On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Frederik Freso S. Olesen
musicbra...@freso.dk wrote:
3. VIAF release? The question that initially came to mind is should we
link to release-group or release? That's why I'm particularly interested
in the release example, since I've not been able to find a
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Frederik Freso S. Olesen
musicbra...@freso.dk wrote:
http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-178
Expected expiration: 2012-01-25
VIAF is a project to make libraries across the world talk the same
language, much in the same way MusicBrainz is aiming to
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 11:24 AM, Aurélien Mino aurelien.m...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Frederik Freso S. Olesen
musicbra...@freso.dk wrote:
http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-178
Expected expiration: 2012-01-25
VIAF is a project to make libraries across
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Frederik Freso S. Olesen
musicbra...@freso.dk wrote:
http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-178
Expected expiration: 2012-01-25
VIAF is a project to make libraries across the world talk the same
language, much in the same way MusicBraiz is aiming to
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
reosare...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
reosare...@gmail.com wrote:
Both ozon.ru and encyclopedisque.fr, which were OK when they were
added to the cover art whitelist, now watermark
I've updated definition of sticker on the proposal wiki page following RFC
discussion.
Wiki: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:murdos/RFC-126
Ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-126
Expiration: 07/07
- Aurélien
___
MusicBrainz-style
Could someone explain me why we're going away from the former semi-official
Soundtrack Title Style, that was normalizing titles?
(semi-official because most editors were applying it)
- Aurélien
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net wrote:
This is the RFV for the
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Maurits Meulenbelt
maurits.meulenb...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems nobody objects to tray, and I like it too. Has anyone ever seen
a an image printed on the actual tray instead of the paper behind it? I
think it could be tricky to produce for jewel cases but
I regularly came across scanned stickers, and I was thinking that it could
be useful it we had a specific cover art type for that.
Examples:
-
http://coverartarchive.org/release/a3feeef5-531a-49e1-b481-5e28d91618e0/1246477268.jpg
-
, Aurélien Mino wrote:
I regularly came across scanned stickers, and I was thinking that it
could
be useful it we had a specific cover art type for that.
Examples:
-
http://coverartarchive.org/release/a3feeef5-531a-49e1-b481-5e28d91618e0/1246477268.jpg
-
http://coverartarchive.org/release
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl wrote:
Anything which helps to uniquely identify a recording seems valuable to
store in a (machine-readable) database field IMO.
Probably. But it doesn't belong to the MusicBrainz database IMO.
We should stick with our own identifiers
+ 1
- Aurélien
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Lars Arne Beer arne1...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi,
it would be useful for me (and a few others) if there wold be a type of Works
for poems, as there are many songs that have a poem as lyrics and there are
some recordings with recitations of poems.
+1
- Aurélien
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:41 AM, jesus2099 hta3s836gzac...@jetable.org wrote:
Hello there,
However I think it is overly overkill bureaucracy to make a RFC just for
that.
If anyone has any comments against auto-cleaning the discogs URL in the
following way, please say so. :)
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Jim DeLaHunt from.nab...@jdlh.com wrote:
Actually, this is not how I interpret the Prefer Specific Relationship Types
principle [1]. I think the principle guides the choice between Relationship
Types, e.g. between Arranger [2] (more general) and Orchestrator [3]
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:11 AM, StoneyBoh js...@mindless.com wrote:
I don't know who wrote that rationale based on internationalization or
where it came from. Rather I believe that the abbreviation style came
from the pre-NGS philosophy of normalizing the track and title data to
produce a
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Johannes Weißl jar...@molb.org wrote:
However, release level links should always be preferred if possible.
For the record, this goes against the Prefer Specific Relationship
Types principle [1].
Which means some inconstancies in guidelines if we go that way.
-
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Johannes Weißl jar...@molb.org wrote:
There are two reasons for the low usage of tags for genre I think. One
is that we don't have enough active users [1] [...]
[1]
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Johannes Weißl jar...@molb.org wrote:
But the link points to a graph that shows Active users. As this graph
[2] shows, they are almost identical to the active editors.
