Re: [mb-style] RFV: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

Hi Nikki, On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Nikki wrote: > Jeroen Latour wrote: > > > I will send out a RFV for Writer shortly. Nikki, are you taking care of > > changing the wiki, or do you need me to do anything? > > It would be better if you could update them, I&#

[mb-style] RFV4b: Writer Relationship Type

Hi, Given that no comments have been made about the proposal since Brian sent out the RFC, I am resubmitting the Writer AR proposal for RFV. Changes since last RFV. 1. Moved most of the guidelines governing when to use the specific types to the new Prefer Specific Relationship Types guidel

Re: [mb-style] RFC4: Writer Relationship Type (was RFV4: Writer Relationship Type)

hip Type guideline. The proposal is available at: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Writer_Relationship_Type (The above copied from Jeroen's RFV4 email.) The only additional change since then has been to drop the (aka...) bit from the examples' section header. Brian On Fri, Dec 24, 2

Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Writer Relationship Type

iscussion > results in consensus, then RFV should not reasonably result in a veto. > > The process you appear to be following is > RFC-discuss-RFV-veto-discuss-revise-RFV-veto-discuss-etc. Am I off-base > in some way? > > Paul > > On Fri, 2010-12-24 at 17:45 +0100, Jero

Re: [mb-style] RFV4: Writer Relationship Type

Everyone involved in the latest discussions agreed with moving to RFV. Do you feel we need a round of RFC first? - Jeroen Op 24 dec. 2010 om 17:34 heeft "Paul C. Bryan" het volgende geschreven: > Point of order: shouldn't this be an RFC? > > On Fri, 2010-12-24 at 16

[mb-style] RFV4: Writer Relationship Type

Hi all, Step 2 of 2. Now that the Prefer Specific Relationship Types guideline is official, I am resubmitting the Writer AR proposal for RFV. Changes since last time. 1. Moved most of the guidelines governing when to use the specific types to the new Prefer Specific Relationship Types guid

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>- Engineer (post-RFC 251): Be as specific as possible and specify the >>type of engineering that was performed, but only if you have a source or >> if >>you can deduce this information. Fo

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

Hi Brian, On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not to cause issues, Nikki, but this RFV was passed without response to my > email of Dec 17: It would have been helpful if you had asked these questions before giving your go-ahead to move

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

, Jeroen On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Nikki wrote: > Since 48 hours have passed without a veto, this has passed. > I'll update the Advanced Relationship Style wiki page, but I'm not sure > what text you wanted to be added to the other relationship pages. > > Nikki > &

[mb-style] RFV: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

Hi everyone, As all the active participants in the discussions have indicated they are happy with the current state of the proposal, I am putting it forward for RFV. The proposal would add guidelines to the Advanced Relationship Style page on when to use the generic types of relationship, and whe

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

Thanks! Per, Nicolás, Nikki... any objection to a RFV? Regards, Jeroen On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for this morning's tweaks. +1 on writer from me now as well :) > > Brian > > On Thu, Dec 1

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

Hi Nikki, Brian, On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Nikki wrote: > Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > > The "track or release" language which was added today, to replace "piece > > of music", seems bad to me. Someone doesn't write a track or a release, > > they write a piece of music, or a composition,

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

also "piece of music" > – since this includes text only works). And then I guess we can move on :-) > > Chris/chabreyflint > > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Brian Schweitzer < > brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Dec 4,

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

Hi Nikki, On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:58 PM, Nikki wrote: > Anyway, are you going to send an RFV for this? > Yes, after processing Chris's comments and sending it for a final round of review. Chris asked for another round of RFC on Writer. After processing his comments, lets see whether we can go

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

d*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Got_Me_Rocking> > * as being "written by"** Bob Dylan -> Bob Dylan "composed"Just Like a > Woman and Bob Dylan "wrote the lyrics of" Just Like a Woman* > > > And yes, I think the "Writer" would need

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

Hi Nikki, On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Nikki wrote: > I mean Proposal:Prefer Specific Relationship Types, I'm wondering if for > now it'll say: > > "Engineer: prefer Audio Engineer, Editor, Mastering Engineer, Mix > Engineer, Recording Engineer and/or Sound Engineer" > > and then after RFC-wh

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

Hi Nikki, On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Nikki wrote: > One question about the engineer/writer lines though, are we just > agreeing on the wording to be added/changed if/when those are > implemented? or is that how the page is actually going to look > straightaway? > > I certainly don't have a

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

Hi Chris, On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 10:18 PM, SwissChris wrote: > Sorry, for not answering earlier, I was away from any computers for nearly > a week. And thanks Jeroen for your patience and for your willingness to > acknowledge my/our concerns, even without sharing them, at least not > entirely. >

