Oh and I think it should be Washington D.C., sans comma. With a comma it
makes D.C. look like a state which really isn't accurate.
Cristov (wolfsong)
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.or
I see. Well, for whatever it's worth, I too think it
would be very very useful to store those as separate
fields.
-Nate
--- Adam Golding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> well marco was suggesting not storing the number at
> all, which i oppose.
>
> On 4/22/06, Nathan Noble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wr
On 4/23/06, derGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nikki wrote:
> > Should we use the local or English form of names when both exist?
> I would definitely prefer the local name, not only because this is the
> official name, and we prefer official data almost everywhere. We might
> still add the Engl
Not a veto (actually, I'm not sure who is allowed to veto either), and
it's probably too late to comment now, but I do think we should have a
different relationship for "parody" rather than an attribute for
"cover". I _think_ it's almost as easy to implement, and I believe
it's a better choice:
Co
derGraph wrote:
Nikki wrote:
I wonder where to draw the line. We should definitely not include all
subnational states, but only for larger states. But should it be limited
to USA and Canada? What about e.g. Russia and China?
...
Why is this anyway? This seems like an artefact of a long-gone
Cristov Russell wrote:
reentering this data will be an even bigger task which is (I think) Thomas'
point.
I agree on that. However, "there's no way in hell to get back the
information" is plain wrong. Unless, of course, we loose the moderation
history.
Nevertheless, my point is that we loo
Nikki wrote:
Should UK countries be included?
I wonder where to draw the line. We should definitely not include all
subnational states, but only for larger states. But should it be limited
to USA and Canada? What about e.g. Russia and China?
Should we use the local or English form of names
> Thomas Tholén wrote:
> > There's no way in hell to get back the information wether
> those tracks
> > in reality are named "Queer" and "Trip My Wire" or "Queer (album
> > version)" and "Trip My Wire (album version)". This loses data and
> > makes the database less useful.
>
> We're loosing d
yeah, but we generally lose data because either we a) can't store it
(usefully), or b) don't need it
in this case, both are irrelevant. we can store it, and there have
been cases shown where 'album version' and 'instrumental' are needed.
On 23/04/06, derGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas T
* has amazon asin -> has Amazon ASIN
I wonder how many people ever noticed this is a case of the RAS syndrome[1].
But then again, who would know what an ASIN is if it said nothing about
Amazon?
derGraph
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome
Thomas Tholén wrote:
There's no way in hell to get back the information wether those tracks in
reality are named "Queer" and "Trip My Wire" or "Queer (album version)" and
"Trip My Wire (album version)". This loses data and makes the database less
useful.
We're loosing data all the time. And the
Don Redman wrote:
OK, whoever wants to implement this, should issue a RFV and get going.
It's not like I could implement this, but ... however ...
He who is in doubt that "parody" should be an attribute of the
cover AR shall veto now or be silent forever.
And now, wait 48 hours? I bet t
> I think 'The'
> should be included, to indicate it's plural and because I
> like it better.
>
> zout (from the Netherlands)
>
> --
> Jan van Thiel
--
Ummm the 's' makes it plural not "The". :-)
Cristov (wolfsong)
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing lis
On 4/22/06, Nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was curious about the distribution of countries for bootlegs [1] and I
> noticed that the untitled bootleg style [2] doesn't really consist of much
> and live bootleg style [3] still doesn't expand the location very much. A
> general style appears to
Don Redman wrote:
I would argue that "instrumental" can be regarded a track attribute
(and should therefor e be added to the TrackTitle) if (and only if)
one of these is true. This means:
- "instrumental" identifies a track to be different from the vocal
verison.
- "instrumental" identifies a
Bogdan Butnaru wrote:
The only solution I see is that we should make a clear separation
between attributes that are relevant to the relation and those that
are relevant to the tracks: acoustic or live is a track attribute,
cover or parody or translated is an attribute of the re-releasing
process;
My issue is with the relation attributes. There is any number of
attributes that differentiate two different recordings of tracks, see
[A] for a partial list. Why we should select just "live" and
"acoustic" is rather mysterious to me.
[A] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClarifyExtraTitleInformation
O
Hi,
as the title says, I would like to change
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/OtherVersionRelationshipType to what it really is
about: re-recordings. The current name and the link-phrases are unnecessarily
misleading, I think we can describe it much better and less fuzzy.
I already proposed new l
well marco was suggesting not storing the number at all, which i oppose.On 4/22/06, Nathan Noble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:I haven't noticed catalogue numbers changing betweenminor variants of a work like that. Usually I just
see (1920 version) or (french version) or somethinglike that.But isn't
19 matches
Mail list logo
