Note: Yes, I read the entire thread.
On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 06:28:26 +0200, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Now that that's said, can we return the focus of the conversation back
to the main topic here - the RFC - and not the way any one individual
phrases edit notes?
Just reviewing the emails since my
On Mon, 07 May 2007 13:08:41 +0200, Bogdan Butnaru wrote:
Hi!
There was a discussion a while ago about bands changing their names. I
can't find it now, and I'd like to revive the discussion.
In short, I propose we add a new artist-to-artist AR to reflect bands
changing their names.
The
Hmm, I am still unsure. Here are the important definitions that were
proposed during this thread (did I miss one?)
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:21:54 +0200, Lauri Watts wrote:
Any release that was not legally sanctioned by the rights holder,
which is normally, but not always, the artist and/or
On Fri, 04 May 2007 01:05:45 +0200, Bogdan Butnaru wrote:
The only technical issue is splitting the art design/illustration AR
with minimal loss of data. Is it possible to make a tiny temporary
hack that keeps an already-existing AR present but disallows
creating new ARs of that type? We only
On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:09:03 +0200, Sami Sundell wrote:
On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 07:59:55AM +0200, Lauri Watts wrote:
I honestly don't understand the wikipedia article's point of view.
For once, I do, at least in some respects :P
Ok, I'll give it a try (this is DonRedman's definition, not
On Wed, 02 May 2007 01:03:49 +0200, Chris B wrote:
On 01/05/07, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
now i'm convinced they are different things :)
yes they are
it could be handled
under my relationship though because the use should be obvious from
the context.
I suggested two types
On Tue, 01 May 2007 01:21:36 +0200, Chris B wrote:
See http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/EngineerRelationshipType
# artist edited release or track
# release or track was edited by artist
The editor is responsible for either connecting disparate elements of
the audio recording, or otherwise
On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:21:54 +0200, Lauri Watts wrote:
As was pointed out last time this argument came up, the thing missing
in our definition is legality. It's not a matter of sanctioned or
not, it's a matter of legal licensing. A bootleg is illegal. Always.
Every time. Anything that's
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:11:00 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2007/4/27, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think you are not getting his point.
Bootleg *means* someting and MB has been using the term for a lot of
stuff
that means nothing. Thus our formal and very broad definition.
I am
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:44:32 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
under the current system it would be:
CD1 =
NTCD354 + release date A
NTCD1952 + release data B
CD2 =
NTCD38l + release date C
NTCD1952 + release data B
Ok. Although I still feel we are losing information and that attaching
the
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:39:21 +0200, Aaron Cooper wrote:
It looks wonderful! Great work everyone! :)
We could use a few more example releases - I'll try and get my Der
Ring box set updated and linked.
Cheers!
Very cool and thanks to everybody who took part. I do not think a veto is
OK, seems we need a clear decision now. The wiki page lists the two
options that remain:
1. OperaName, OpusNumber: ActNumber[, SceneNumber]. (PerformanceType:
Characters) Name of the song
2. OperaName, OpusNumber: ActNumber[, SceneNumber]. PerformanceType Name
of the song (Characters)
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:33:59 +0100, Robert Kiessling wrote:
Are track titles required to be unique within one release?
No
DonRedman
--
Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiDocs,
the MusicBrainz documentation system.
Go to http://musicbrainz.org/doc/SomeTerm
(you might need to
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 11:07:00 +0100, wrote:
The compiling artist is credited on the cover, I would expect these kind
of albums to appear on the artist page (in the appropriate section, not
along their regular albums)._I_ fail to see why it would be better to
keep them linked to 'various
On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 13:29:39 +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
Alternatively you can say: Hey, I'ts a wiki. Just delete stuff as you
like, and link to the old revision of the page for historical purpose
like
this: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/OperaTrackStyle?action=recallrev=33
Yes, but
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:37:33 +0100, Erik Dalén wrote:
Chris Bransden wrote:
On 06/03/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree :)
So in your opinion this release should be Ladytron not Various
Artists?