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Nikki wrote: > Jeroen Latour wrote: > > > Still though, I can see how this could be a more frequent occurence with > the > > Writer AR. There doesn't seem to be an extra rule that is not captured by > > the generic rule, so maybe

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> "In many cases, the Composer, Lyricist and/or Librettist relationship >> types should be used, even if the liner notes say the track or release was >> "written by" the artist. For details, see the [Pre

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

Hi Brian, Chris, On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> To be clear: I will veto an upcoming "writer" RFV (again) if (like Brian >> is suggesting) this my concern is not addressed at all. I suggested, again >> and again, various wordings o

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 2:11 PM, SwissChris wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > >> Good point, updated. >> I'd appreciate any other language comments. >> > > On the first example, last sentence, I'd add &q

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

ded, though. > > Chris > > > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > >> Good point, updated. >> I'd appreciate any other language comments. >> >> Thanks, >> Jeroen >> >> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Frederic D

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

ng relationship types > are considered 'generic types':" with something "Here is a list of "generic > types" and examples of preferred specific types:", else someone will have to > update this Guide each time we create an new specific type AR. > &g

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria > wrote: > >> 2010/11/19 SwissChris >> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Brian Schweitzer < >>

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

Hi Brian, On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Regarding "It also adds a reference to this section to each of the > relationship types mentioned below.", is this really needed? *Every* AR is > subject to Advanced Relationship Style, so add

[mb-style] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

Hi everyone, While discussing the RFC to add a Writer AR Type, it became clear that the guidelines we were discussing applied equally to other 'generic' AR types. In fact, the fact that these guidelines were specified only for the Writer AR was one of the points blocking the proposal. I have creat

Re: [mb-style] Ellipses, quotation marks, and the miscellaneous guideline

Hi Alex, On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Alex Mauer wrote: > > Would your proposal also be about the quotation marks? In that case, we > > might still need some style guidelines about whether to use the standard > > quotes or the enhanced versions, for example for the quotes surrounding > > the

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Nikki wrote: > Jeroen Latour wrote: > > > Thanks for all your replies. I'll go through the mails and come up with > as > > much a compromise as I can think of, so that we are back to one version > that > > we can discuss.

Re: [mb-style] Summary: Artist Credits for Works

Hi Paul, On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 2:46 AM, Paul C. Bryan wrote: > With over 48 hours of quiescence on the subject, here is a summary of > the discussion to date (including myself as a participant): > > * Number of feedback participants: 9 > > In response to Q1 (AC or AR for work): > > *

Re: [mb-style] Ellipses, quotation marks, and the miscellaneous guideline

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 6:37 AM, jacobbrett wrote: > > +1 to the above, also. > If we remove the miscellaneous guidelines, perhaps a switch could be added > into the next version of Picard Tagger to automatically convert Unicode > characters into the ASCII substitutes? > Yes, although that would

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

Hi Brian, Thanks for all your replies. I'll go through the mails and come up with as much a compromise as I can think of, so that we are back to one version that we can discuss. One question though: is there another Wiki page where these general guidelines would fit? There might be a solution in

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

ed, Oct 27, 2010 at 2:39 AM, SwissChris wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > >> SwissChris, your thoughts? >> > > What should I say? I still think the (frequent) case of one single artist > (particularly singer/songwriters) being c

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

SwissChris, your thoughts? On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:20 AM, Kuno Woudt wrote: > >> Hello! >> >> On 24/10/10 11:43, SwissChris wrote: >> > I still don't understand what's so terribly wrong about sayi

Re: [mb-style] RFC/RFV delay (was: RFV3: Writer Relationship Type)

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria > wrote: > >> This is the third time this SG gets blocked at RFV stage. I wouldn't be >> surprised if Jeroen decided he did not care any more. >> >>

Re: [mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

t;> whould IMO apply to the singer/songwriter cases where a song is > >> credited to > >> one single artist and should read, as suggested before: > >> "It is evident that *one [single]* artist was responsible for [both] the > >> words (libretto or ly

[mb-style] RFV3: Writer Relationship Type

Hi everyone, No further comments have been given on the proposal, so I am resubmitting it for RFV. Main changes made since the second veto: 1. Added additional references to 'libretto', as appropriate. 2. Removed the rule that 'Writer' may not be used if only one writer is credited. This

Re: [mb-style] RFV2: Writer Relationship Type

Hi everyone, I updated the 'evident' line, replaced 'entity' with release or track, and replaced 'writing that song' with 'responsible for music, lyrics and/or libretto for this release or track, when no more specific information is available.' Is this ok? http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Writ

