sure - delete with impunity :) i have added CandidateForDeletion to that page

2009/12/10 Brian Schweitzer <[email protected]>:
> Is that page then ready for CandidateForDeletion?  It's still describing
> itself as a proposal, with comments to the effect of it being a
> merge-to-official-guidelines-in-progress.  :P
>
> Brian
>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:07 AM, Chris B <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> If you look at the history of
>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/FeaturingArtistStyle I did actually merge
>> in my changes. Not sure what the problem is?
>>
>> PS i've removed the anonymous 'note' done here:
>>
>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/?title=Featuring_Artist_Style&diff=30718&oldid=30008
>> - i'm not sure who gets to say what's 'disputed within the community'
>> but in any case this should come to the list or discussion page, not
>> the official page.
>>
>> 2009/12/10 Brian Schweitzer <[email protected]>:
>> > Chris B, you declared this live, post-RFV, back in the summer of 2008,
>> > but
>> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Gecks/FeaturingArtistStyleAmendment is
>> > still around and the proposal still is waiting to be actually be merged
>> > into
>> > the official pages (ie, to make the changes described by this RFV).
>> > Could
>> > you update on this, and get the post-RFV stuff taken care of, then let
>> > Pavan
>> > know when that temp page is ready to be removed?
>> >
>> > Brian
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Chris B <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> now live!
>> >>
>> >> 2008/6/3 Chris B <[email protected]>:
>> >> > Yeah, sorry though it would include the old thread :)
>> >> >
>> >> > http://bugs.musicbrainz.org/ticket/3558
>> >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Gecks/FeaturingArtistStyleAmendment
>> >> >
>> >> > my amendment is
>> >> > - clarifying what we mean by 'featuring' which i think is current
>> >> > practice, and pretty much implied via the word "featuring" but in any
>> >> > case, it seems useful to get it down in writing.
>> >> > - gets rid of the collaboration guidelines which are in the wrong
>> >> > place anyway. if someone is 'featured' their contribution (equal to,
>> >> > greater than or less than the main artist) is irrelevant.
>> >> > - simplifying the thing as i don't think the SG5 stuff is current any
>> >> > more, and is available elsewhere should history interest you :)
>> >> > - shows that featuring artists can be context sensitive (now includes
>> >> > real world example)
>> >> >
>> >> > i am not interested in:
>> >> > - getting rid of FeaturingArtistStyle. as i said in the ticket: "IMO
>> >> > featuring artist style was created to solve the lack of ARs, but
>> >> > stayed post-AR to support featuring artist credits". it's here so we
>> >> > might as well make best use of it.
>> >> > - how this does/does not apply to the CSG. i think all CSG
>> >> > 'overrides'
>> >> > should be in the CSG docs rather than dotted around the normal ones,
>> >> > and in any case, that part's for the classical gurus to work out :)
>> >> > (after discussion i reintroduced the bit that mentions CSG in the old
>> >> > guideline, but it's for someone else to embellish on that if need be)
>> >> >
>> >> > 2008/6/3 Steve Wyles <[email protected]>:
>> >> >> For those that haven't had the time to read all the previous
>> >> >> discussion,
>> >> >> please summarise the changes that you are putting to RFV.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Steve
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Tue, 3 Jun 2008, Chris B wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Right, RFV time :)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> 2008/5/21 Olivier <[email protected]>:
>> >> >>>> 2008/5/21 Chris B <[email protected]>:
>> >> >>>>> 2008/5/21 Olivier <[email protected]>:
>> >> >>>>>> Summing things up:
>> >> >>>>>> - Chad has a point: Chris or Chad, can we have something to
>> >> >>>>>> cover
>> >> >>>>>> this, maybe in the "Details" section?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> i don't really want to get involved in this one for this RFC.
>> >> >>>>> that
>> >> >>>>> issue ((feat. x) in group names) is a big one and i have concerns
>> >> >>>>> with
>> >> >>>>> it, so i don't want the relatively simple amendment getting
>> >> >>>>> bogged
>> >> >>>>> down. that actually goes for ANY additional failings of
>> >> >>>>> FeaturingArtistStyle that i've not covered/introduced :)
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> eg, i included the CSG stuff from the accepted
>> >> >>>>> FeaturingArtistStyle
>> >> >>>>> but i'm not prepared to elaborate on that as that's not what my
>> >> >>>>> amendment concerns. i think one of the major failings of the
>> >> >>>>> style
>> >> >>>>> process is heaping additional changes on simple RFCs so that they
>> >> >>>>> snowball into major rewrites/lengthy discussions.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Fair enough.
>> >> >>>> Chad? Is delaying this specific point for a later
>> >> >>>> rework/discussion
>> >> >>>> good for you?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Regards,
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> - Olivier
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>>> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
>> >> >>>> [email protected]
>> >> >>>> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >> >>> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
>> >> >>> [email protected]
>> >> >>> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
>> >> >> [email protected]
>> >> >> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
>> >> [email protected]
>> >> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Musicbrainz-style mailing list
>> > [email protected]
>> > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Reply via email to