On the graph, and Active user is either a user who has voted or
edited - that's why both
On 09/23/2011 03:00 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
If you disagree, speak up!
Could you please stop using these RFC-VocesNubem, RFC-Ya, ...
Either you use a real RFC number, or you just use RFC:
Because this is confusing, and *cough* not professional (since I heard
this is what MB
On 09/17/2011 10:37 PM, David Saunders wrote:
The only real opposition came in the form of I'm not going to use
this, which unfortuantely I am not going to accept as its not
constructive and frankly I could personally apply that to anything
classical in this databse.
Please don't take
On 09/14/2011 04:50 PM, Oliver Charles wrote:
Hello!
I'd like to request that all testing data is removed from the live
servers. By test data I'm talking about:
* MusicBrainz Test Artists
* Associated releases, recordings, labels, release groups and works,
that are used only by the artists
On 09/09/2011 09:32 PM, David Saunders wrote:
please see:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Songfacts_Relationship_Type
+1
Songfacts is a user contributed database concerned with the stories
behind the songs
I've added this description to the wiki page, so it's possible to
quickly know
On 08/26/2011 06:25 PM, Aurélien Mino wrote:
Since I'm off for 3 days, could we postpone the passage date to 31th
August 2011?
So after Ed G's answer to all questions, I've no strong opposition to
this RFC/RFV.
If other people want it, so be it.
- Aurélien
On 08/26/2011 02:56 PM, Ed G wrote:
Dear Sirs
In accordance with the Process for Idea Champions, as a result of a
style council member endorsing my RFC Request to Add LyricStatus to
lyrics site Whitelist, I have moved the RFC to RFV status.
Expected passage date: 2 days (28th August 2011)
On 08/24/2011 11:11 PM, Ian McEwen wrote:
To be clear here: my understanding of the situation was that
last.fm/secondhandsongs are situations like SoundUnwound (disregarding
our current ARs relevant to these sites) -- they're links that are
likely to appear on every page, or every page where
On 08/20/2011 01:27 AM, jesus2099 wrote:
I think Arrange on works were allowed too quickly without proper thinking
Could you explain me why SACEM, the French copyright collecting agency,
shows in its database two different works for song Pour faire une jam,
the only difference being that one
- Lukáš Lalinský lalin...@gmail.com a écrit :
I propose that the current recording and release group style
guidelines are applied to tracks and releases as well. The change
would involve removing the track/release section from the wiki, and
modifying other sections to mention that they
On 07/21/2011 03:58 AM, Andii Hughes wrote:
Attempt 2. The proposal:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Featured_Artists
From introduction:
This guideline applies to cases in which one or more artists are
featured on a recording or release group by another artist, but not
equally as they
On 07/21/2011 01:20 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
so that your example is theoretical to me :-)
Theoretical, like your editing activity on MB since NGS release...? :-)
- Aurélien
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
On 07/20/2011 04:53 PM, Andii Hughes wrote:
Expected passage date: 23rd of July, 2011 (~2 days)
(snip)
This covers recordings and release groups *ONLY*. The discussion on
this at RFC clarified that the current guidelines only apply to
recordings release groups,
and that none yet exist for
On 07/21/2011 12:33 AM, Andii Hughes wrote:
I really don't think we need a whole RFC again... we've already had
over a hundred messages,
most of which essentially seem to bring up the same point about track
titles over and over again.
Yes, hundred messages, that's the heart of the issue.
I'm against any new relationship type that move away MusicBrainz from a
neutral position regarding music sellers.
A project claiming to be the open music encyclopedia can't be a link
farm for music shops.
MusicBrainz goal is not to be the universal way to find and buy your music.
If this
On 07/18/2011 08:44 AM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Aurélien Minoa.m...@free.fr wrote:
I'm against any new relationship type that move away MusicBrainz from a
neutral position regarding music sellers.
A project claiming to be the open music encyclopedia
On 07/11/2011 09:27 PM, Yin Izanami wrote:
It may be that a single work isn't supposed to have multiple ISWC
codes, but in reality I believe it is the case that many single works
do in fact have multiple ISWC codes.
