It doesn't seem to be active anymore. It was just the AR anyway, there
wasn't a release status change yet.
-Dustin (Kernesky97)
chidade wrote:
I know it's been a few months since this thread was active, but I'm a bit
of a newbie at MB and definitely at this mailing list...
Is the AR
I still think alternate would be best but I never had a problem with virtual
either. Fits the existing wiki entry and everything related to it too.
Simon Reinhardt wrote:
Brian G wrote:
again i point out that we need to call things what they are or else we
will
continue to create
We've come full circle. :P
I like alternate because it leaves it open enough we can use it for other
things we may think of later down the line that are similar enough to be
grouped in the same area (the unicode versions for example). All of the
different things that can be classified as
i like your suggestion more than alternative or whatever square peg people
are trying to pound into a round hole.
again i point out that we need to call things what they are or else we will
continue to create confusing BadTermonology which creates communication
issues in the long run.
call
Brian G wrote:
again i point out that we need to call things what they are or else we will
continue to create confusing BadTermonology which creates communication
issues in the long run.
call things what they are rather than coming up with some new meaning for an
incorrect term.
This is
On 8/14/06, Brian G [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
translation -- i don't see how it can become any more concise without
losing meaning of what's actually going on. and that can include
transliterations because transliteration is a translation that is literal.
Transliteration is the transscribing
How about transliterated/translated titles ?
On 8/12/06, Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 06:40:22PM +0200, Jan van Thiel wrote:
Of course, people can also misunderstand 'alternate text' as 'alternate
lyrics'...
Alternate titles?
--Nikki
Kerensky97 wrote:
And I agree with Gecks that that disclamier might be a little more than is
needed; hopefully people realize that as a transl(iter)ation it should be
identical to the other release just with different words in the tracks and
title.
I don't think that's what Gecks meant. He
Ah I see, if that's the case I fall back to what I said in one of the other
threads, the virtual/alternate versions linked by AR should be identical,
basically for the reasons you mentioned. This virtual/alternate release AR
is basically tying stuff together that would usually be merged except
Yeah I just wanted to see what it would be like in a test run.
I like Alternate text too; I was thinking Alternate, or Alternate Version
but text helps people from getting confused with track name changes vs.
actual lyric changes.
Nikki wrote:
Like I said, it will become part of mo's release
On 10/08/06, Alexander Dupuy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This
relationship should only be used when the number and order of tracks on the
two albums are identical, and each of the titles corresponds in meaning.
IMO, like a similar disclaimer in the 'mastered by' relationship, this
isn't really
I like it, works great. How hard would it be to get “Alternate” or whatever
listed in release type so we could also move these alternates into a
separate group in the artist discog list?
And I agree with Gecks that that disclamier might be a little more than is
needed; hopefully people realize
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 03:23:34PM -0700, Kerensky97 wrote:
I like it, works great.
For me too:
http://test.musicbrainz.org/release/d95466e6-d38c-4577-b6dd-894e1b8faa57.html
How hard would it be to get “Alternate” or whatever listed in release
type so we could also move these alternates into
On 8/11/06, Kerensky97 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like it, works great. How hard would it be to get Alternate or whatever
listed in release type so we could also move these alternates into a
separate group in the artist discog list?
And I agree with Gecks that that disclamier might be a
unless i'm mistaken, this is relationship is not for actual
translations of the tracks/releases themselves, but the track/release
*tracklistings* only.
Please answer me this: What is the legimation of a user translated entries
in the database, if it wasn't released in this form? I have seen no
is virtual really the best name for the release type?
rather than using a word and forcing a new meaning why not call it what it
really is.. a translation.
i don't think mb needs anymore confusing BadTerminology
if there are reasons to not call it something besides virtual, i'd love to
hear them.
On 8/9/06, Brian G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is virtual really the best name for the release type?
rather than using a word and forcing a new meaning why not call it what it
really is.. a translation.
i don't think mb needs anymore confusing BadTerminology
Agreed, agreed and agreed.