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 13:26:33 +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2007/3/2, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 3/2/07, Frederic Da Vitoria [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you want to try Don's suggestion yourself? It would mean editing an
actual release this way and telling other users you have
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:38:54 +0100, David Gibson wrote:
Erm.. except I believe the thread was discussion classical Release
Titles, not Track Titles.
How embarrasing. :-) Funny that I did not realise this while reading
through the 50+ mails. I really have been reading too fast. Sorry.
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:29:45 +0100, Aaron Cooper wrote:
I started this thread to get rid of this:
Symphon[y|ies] No[s|]. 5[, | / | ] [No[s|].|] 7
// square brackets imply a choice between the items separated by bars
// so, for example we currently have:
// Symphony No. 5 / No. 7
// Symphonies
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 06:54:06 +0100, Aaron Cooper wrote:
Good evening,
I want to propose a standard way of titling classical releases. This
wouldn't apply to compilations with several parts of different works,
but rather for releases which have an (or multiple) entire works.
Here's the gist:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 12:20:29 +0100, Chris Bransden wrote on mb-users:
On 12/01/07, Erik Dalén [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I understand it remastered releases should be added as a new release
with a remaster AR to the original even if the track list hasn't
changed,
right?
i seem to
On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:30:03 +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2007/1/8, Olivier [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Sure this is something that needs to be addressed... definitely
MusicBrainz is a complicated beast.
I guess many style rules will become useless once Loch Ness, sorry NGS
is here.
I am
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:31:20 +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2006/12/11, mll [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
OK, DonRedman lent me his magical wand so that (I shorten) now
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalStyleGuide will be pasted to
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/ClassicalStyleGuide only when we decide
On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 23:36:42 +0100, Andrew Conkling wrote:
Have we reached any consensus on this? I'm getting a bit confused
rereading this thread, but I'm on a Bach rampage and am looking to
clean up a few cantata releases.
Heh, someone should try to summarise the result. That's what RFC/RFV
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 23:38:01 +0100, Jason Bouwmeester wrote:
Hardly; only if other people feel the same way, I guess.
Oh I was just under the impression that one veto was all it took.
That is only half of it. All of it goes like this:
If you really believe that MusicBrainz will become a
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 23:54:08 +0100, azertus wrote:
2006/11/9, Lauri Watts [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've made some small formatting edits to the Promo Only guideline
page, which I think clarifies which of it comprise the actual
guideline, and which parts are just extra information.
I hope this helps
On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:39:38 +0100, Lauri Watts wrote:
I'd love to see the CdM and MoS 'current practise' written up too, and
there are probably plenty more around, concensus built over time, and
known only to a handful of people, or buried in edit notes.
I love this term Current Practice.
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 11:00:04 +0100, Age Bosma wrote:
I mean templates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Template
Where we can just put a bit of HTML in a separate template page: div
style=border: 1px solid #3F3F3F; background-color: #FF;
font-weight: bold; text-align: center; padding:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:07:03 +0100, Age Bosma wrote:
Kerensky97 wrote:
Add me as another person who really likes this idea but not the wording
of
legal. If we can just think of a different way to word it I think it
would be great.
Who are the other people who don't like the wording of
On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 16:15:33 +0100, Alexander Dupuy wrote:
Anyhow - no need for a new RFV on this - as I was the only one objecting
strongly to the attribute, we can add it provisionally, and remove it
once the server support on updated album page makes it obsolete.
Done:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:21:11 +0100, Age Bosma wrote:
Would this be worth the work?
I think it will. We have the system in place so why not us it to the
fullest. It would sure fit nicely in the current discussion on the forum
about changing and improving the RFC/RFV process [1].
I do,
OK, we seem to have consensus about this. Should I make a RFV for this or
is this part of the first one? If everybody is ok with it, I can change
the AR definition now to the way it is on test.
I have already added the new attribute, but not enabled it in the AR.
I have lost track of this
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 01:30:12 +0100, Kerensky97 wrote:
I tried to fix one of the mistagged ones but it doesn't let you have
two of the ARs at the same time so to correct something people would
have to remove the error translation AR then re-enter the AR with
the transliteration checkbox.
Uh?