I've been searching the ASCAP database
On 07/12/2011 04:45 PM, Andii Hughes wrote:
I've written a proposal for handling featured artists post-NGS:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Featured_Artists
This deals with the legacy data issue (ws/1 still provides data in
pre-NGS format) by retaining the existing guideline for track
On 07/10/2011 04:46 PM, ChurruKa wrote:
This is a trivial RFC for changing the guidelines of the
Recording-Work performance AR so it encourages people to add the
performance dates of live recordings when that information is
available:
On 07/07/2011 01:36 AM, Alex Mauer wrote:
I for one would move the following to the comment, or in some cases
possibly to the work. It’s a pretty big list…
*
radio/single/album/studio/single/TV/film/acoustic/abridged/extended/long/short/long/revised/alternate/alternative/revised
version/edit
On 06/23/2011 02:30 AM, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 6/22/2011 7:00 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
There's absolutely no reason to use iTunes as the label.
I think there is; if not, you get two different digital media releases
which appear to be the same except for the release date and are
On 06/14/2011 01:19 PM, Calvin Walton wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 10:29 -0400, Calvin Walton wrote:
This proposal is to add or change two ARs:
* Official Homepage
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Kepstin/Official_Homepage_Relationship_Type_Proposal
* Discography Entry
On 06/03/2011 02:43 PM, Nikki wrote:
I think this relationship type you be defined at release-group level
only, and this I'm considering vetoing this proposal.
I've not seen a good reason why release-group level doesn't qualify.
As Calvin asked, are you OK with the discography page one being
On 06/02/2011 12:34 AM, Alex Mauer wrote:
After some discussion on IRC[1], there seems to be some agreement that
it would be useful to have a work-work relationship type to indicate
that one work is part of another. This holds especially true for
classical works where a piece is often divided
On 06/01/2011 07:19 PM, Pete Marsh wrote:
i think that's sound and probably applies to reviews links too. how do
people feel about the reviews relationship going to release level too?
In a general way, I'm opposed to have the same relationship defined at
both release and release-group level.
Summary: Addition of a Work-URL relationship type to link works at the
Secondhandsongs database.
See RFC and proposal wiki for more details:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Secondhandsongs_Relationship_Type
The expected passage date for the RFV: 30-05-2011 (2 days)
- Aurélien / murdos
On 05/22/2011 04:41 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
It seems rather silly to have separate works, but it also seems silly
that the instrumental versions should get a lyricist relationship if
they are linked to the single work. Ideas?
What about an instrumental attribute to the performance AR?
On 05/22/2011 06:51 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
On 22 May 2011 15:39, SwissChrisswissch...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think this is a good approach. All Is Full Of Love and all is
full of love both are IMHO ridiculous. We had this discussion before:
cover graphics (including
On 05/02/2011 09:27 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
I like it.
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Nikkiaei...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Does anyone have any objections to the following
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Live_Track_Style#Live_Non-Album_Tracks for
all live recordings in NGS, except
This is a proposal [1] to allow linking our works to their matching
pages in the Secondhandsongs database.
For those who are not aware of it, it's a database dedicated to cover
songs (and also samples).
It offers interesting information for each work:
- composer, lyricist or writer
-
On 05/19/2011 08:57 AM, caramel wrote:
Jeroen van Veen arranged the orchestrated version to get a
four-hands piano version.
Arr. AR is at recording level == no work
It was planned to add Arranger at work level too after NGS migration,
exactly for this situation.
See
It seems pretty obvious: Wikipedia has a lot of pages about songs that should
really be linked on Work level.
Any objections?
- Aurélien / murdos
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
On 04/23/2011 07:57 AM, Bill Purosky wrote:
I'm going to add and correct the relationships on /Trespass/ by
Genesis and I was wondering about how to best reconcile some of the
credits.
MB:
http://musicbrainz.org/release/f0e2a5a8-861f-48d2-8900-2c8ce23444e7.html
Album cover:
On 03/20/2011 07:23 AM, Kuno Woudt wrote:
My intent is to remove it entirely.
Then I'm against this proposal.
It's not obvious and superfluous, I had to refer to this guideline a few
times while coaching new editors.