I'm
On 09/08/06, Rod Begbie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/9/06, Brian G. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is virtual really the best name for the release type?
rather than using a word and forcing a new meaning why not call it what it
really is.. a translation.
i don't think mb needs anymore confusing
Stefan Kestenholz wrote:
unless i'm mistaken, this is relationship is not for actual
translations of the tracks/releases themselves, but the track/release
*tracklistings* only.
Please answer me this: What is the legimation of a user translated entries
in the database, if it wasn't released in
On 8/9/06, Nikki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, this proposal doesn't split the releases, the releases are already
split. This proposal links them back together (although until the NGS, we
can't link all the IDs together, but we'll have a much easier job in doing
so with this relationship).
Chris Bransden wrote:
On 09/08/06, Stefan Kestenholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
unless i'm mistaken, this is relationship is not for actual
translations of the tracks/releases themselves, but the track/release
*tracklistings* only.
Please answer me this: What is the legimation of a user
so? they're basically the same thing where one is literal and one isn't.
if they're two different things than why even lump them together under a
word that is Bad?
why not (again) call things what they are rather than forcing new meanings
to words that don't apply..
create translation and
On 09/08/06, Simon Reinhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Bransden wrote:
IMO this AR is needed regardless. there are plenty of albums that have
one tracklisting in one country, and another in another - note I am
talking about the *text* on the tracklisitng, nothing else.
Thanks for being
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 04:34:13PM -0400, Rod Begbie wrote:
Virtual is still a bad name for the release type, though. In fact,
can you explain the reason for the new release type, because I'm not
sure I've seen it.
It's a way of splitting real track listings from virtual ones (i.e.
unofficial
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 09:47:26PM +0100, Chris Bransden wrote:
regarding 'virtual' translations (ie done by users, not printed on
sleeves) - i do agree they should be linked, as they're obviously in the
DB, however i don't think they fit here under the current system, as
they're not physical
IMO this AR is needed regardless. there are plenty of albums that have one tracklisting in one country, and another in another - note I am
talking about the *text* on the tracklisitng, nothing else.Thanks for being realistic. :)
yep, but he talks about a different issue. Since we talked with
On Aug 9, 2006, at 1:56 PM, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
Robert Kaye wrote:
Shepard says:
Listen to Don: rules follow practice. With tons and tons of
translations and transliterations already being in the database
you cannot just go and make a guideline not to allow that. It's
unrealistic.
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 01:38:12PM -0700, Robert Kaye wrote:
I'm uneasy about this proposal, because it splits the data about the
exact same release. PUIDs, ARs, DiscIDs etc are tied to one release.
Agreed -- we'd be adding tons of confusing duplication if we started
adding these to BOTH
if you didn't want discussion on your proposal (which indeed contains the
creation of virtual as a release type) than you perhaps should not have
requested comments.
measure twice, cut once
-Brian
Nikki wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 01:37:00PM -0700, Brian G. wrote:
so? they're
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 03:22:06PM -0700, Brian G. wrote:
if you didn't want discussion on your proposal (which indeed contains the
creation of virtual as a release type) than you perhaps should not have
requested comments.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't comment, but I'm trying to keep this
we're here.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-mb-style--RFC%3A-Transliterations-translations%2C-again%21-tf2068565s2885.html#a5735295
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style forum at Nabble.com.
___
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
On Aug 9, 2006, at 2:50 PM, Nikki wrote:
While I do agree with this, I feel that if we ban transliterations and
translations, we're not doing ourselves any favours.
Secondly, all of this data can be used later with NGS. We would be
*stupid*
to delete all the transliterations and
On 8/9/06, Chris Bransden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 09/08/06, Arturus Magi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/8/06, Oleg Rowaa[SR13] V. Volkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think we may want two sets of these: one for virtuals and one for
'real's. Real translations may be released simultaneously,
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 01:03:40PM +0400, Oleg Rowaa[SR13] V. Volkov wrote:
Just to make sure: am I correct that it also should not be used between
real albums, even if they are translations and should only link real and
virtual releases together?
I think it should still be used between real
On 8/8/06, Oleg Rowaa[SR13] V. Volkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings.
Just to make sure: am I correct that it also should not be used between real
albums, even if they are translations and should only link real and virtual
releases together?
I think we may want two sets of these: one for
35 matches
Mail list logo
