For a few reasons, I've been silent here for the past while. However, I
feel I have to at least comment on the change in guidelines that has taken
place. I may not be commenting on the list, but I do still at least skim
the style list to see what's happening. Thus, when I saw an edit note
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:40 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote:
2011/1/6 Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com
Under types of Works/Aggregate: What about things like operas, as we
discussed? You're defining these as having an ordered sequence, but the
specific
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote:
2011/1/6 Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com
On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 4:40 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
davito...@gmail.comwrote:
2011/1/6 Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com
Under types
I see where you're thinking with this. However, I think it's too broad a
solution to fit the problem, and it causes other issues.
There's also a minor issue with #1, so far as I can see. To hit that one
first, the definition in #1 would exclude many items in classical
catalogues, as it would
Under types of Works/Aggregate: What about things like operas, as we
discussed? You're defining these as having an ordered sequence, but the
specific problem is the out of order elements of these works - drop in
arias, alternate movements, optional movements, etc. There's a core
ordering,
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Wieland Hoffmann themi...@googlemail.comwrote:
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Wieland Hoffmann
themi...@googlemail.comwrote:
On 30.12.2010 08:11, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
I'm still working on the draft for CSGv2. I've finished
Going from the top...
The remix and mashup sentence may be better split into two separate
concepts; a remix involves 1 work, a mashup involves 2, and combining the 2
is a little confusing.
Under Distinctiveness, what about medleys?
Under types of Works/Aggregate: What about things like operas,
4 days have passed, and no veto. So I think it's safe to say, this one has
(finally!) passed! Thank you all!!! :)
Brian
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 9:03 PM, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
2 days have passed since the +1, and no discussion, so maybe we're finally
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Artist {{position|as
{{position would make more sense.)
Thanks,
Brian
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
Note, this is not a part of the Held Position ARs; this is the already
existing http
I had a look at the old CSG, and if I understand correctly, we're more or
less merging old trackartist old releaseartist into new track/recording
artist?
The old CSG page was release artist; this page is track artist. I've not
worked on the release artist page version yet - I wanted to see
Note, this is not a part of the Held Position ARs; this is the already
existing http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Creative_Position_Relationship_Type
I've had contact from a production music label's rep who is very interested
in adding ARs for all of their composers, and in spreading the word about MB
So what benefit is there? We go from classical releases having a
meaningful artist field to some useless whatever was on the liner field,
in which performers, conductors, arrangers, composers, and whomever else was
on a liner are credited? Is that not what ARs are for? In such a case, why
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:46 AM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:17:36 +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria
davito...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/12/30 Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com
Hi all,
I'm still working on the draft for CSGv2. I've finished
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Wieland Hoffmann
themi...@googlemail.comwrote:
On 30.12.2010 08:11, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
I'm still working on the draft for CSGv2. I've finished the text for the
artist for a track/recording; I don't think it makes any significant
changes, but just
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/12/30 symphonick symphon...@gmail.com
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:17:36 +0100, Frederic Da Vitoria
davito...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/12/30 Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com
Hi all,
I'm still
For my taste, it's too long too technical. IMHO we must write these
pages with the non-csg-expert in mind.
Well, it's really two lines long:
The artist should be the composer(s) of the performed work, with one
exception.
The sole exception to the use of the composer as the artist, for a
You are right, tracks = liners, this is consistent with other rules
suggested for NGS
And yet, quite frequently, the performers are not on the liner. The
composer is. So what you're describing is an entirely third thing; not
performer as artist but whatever is on the liner as artist -
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:49 PM, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm afraid this is something I'll have to *veto* if it's pursued. I am
generally skeptical about (to not say allergic to) rules and regulations
based on we never have seen this, but it might occur sometimes and you
never
No doubt such an information can be interesting to have. I only don't think
MB can (and should) provide these informations, unless they are taken from
the only reliable source I can think of: the website of the artist in
question. But then why bother to duplicate available information? Why
29, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Aurélien Mino a.m...@free.fr wrote:
On 12/28/2010 11:38 PM, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Ok, I've add a note about the use of this AR, pre-NGS, per nikki's
suggestion.
Also, I've removed the remix attribute. I still think it's quite
useful to have, but we don't seem
Hi all,
I'm still working on the draft for CSGv2. I've finished the text for the
artist for a track/recording; I don't think it makes any significant
changes, but just tries to lay out what we've done and decided. However,
I'm interested to see if anyone sees any issues with that text, before I
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 7:24 AM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:25:16 +0100, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, the action they're taking is still conducting; I think the
difference
would be that a guest conductor (position
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:47 PM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 18:47:17 +0100, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 7:24 AM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:25:16 +0100, Brian
8 days have passed, and I've seen no further discussion, or any vetos, so it
looks like this one's passed. Thanks all!