- Aurélien
___
MusicBrainz-style
On 03/20/2011 09:34 AM, Nikki wrote:
I don't think we need to make a distinction between recordings used on
releases where all the tracks are live, recordings used on releases
where some of the tracks are live and non-album tracks, so I thought of
a couple of approaches:
1. Just follow the
On 03/11/2011 01:23 PM, Alex Y wrote:
I don't see how this is a good idea, especially for (instrumental)
and related Karaoke-meaning ETI. Wouldn't a release then just list
duplicate track names which are actually quite different?
This discussion is about recording title, not track title.
In
On 03/11/2011 08:30 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
This is to announce that I am adopting RFC-270, “Bandleader Position
Relationship Type” [1], and to move it to RFC status. This was
originally discussed about a year ago.[2]
The proposal adds two ARs:
The first gives “is the bandleader of” to
On 01/12/2011 03:45 PM, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
I don't agree with this. Take for example Talking All That Jazz
(Torti's Old School Mix of Edits dub) -- I'd argue that having only
Talking All That Jazz in the recording title would cause a lot of
confusion. I also think that this change would
On 01/12/2011 09:16 PM, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Aurélien Minoa.m...@free.fr wrote:
Could you then provide examples of information you're expecting to be
added as comment?
- album version
So I guess this includes instrumental (what you're calling karaoke
version
Brian,
Please revert the change you made to the EarliestReleaseRelationshipType [1]
whereas the RFV never passed (it was vetoed by me [2]).
I seriously hope that you did not make this change knowingly.
Please be extremely cautious with wiki changes, guidelines are already
complex,
they are even
On 12/28/2010 11:38 PM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Ok, I've add a note about the use of this AR, pre-NGS, per nikki's
suggestion.
Also, I've removed the remix attribute. I still think it's quite
useful to have, but we don't seem to be getting any closer to this
passing so long as it stays
On 11/12/2010 10:18, Jason wrote:
And lastly, I propose this Comment period runs for 1 week starting
12:01 Saturday (you pick the time zone :) ).
What you're proposing is not clear at all.
Judging from this mail and the RFC title, I think what you want is
adding BandCamp to the white-list of
On 03/12/2010 17:21, Alex Mauer wrote:
There’s also some heading-level formatting changes; are those OK with
you? :-p
Sure.
You can't compare a few formatting changes with the unadvertised removal
of a reference to the strongest anti-spam guideline in MB.
- Aurélien
On 03/12/2010 19:44, Alex Mauer wrote:
The strongest guideline certainly isn’t very strong then, given that
it’s not even an official guideline. I’m told that it’s quite out of
date as well. (iTunes now has a preview view for normal browsers,
CDbaby now has artist pages, and allmusic have
On 02/12/2010 01:39, Alex Mauer wrote:
After discussion on IRC, I have been convinced that the previous
versions of this proposal have been far too verbose in describing how
editors should “fix” the changes made by the current guideline, and that
it would be better for a guideline to simply
On 03/12/2010 04:16, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Might I suggest we expand the RFC to simply be a rewrite of Misc
Guideline entirely? We're already rewriting a good part of it.
No. Unless you want to seriously delay the approval of this RFC/RFV.
- Aurélien
I'm going to update the Release Artist Style (since this only a proposal
and not an official guideline), to remove the following section:
===I have a boxset in which each disc is by a different artist. Should I
set the ReleaseArtist to VariousArtists for all discs?===
No. Each disc should have
On 11/11/2010 05:51, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
I've made the changes to the Single From Release proposal to handle
all the various concerns, I think.
Jacobbrett, I'll be using your examples for the other AR, but I didn't
think this one needed extras for your #s 7 and 8, as it's pretty clear
On 27/10/2010 02:39, SwissChris wrote:
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Jeroen Latour f.j.lat...@gmail.com
mailto:f.j.lat...@gmail.com wrote:
SwissChris, your thoughts?
What should I say? I still think the (frequent) case of one single
artist (particularly singer/songwriters) being
On 19/10/2010 02:15, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Ok, here's another approach to try...
