as a single
entity without some manual intervention (to flip the medium over).  (And
let's ignore auto-cassette-flippers for now :P).

Brian
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] NGS: Mediums, vinyl, cassettes, laserdisc, dualDisc, etc?

[Chris B]

at least with vinyl, the most important 'split' is between LPs, rather
than sides - you often have a thematic 'break' or style shift between
2 LPs of a double album, whereas the split between sides is often more
of a necessity than anything.

i'd prefer splitting a 2xLP into 2, rather than 4, and if we're going
to split it into 4 we also need a way of showing the 2, if you see
what i mean! and a way that's beyond deduction, as you can get
etched/blank sides that complicate things.

i think my ideal scenario would be some way of storing custom track
numbers (A1, A2, B1, B2, etc), as I think mp3 players/software are
starting to support those (?).

thanks,
Chris/gecks

On 7 April 2010 20:24, Brian Schweitzer  wrote:
> Ok, I know some people may hate this idea, but bear with me... :)
>
> If in NGS a Release is made up of however many Mediums, perhaps it's also
> time for us to rethink just what defines a Medium?
>
> We have some release formats which are a single piece of media, but multiple
> releases - dualDisc, or a CD which also has mp3s as data, just to give two
> possible cases.
>
> Then we have some release formats which are a single piece of media, but,
> like a dualDisc, have two distinct 'sides', each with different audio:
> vinyl, cassette, laserdisc, (others?).  We currently enter these, however,
> ignoring that 'sidedness'.  So we enter a 2 LP release as 2 (current)
> releases, regardless of if it used 3 or 4 sides.  We enter a 1 LP release as
> 1 (current) release, regardless of whether it used one side or both.
>
> What if we made this more consistent?  Would that not then allow us to use
> Mediums to also store that "sidedness"?  So:
> a 1-sided LP --> Release with 1 medium
> a 2-sided LP --> Release with 2 mediums
> a 1-sided LP and a 2-sided LP --> Release with 3 mediums
> two 2-sided LPs --> Release with 4 mediums
> etc?
>
> In that way, we'd be more consistent between the different formats, rather
> than some with a "sidedness" factor still becoming only 1 medium, and others
> with a "sidedness" factor still becoming 2 mediums.
>
> Yes, we'd have a lot of vinyl to split the mediums on - but that's always
> been true anyhow; we already all owe editors like drsaunde a lot of thanks
> for their efforts splitting 2 LP releases into 2 releases, this would be the
> same thing, but taken a step further.
>
> Brian
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Capitalization Standard for Transliterations: rewrite + Chinese

[Brian Schweitzer]

