Re: [mb-style] RFC: How to handle band/artist name changes (Was a RFV)

Until something better comes along I still think it's best to list the releases under the name they have on the album; and an AR that links previous names to their current names would help things alot. And until a better solution comes along we'll just have to keep renaming our personal libraries

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Allowing "Duplicate" Releases w/ Different Titles

Gotcha. RFC = Request For Change? Cheers, thanks, Andrew Request For Comments. ~jb/haeretik ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: How to handle band/artist name changes (Was a RFV)

> 1. I think the release should be placed under whatever name is on the cover > as we usually do, so no big changes. sorry i don't think this reflects current practice. some artists change names all the time, yet we have chosen one artist name to use as it's the most useful thing to have when ta

Re: [mb-style] RFV: DMCSeriesStyle

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. ~jb/haeretik ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/li

Re: [mb-style] RFV: DMCSeriesStyle

People will want to give their pet series a similar status as DMCSeriesStyle, PromoOnlySeriesStyle, HelloProjectSeriesStyle, etc. This is, and will become, unusable and unmanageable. It might put off and scare newbies or provide material for mocking our project (:p). Seriously, our project's image

Re: [mb-style] RFV: DMCSeriesStyle

Here is really my only question. Should we perhaps put "DMC: DJ Only Issue 85" for the non dated ones? At first glance at your examples, I wondered why the '85 didn't say 1985, until I looked at the cover scans. I guess with the numbers up around the 80's and 90's, the potential for confusion is

[mb-style] RFV: DMCSeriesStyle

Well I have had zero comments on this RFC so I guess it's time to RFV it. In the spirit of the Promo Only and http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/CategorySeriesStyle; I thought I'd submit an RFC for DMC's DJ Only series (http://www.dmcworld.com/djonly/). Like Promo Only, DMC is the name of the company th

[mb-style] RFC: DMCSeriesStyle

In the spirit of the Promo Only and http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/CategorySeriesStyle; I thought I'd submit an RFC for DMC's DJ Only series (http://www.dmcworld.com/djonly/). Like Promo Only, DMC is the name of the company that releases these DJ promo albums, is visible on the covers of the releases

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Audio ripped from DVD video designation

Heh. I think most of us _hate_ all the junk that ends up in titles that shouldn't really be there, and are doing all we can to argue against it :) Heh yeah I agree... and after reading everyones comments, disc will have to do! ___ Musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Audio ripped from DVD video designation

as i said before, it depends if the DVD appears on every version, or just some. I believe in this case it is every version, in which case it is not 'bonus', so just use (disc 4) :) Yeah just using that designation bugs me for some reason oh well :) a disc is a disc is a cd is a dvd is still

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Audio ripped from DVD video designation

On 11/3/06, Alex Dupuy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Lauri Watts writes: >The disc itself is official. It's just not an album. Perhaps we need >to simply add "Video" or "Mixed content (Video and/or Audio)" or both >to the release types. This is an excellent idea, actually. A "Video" release typ

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Audio ripped from DVD video designation

All interesting comments... so I guess I'll enter them as official. But this brings me back to my original question - are these still (bonus disc) designated even though they are *illicit* rips of the audio from a bonus video dvd? And how does that work with the Nirvana 3CD/1DVD-video release - di

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Audio ripped from DVD video designation

Although I agree "disc" is fine for DVDs (a Digital Video Disc is more a disc than a vinyl record, after all), I'm no longer sure they should be "official". Yeah, it is a Digital Video Disc... but it contains video that the audio was ripped from... and I agree 100% with you about it not being of

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Audio ripped from DVD video designation

is it a bonus disc, though? ie, is it only with some editions of the set? and anyways, if it is, it still should be (bonus disc) since the (disc) part isn't intended to be specific to any type of media - vinyl, cassettes, CDs, DVDs - they're all "discs" in MBz speak. hopefully ReleaseGroups will

[mb-style] RFC: Audio ripped from DVD video designation

So I've run into a bit of something here. Bonus DVDs (usually of videos) that come with Audio CD releases... some of these exist as ripped audio formats. On the mb-users list, I was directed to the discussion at http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2006-April/002079.html stati

[mb-style] Re: RFC: DiscNumberStyle

However, I have a few vinyl rips that of course have 2 tracks on one side and 2 or 3 more on the other side. On the Discogs site, these are listed as tracks A1, A2, B1 and B2. I posted a few weeks ago the mb-users list and the general consensus was to label them as (disc 1) and (disc 2) as if it w

[mb-style] RFC: DiscNumberStyle

I understand the style guide located at: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/DiscNumberStyle insofar as how it handles multiple cd's in a single release. However, I have a few vinyl rips that of course have 2 tracks on one side and 2 or 3 more on the other side. On the Discogs site, these are listed as t