Re: [mb-style] RFV2: Writer Relationship Type

with "evident" (should be demonstrable). > 2. Replaced "whether" with "that" (stronger statement). > > Paul > > -Original Message- > From: Jeroen Latour > Reply-to: MusicBrainz Style Discussion > > To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion > >

Re: [mb-style] RFV2: Writer Relationship Type

ic is > actually "clear". If you're willing to remove "(e.g. only one writer)", > I'll feel comfortable clearing my veto. :) > > Brian > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:55 AM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > >> Hi Brian, >> >> I've upda

Re: [mb-style] RFV2: Writer Relationship Type

third revised guideline > ("There > is only one writer credited for the song and no one else is credited for the > music or lyrics"), and I'm still having difficulty parsing it - it gets all > tripped up in the special meanings of "writer" here. Plus, I'm n

[mb-style] RFV2: Writer Relationship Type

Hi everyone, As the discussion on the previous RFV seems to have been resolved, I am resubmitting it for veto. Changes made since the first RFV: 1. Different example: a Jagger/Richards track, for which the individual contributions are unclear, and which do not yet have composer or lyricist

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Re-add [traditional]

+1. Beautiful work. - Jeroen Op 11 okt. 2010 om 17:57 heeft caller#6 het volgende geschreven: Hi all, On 10/11/2010 04:16 AM, Jeroen Latour wrote: 2010/10/10 torn > So, the [traditional] AR should be applied to works, where there's no > definite > original source, there are

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Re-add [traditional]

Hi everyone, 2010/10/10 torn > So, the [traditional] AR should be applied to works, where there's no > definite > original source, there are many versions of the work of which each one > could > be "the original" and there are many possible authors throughout extended > period of time. > I shar

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Writer Relationship Type

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 3:06 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Neither of them was added with edit notes. >> If there is more information saying that they both composed the music, >> then we need to change the example (again...). If not, we >> > > See, I'd disagree

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Writer Relationship Type

Hi Frederic, On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > 2010/10/10 Brian Schweitzer > > Also, one quick note which occurs to me: The librettist AR... "Writer" >> could also describe a librettist situation. However, the current language >> still allows both Writer and Librett

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Writer Relationship Type

Hi Brian, On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > (By the way: the linked track has composer ARs for Lennon/McCartney - we >> should probably change that after approval) >> >> > > I don't follow what you mean here - are you suggesting that th

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Writer Relationship Type

) Regards, Jeroen On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Aurélien Mino wrote: > 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

[mb-style] RFV: Writer Relationship Type

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 is clear that the artist has 'written' the trac

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)

Perfect, thanks! I'll try to send out the RFV tonight. Regards, Jeroen On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 5:46 AM, SwissChris wrote: > But why, among the many Lennon/McCartney songs from which we may probably > never know what part John and/or Paul had exactly in the collaboration, pick > one where we do

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)

; to the collaboration artist." This is true of ARs anyhow, and those > workaround collab artists such as you're describing will be going away with > NGS anyhow, so this text will become out of date. I'd suggest simply > removing that sentence; you don't gain anything

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > You are right, post-NGS it definitely will not be Track-Artist. But an > "additional" AR for a recording, maybe. It depends on where we draw the line > between works. If an artist adds a few verses in his cover of a song, will > this be

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)

Hi Frederic, On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > > Quite unimportant, but I'd write "This relationship is used to link an > entity to the > artistwho wrote it" instead of "This > relati

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)

Hi Per, On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Per Starbäck wrote: > > That's exactly what I fear will happen. > > To avoid that happening maybe the user interface should present "was > written by" explicitly as four choices: > > [x] Unknown role > [ ] Wrote the text > [ ] Composed the music > [ ] Wrot

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)

Hi SwissChris, On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:27 AM, SwissChris wrote: > Still no. Bad example. That's exactly what I fear will happen. Having ARs > saying "She loves you" was ''written'' by John Lennon and Paul McCarney, > while in my understanding it should read (from all the sources I know, see > e

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Per Øyvind Øygard wrote: > On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 16:13:35 +0200, Jeroen Latour wrote: > > > A while back, there was a RFC to add a Writer Relationship Type to credit > > songwriters. That RFC was unfortunately abandoned, but I found it when I >

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)

? > > Nikki > > Jeroen Latour wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > A while back, there was a RFC to add a Writer Relationship Type to credit > > songwriters. That RFC was unfortunately abandoned, but I found it when I > was > > wondering about what to do with 

[mb-style] RFC: Writer Relationship Type (revival)

Hi all, A while back, there was a RFC to add a Writer Relationship Type to credit songwriters. That RFC was unfortunately abandoned, but I found it when I was wondering about what to do with 'Written By' credits on Discogs. In many cases, it's not clear whether that applies to music, or lyrics. Tw