On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:54:55 +0100, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
Hi,
I'm working on adding support for labels/catalog numbers. Now that I have
implemented adding ARs for labels, I started thinking about possible AR
types we will need. I can think only of these two:.
Just to be sure: Labels will
On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:14:56 +0100, Kerensky97 wrote:
Maybe I won't add it to Trac, it keeps saying Akismet rejected spam
Uh?
Whatever, here it is: http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/2254
And I have added a comment to Rob'S recent blogpost. Howver, I am not
sure, this attribute can be
I have tagged all style council related pages in the wiki with
CategoryStyleCouncil. While doing so, I have found two pages, that I
believed are not used anymore. These are
* RecentStyleChanges and
* the category on Trac http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/report/8
as mentioned on StyleIssue.
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:53:48 +0200, Kerensky97 wrote:
Sorry I was a bit short on that last post, I'm frusterated for all the
exact reasons you keep mentioning. We need to make the whole RFC/RFV
process more accessable to everybody so that anybody who spends morethan
a 30 second click
On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 05:33:24 +0200, Alexander Dupuy wrote:
Okay, Rob fixed the bug with the test server, and I created a
{transtype} attribute for the new transl-tracklisting on the test
server. Tried it out with the attribute optional, then made it
required. Created some ARs for
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:00:13 +0200, Ryan McCabe wrote:
I think this flew under the radar of a lot of people. Given the comments
in the edit notes, and given the comments on IRC regarding the
moderation, maybe there isn't a consensus after all, and it should be
withdrawn for the time being, or
First, I would really appreciate if you (both of you) could keep this tone
out of this mailinglist. Thank you.
Second, mb-style is *the* place for decisions about changes to the style
guidelines. This is adevertised on the wiki and repeatedly on mb-users.
If anyone fears to be left out in
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:02:15 +0200, Jason Bouwmeester wrote:
Don, do you think it's ok if I rename this page to
PromoOnlySeriesStyle, or leave it as is?
And assuming it passes this RFV, shall we make an Official Series
Style Guideline category and put this and the OC Remix Style in it?
And
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:10:24 +0200, David Gibson wrote:
As far as I can tell, the current style guideline information doesn't
have any examples covering the intersection of DiscNumberStyle and
ClassicalStyleGuide. Which order should the information mandated by
each go, that is should it be:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:10:29 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
CSGDiscussion being probably one of the biggest pages in the wiki, and
discussions about classical being so long to resolve, I'd like to
reorder Covers section in it (it helps me stay optimistic ;-) )
So examples 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9
On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:47:31 +0200, Jason Bouwmeester wrote:
Meanwhile, do you think I should take this promo only thing to an RFV?
I'm still a bit confused about the exact procedure (or if this even
needs to go through the whole formal process, if we're gonna have
style guidelines lite for
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
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:03:27 +0200, Dave Smey wrote:
Pointing out the fact that he
really doesn't seem to have much experience with Classical music was a
justified criticism, IMO. (Perhaps he will learn from the experience and
not be so arrogant - though I admit that's pretty unlikely.)
I
On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:30:50 +0200, Kerensky97 wrote:
For now i
think we need to consider an AR that artist X changed name to artist Y (a
complete changeover, not performas as or anything like that). And the
Picard tweak would be cool too (it'll cause issues with last.fm
submissions
though
On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 15:49:23 +0200, Age Bosma wrote:
Hi,
Based on the responses I think we can draw the following conclusions:
1. Releases have to be filed under the artist name it was releases under.
Um, no?
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/6514cffa-fbe0-4965-ad88-e998ead8a82a.html
Most of
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:59:25 +0200, Alexander Dupuy wrote:
Without speaking to the correctness or accuracy of your arguments, I'd
just point out that you're not likely to advance your cause very far
with attacks like these,
or worded differently:
I am right of course,
stop arguing already
On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 02:49:32 +0200, Edward Kaye wrote:
Hi, I admit it, I am the one that kicked off this arguments :) My BLS
seems
to have caused more than a little controversy. I meant to raise this
issue,
but it has been a hell of a week, with job interviews etc.
