Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-331 add 'composite reissue' relationship -- compilation?
On 24 Aug 2014 05:30, Daniel Sobey d...@dns.id.au wrote: Would it make sense to include the medium? Medium 1 is available as part of release group. For the moment I think the proposal is RG to RG only so indicating the medium wouldn't make sense. In the long run having a RG to Release version would be useful, and there medium might be a useful attribute; I'm not sure if Release to RG would be useful. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Rename disambiguation field Description
caller#6-2 wrote On 08/22/2014 09:03 AM, lixobix wrote: Users seem to be misusing the DC only because it's easier than having to click through each entity to access the full data related to it. So until full data is readily visible, we should alter the DC guide to allow for more freedom, even if it results in data duplication. Pragmatism before idealism. I still don't know why this is being called misuse (which has a negative connotation). What's the harm? Alex / caller#6 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@.musicbrainz http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style It's misuse in the sense that if the disambiguating data already exists elsewhere (e.g. area/place for an artist), there is not need to duplicate that data into the DC, and MB has a general policy against data duplication. Pragmatically, I don't think such misuse is in fact much of an issue, but the only way I see of solving it is to display more data as outlined above. The harm of 'misuse' is minimal (data duplication) but would be avoided if this were done. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Pre-RFC-Rename-disambiguation-field-Description-tp4667407p4667626.html Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Sorting of fictitious names -- sort name enthusiasts unite!
I wrote that the traditional way to sort fictitious names like Scrooge McDuck is on the whole name, as Musicbrainz explicitly did earlier, and that it's bad that when Musicbrainz intended to change that and sort as real names, with RFC 203, it did it by just deleting that part of the guide, so now nothing is said about it. The traditional way is to sort even fictional human characters with clear first and last names on the whole names. That goes for characters like Blondie Bumstead nee Boopadoop (that I mentioned in my previous post), Linus van Pelt, Gerald McBoing-Boing, Bart Simpson, etc. Alex / caller#6: Can you cite a source for this? I'm not challenging your facts. I'm very interested in following prevailing practices when practical. I've tried to find sources, but it hasn't been that easy. So what I have is mostly examples. My perception may have been biased by that when I have seen fictional characters in alphabetical listings it has mosty been in books about cartoons or comics. Many of the names are like Donald Duck or Porky Pig in that they are animals with species as last name, and can perhaps be seen as joke names, but some are more obviously real names. In the index of Michael Barrier's _Hollywood Cartoons_ (1999) I find for example Betty Boop and Elmer Fudd sorted on whole name. In _Hippo in a Tutu_ by Mindy Aloff (2008) the index includes characters like Horace Horsecollar and Ichabod Crane sorted on the full name. Scott McCloud's _Reinventing Comics_ (2000) has an index with Al Flosso, Charlie Brown, Don Quixote, Ernie Weiss, Sherlock Holmes and Veronica Lodge sorted on their full names. (But, as an unexpected exception Croft, Lara!) _The Disney Studio Story_ by Holliss and Sibley (1988) makes this explicit at the beginning of the general index: Disney animated characters are indicated to *bold* type entered under their full names -- e.g., Casey Jones under C, Wise Owl under W.. _Encyclopedia of Walt Disney's Animated Characters_ by John Grant (1987) has a similar note. Except for indices sorting also is used for encyclopedical works. Books like _The Great Cartoon Stars_ by Denis Gifford (1979) do it my way. I mentioned Gerald McBoing-Boing earlier as example of a real human name that a cartoon character has. I was reminded when looking through my books that his real name is Gerald McCloy. This is one reason for full names often being better, that the real last names often aren't remembered. I have examples that go against my view too. For example _The Complete Peanuts_, a multivolume work collecting the daily strip, includes an index in each volume where you can look up for example: Brown, Charlie Brown, Sally Frieda Schroeder Shermy Van Pelt, Linus Van Pelt, Lucy Violet I find this a bit disturbing where we know the last names of some characters but not of some. (What if Violet's last name was mentioned just once somewhere?) I have a few other examples that go against me, but a lot more that I haven't mentioned that support me, so all in all the comics/cartoon world mostly does it my way at least. But when I finally tried to get away from my comics/cartoon ghetto, and went to the Encyclopedia Britannica, it didn't support me much at all. There were no stated principes about this. In the index I found for example: Brown, Charlie (cartoon character) ... Charlie Brown (cartoon character); see Brown, Charlie Don Juan (fictionary character) ... Holmes, Sherlock (fictionary character) ... Mickey Mouse (cartoon character) ... Sherlock Holmes (fictionary character); see Holmes, Sherlock (Under Juan, Don two people are mentioned, but there is no pointer to the fictionary character.) I'll add that in many cases you can in practice look up the full name, because then you'll find a title. If you want to look up Robinson Crusoe for example, that would be under C, but what you'll find is not the character but Robinson Crusoe (work by Defoe) ... - * - So I take partly back my assuredness. It seems like the usage has varied more than I have realized, even though for cartoons full names is clearly the most usual. That makes so much sense in a world where the line between names and descriptions often isn't clear. To take this into perspective I think it's clear that it's not clear how to sort these names, so something needs to be said in the style guides. On the other hand it's not a major part of Musicbrainz, so I think the best would be if we could refer to other guidelines instead of having to formalizing this ourselves. I wish Wikipedia had good guidelines on this to refer to. Then that would be my suggestion (regardless of whether those guidelines would agree with me or not). ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] RFC: STYLE-335: Add Box set as a primary type of Release Group