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Philip Jägenstedt  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 15:10, Brian Schweitzer
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Philip Jägenstedt 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 04:37, Brian Schweitzer
> >>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Philip Jägenstedt 
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 03:39, Brian Schweitzer
> >> >>  wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Foolip/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> replaces
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> See the changelog for each small change that led up to it.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Basically, I wanted to add rules for Chinese to be able to get
> rid
> >> >> >>> of
> >> >> >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Chinese (not
> >> >> >>> official) and found that the existing version was overly
> "blabbery"
> >> >> >>> and had its fair share of spelling and capitalization (!) errors.
> I
> >> >> >>> stripped it down quite a bit and made what I think are
> >> >> >>> improvements.
> >> >> >>> If anyone misses any specific part I can put it back in.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't think the old 'conventions' section was well done, but I do
> >> >> > think
> >> >> > there was benefit in demonstrating that transliteration does not
> just
> >> >> > mean
> >> >> > (anything but latin) -> Latin, since we tend to forget about that.
> >> >> > E.g,
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > removed examples of:
> >> >> > * Japanese to Cyrillic
> >> >> > * Cyrillic to Latin
> >> >> > * Latin to Cyrillic
> >> >> > * Hebrew to Latin
> >> >> > * Latin to Hebrew
> >> >>
> >> >> Would it be enough if I simply mentioned some odd variations in the
> >> >> introductory sentence: "e.g. from Japanese to Latin, Latin to Hebrew,
> >> >> Cyrillic to Latin, etc." ?
> >> >
> >> > Sure; I just think there should be some sort of explicit mention that
> >> > transliterations aren't simply "anything else" to Latin. :)
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > You've also pretty much turned it from a general guideline about
> >> >> > transliterated releases into a Chinese and Japanese-specific
> >> >> > guideline.
> >> >> > That I would object to.  Even if the Chinese and Japanese
> guidelines
> >> >> > were
> >> >> > incredibly short, those shouldn't essentially take over the
> >> >> > transliterations
> >> >> > guideline.  (Reference
> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Hebrew and
> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Yiddish for
> >> >> > similar
> >> >> > short capitalization standards.)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Now, going off of
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Foolip/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
> >> >> > , there appears to be more clarity, but really, unless you're
> dealing
> >> >> > with
> >> >> > Japanese or Chinese, there still isn't any guidance - so for
> Cyrillic
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > Latin or Hangul to Latin - the other 2 transliterations I normally
> >> >> > end
> >> >> > up
> >> >> > dealing with - there's only a definition that they are
> >> >> > transliterations,
> >> >> > but
> >> >> > not any guidance to use sentence case/etc, ala
> >> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Yiddish .
> There
> >> >> > wasn't
> >> >> > on the current page either, but if we're going to rewrite the
> >> >> > guideline,
> >> >> > let's make it generalized, not so obviously
> >> >> > Japanese/Chinese-specific.
> >> >>
> >> >> The entire guideline is actually "Transliterated releases should be
> >> >> capitalized and otherwise conform to the rules of the transliteration
> >> >> or romanization system used." Would you like this to be in bold,
> would
> >> >> like the guideline to say something else or do you just want me to
> use
> >> >> more words saying it so it's more difficult to miss?
> >> >>
> >> >> I have no in-depth knowledge of either Cyrillic or Hangul, but I'd be
> >> >> happy to add sections for those if anyone else can provide the actual
> >> >> text. Feel free to edit my page directly.
> >> >
> >> > I'm saying that there should be some generalized guidance, not that
> >> > there
> >> > should be specifically those.  If I'm transliterating Sanscrit to
> Latin,
> >> > I'd
> >> > look here for caps guidance - and at the moment, there isn't any.  Re:
> >> > "the
> >> > rules of the transliteration
> >> > or romanization system used", when you're transliterating from a
> script
> >> > without a letter casing concept to a script with one, ie, to
> >> > Armenian/Cyrillic/Deseret/Georgian/Greek/Latin from anything not one
> of
> >> > those scripts, then there are no inherent 'rules' of the
> 

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Capitalization Standard for Transliterations: rewrite + Chinese

[Philip Jägenstedt]

