[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] RFC: Prefer Specific Relationship Types

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 23:44:17 +0530, Jeroen Latour wrote: > 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 on

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

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > 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 Wr

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

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

> > Last, under "Generic Types", I think there should also be identification of >> the ARs which are the "less fuzzy" version for each of those generic types. >> Ie, "Arranger" -> "Instrumentator", "Orchestrator", and so on. >> > > Added: > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Prefer_Specific_Rela

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

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> While discussing the RFC to add a Writer AR Type, it became clear that the >> guidelines we were discussing applied equally to

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

2010/11/19 SwissChris > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Brian Schweitzer < > brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Jeroen Latour wrote: >> > Not telling the editors clearly that "wrote" is a sub-optimal credit, which > we (if possible) should try to repl

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

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 < >> brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Jeroen Latour wrote: >>> >> Not telling the editors clearly that "wrot

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

Hi everyone, What I'm hearing is: * Chris wants to tell editors that "writers" and its kin are a sub-optimal credit. * Frederic and Brian want to prevent editors from guessing credits and entering wrong data that cannot easily be discovered later * Brian feels the current text pressures editors to

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

Your new version does not remove my previous concerns, because I didn't have any more :-) But I suggest replacing "The following 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 t

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

Good point, updated. I'd appreciate any other language comments. Thanks, Jeroen On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: > Your new version does not remove my previous concerns, because I didn't > have any more :-) But I suggest replacing "The following relationship types > ar

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

I preferred the first version, but I can live with this one, as long as it's clearly referenced from each individual site. A specific warning on the "writer" guideline about the various meanings of "was written by" on covers, sleeves, liners is IMO still needed, though. Chris On Mon, Nov 22, 2010

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

Hi Chris, Can you give an example of what you mean by that specific warning? I'm not quite sure how you intend that. 'Clearly referenced from each individual site' = mentioned on the pages of each supertype? Thanks, Jeroen On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:20 AM, SwissChris wrote: > I preferred the f

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

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Can you give an example of what you mean by that specific warning? I'm not > quite sure how you intend that. > 'Clearly referenced from each individual site' = mentioned on the pages of > each supertype? > Trying to formulate

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

> 2) "was written by" is not just a generic term that subdivides into more > precise sub-categories, but is often – depending on the context – > semantically identical with one of these sub-categories: If you read "Eine > kleine Nachtmusik" *was written by* W. A. Mozart you automatically > transla

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

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> 2) "was written by" is not just a generic term that subdivides into more >> precise sub-categories, but is often – depending on the context – >> semantically identical with one of these sub-categori

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

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 "No *generic* Engineer relationship is created." Otherwise I think there are no more unaddressed concerns left. I think this 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 "No *generic* Engineer > relationship is created." > Otherwis

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

> > > 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 on > > And you do not consider the RFC which adds an entire section to the general guidelines to somehow address

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

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > 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

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 10:25 AM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > 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 ad

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

Jeroen Latour wrote: > I think the point Chris is making is that the Writer AR is special in that > only for this type, the words 'was written by' appear on the liner and thus > an extra warning should apply. I can see that point, but I'm not sure it's > such a big distinction. With arranger/orche

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

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 we can solve this by making the re

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

Chris, would what Jeroen proposed be ok? Nikki SwissChris wrote: > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 5:07 AM, Brian Schweitzer < > brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> 2) "was written by" is not just a generic term that subdivides into more >>> precise sub-categories, but is often – depending

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

Jeroen Latour wrote: > Because I saw that throughout the Wiki, especially with links to Wiki pages > for relationship types. I'm happy to change it to lowercase if that's the > standard though. > Do we have a Style Guideline Style Guideline? :-) Heh, no, we don't have a style guideline style guid

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

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Nikki wrote: > Jeroen Latour wrote: > > > Because I saw that throughout the Wiki, especially with links to Wiki > pages > > for relationship types. I'm happy to change it to lowercase if that's the > > standard though. > > Do we have a Style Guideline Style Guideli

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

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > 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 ad