I thought it was worth giving this a go. Preliminary date for RFC to end: 2014-09-01 00:00 UTC Jira ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-335 wiki page: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=User:Tommycrock/proposal/Release_Group/Primary_Type/Box-set Preliminary discussions: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/box-sets-etc-td4667117.html http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=4400 The proposal is to add Box set as a primary type of Release Group, e.g. instead of Album. The rationale is that box sets are often substantially different in scope and scale from albums. They are often also sought in a way other compilations are not. It is a type that (at least in English) is familiar and well populated. The text to be added to the Release Group/Type documentation is on the wiki page. Thanks :) ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Pre-RFC: Rename disambiguation field Description
I don't think the DC should go completely. There's one type of data we won't be able to store properly: the silly music genres and sub-genres. Even though I don't like them, they might come handy when you come several artists with the same name and from the same area. Not to mention that when the area, the begin date, etc, are not known, the music is the only thing you have to tell an artist from another. 2014-08-24 17:04 GMT+02:00 lixobix arjtap...@gmail.com: caller#6-2 wrote On 08/22/2014 09:03 AM, lixobix wrote: Users seem to be misusing the DC only because it's easier than having to click through each entity to access the full data related to it. So until full data is readily visible, we should alter the DC guide to allow for more freedom, even if it results in data duplication. Pragmatism before idealism. I still don't know why this is being called misuse (which has a negative connotation). What's the harm? Alex / caller#6 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@.musicbrainz http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style It's misuse in the sense that if the disambiguating data already exists elsewhere (e.g. area/place for an artist), there is not need to duplicate that data into the DC, and MB has a general policy against data duplication. Pragmatically, I don't think such misuse is in fact much of an issue, but the only way I see of solving it is to display more data as outlined above. The harm of 'misuse' is minimal (data duplication) but would be avoided if this were done. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Pre-RFC-Rename-disambiguation-field-Description-tp4667407p4667626.html Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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] Sorting of fictitious names -- sort name enthusiasts unite!
It seems straightforward to me. Just sort the names as you would any other name., last name, first name. So if a character doesn’t have a last name, then it would just be treated the same as a single name performance artist. On Aug 24, 2014, at 9:06 AM, Per Starbäck per.starb...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote that the traditional way to sort fictitious names like Scrooge McDuck is on the whole name, as Musicbrainz explicitly did earlier, and that it's bad that when Musicbrainz intended to change that and sort as real names, with RFC 203, it did it by just deleting that part of the guide, so now nothing is said about it. The traditional way is to sort even fictional human characters with clear first and last names on the whole names. That goes for characters like Blondie Bumstead nee Boopadoop (that I mentioned in my previous post), Linus van Pelt, Gerald McBoing-Boing, Bart Simpson, etc. Alex / caller#6: Can you cite a source for this? I'm not challenging your facts. I'm very interested in following prevailing practices when practical. I've tried to find sources, but it hasn't been that easy. So what I have is mostly examples. My perception may have been biased by that when I have seen fictional characters in alphabetical listings it has mosty been in books about cartoons or comics. Many of the names are like Donald Duck or Porky Pig in that they are animals with species as last name, and can perhaps be seen as joke names, but some are more obviously real names. In the index of Michael Barrier's _Hollywood Cartoons_ (1999) I find for example Betty Boop and Elmer Fudd sorted on whole name. In _Hippo in a Tutu_ by Mindy Aloff (2008) the index includes characters like Horace Horsecollar and Ichabod Crane sorted on the full name. Scott McCloud's _Reinventing Comics_ (2000) has an index with Al Flosso, Charlie Brown, Don Quixote, Ernie Weiss, Sherlock Holmes and Veronica Lodge sorted on their full names. (But, as an unexpected exception Croft, Lara!) _The Disney Studio Story_ by Holliss and Sibley (1988) makes this explicit at the beginning of the general index: Disney animated characters are indicated to *bold* type entered under their full names -- e.g., Casey Jones under C, Wise Owl under W.. _Encyclopedia of Walt Disney's Animated Characters_ by John Grant (1987) has a similar note. Except for indices sorting also is used for encyclopedical works. Books