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 15:10, Brian Schweitzer
 wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Philip Jägenstedt  wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 04:37, Brian Schweitzer
>>  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Philip Jägenstedt 
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 03:39, Brian Schweitzer
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Philip Jägenstedt
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Foolip/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> replaces
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> See the changelog for each small change that led up to it.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Basically, I wanted to add rules for Chinese to be able to get rid
>> >> >>> of
>> >> >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Chinese (not
>> >> >>> official) and found that the existing version was overly "blabbery"
>> >> >>> and had its fair share of spelling and capitalization (!) errors. I
>> >> >>> stripped it down quite a bit and made what I think are
>> >> >>> improvements.
>> >> >>> If anyone misses any specific part I can put it back in.
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't think the old 'conventions' section was well done, but I do
>> >> > think
>> >> > there was benefit in demonstrating that transliteration does not just
>> >> > mean
>> >> > (anything but latin) -> Latin, since we tend to forget about that.
>> >> > E.g,
>> >> > the
>> >> > removed examples of:
>> >> >     * Japanese to Cyrillic
>> >> >     * Cyrillic to Latin
>> >> >     * Latin to Cyrillic
>> >> >     * Hebrew to Latin
>> >> >     * Latin to Hebrew
>> >>
>> >> Would it be enough if I simply mentioned some odd variations in the
>> >> introductory sentence: "e.g. from Japanese to Latin, Latin to Hebrew,
>> >> Cyrillic to Latin, etc." ?
>> >
>> > Sure; I just think there should be some sort of explicit mention that
>> > transliterations aren't simply "anything else" to Latin. :)
>> >
>> >>
>> >> > You've also pretty much turned it from a general guideline about
>> >> > transliterated releases into a Chinese and Japanese-specific
>> >> > guideline.
>> >> > That I would object to.  Even if the Chinese and Japanese guidelines
>> >> > were
>> >> > incredibly short, those shouldn't essentially take over the
>> >> > transliterations
>> >> > guideline.  (Reference
>> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Hebrew and
>> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Yiddish for
>> >> > similar
>> >> > short capitalization standards.)
>> >> >
>> >> > Now, going off of
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Foolip/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
>> >> > , there appears to be more clarity, but really, unless you're dealing
>> >> > with
>> >> > Japanese or Chinese, there still isn't any guidance - so for Cyrillic
>> >> > to
>> >> > Latin or Hangul to Latin - the other 2 transliterations I normally
>> >> > end
>> >> > up
>> >> > dealing with - there's only a definition that they are
>> >> > transliterations,
>> >> > but
>> >> > not any guidance to use sentence case/etc, ala
>> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Yiddish .  There
>> >> > wasn't
>> >> > on the current page either, but if we're going to rewrite the
>> >> > guideline,
>> >> > let's make it generalized, not so obviously
>> >> > Japanese/Chinese-specific.
>> >>
>> >> The entire guideline is actually "Transliterated releases should be
>> >> capitalized and otherwise conform to the rules of the transliteration
>> >> or romanization system used." Would you like this to be in bold, would
>> >> like the guideline to say something else or do you just want me to use
>> >> more words saying it so it's more difficult to miss?
>> >>
>> >> I have no in-depth knowledge of either Cyrillic or Hangul, but I'd be
>> >> happy to add sections for those if anyone else can provide the actual
>> >> text. Feel free to edit my page directly.
>> >
>> > I'm saying that there should be some generalized guidance, not that
>> > there
>> > should be specifically those.  If I'm transliterating Sanscrit to Latin,
>> > I'd
>> > look here for caps guidance - and at the moment, there isn't any.  Re:
>> > "the
>> > rules of the transliteration
>> > or romanization system used", when you're transliterating from a script
>> > without a letter casing concept to a script with one, ie, to
>> > Armenian/Cyrillic/Deseret/Georgian/Greek/Latin from anything not one of
>> > those scripts, then there are no inherent 'rules' of the transliteration
>> > system.  We typically use sentence case with proper nouns capitalized;
>> > even
>> > just that basic 1 sentence of generalized guidance would be better than
>> > what
>> > we currently have (ie, nothing).
>>
>>
>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Foolip/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
>>
>> I've tr

Re: [mb-style] NGS: Mediums, vinyl, cassettes, laserdisc, dualDisc, etc?

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2010/4/7 SwissChris 

> Double-sided CDs and DVDs? If heard of double-layers, yes, but doublesided?
> And yes, if I had one CD with only audio on it I wouldn't call that two
> releases whatever the "sidedness".


I know a few double-sided DVDs (one movie, one opera and a tv-show box set),
and I don't why the same technique couldn't be applied to CDs. Granted, this
is quite rare, probably because marketing them as 2 DVDs or 2 CDs would cost
about the same price, but  would allow the producer to write "double DVD
release" on the jacket. Plus the fact that I hate those DVDs because there
is no way to know which side is which :-(

-- 
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

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Capitalization Standard for Transliterations: rewrite + Chinese

[Brian Schweitzer]