Brian
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:35 AM, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I think this one might be ready now for another try at an RFV, so let's
is a RG AR, not a release AR, this RFC
also includes permission for the note at the top to be removed without need
for a new RFC.
Thanks,
Brian
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, there's been no more comment on this in the last month
there was
an appearance of them being considered to be such by Release Country.
Brian
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 1:24 PM, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, no. Anything you propose will not do. We mean
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:03 PM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 23:23:26 +0100, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 4:47 PM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 18:47:17 +0100, Brian
I think you're right Paul. However, if I may, I'll read this RFV as an
RFC, and give that RFC the +1 it needs to move forward.
Jeroen, all looks good. One request, though, (and I think I'm even the one
who originally put it there when I did the examples stuff for you :P)...
Would you mind if
dec. 2010 om 19:04 heeft Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com het volgende geschreven:
I think you're right Paul. However, if I may, I'll read this RFV as an
RFC, and give that RFC the +1 it needs to move forward.
Jeroen, all looks good. One request, though, (and I think I'm
If it's to be a dropdown, then I suggest we stop at reasonable values,
although I am unable to say what is reasonable should actually mean,
symphonick seems to suggest 30, my first idea was less than 10. When/if a
user complains about this limitation, it will be time to start thinking
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 5:34 AM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 04:29:41 +0100, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
RFC-265: Concertmaster Position Relationship Type
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/12/22 Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 5:34 AM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 04:29:41 +0100, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:54 AM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 13:10:46 +0100, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 5:34 AM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 04:29:41 +0100, Brian
@Brian, could you explain what you meant: ...first and first chair
aren't the same, in that context.
/symphonick
I was talking about section vs position; first alto sax section vs first
chair of the first alto sax section.
Brian
___
You're right; a remix EP is a type of EP, and a remix single is
a type of single. *However*, we don't have types remix EP or
remix single. We only have EP, single... and remix. Remix
being the most specific of the three, any single or EP which is of
remix type
Well, the action they're taking is still conducting; I think the
difference
would be that a guest conductor (position) is there for a set of
performances, or maybe a season (?, basing this on your links), while
someone who is guest conducting is doing only one or two shows, but as
a
Work A is part of a set, the next Work in the set is Work B
This, as I'd alluded to on the style list, is something I've worked on,
off and on, for a long while. However, it isn't so simple as just having a
potential for movement 1, movement 2, movement 3, .. movement n. Add in
RFC-265: Concertmaster Position Relationship Type
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Concertmaster_Position_Relationship_Type_Proposal
Missing some attributes:
1st/Principal Concermaster
Alternate/Alternating/2nd, 3rd... Concertmaster
Possibly assisting/associate, see
...@gmail.com wrote:
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
- 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. For details, see the Prefer Specific
Relationship Types guideline.
Regards,
Jeroen
Oh; I
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Paul C. Bryan em...@pbryan.net wrote:
Attached is the IRC chat log from this morning's (PST) chat. Thanks to
everyone who participated.
Paul
Thanks. :)
I've read through the transcript, in preparation for this evening's meeting.
There's a few things I'd
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Paul C. Bryan em...@pbryan.net wrote:
Attached is the IRC chat log from this morning's (PST) chat. Thanks to
everyone who participated.
Paul
Thanks. :)
I've read
Nikki, I've not heard back - did you still have concerns, or is this ready
to go to RFV?
Brian
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I'm aware, the idea
Ok, I think this one might be ready now for another try at an RFV, so let's
give it a shot. :)
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:BrianSchweitzer/Supporting_Release_Relationship_Type
Brian
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 5:59 AM, jacobbrett jacobbr...@hotmail.com wrote:
Brian Schweitzer wrote
Ok, discussion on the first 3 RFCs has gone quiet, so lets see if we can't
get another 3 ready for RFV. As promised, I'll not RFV the Held Position
ARs until all of the Held Position RFCs have come forward (and hopefully
had any kinks worked out of them). So RFC-106, RFC-264, and RFC-266 are
? :)
Brian
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
davito...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/12/6 Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Paul C. Bryan em
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 1:24 PM, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, no. Anything you propose will not do. We mean the top geographical
entity just below continent and above state, province
etc., and this entity is called country (and there are no possible
synonyms that will be
Not to cause issues, Nikki, but this RFV was passed without response to my
email of Dec 17:
+1 on the RFV. Just taking a last look, one trivial thing popped out at
me... One of the three examples specifically talks about the Writer AR.
Maybe final passage of this RFV should be contingent upon
+1 on the RFV. Just taking a last look, one trivial thing popped out at
me... One of the three examples specifically talks about the Writer AR.
