On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> On 03/21/2012 02:57 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> > I wrote an update to the theatre style guide, and have prepared this
> > RFC. It will expire on 2012-03-28.
>
I'm not sure this update is an improvement
>
> In response to comments, I’ve updated
On 03/26/2012 01:50 PM, Sheamus Patt wrote:
> I've agree - the current definition is not at all what I think of as a
> medley. Here's the guideline, from
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Medley_Relationship_Type.
>
> This indicates that a track is a compilation of several other
> tracks. This
On 12-03-22 01:07 PM, caller#6 wrote:
On 03/05/2012 09:38 AM, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 02/22/2012 07:39 PM, Andii Hughes wrote:
Looks good to me.
Can I get an official +1 on that?
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
My only reservation is the "medley" definition[1]. It seems too broad.
Not every multiple-titl
We were talking about some suggestions I made in a post further up the
thread, on March 5:
practik wrote
>
> EDIT: is a {*partial*} {live} {instrumental} {cover}
> {performance|*medley*} of
> RESULTS: (on release and recording pages) medley including parts of:, (on
> work pages) partially includ
Alex Mauer wrote:
> On 03/09/2012 01:25 PM, practik wrote:
>> Alex Mauer wrote
>>> These all agree with my understanding of the attributes as they’d be
>>> used with medley.
>>>
>> Would specifying the join phrases not be part of the change proposal? I was
>> assuming it would be. Sorry if I went
Alex Mauer wrote:
> On 03/09/2012 02:00 PM, Nikki wrote:
>> There already is a work-work medley relationship, so that page needs to
>> be updated too and the text you're referring to won't go away just by
>> getting rid of the recording-work relationship.
>
> I don’t see a need to change that, as
Alex Mauer wrote
>
> * Removed the following text:
>
> “For non-musical theatre releases, artist credit should be to the author
> of the work. The [[Special Purpose Artist]] of
> [[Artist:a0ef7e1d-44ff-4039-9435-7d5fefdeecc9|musical theater]] should
> be used for those cases where the compose
symphonick wrote
>
> Following the style in Grove "major" or "minor" does not have to be added
> if it's missing;
> the title can be "Symphony no.2 in D op.73". But I couldn't find an
> example without "in".
> I assume it should always be added in English?
>
Do you mean an example of a release
