th1rtyf0ur wrote
> We'll still need to drop the 'bootlegs' from the page title
> though, & possible replace it with another word- 'Live recordings' would
> be my first idea, but that may be misinterpreted to only apply to
> Recordings in the MB sense... Live concerts?
>
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.o
What is the RG title where the RG contains a titled official release and an
untitled bootleg?
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-228-updates-to-Live-Bootlegs-guide-tp4655901p4656522.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at N
Tom Crocker wrote
> mbwiki mbwiki, one in each box
Thanks :)
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-230-Recording-Title-Guidelines-tp4656111p4656521.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
Tom Crocker wrote
> mbwiki mbwiki, one in each box
>
> I don't personally think we need to shelve those rfcs. The live one is
> already a big improvement on what's there and a complete reorganisation
> will take months if not years at the pace things move on the style list. I
> think it's best to
mbwiki mbwiki, one in each box
I don't personally think we need to shelve those rfcs. The live one is
already a big improvement on what's there and a complete reorganisation
will take months if not years at the pace things move on the style list. I
think it's best to allow the other pages to chang
Tom Crocker wrote
> I agree that we could do a lot to reorganise and consolidate the structure
> of the guidelines. I imagine that most of the classical guidelines can be
> applied to all releases, with some exceptions such as using composer as
> the
> Artist. When I first started looking around I
I agree that we could do a lot to reorganise and consolidate the structure
of the guidelines. I imagine that most of the classical guidelines can be
applied to all releases, with some exceptions such as using composer as the
Artist. When I first started looking around I got frustrated at the number
The way all this applies to this RFC is that we should consider which, if
any, title rules apply to recordings that do not apply to all other
entities. Do we need a separate guide for recording titles, or can we append
any necessary rules to http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Recording?
--
View th
...and because we don't define what our entities are at the beginning of the
style guide, it's unclear at various points which rules apply to which
entities. On http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Titles "Recording" is
mentioned once, "Work" not at all, so it's not clear at present whether the
rules t
On 2013-08-07 09:38, lixobix wrote:
> What I'm getting at is that http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Titles should
> not mention any specific entities, but should apply to all entities. Rules
> that apply to specific entities should be placed in the relevant section.
> Perhaps "Titles" should be rena
What I'm getting at is that http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Titles should
not mention any specific entities, but should apply to all entities. Rules
that apply to specific entities should be placed in the relevant section.
Perhaps "Titles" should be renamed "General rules for titles".
--
View t
Alex Mauer wrote
> On 2013-08-07 08:45, lixobix wrote:
>> For example, I don't understand why "Format designations in titles" is on
>> there, as that is a specific rule for release titles, not a general rule
>> for
>> all titles: it's not something I need to know when I'm doing titles for
>> tracks
Alex Mauer wrote
> On 2013-08-07 08:45, lixobix wrote:
>> For example, I don't understand why "Format designations in titles" is on
>> there, as that is a specific rule for release titles, not a general rule
>> for
>> all titles: it's not something I need to know when I'm doing titles for
>> tracks
On 2013-08-07 08:45, lixobix wrote:
> For example, I don't understand why "Format designations in titles" is on
> there, as that is a specific rule for release titles, not a general rule for
> all titles: it's not something I need to know when I'm doing titles for
> tracks or recordings. Similarly,
...and whilst I'm at it... Why do we even have s8-11 on
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style? Why are the relevant parts not integrated
into s1-7? I don't see why we have completely separate guidelines for a
number of particular instances, when the principles in each are mostly
similar or identical. Fo
Also, we have no "Works" guidelines for non-classical. Might as well do that
at the same time as sorting everything else out.
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-230-Recording-Title-Guidelines-tp4656111p4656498.ht
In fact, half of the guidelines on http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Titles
should probably be moved to specific sections, as they do not apply across
the board.
For example, I don't understand why "Format designations in titles" is on
there, as that is a specific rule for release titles, not a gen
Having skimmed through this RFC, and looking in conjunction with
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Th1rtyf0ur/Style/Specific_types_of_releases/Live_bootlegs,
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Titles, and
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Titles/Extra_title_information, I'm now
getting confused.
It se
It is off the point, but it reminds that there is some level of correction
required, so that all in all, I believe I'd rather keep it. But Tom raises
a point: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Miscellaneous could mention
ellipsis. Giving all the typographical rules would be difficult as they
change
19 matches
Mail list logo