What if we make single from only RG-RG, and supporting release
only R-R, and at the same time, make the two ARs totally standalone
(ie, neither a subtype of the other)? I admit, I like the simplicity
of
- Per Starbäck per.starb...@gmail.com a écrit :
In any case, if we define a single taken from an album as simply
it's a single that
has a track on it which was also on album Foo, then it remains true
even if the single
and the album are released 10 years apart.
But preferrably
On 17/10/2010 00:49, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
I'm still working on the Track From version, and on revising the
proposal for Supporting Release, but I think I'm done tweaking the
Single From proposed text.
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposals/Single_From_Release_Relationship_Type Any
On 16/10/2010 12:53, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2010/10/16 Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com
mailto:brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:20 PM, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com
mailto:swissch...@gmail.com wrote:
I really think the one
On 16/10/2010 00:24, Simon Austin wrote:
I guess that explains The Wall
http://test.musicbrainz.org/release-group/f2026101-945b-3d05-9ef4-aa718fc3feef
What's the way to fix things like that? Edit the release events to match
and ModBot will pick them up, or is it case of adding the disc 2
On 15/10/2010 21:12, Simon Austin wrote:
On 13/10/2010 22:48, Aurélien Mino wrote:
Just for the record, in a NGS perspective it doesn't really matter.
There won't be any bonus discs anymore, just 1-disc-releases or
2-discs-releases.
How are they converted from the old system
On 13/10/2010 21:15, Simon Austin wrote:
It's been my understanding that, in MB terms, a bonus disc happens
when the primary disc(s) are available both with and without the extra
disc(s). For this reason the the bonus disc AR says may be part of a
set rather than is part of a set. However,
On 12/10/2010 13:16, Pavan Chander wrote:
Hello, this is RFC-292 - VGMdb Relationship Type.
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:VGMdb_Relationship_Type
As many of you know, VGMdb http://vgmdb.netis a community project
dedicated to cataloguing the music of videogames and anime. They are
an
On 10/10/2010 00:14, Jeroen Latour wrote:
Hi Aurélien,
Oops, I forgot to change the example to what SwissChris proposed.
Updated now: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Writer_Relationship_Type
Still want to veto?
(By the way: the linked track has composer ARs for Lennon/McCartney -
we
On 09/10/2010 22:33, Jeroen Latour wrote:
Hi everyone,
Since all objections seem to be resolved, and multiple +1s were
submitted, I am now submitting RFC-111 for RFV.
This proposal introduces a new AR type 'Writer', as a superclass of
composer and lyricist. This AR type is to be used when it
On 19/09/2010 21:38, Nikki wrote:
If the above can't work, and we do need to go with 2 different ARs,
it would
seem that we then need to figure out the wording for single from album;
As for the wording, I would personally leave it as it is and clarify in
the description that album
On 03/09/2010 09:45, jacobbrett wrote:
I'm no sure linking to release groups is a good idea, *because*
releases are
often re-released.
In my opinion, a supporting release (the purpose of which is usually to
promote a particular release/re-release/remix release) bears little
relevance to
On 17/05/2010 02:43, Rob Keeney wrote:
Sorry if this isn't the right place to ask this, but I'm still trying
to get my brain around Release Groups. Suppose I have a release set
that consists of several discs. Each disc may be attributed to a
single artist, but each one is different from the
On 02/05/2010 00:22, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
[...] Esp as these will be split to different releases within the same
RG in NGS anyhow, it seems backwards to merge them now, only for them
to be later re-split, but now with some REs not having the correct
release title.
On the contrary.
When
On 25/03/2010 13:10, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Aurélien Mino a.m...@free.fr
mailto:a.m...@free.fr wrote:
On 24/03/2010 13:55, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
I definitely think there'd be a benefit to this at the RG-RG level.
However, for this AR
On 14/03/2010 14:55, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Just because it's interesting, before even the argument is made that
there's a flood, take a look at the history of the style list, in KB
to read... The one big spike is CSGv2. Otherwise, traffic is lower,
now and on average, than 3 or 4 years
On 18/03/2010 23:33, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
You're referring to the 'AR set' potential here. I'd suggest the same
approach as for other Alternative Version ARs; we link to the earliest
version of the album.