like _The Great Cartoon Stars_ by Denis Gifford (1979) do it my way. I mentioned Gerald McBoing-Boing earlier as example of a real human name that a cartoon character has. I was reminded when looking through my books that his real name is Gerald McCloy. This is one reason for full names often being better, that the real last names often aren't remembered. I have examples that go against my view too. For example _The Complete Peanuts_, a multivolume work collecting the daily strip, includes an index in each volume where you can look up for example: Brown, Charlie Brown, Sally Frieda Schroeder Shermy Van Pelt, Linus Van Pelt, Lucy Violet I find this a bit disturbing where we know the last names of some characters but not of some. (What if Violet's last name was mentioned just once somewhere?) I have a few other examples that go against me, but a lot more that I haven't mentioned that support me, so all in all the comics/cartoon world mostly does it my way at least. But when I finally tried to get away from my comics/cartoon ghetto, and went to the Encyclopedia Britannica, it didn't support me much at all. There were no stated principes about this. In the index I found for example: Brown, Charlie (cartoon character) ... Charlie Brown (cartoon character); see Brown, Charlie Don Juan (fictionary character) ... Holmes, Sherlock (fictionary character) ... Mickey Mouse (cartoon character) ... Sherlock Holmes (fictionary character); see Holmes, Sherlock (Under Juan, Don two people are mentioned, but there is no pointer to the fictionary character.) I'll add that in many cases you can in practice look up the full name, because then you'll find a title. If you want to look up Robinson Crusoe for example, that would be under C, but what you'll find is not the character but Robinson Crusoe (work by Defoe) ... - * - So I take partly back my assuredness. It seems like the usage has varied more than I have realized, even though for cartoons full names is clearly the most usual. That makes so much sense in a world where the line between names and descriptions often isn't clear. To take this into perspective I think it's clear that it's not clear how to sort these names, so something needs to be said in the style guides. On the other hand it's not a major part of Musicbrainz, so I think the best would be if we could refer to other guidelines instead of having to formalizing this ourselves. I wish Wikipedia had good
Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-335: Add Box set as a primary type of Release Group
+1 I’ve wanted this for years. On Aug 24, 2014, at 4:15 PM, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com wrote: I thought it was worth giving this a go. Preliminary date for RFC to end: 2014-09-01 00:00 UTC Jira ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-335 wiki page: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=User:Tommycrock/proposal/Release_Group/Primary_Type/Box-set Preliminary discussions: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/box-sets-etc-td4667117.html http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=4400 The proposal is to add Box set as a primary type of Release Group, e.g. instead of Album. The rationale is that box sets are often substantially different in scope and scale from albums. They are often also sought in a way other compilations are not. It is a type that (at least in English) is familiar and well populated. The text to be added to the Release Group/Type documentation is on the wiki page. Thanks :) ___ 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: STYLE-335: Add Box set as a primary type of Release Group
On 14-08-24 05:15 PM, Tom Crocker wrote: I thought it was worth giving this a go. Preliminary date for RFC to end: 2014-09-01 00:00 UTC Jira ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-335 wiki page: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/index.php?title=User:Tommycrock/proposal/Release_Group/Primary_Type/Box-set Preliminary discussions: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/box-sets-etc-td4667117.html http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=4400 The proposal is to add Box set as a primary type of Release Group, e.g. instead of Album. The rationale is that box sets are often substantially different in scope and scale from albums. They are often also sought in a way other compilations are not. It is a type that (at least in English) is familiar and well populated. Wouldn't this be better as a Secondary type, like Compilation? It could then be combined with other primary types e.g. EP, as they are occasionally packaged as box sets as well. Other than that, I would be in favour. I'd also like to see this extended to the 2-in-one release groups, as it's very confusing making an exception to the usual compilation rule just for this one case. -- Sheamus Ottawa Folkie ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-335: Add Box set as a primary type of Release Group
On Aug 24, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Sheamus Patt musicbrainz.r...@ncf.ca wrote: Wouldn't this be better as a Secondary type, like Compilation? It could then be combined with other primary types e.g. EP, as they are occasionally packaged as box sets as well. Some of the time it would be. Most of the box sets that I’ve seen have all-new tracklists, though I have seen a few that attempt to emulate the original tracklist and visual appearance of the source releases. (I’m slated to get one of the latter in the mail in a couple of weeks.) Other than that, I would be in favour. I'd also like to see this extended to the 2-in-one release groups, as it's very confusing making an exception to the usual compilation rule just for this one case. We could make a check box on the “compilation” subtype that would mark such a release as a box set. -- Sheamus Ottawa Folkie ___ 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
