I'd like to add zarzuela to the type list - this is not an opera, and it shouldn't be indicated as such. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zarzuela I've created a list with short definitions for our current types, too, so I can add this to it: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Work_Types The list is NOT part of the RFC, but feel free to nitpick on it too! -- -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphonic_poem - I've entered a good amount of these and I'm probably not the only one, and none of the current types are correct for it. -- -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Since NGS went live I have been moving Extra Title Information form Recording titles to the disambiguation comment, but on a recent edit I made ( http://musicbrainz.org/edit/16029660 ) mihhkel asked me why I was doing it and, well... I could not find a guideline for it, so I'm asking about it here. Now in NGS, should Extra Title Information be part of title or part of the disambiguation comment? I think, as the field name says, the title should only have the Works title(s) normalized (separated by slashes when two or more songs are on the same recording, with medley title if it has one, etc) while "extra" info. ("live", "edit", etc) should be put on the disambiguation comment (so usually different performances of the same song have the same recording titles and different disambiguation comments). In either case, I think http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Recording should be updated so it explicelty says to keep ETI on title or move to disambiguation (though a RFC would be needed for this...) Happy New Year :) -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/Extra-Title-Information-on-recordings-tp7142060p7142060.html Sent from the Style discussions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 5:01 PM, ChurruKa <churruka@...> wrote: > Since NGS went live I have been moving Extra Title Information form Recording > titles to the disambiguation comment, but on a recent edit I made ( > http://musicbrainz.org/edit/16029660 ) mihhkel asked me why I was doing it > and, well... I could not find a guideline for it, so I'm asking about it > here. The only guideline for ETI is live, which should be moved to recording comments in a specific way as indicated in http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Specific_types_of_releases#Live_recordings For the rest, there's nothing, and a lot of people explicitly are against moving a lot of ETI to comments - although stuff like "album version" or "single version" is probably safe to move, especially if not indicated as such in all releases. > Now in NGS, should Extra Title Information be part of title or part of the > disambiguation comment? I think, as the field name says, the title should > only have the Works title(s) normalized (separated by slashes when two or > more songs are on the same recording, with medley title if it has one, etc) > while "extra" info. ("live", "edit", etc) should be put on the > disambiguation comment (so usually different performances of the same song > have the same recording titles and different disambiguation comments). > > In either case, I think http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Recording should be > updated so it explicelty says to keep ETI on title or move to disambiguation > (though a RFC would be needed for this...) > > Happy New Year :) > > --(Continue reading)
I’m against moving ETI from name to comment when it is explicitely printed on the release, thus a known ETI. ETI in comment should be reserved to the ETI that is made up by us, for disambiguation purpose. This is what I think. :) Tristan. ----- jesus2099 × Ti = Tristan + patate12 ÷ saucisson7 mb : http://musicbrainz.org/user/jesus2099 mb userscripts : http://userscripts.org/users/31010/scripts IMPORTANT : hta3s836gzacohe <at> jetable.org is a fake e-mail, I don’t receive anything in this. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Extra-Title-Information-on-recordings-tp4250805p4252859.html Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style <at> lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tude (needed for, say, half the works of Chopin, for example) -- -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
+1
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tude (needed for, say, half the
works of Chopin, for example)
--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style <at> lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
+1
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphonic_poem - I've entered a good
amount of these and I'm probably not the only one, and none of the
current types are correct for it.
--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style <at> lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Christmas and New Year have been and gone without any objections, so this has passed. Nikki Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: > Hi! I am resurrecting an old RFC, because it seems to me that it makes sense. > > It adds the following paragraph to Member of Band RT: "The conductor > or chorus master of a group is almost never also a member of that same > group. The Member of Band relationship should only ever be used to > link a conductor or chorus master to the conducted group if that > person is credited as a member of the group; it should never be > assumed without such evidence." > > As I've seen this happen several times in the past, I would like to > have it added so there's a guideline to point people about it. A > logical next step would be, if we want to store this information, to > add the Conductor and Choir Master artist-artist relationships that > are also bitrotting on the wiki - but this is a start. > > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Member_of_Band_Relationship_Type > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Member_Of_Band_Relationship_Type_modification > > This should be applied on Sat, Dec 24, but with it being Christmas, > let's keep it open until Mon, Dec 26. > _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style <at> lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Christmas and New Year have been and gone without any objections, so this has passed. Nikki Nikki wrote: > I'm sending this on Simon's behalf who can't access his email at the > moment. > > --- > > This is the request for veto for changing "percussion instruments" to > "percussion" and "string instruments" to "strings" in the instrument > attribute tree. > > In the RFC period there was one concern raised about the longer terms > being more suitable if they were mostly used as grouping terms and > rarely appear in credits but a database query revealed that they get > used in credits quite a lot and from personal experience they usually > get listed as the shorter variants. > > This RFV expires on the 24th of December. > > --- > > Nikki
RSS Feed174 | |
|---|---|
510 | |
271 | |
354 | |
241 | |
39 | |
213 | |
130 | |
89 | |
90 | |
183 | |
403 | |
398 | |
209 | |
244 | |
246 | |
277 | |
105 | |
280 | |
245 | |
149 | |
566 | |
677 | |
610 | |
415 | |
96 | |
87 | |
122 | |
140 | |
269 | |
270 | |
214 | |
144 | |
73 | |
38 | |
88 | |
67 | |
310 | |
617 | |
105 | |
64 | |
187 | |
16 | |
23 | |
13 | |
80 | |
79 | |
81 | |
110 | |
120 | |
98 | |
50 | |
325 | |
43 | |
11 | |
48 | |
32 | |
52 | |
51 | |
12 | |
128 | |
150 | |
392 | |
602 | |
229 | |
68 | |
77 | |
28 | |
71 | |
57 | |
27 | |
113 | |
209 | |
84 | |
119 | |
29 | |
176 | |
92 | |
184 | |
268 | |
110 | |
135 | |
235 | |
393 | |
412 | |
505 | |
260 | |
201 | |
349 | |
42 |