Maybe final passage of this RFV should be contingent upon the Writer AR
passing RFV, so there's no issue with that example referencing an AR that
The two Project RFCs are RFC-87 Add 'is a project of' AR and RFC-6 Artist
Type Project ( http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Artist_Type_Project ).
These were two of the proposals which were in need of a champion back at
the beginning of 2010. When most of the other proposals were closed as
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 f.j.lat...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Nikki, Brian,
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote:
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
The track or release language
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:30 AM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 Dec 2010 02:07:17 +0100, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:52 PM
That one I do intend to be a guideline, and I'd prefer to leave it as it
is. It's also come up before rather frequently in edits, and on this
list, as part of clean up CSG and earlier. Reference, for example, the
threads
at
For RFC-264:
Artist is/was a {{assistant}} {{associate}} {{principal}} {{vocal}}
choirmaster/choirmistress {{emeritus}} for Artist
Artist has/had {{assistant}} {{associate}} {{principal}} {{instrument}}
choirmaster(s)/choirmistress(es) {{emeritus:emeritus/emeriti}} Artist
For
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Paul C. Bryan em...@pbryan.net wrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 21:00 -0500, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
I'd agree with Calvin about this being important. Any chance that a second
discussion could take place at a different time, for most of us in North
America
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 9:09 AM, jacobbrett jacobbr...@hotmail.com wrote:
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
snip
I'm a bit rusty on how Supporting Release Relationship Type and
Single
From Release Relationship Type work together.
Is it safe to use Single From Release
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I'm aware, the idea was that this would be added now and
migrated to release groups in NGS. Are you proposing that we shouldn't
add it until NGS?
No, that intention hasn't changed. I just don't now think we need the
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:52 PM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:47:56 +0100, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
As there's been no comment on this one for a week, did it just get missed
amidst the rest of what's going on? :)
Brian
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 4:52 PM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:47:56 +0100, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
As there's been no comment
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote:
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
1) Add the instrument, orchestra, and vocal attributes to the Conductor
AR.
This allows us to drill down to what a conductor specifically conducted,
when you have multiple conductors at the same time
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Calvin Walton calvin.wal...@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 11:53 -0800, Paul C. Bryan wrote:
I’d like to moderate an IRC chat to discuss works in the
next-generation schema, namely to address the following issues:
1. What should be and what
). 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, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote:
Jeroen Latour wrote:
Hi Chris,
Thanks a lot for that overview. That's very
2010/12/15 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com
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
snip
I'm a bit rusty on how Supporting Release Relationship Type and
Single
From Release Relationship Type work together.
Is it safe to use Single From Release (as a blanket AR link) for a
single
RG to an album RG, even if that single RG contains certain Rs that would
use
Agreed! Hawke, insanely huge mega props to you for finally getting that
part of misc guideline taken out! :)
Brian
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Paul C. Bryan em...@pbryan.net wrote:
W00t! I am very happy to see this pass. Thanks, hawke, for hanging in
there.
Paul
On Mon, 2010-12-13
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Kuno Woudt k...@frob.nl wrote:
On 12/12/10 11:10, Nikki wrote:
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Nikki, I think you've already had significant compromises made, in the
removal of Brazil and Mexico entirely, the removal of the US Minor
Islands
as individual items
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote:
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
I'll blame my political science background. :P It's better though, I
think, than thefreedictionary's applicable definition One of the more or
less internally autonomous territorial and political units
(reason 2)
There is not a single point that we could link to which would include
the same data; we would have to link to the postal systems' page for
each country, so 3 external links. We still then would give up control
over modifications to the list, which is a big negative.
On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/12/6 Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Paul C. Bryan em...@pbryan.net wrote:
Possible middle ground: Region?
Paul
Isn't that too vague to encompass country
Ok, there's been no more comment on this in the last month, so let's see if
it can't move forward. :)
jacobbrett's additional examples are included in the proposal's text,
otherwise I think it's pretty much unchanged since RFC5.
The remix attribute is still there; the option always remains that
that addresses everything that came in during the post RFV4 comments
in the past 2 months, so this one's ready again for RFC.
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:BrianSchweitzer/Supporting_Release_Relationship_Type
Brian
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 4:48 PM, jacobbrett jacobbr...@hotmail.com wrote:
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
I've updated the proposal. jacobbrett's examples have now been
incorporated
(except for Alice in Chains example #3, as it's a little too confusing,
imho). All reference to the Track
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 4:36 PM, jacobbrett jacobbr...@hotmail.com wrote:
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
Ok, there's been no more comment on this in the last month, so let's see
if
it can't move forward. :)
jacobbrett's additional examples are included in the proposal's text,
otherwise
I've not heard of the site before, but have no objections to the AR itself.