For my two cents, I am a
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 23:17:40 +0200, Steve Wyles wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006, Don Redman wrote:
This issue needs to be raised on the style mailing list. We can discuss
this to death here but it will not matter. The only instance in
MusicBrainz that could come to a binding decision
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:37:58 +0200, Matt Howe wrote:
On Wednesday 20 September 2006 3:37 pm, Lauri Watts wrote:
off-topic. But I just didn't think that almost all bonus discs are
Albums was a fair statement. In fact, I would (and am) argue that
I never said that almost all bonus discs are
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 20:02:44 +0200, Lauri Watts wrote:
On 9/20/06, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am right of course,
stop arguing already will you,
it's you who is wrong.
There's my haiku!
Well, IMVHO it applies to you as well. Neither of you have really been
trying to understand
I suggest you create a page along the lines of
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalStyleGuide and collect all these
ideas.
And please discuss new feature suggestions on mb-users, first. If you get
some agreement and a more concrete idea, and if you need a decision or
statement by the
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:56:06 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
so, i tried to create some kind of rule for bonus discs -
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BonusDisc (the ammendment section)
thoughts?
i still think this is a worthy ammendment, and noticed another case
for it today. any thoughts?
Why
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 21:09:08 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
On 19/09/06, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 10:56:06 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
so, i tried to create some kind of rule for bonus discs -
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BonusDisc (the ammendment section
OK, the follwing RFV has passed:
Bootleg torrents that are compilations based on playlists of charts
authorities (like Billboard's) should not be sotered in MusicBrainz as
releases. These playlists are copyrighted by their issuers.
I have written a blogpost[1] and entered a delte edit for
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 15:21:35 +0200, Rod Begbie wrote:
Any opinion on how this would affect the John Peel Festive 50[1]
releases already in MB[2]?
As far as I know, the Beeb don't give two hoots about the lists being
distributed, so I'm not sure that copyright is a concern, but these
releases
Initially, I wrote this as a personal reply to Lauri. When I read it over,
I thought, what the hell. This is of interest to everybody. I changed the
subject, too.
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:53:09 +0200, Lauri Watts wrote:
To me it is just about dialogue versus judging, about respect versus
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 10:29:04 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
define popular :) to quote myself: how do you really measure
that on the internet anyway? torrents are the only method of
distribution [here], and aren't centralised anyway? i just don't know
how i would begin to decide which torrents
Hmm, there has not been a lot of response to my request. Strange thing,
since a lot of people voted.
in orter to push the process I'll make a concrete proposal as a
Request for Comments
MusicBrainz will start to keep track of series of *popular* torrents and
have them in the database as
On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 20:01:44 +0200, Alexander Dupuy wrote:
As nobody has raised any objections, in the spirit of beta testing, I
have made these changes (renamed myspace AR, added blog AR) on the
test.musicbrainz.org server, so that people can experiment with them.
Interestingly, the
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:50:09 +0200, Steve Wyles wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Robert Kaye wrote:
I did not mean to circumvent the process here -- I do apologize.
Please advise if I should:
1. reset the four artists to unknown and remove the project type from
the live server or
2. don't
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:22:12 +0200, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:
Proposal: New URL relation types: Has blog at URL, Has LiveJournal at
URL
Why needed?: As of today, musicbrainz have the relation Have the
MySpace page at. MySpace is not only blog service in universe,
neither it does have monopoly
On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 20:07:41 +0200, Jan van Thiel wrote:
I've created http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/SplitReleaseTitleStyle and
like to have comments. Thanks!
I think that page should state very clearly that the artist should be
Various Artists. This is kind of implied but not very clear.
I just realized that you (Beth) are not alone on this project (just
finished reading mb-users).
So, I want to bring Simon's excelent summary to everybody's attention:
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-Artist-Type%3A-Solo-Project-p5068189s2885.html
That mail could serve as a good starting point for
Finally found the time to reply to your mail.
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:39:26 +0200, Beth wrote:
Okay, there's little way I can reply to this without my normal ugly
[beth] comments.
Yes, they really are ugly. Especially since my mail client does not
support them.