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Philip Jägenstedt  wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 04:37, Brian Schweitzer
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Philip Jägenstedt 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 03:39, Brian Schweitzer
> >>  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Philip Jägenstedt  >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Foolip/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
> >> >>>
> >> >>> replaces
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
> >> >>>
> >> >>> See the changelog for each small change that led up to it.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Basically, I wanted to add rules for Chinese to be able to get rid
> of
> >> >>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Chinese (not
> >> >>> official) and found that the existing version was overly "blabbery"
> >> >>> and had its fair share of spelling and capitalization (!) errors. I
> >> >>> stripped it down quite a bit and made what I think are improvements.
> >> >>> If anyone misses any specific part I can put it back in.
> >> >
> >> > I don't think the old 'conventions' section was well done, but I do
> >> > think
> >> > there was benefit in demonstrating that transliteration does not just
> >> > mean
> >> > (anything but latin) -> Latin, since we tend to forget about that.
> E.g,
> >> > the
> >> > removed examples of:
> >> > * Japanese to Cyrillic
> >> > * Cyrillic to Latin
> >> > * Latin to Cyrillic
> >> > * Hebrew to Latin
> >> > * Latin to Hebrew
> >>
> >> Would it be enough if I simply mentioned some odd variations in the
> >> introductory sentence: "e.g. from Japanese to Latin, Latin to Hebrew,
> >> Cyrillic to Latin, etc." ?
> >
> > Sure; I just think there should be some sort of explicit mention that
> > transliterations aren't simply "anything else" to Latin. :)
> >
> >>
> >> > You've also pretty much turned it from a general guideline about
> >> > transliterated releases into a Chinese and Japanese-specific
> guideline.
> >> > That I would object to.  Even if the Chinese and Japanese guidelines
> >> > were
> >> > incredibly short, those shouldn't essentially take over the
> >> > transliterations
> >> > guideline.  (Reference
> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Hebrew and
> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Yiddish for
> similar
> >> > short capitalization standards.)
> >> >
> >> > Now, going off of
> >> >
> >> >
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Foolip/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
> >> > , there appears to be more clarity, but really, unless you're dealing
> >> > with
> >> > Japanese or Chinese, there still isn't any guidance - so for Cyrillic
> to
> >> > Latin or Hangul to Latin - the other 2 transliterations I normally end
> >> > up
> >> > dealing with - there's only a definition that they are
> transliterations,
> >> > but
> >> > not any guidance to use sentence case/etc, ala
> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Capitalization_Standard_Yiddish .  There
> >> > wasn't
> >> > on the current page either, but if we're going to rewrite the
> guideline,
> >> > let's make it generalized, not so obviously Japanese/Chinese-specific.
> >>
> >> The entire guideline is actually "Transliterated releases should be
> >> capitalized and otherwise conform to the rules of the transliteration
> >> or romanization system used." Would you like this to be in bold, would
> >> like the guideline to say something else or do you just want me to use
> >> more words saying it so it's more difficult to miss?
> >>
> >> I have no in-depth knowledge of either Cyrillic or Hangul, but I'd be
> >> happy to add sections for those if anyone else can provide the actual
> >> text. Feel free to edit my page directly.
> >
> > I'm saying that there should be some generalized guidance, not that there
> > should be specifically those.  If I'm transliterating Sanscrit to Latin,
> I'd
> > look here for caps guidance - and at the moment, there isn't any.  Re:
> "the
> > rules of the transliteration
> > or romanization system used", when you're transliterating from a script
> > without a letter casing concept to a script with one, ie, to
> > Armenian/Cyrillic/Deseret/Georgian/Greek/Latin from anything not one of
> > those scripts, then there are no inherent 'rules' of the transliteration
> > system.  We typically use sentence case with proper nouns capitalized;
> even
> > just that basic 1 sentence of generalized guidance would be better than
> what
> > we currently have (ie, nothing).
>
>
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Foolip/Capitalization_Standard_For_Transliterations
>
> I've tried to address your first point by mentioning more other
> scripts that Latin. It's a bit blabbery, but let me know if it's OK.
>
> About generalized guidance, I see two options:
>
> 1. "No general guidance can be given as the rules may vary for each
> transliteration system."
>
> 2. "