However, as has already been mentioned by others, there's problems here
which would block my being able to support the RFC in its current state.
You seem to be combining a CC license AR, a cover art AR, a can be
Agreed on the CC AR point. And again, that's what this proposal has become.
Bandcamp offers all of the listed services to users. Media, streaming,
purchase/downloading, and even physical goods sales. That's the chief reason
why this should be a dedicated Artist X has a bandcamp page at
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/12/9 Brian Schweitzer brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Paul C. Bryan em...@pbryan.net wrote:
I'm not sure if this has been addressed yet in other forums, but it
seemed
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote:
In general, it's a lot clearer now, thanks.
However, I really don't like the new definition of state. The wording
seems rather awkward and overly technical to me. Since we use the state
for disambiguating places, it should just be
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Paul C. Bryan em...@pbryan.net wrote:
I'm not sure if this has been addressed yet in other forums, but it seemed
appropriate to get this discussed in mb-style: what should the granularity
of works be in NGS?
Works will allow ARs to other works. As I
for the RFC to get
bogged down in things which weren't even in the original RFC (well, the
original RFC3 :P).
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
On another note, I've previously run into issues regarding the precision
of
suburb vs city in location edits. For example, there was a bootleg
that
had
A recent series of edit debates has focused on COD. (I won't bother to link
to them, because it's not really relevant here, and the notes drag on for
dozens of pages over several edits.) However, that got me looking again
at RFC-275: Clarify order of precidence of guidelines and principles
Ok, another attempt. :)
This is enough of a change/expansion to the prior RFCs that it's likely best
to clear any +1s, and let this version of the RFC need a new +1.
Changes since the last RFC:
1) I've removed the UM locations from the list, and specified that they
should *not* be abbreviated.
As has been noted in the LBS RFC, Release Country isn't really correct
terminology for what that field actually stores.
We want the best-fit release location, so we have many other things, from
ISO 3166, than just countries as options in that dropdown. Just to mention
some of them:
Åland
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:04 PM, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't really like the term location, in fact I *really* don't like it.
IMO it's fuzzy and even worse than the maybe unsatisfactory country which
we now use, especially in regards of non english speaking editors.
Location
On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Paul C. Bryan em...@pbryan.net wrote:
Possible middle ground: Region?
Paul
Isn't that too vague to encompass country?
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com 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
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 swissch...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Jeroen,
Looks good, but for some minor, undisputed changes which were brought up
earlier and got lost in the long and tedious
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:42 AM, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com 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
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Bogdan Butnaru bogd...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 03:05, Brian Schweitzer
brian.brianschweit...@gmail.com wrote:
It took a little longer than I planned to type it out, so I missed
passing
the link to you on IRC Alex, but here's what I'd
by the current guideline, and that
it would be better for a guideline to simply say what *should* be done.
I have edited the proposal to do so[1], taking it down to three
sentences. It also removes the link and section for “what not to link
to” for the reasons described by Brian Schweitzer
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com 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
the proposal to do so[1], taking it down to three
sentences. It also removes the link and section for “what not to link
to” for the reasons described by Brian Schweitzer in the RFV discussion.
This second RFC period will end on 2010-12-8.
—Alex Mauer “hawke”
1. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org
Sorry to not have spent a lot of time lately looking at this proposal; I've
been traveling for the holidays.
Other editors can later edit with preferred characters. I know what this
is supposed to mean, but this sentence doesn't really seem to say it all
that well. Perhaps something like Those
It's been a couple of weeks since [traditional] was reintroduced. I took a
look just now, to see what's going on in there, and it's not impressive.
Ignoring the dupe, there's 5 VA RGs in there at the moment ( see
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/9be7f096-97ec-4615-8957-8d40b5dcbc41.html ).
I did a
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
davito...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/11/28 Bill Purosky bpuro...@verizon.net
One of my recent edits just received a no vote:
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=13583063
It's a Lennon/McCartney song know to be written solely by
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 this?
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Jeroen Latour f.j.lat...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 2:11 PM, SwissChris swissch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Jeroen Latour f.j.lat...@gmail.comwrote:
Good point, updated.
I'd appreciate any other language comments.
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Jeroen Latour f.j.lat...@gmail.comwrote:
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
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
translate into:
While I recognize that MB is an international site, many of the people on
this list, and many of the users are either live in or are currently
traveling in the US. Might I suggest that, in recognition of this, we delay
making any new RFVs, or expiring any RFVs, until Saturday, so these folks
can
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria
davito...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/11/20 Nikki aei...@gmail.com
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
Either we decide to keep those ARs at Track level and have them
automatically replicated to works (clumsy IMO) or we get rid of those
ARs at
1 - 100 of 1149 matches
Mail list logo