[beth] I'll jump in
On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 00:52:01 +0200, Aaron Cooper wrote:
I've been reading the other posts about staying on topic and such, and
I know that you're requesting a veto here derGraph... I don't think
we're off topic, but it appears that we have some discussing to do on
the topic of how we store
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 06:05:58 +0200, Aaron Cooper wrote:
On 6/19/06, Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Therefore my refined proposal would be:
[artist] is a predecessor of [artist]
[artist] is a successor of [artist]
This AR applies to artist of type 'Group' only.
That sounds better.
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:53:28 +0200, Nikki wrote:
If Picard 0.8 comes out within a month, then would be two consecutive
changes. (this argument does not hold if Lukas says Picard 0.8 takes
longer)
Well, 0.7 is not a stable release yet (according to the wiki page...),
so I
can't imagine 0.8
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 12:50:11 +0200, Lukáš Lalinský wrote:
On 6/20/06, Don Redman wrote:
(this argument does not hold if Lukas says Picard 0.8 takes longer)
No, Picard 0.8 will not come within a month.
OK, I withdraw my argument (which was not a veto anyway).
Since this issue has been more
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 02:53:32 +0200, joan WHITTAKER wrote:
No sooner do we seem to have agreed than someone goes off at a tangent,
and at least a third, usually those against the original proposal,
following suit and trying to turn the debate.
Yes this is a serious problem. It would be
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:19:41 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
firstly, i don't think any DB/Tagger changes will change the situation
(see my previous post).
Well, my experience says the opposite. In my very humble experience here
at MB, every change at the fringes of the overall structure of
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:46:40 +0200, Aaron Cooper wrote:
The big problem I see with AR's, is that we have to make them before
we can use them. At this time, you don't link each song from an
Add/Import to the original recording, and I for one will not go
through the database now and link
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 10:36:41 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
On 18/06/06, joan WHITTAKER [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do I take it that once Don Redman has spoken that is it - subject
closed -
decision made?
no :) no offence intended toward don, but unless i'm mistaken, we're
all equal in style
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:15:19 +0200, Bogdan Butnaru wrote:
On 6/19/06, Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
by saying that all
indentically named tracks are indenticle in contet you require users
to have heard all instances of the track in question.
It's not a bijection, it's an injection
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:42:22 +0200, david scotson wrote:
I personally ran a script over my collection to attach the original
release date (or at least the earliest in MB) to the version I had,
even if it was on a greatest hits or compilation. I simply ignored any
text in brackets (you can go
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:18:16 +0200, Robert Kaye wrote:
Everyone in the Style Council has a voice and that voice is not really
connected to the number of edits made by that person. We do appreciate
the hard work by all of our editors, but that shouldn't give them
greater power here. If we
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:19:23 +0200, derGraph wrote:
Request for Veto
Okay, there doesn't seem to be any consensus yet about an evolved into
relationship type, but at least I cannot recall any objections against a
relationship type
[artist] renamed to [artist] from [date]
[artist]
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:55:32 +0200, Stefan Kestenholz wrote:
1) the style council does not exist, for a long time now already.
everybody who speaks here (except rob and don) are community members
like everybody else.
I call the body that makes the decisions about style issues the Style
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 23:17:38 +0200, Jan van Thiel wrote:
The Idea: Keeping 'album version' in track titles as opposed to the
present situation.
Against
---
- people like having the same track name for the same tracks on
different releases. this, however, is already the case for e.g. live
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:11:36 +0200, Nikki wrote:
* We should have an 'official' and 'unofficial' attribute because some
transliterations/translations are officially released, and therefore
deserve separate entries.
What does official mean in this case?
Is this the same as I proposed,
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 12:46:47 +0200, Aaron Cooper wrote:
I am arguing
that *identical* songs should be *identically* titled. I think most
people would agree with that dream.
No, I don't and I soppose that there is a considerable amount of people
here who disagree.
Actually I think this is
On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 20:13:31 +0200, joan WHITTAKER wrote:
Excuse me for being somewhat obtuse, but does this then mean that if an
album, track or whatever is put out on the INTERNET, then at that time
it becomes to all intents and purposes a worldwide release
Unless it is not annotated
On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 00:12:52 +0200, Don Redman wrote:
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 11:57:31 +0200, derGraph wrote:
Robert Kaye wrote:
I'm sorry but I simply do not have the background to make a decision
on this.
