On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 03:28:28PM -0500, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 05:12:45PM -0500, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> > > 3) we move to ConsistentOriginalData - and CSG's titling provides
> > > that structure.
> >
> > Please, when referring to ConsistentOriginalData, quali
On 25/02/2008, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i think this does affect classical music, but not in the way the
> > current CSG threads imply. i mean, the current idea seems to be 'we
> > have a standard, so we try to make all instances consistent with each
> > other' but tha
> i think this does affect classical music, but not in the way the
> current CSG threads imply. i mean, the current idea seems to be 'we
> have a standard, so we try to make all instances consistent with each
> other' but that's not really the same thing.
>
> i'd be happy to remove the 'Origin
On 25/02/2008, Brian Schweitzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 05:12:45PM -0500, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> > > 3) we move to ConsistentOriginalData - and CSG's titling provides
> > > that structure.
> >
> > Please, when referring to ConsistentOriginalData, qualify
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 05:12:45PM -0500, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> > 3) we move to ConsistentOriginalData - and CSG's titling provides
> > that structure.
>
> Please, when referring to ConsistentOriginalData, qualify which of
> the two definitions you mean.
>
> Also, CSG is a seperate se
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 05:12:45PM -0500, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> 3) we move to ConsistentOriginalData - and CSG's titling provides
> that structure.
Please, when referring to ConsistentOriginalData, qualify which of
the two definitions you mean.
Also, CSG is a seperate set of guidelines, n
Olivier-10 wrote:
>
> Mechanic in place for documentation right now is:
> There is no mechanic coz there is no "active" doc editors So, here is
> the (not formal) mechanic: ...[snip]...
> The whole point being: touching the wiki doesn't have to go through
> the whole hassle of style process
2008/2/13, Jim DeLaHunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> I'll make another draft of my proposal which is all written out, instead of
> making reference to the existing page. I can see that that is easier to
> review.
I just transcluded the page to a revision of the last stable state
(along with a numb
Olivier:
Thanks for your reply.
I like your suggestion for making the wording about "Don't use the Cover AR
with Classical" more concise. I'll do that.
I'll make another draft of my proposal which is all written out, instead of
making reference to the existing page. I can see that that is e
2008/2/13, Bogdan Butnaru <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Since we're discussing this: Is there some criteria for what to do
> with simultaneous releases?
Not that I know of.
> I've seen in some (admittedly rare) cases
> two or three versions of an album, and maybe a single too, released on
> the same dat
On Feb 12, 2008 9:52 PM, Olivier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/2/12, Jim DeLaHunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > The MusicBrainz StyleGuideline is to always use the earliest released Track
> > or Release as the target of this relationship. This applies even if the
> > earliest-released one was obsc
On Feb 12, 2008 8:09 PM, Jim DeLaHunt > Thus each leaf page will serve
novice MB editors better if it is reasonably
> self-sufficient. It should give everything every contributor needs to know
> about that AR or bit of style, or link to the appropriate related pages.
> This lets a contributor read
> > I haven't seen any comments on this proposal on mb-style or on the
> > referenced wiki page.
> >
> > If my proposal is so shiningly perfect that no improvement is possible, I'd
> > appreciate a reply or two saying that people are comfortable with it. If by
> > some wildly improbable circumstanc
2008/2/12, Jim DeLaHunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> What we have now is nearly the opposite: a novice contributor needs to read
> the main style guide, the CSG, a bunch of proposal and discussion pages, and
> bathe in the mb-style discussion and edit discussions for a few weeks, then
> cross-index it
Lauri:
Thanks for the reply. I feel better with 1 reply than 0.
Lauri Watts wrote:
>
> ...I have never once seen anyone on the forums, the mailing list, or in
> the voting queue, express any confusion over whether a cover applies
> to classical music.
>
> As I have said elsewhere, I find it m
On Feb 12, 2008 9:02 AM, Jim DeLaHunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Stylistas:
>
> I haven't seen any comments on this proposal on mb-style or on the
> referenced wiki page.
>
> If my proposal is so shiningly perfect that no improvement is possible, I'd
> appreciate a reply or two saying that peop
Stylistas:
I haven't seen any comments on this proposal on mb-style or on the
referenced wiki page.
If my proposal is so shiningly perfect that no improvement is possible, I'd
appreciate a reply or two saying that people are comfortable with it. If by
some wildly improbable circumstance you have
Stylistas:
I am making a RequestForComments (RFC) for the proposal to clarify that
CoverRelationshipType is not for ClassicalMusic, to say out loud that it
always targets the first release, and to make some minor editorial changes
while I'm at it.
The proposal is in
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/
18 matches
Mail list logo