As already said Pavan, the current rule to link to the earliest version
is a hack
On 18/03/2010 20:58, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
Problem summary:
Style council members want some assurance that each and every RFC has
been reviewed and endorsed by at least one other style council member
before going to the RFV stage.
Proposal summary:
Before RFC text qualifies for RFV, another
On 18/03/2010 22:38, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
This is RFC-52. Without objection, assuming a seconder, this will
move to RFV on 2010-03-25.
This is based on
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/?title=Single_From_Album_Relationship_Typeoldid=4641
On 16/03/2010 20:45, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
8. Since you have mentioned the code of conduct, it was not my intent to
attack anyone or run afoul of the code. If I have come close to
violating the code (or have actually violated it!), I request others in
the style council confirm this (openly or
On 16/03/2010 21:16, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
The problem I see is that in the RFC process we have, silence is
consent, and with enough RFCs in the queue, there will be silence, not
because because people necessarily agree or consent, but because they
will be overwhelmed with the sheer volume of
On 09/03/2010 13:58, Chad Wilson wrote:
I personally think the list is being flooded with far too much
content/blah to be reviewed in the amounts of time the current RFC/V
process allows.
This isn't fair. It risks things being swept through the system without
proper care and oversight which
- Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com a écrit :
It came to Pavan and my attention tonight that
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Member_Of_Band_Relationship (formerly at
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Member_Of_Band_Relationship_Style) is an
official style guideline.
This would be
- Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com a écrit :
This is another official style guideline that isn't actually an
official
style guideline; it's a proof of concept translated guideline page
from
2005; interesting perhaps, but not anything close to up to date, nor
an
actual
- Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com a écrit :
Ok, this one's pretty clean and simple, so I've drafted the wikipages
for
it. The proposal is to create a new AR class (this AR doesn't fit
into any
of the existing ones ) and the new track-URL/release-URL AR.
The
- Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com a écrit :
Isn't this just the point, though?
I'm not a native English speaker, but it seems pretty clear to me that was not
what you were proposing.
To my understanding you were proposing to remove the Official guideline tag
from
Some comments on the documentation.
On 04/12/2009 21:20, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Ok. I believe this RFC (and the RFV as well, of course) should be
further split in pre-NGS and post-NGS, because I don't think
it would be a good idea to have people vote (or rather not-veto ;-)
) something
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
This has been in RFC since September, without anyone seeming to object,
Let's say that I still haven't found the time to read this horribly long
proposal.
so I'm moving it to RFV stage, to expire Dec 3 at 2:30pm EST.
I would like to veto just for the purpose of
Kuno Woudt wrote:
* Nothing in the guideline about audiobooks/spoken word. The J K Rowling
listing, at the moment, imho is 99% useless in terms of functionality - it
looks more like it's being used as a pseduo-artist-release author of book
AR, not a functional grouping of quite distinct
Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote:
Dear fellow Brainerz,
it seems that my earlier mail got lost in the depths of Gmane gateways :( I
won't repeat everything I've written in the last mail, you know how it works
better than me. So here it goes again: we are now ready to receive comments
on the
Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote:
Dear fellow Brainerz,
it seems that my earlier mail got lost in the depths of Gmane gateways :( I
won't repeat everything I've written in the last mail, you know how it works
better than me. So here it goes again: we are now ready to receive comments
on the
- Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com a écrit :
On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl wrote:
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 07:00:12AM -0400, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
After all, what harm is there in adding links, so long as the links are
actually for
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
I'm going to be unavailable for most of the next month, so I'm
throwing this out as a potential AR, for the moment, rather than RFC
it while I'm not around to help with the RFC. :) If there's no
objection to it, I'll RFC it at the beginning of next month, when I'm
- Chad Wilson chad.wil...@gmx.net a écrit :
On 4/05/2009 7:51 p.m., Aurélien Mino wrote:
Hi,
As some of you already know, Discogs has recently introduced ([1])
the concept of 'master release' which corresponds to what we name
'release-group'.
Since we don't yet have release
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