Herr Redman, can you please organize a vote?
Hmm it seems we have reached consensus
On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:26:28 +0200, Chris Bransden wrote:
On 11/06/06, Don Redman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you propose a very minor change, you can skip steps 1 to 3 and
request
a veto right away.
define 'minor' :)
personally i think if you are going to skip the RFC stage, the veto
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 22:50:21 +0200, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
However, is that an addition, an agreement or a veto? ;)
Was there
I don't know because I must admit, that I have really lost track of the
latest discussions on mb-style.
If there has not been such a discussion, then a requesto
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 11:57:31 +0200, derGraph wrote:
Robert Kaye wrote:
I'm sorry but I simply do not have the background to make a decision on
this.
Herr Redman, can you please organize a vote?
I doubt a vote would make much sense, especially because hardly anyone
seems to know enough
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 23:00:22 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
I understand your point, Don, but then I will repeat what another user
has already told you: this group should be renamed to something like
mb-style-council. I believe the Secretary of Style should understand
the relevance of an
I think you got things wrong here. Nobody uses Ae, Oe, Ue instead of Ä, Ö,
Ü in modern Germany (nor in Swizerland, or Austria that I'd know of). The
few cases you found are all names or place names which got standardized a
couple of houndred years ago and are now kept this way.
And I do
Please note that strictly speaking this question is off topic on mb-style.
It is a bout a *concrete* case. This should be discussed on mb-users.
Please keep the discussions on mb-style about *general* style issues:
guidelines, ARs questions that apply to more that just one or two concrete
Please post these kind of quesitons on mb-users.
DonRedman
--
Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiPages:
Visit http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ the best MusicBrainz documentation
around! :-)
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
On Mon, 29 May 2006 02:35:02 +0200, joan WHITTAKER wrote:
The problem here is to define what you mean when you say grouping
single artist.
I simply mean that IMO replacing something which is now done with
ArtistAlias by a new AR Type is no good, because it changes the semantics
of MB in
On Mon, 29 May 2006 10:13:25 +0200, derGraph wrote:
joan WHITTAKER wrote:
[...] T Rex, who evolved out of the remains of the original
Tyrannosaurus Rex.
Jefferson Airplane was formed in 1965 [...] and the band changed it's
musical direction re-naming itself Jefferson Starship. [...] and the
On Mon, 29 May 2006 15:50:08 +0200, Bogdan Butnaru wrote:
I doubt we'll get very easy to a consensus. From what I see, I think
there really weren't any kind of rules that we could call
authoritative, and we probably won't agree on any modern authority,
since every country appears to do it
On Mon, 29 May 2006 19:24:32 +0200, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
derGraph wrote:
Does anyone have any objections on creating such an AR? Which wording
should we use? (I'd prefer the predecessor / successor combination.)
Is there something we should think about?
Does this only apply to groups?
On Thu, 25 May 2006 17:29:17 +0200, Cristov Russell wrote:
Errr I'm not sure if MP3 software really matters. None of what I'm
talking about impacts tagging without TaggerScript.
Yes, it does matter. Using ARs instead of the ArtistAlias might not change
the schema of the database, but is a
On Sat, 27 May 2006 22:01:40 +0200, Stefan Kestenholz wrote:
Hi,
It seems we have encountered another issue with unwritten rules in a
relationship type. Imho, it is strange that links to existing, and valid
amazon pages which list information about a release (even if it might
have
been
On Mon, 29 May 2006 00:11:35 +0200, derGraph wrote:
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2006/5/28, Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Designing is not a problem, we have hundreds of people willing to tell
us
how we should be doing things. ;) Actually getting someone to code
these
features, however, is.
On Mon, 29 May 2006 00:02:40 +0200, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2006/5/28, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
2006/5/28, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi,
I came across this tracklisting which has both grouping titles and
named parts:
1 - 100 of 183 matches
Mail list logo