Re: [mb-style] Linkin Park - Under Attack (B-Sides)

Makes sense, thanks. On 10/25/06, Lauri Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 10/25/06, Jason Bouwmeester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This album exists twice: > http://musicbrainz.org/release/e951bf6c-a337-49b5-855c-00a88d79f6f2.html > http://musicbrainz.org/album/b3

[mb-style] Linkin Park - Under Attack (B-Sides)

This album exists twice: http://musicbrainz.org/release/e951bf6c-a337-49b5-855c-00a88d79f6f2.html http://musicbrainz.org/album/b3ecea4e-b490-44d7-a44a-b5a2df4a3de7.html What needs to be done is for the VA version to be merged into the LP version, but keeping the track artists intact. This bootleg

Re: [mb-style] Re: RFV: Promo Only Series Style

>> Don, do you think it's ok if I rename this page to >> "PromoOnlySeriesStyle", or leave it as is? I think it should have Style on the end, it is a Style for the Promo Only Series... same for the OCRemix, especially if we are making a new category for series styles. ~jb __

Re: [mb-style] Re: RFV: Promo Only Series Style

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 assuming all the above is yes, shall I use the wording "This i

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Proposal for "Promo Only Style"

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 series styles) Confused as well but from what I gather this is

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Proposal for "Promo Only Style"

"Series" is a name that comes to my mind. That would mean to change OCRREmixStyle to ORCRemixSeries and to create a SpecialSeriesStyle page that lists all series on which a decision has been made here. OK, it's a bit of work, but it makes sense. It would separate specific guidelines from geneal

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Proposal for "Promo Only Style"

This was put forth from the number of these, as well as from previous... standards(?) set for the OC Remix Style - http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/OCReMixStyle. ~jb On 10/13/06, Michelle . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This looks good. The only "problem" I have with the proposal is that I think it sho

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Proposal for "Promo Only Style"

Looks and sounds good Lauri, I noticed that some of the stuff was covered in the wiki and the images after I made my post - teach me to post before reading/viewing everything! ___ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org ht

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Proposal for "Promo Only Style"

Original proposal: Summary: I'd like to standardise the naming of this very big set of releases, to the following: I suggest this naming scheme: Promo Only: {series name}, {month} {expanded year} Giving for example: "Promo Only: Modern Rock Radio, October 2006" "Promo Only: Dance Club, April 20

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Playlists do not belong in MusicBrainz

On 8/4/06, Beth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Haeretik, I think you're being very supportive of this community consensus, thank you! I know you went to a lot of work to make these accurate. Beth, that's why it's a community, and stuff gets put to vote. I really had wished it had gone the other wa

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Playlists do not belong in MusicBrainz

if noone veotes withing 48 hours, I will enter a delete edit for the respective release [1] and add the bit above to an appropriate wiki page. BTW what is the status of LiveBootlegStyle vs. UntitledBootlegStyle? I could merge all the official stuff into one BootlegStyle. DonRedman [1]

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Torrents as Releases (Was: Billboard's "topwhatever")

A few torrents that I would consider 'popular' on that search include: 100 Greatest Rock Songs of the 90s: Self explanatory. Top 150 Hits of the 00s (2000 - 2005): Again, self explanatory. The Best of "Foo Fighters": 26 random tracks & 5 videos. Foo Fighters: All of their albums rolled into one t

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Torrents as Releases (Was: Billboard's "top whatever")

It is one thing for a commercially available album or concert tracklist or something which is merely documenting public information, but the order of tracks in the Billboard charts are considered (at least by Billboard and their lawyers) to be proprietary, not based entirely on sales figures. Thi

Re: [mb-style] Billboard's "top whatever"

I am the appointed Scretary of the StyleCouncil[*]. As such my job is to moderate the decision process. This is easier if I keep my personal POV out of the debate. Otherwise it is easy to inadvertedly direct the process into a direction of my liking. I believe that if I am conscious about my POV,

Re: [mb-style] Billboard's "top whatever"

On 7/26/06, Jason Bouwmeester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Finally I have kept my personal POV out of this mail. Maybe I'll send a > separate mail later. > >DonRedman How come? Pardon my ignorance, I am fairly new to the MB Community (even though I've been using

Re: [mb-style] Billboard's "top whatever"

Finally I have kept my personal POV out of this mail. Maybe I'll send a separate mail later. DonRedman How come? Pardon my ignorance, I am fairly new to the MB Community (even though I've been using MB for some time now)... I'm assuming you are one of or the head honcho around these parts? E