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

2010/12/3, Jeroen Latour : > With regards to not using Writer on classical: I'd say that it would not be > as common, but I don't see why it should be excluded. After all, we did add > librettist to the list of alternatives. I am not sure, but I believe what SwissChris meant is that the Writer sho

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

Jeroen Latour wrote: > I added the proposed sentence to the Writer page, replacing our first > attempt at formulating these rules. > > They are now at: > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Writer_Relationship_Type > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Prefer_Specific_Relationship_Types Thanks

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

Jeroen Latour wrote: > Sorry, could you please rephrase your question? I'm not sure I understand. > Are you talking about the Writer page? It's me who should be saying sorry, I'm not very good at explaining! I mean Proposal:Prefer Specific Relationship Types, I'm wondering if for now it'll say:

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 Jeroen, Looks good, but for some minor, undisputed changes which were brought up earlier and got lost in the long and tedious debate: Description: better, and logically correct, would be: "…the artist responsible for writing the music and/or the words (

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

Hi Chris, Thanks a lot for that overview. That's very helpful. Is there anyone who can explain to me how to add more examples to the page? There seems to be a limitation in the template. Regards, Jeroen On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 1:42 PM, SwissChris wrote: > Hi Jeroen, > > > Looks good, but for so

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

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:42 AM, SwissChris wrote: > Hi Jeroen, > > > Looks good, but for some minor, undisputed changes which were brought up > earlier and got lost in the long and tedious debate: > > > Description: > > better, and logically correct, would be: > > "…the artist

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

Jeroen Latour wrote: > Hi Chris, > > Thanks a lot for that overview. That's very helpful. > Is there anyone who can explain to me how to add more examples to the page? > There seems to be a limitation in the template. As far as I know, the only person who knows how that template works is Brian.

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

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Nikki wrote: > Jeroen Latour wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > > > Thanks a lot for that overview. That's very helpful. > > Is there anyone who can explain to me how to add more examples to the > page? > > There seems to be a limitation in the template. > > As far as I know

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

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:42 AM, SwissChris wrote: > >> Hi Jeroen, >> >> >> Looks good, but for some minor, undisputed changes which were brought up >> earlier and got lost in the long and tedious deba

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

Thanks, Brian. Looks good. This leaves us with the small changes on * description* and *attributes*, as suggested (Note that on "end date" not only "songwriter" is wrong and should be changed, but also "piece of music" – since this includes text only works). And then I guess we can move on :-) Chr

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

Jeroen Latour wrote: > Definitely the first - otherwise it's just confusing. Not sure where we > would capture the impact of RFC 251 though. The talk page would probably work. Anyway, are you going to send an RFV for this? Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style

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

Hi everyone! I have updated: - the Writer page with SwissChris's comments (description, songwriter, piece of music - the examples were already added by Brian) - the Prefer Specific Relationship Types page with Brian's comments (missing relationship types / trees, extra text on tonmeister/balance e

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

+1 on both On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > Hi everyone! > > I have updated: > - the Writer page with SwissChris's comments (description, songwriter, > piece of music - the examples were already added by Brian) > - the Prefer Specific Relationship Types page with Brian's c

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

Re Writer: I'm sorry in advance for nitpicking... I'll be happy to see these finish as well. :) 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, etc.

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

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Brian Schweitzer < brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Re Writer: > > I'm sorry in advance for nitpicking... I'll be happy to see these finish > as well. :) > > The "track or release" language which was added today, to replace "piece of > music", seems bad

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

2010/12/15 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Brian Schweitzer < > brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Re Writer: >> >> I'm sorry in advance for nitpicking... I'll be happy to see these finish >> as well. :) >> >> The "track or release" language which was

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

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, etc. Why not just "This indicates the latest known date when the writer

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

Thanks for this morning's tweaks. +1 on writer from me now as well :) Brian On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 3:39 AM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > 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

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 16, 2010 at 3:39 AM, Jeroen Latou

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

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Jeroen Latour wrote: > Thanks! Per, Nicolás, Nikki... any objection to a RFV? None here :) > 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 wri

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

Jeroen Latour wrote: > Thanks! Per, Nicolás, Nikki... any objection to a RFV? None from me. :) Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style