Re: [mb-style] artist type: project
On Oct 10, 2006, at 3:26 PM, Chris Bransden wrote: i never felt it was resolved. i feel that group is a plural, person is a singular, but project is pretty vague. i agree with lauri's comments in the original discussion that if we're to include project, we need collaboration, band, person and group, and all their definitions need to be rock solid (which i feel is impossible) to avoid edit wars. What is the difference between a band and a group? I could see adding a collaboration and a project type, but anything else starts getting too complicated. Would anyone venture to write a one paragraph definition for each of these proposed types? -- --ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot. Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --http://mayhem-chaos.net ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] artist type: project
We need it badly. I saw a lot of artists that could fit in this category. On 10/10/06, Robert Kaye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Was there a resolution on this issue? If so, I'd like to include this in the next server release... -- --ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot. Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --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
Re: [mb-style] artist type: project
On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Robert Kaye wrote: Was there a resolution on this issue? If so, I'd like to include this in the next server release... I believe it was agreed to add it and it was being tested on the staging server before implementation. If I remember, it was accidently included in one of the mini-releases and backed out because it broke the lucene search. Steve ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] artist type: project
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 11:56:04PM +0200, pankkake wrote: We need it badly. I saw a lot of artists that could fit in this category. I'd really like to see it, too. There are a bunch of releases attributed to projects on the FAX (http://www.discogs.com/label/Fax+%2B49-69%2F450464) label that it'd be appropriate for. Check the edit history for Virtual Vices, Sultan, Silence, etc. If you're bored.. Ryan ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] artist type: project
i never felt it was resolved. i feel that group is a plural, person is a singular, but project is pretty vague. i agree with lauri's comments in the original discussion that if we're to include project, we need collaboration, band, person and group, and all their definitions need to be rock solid (which i feel is impossible) to avoid edit wars. personally i think it's unnecesary. some bands have a key figure who orchestrated the whole thing, but i feel they're still groups, just with only one static member. what about things like NIN where it is him in the studio, a full band (group) live? i don't see what's wrong with just having them as groups, and then showing who the main member is by using 'additional' flags on all the others, if you think there's good reason for this, but even that can be iffy! On 10/10/06, Robert Kaye [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Was there a resolution on this issue? If so, I'd like to include this in the next server release... -- --ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot. Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --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
Re: [mb-style] artist type: project
If this is what I think it is I'm all for it (NOT the solo project discussion right?). But it's been a while since it was discussed and I can't seem to find the resolution. How exactly is it being implemented and how will it affect the grouping of artists? Is there a link to the test server where this was running for us to play with? I don't want to be a pest but a quick recap might help forgetful people like me and people new to MB in the last few months. -Dustin (Kerensky97) Ryan McCabe wrote: On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 11:56:04PM +0200, pankkake wrote: We need it badly. I saw a lot of artists that could fit in this category. I'd really like to see it, too. There are a bunch of releases attributed to projects on the FAX (http://www.discogs.com/label/Fax+%2B49-69%2F450464) label that it'd be appropriate for. Check the edit history for Virtual Vices, Sultan, Silence, etc. If you're bored.. Ryan ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/artist-type%3A-project-tf2419753s2885.html#a6746976 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] artist type: project
Discussion starts on the July mbstyle - first post by Beth, second from me: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-July/003269.ht ml Joan - Original Message - From: Kerensky97 [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:33 PM Subject: Re: [mb-style] artist type: project If this is what I think it is I'm all for it (NOT the solo project discussion right?). But it's been a while since it was discussed and I can't seem to find the resolution. How exactly is it being implemented and how will it affect the grouping of artists? Is there a link to the test server where this was running for us to play with? I don't want to be a pest but a quick recap might help forgetful people like me and people new to MB in the last few months. -Dustin (Kerensky97) Ryan McCabe wrote: On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 11:56:04PM +0200, pankkake wrote: We need it badly. I saw a lot of artists that could fit in this category. I'd really like to see it, too. There are a bunch of releases attributed to projects on the FAX (http://www.discogs.com/label/Fax+%2B49-69%2F450464) label that it'd be appropriate for. Check the edit history for Virtual Vices, Sultan, Silence, etc. If you're bored.. Ryan ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/artist-type%3A-project-tf2419753s2885.html#a6746976 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] artist type: project
My 2 cents are that the issue of types probably needs to be fleshed out better. As I recall, collaborations were not received as positively as projects, partly getting stuck on a matter of definitions. But it's a slippery slope adding one new type at a time Nonethless, I'm not opposed to project. I'd merely like to see collaboration as well (and I have a formal definition floating around if we can't find it in the mail archives). ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
