I know it's been a few months since this thread was active, but I'm a bit of
a newbie at MB and definitely at this mailing list...
Is the AR mentioned still active on the test server? Looking at all the
links that everyone gave of their apparently successful attempts - I can't
see any difference
I could start working on updating the wiki page, most of the info is already
in there, but I don't usually mess with the wiki so I may have to bug you on
a few details.
As for the calling the release status "Transl(iter)ation" that's about as
concise as it gets; i was suggesting "Alternate" just
Given that it was Beth and I who originally put forward this idea, and at
the moment Beth is ill and unable to be on mb, then I would be more than
willing to be champion for this idea.
To reiterate my original reasoning:
Roger Glover is and has been for a long time a part of Deep Purple.
However,
On Oct 11, 2006, at 2:45 PM, Don Redman wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:22:58 +0200, Robert Kaye wrote:
Given that there seem to be no real objections to this, I'd like
to put out an official call for veto on this topic. Please speak
up in the next 48 hours if you have objections to this iss
On Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:59:17 +0200, Kerensky97 wrote:
BTW, I still like using "Alternate" as the release status. Then it
might be
possible to add a setting where people can choose to show alternate
discs or
not. Plus it's ambiguous enough you can stick a few other "virtual
releases" in t
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:22:58 +0200, Robert Kaye wrote:
Given that there seem to be no real objections to this, I'd like to put
out an official call for veto on this topic. Please speak up in the next
48 hours if you have objections to this issue. Otherwise I will bring
the code back for the
On 10/11/06, Robert Kaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What is the difference between a band and a group?I could see adding a collaboration and a project type, but anythingelse starts getting too complicated.Would anyone venture to write a one paragraph definition for each of
these proposed types?Here
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 an
On 10/11/06, Age Bosma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Kerensky97 wrote:
>
> DonRedman wrote:
>> Heh, what about that simple suggestion: We could make a wiki page and
>> collect all these artist there and the decisions that led to the state
>> they are in. This would not be a guideline yet, but maybe
Kerensky97 wrote:
DonRedman wrote:
Heh, what about that simple suggestion: We could make a wiki page and
collect all these artist there and the decisions that led to the state
they are in. This would not be a guideline yet, but maybe a step towards
one.
I still think we need somethin
On Wed, October 11, 2006 5:23 am, David Gibson said:
> As far as I'm aware, the CSG don't specify any particular format for
> track titles when a single long movement is split across multiple
> tracks.
>
> Therefore, with davitof's encouragement, I humbly suggest the form
> I've used in http://musi
2006/10/11, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
As far as I'm aware, the CSG don't specify any particular format for
track titles when a single long movement is split across multiple
tracks.
Therefore, with davitof's encouragement, I humbly suggest the form
I've used in http://musicbrainz.org/show
Il Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:23 AM
David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha scritto:
As far as I'm aware, the CSG don't specify any particular format for
track titles when a single long movement is split across multiple
tracks.
Therefore, with davitof's encouragement, I humbly suggest the form
As far as I'm aware, the CSG don't specify any particular format for
track titles when a single long movement is split across multiple
tracks.
Therefore, with davitof's encouragement, I humbly suggest the form
I've used in http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=5686760. There
are two parts to t
From: Matt Howe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], MusicBrainz style
discussion
To: MusicBrainz style discussion
Subject: Re: [mb-style] RFC: Artist 'is managed by' AR
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:56:53 +1100
On Wednesday 11 October 2006 2:14 am, Steve Wyles wrote:
> I feel this
i would say that bringing an old RFC that IMO never reached consensus,
and then 35 mins later going to RFV is moving too quickly.
based on http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ArtistTypeProject, any band that
has changed it's lineup could be changed to a project:
"Or is a mixture of both: it has one or mo
16 matches
Mail list logo
