Talk:Beginners Guide: Difference between revisions
From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
((Imported from MoinMoin)) |
(en (Imported from MoinMoin)) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
I question the inclusion of the sentence "Thus your local factory made various artist disc may not be accepted for its very slim range of user need." - is this really true? It seems to discourage releases from being added, when the intent, if I interpret it correctly, is really to discourage homebrews from being added. -- [[Brian Schweitzer|BrianSchweitzer]] 02:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC) [[Delete When Cooked|DeleteWhenCooked]] |
I question the inclusion of the sentence "Thus your local factory made various artist disc may not be accepted for its very slim range of user need." - is this really true? It seems to discourage releases from being added, when the intent, if I interpret it correctly, is really to discourage homebrews from being added. -- [[Brian Schweitzer|BrianSchweitzer]] 02:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC) [[Delete When Cooked|DeleteWhenCooked]] |
||
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">It is EXACTLY true: it MAY not be accepted because you won't be able to bring proof of |
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">It is EXACTLY true: it MAY not be accepted because you won't be able to bring proof of its existence. Although, if you show a scan of the cover, I think such a release will be accepted. --[[User:davitof|davitof]] 2007-05-25 [[Delete When Cooked|DeleteWhenCooked]] |
||
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I think you missed my point. Hell, I' one of the ones leaving hundreds of "proof please" notes on the add edits every week. I'm saying that the phraseology we're using seems to discourage adding low-distribution releases. We find proof/verification for releases with printed copies in the low hundreds in some shape or form every day. It's not a big issue. The wording, "may not be accepted for its very slim range of user need," is what concerns me. It implies that we are making a value judgement on the "worthyness" of a release to be in the database, when what we're really trying to say would, I think, be better said something like, "Thus, though it may be difficult to find a link which may be used to verify your release, especially for small-run releases, we appreciate your doing all you can to find some way for others to verify your release. If nothing else, a link to a scan of the liner is always happily accepted." We already cover "homebrew = bad" earlier in the page; here we more ought to be addressing the value of verification for releases in a way that doesn't discourage the diversification of the database. -- [[Brian Schweitzer|BrianSchweitzer]] 04:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC) |
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I think you missed my point. Hell, I' one of the ones leaving hundreds of "proof please" notes on the add edits every week. I'm saying that the phraseology we're using seems to discourage adding low-distribution releases. We find proof/verification for releases with printed copies in the low hundreds in some shape or form every day. It's not a big issue. The wording, "may not be accepted for its very slim range of user need," is what concerns me. It implies that we are making a value judgement on the "worthyness" of a release to be in the database, when what we're really trying to say would, I think, be better said something like, "Thus, though it may be difficult to find a link which may be used to verify your release, especially for small-run releases, we appreciate your doing all you can to find some way for others to verify your release. If nothing else, a link to a scan of the liner is always happily accepted." We already cover "homebrew = bad" earlier in the page; here we more ought to be addressing the value of verification for releases in a way that doesn't discourage the diversification of the database. -- [[Brian Schweitzer|BrianSchweitzer]] 04:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">You were right, I missed your point. And I agree with you. --[[User:davitof|davitof]] 2007-06-17 |
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">You were right, I missed your point. And I agree with you. --[[User:davitof|davitof]] 2007-06-17 |
||
Revision as of 10:29, 27 November 2008
Beginners' Guide > Beginners' Guide Discussion
Beginners' Guide Discussion
Low-distribution releases
I question the inclusion of the sentence "Thus your local factory made various artist disc may not be accepted for its very slim range of user need." - is this really true? It seems to discourage releases from being added, when the intent, if I interpret it correctly, is really to discourage homebrews from being added. -- BrianSchweitzer 02:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC) DeleteWhenCooked
- It is EXACTLY true: it MAY not be accepted because you won't be able to bring proof of its existence. Although, if you show a scan of the cover, I think such a release will be accepted. --davitof 2007-05-25 DeleteWhenCooked
- I think you missed my point. Hell, I' one of the ones leaving hundreds of "proof please" notes on the add edits every week. I'm saying that the phraseology we're using seems to discourage adding low-distribution releases. We find proof/verification for releases with printed copies in the low hundreds in some shape or form every day. It's not a big issue. The wording, "may not be accepted for its very slim range of user need," is what concerns me. It implies that we are making a value judgement on the "worthyness" of a release to be in the database, when what we're really trying to say would, I think, be better said something like, "Thus, though it may be difficult to find a link which may be used to verify your release, especially for small-run releases, we appreciate your doing all you can to find some way for others to verify your release. If nothing else, a link to a scan of the liner is always happily accepted." We already cover "homebrew = bad" earlier in the page; here we more ought to be addressing the value of verification for releases in a way that doesn't discourage the diversification of the database. -- BrianSchweitzer 04:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- You were right, I missed your point. And I agree with you. --davitof 2007-06-17
- I think you missed my point. Hell, I' one of the ones leaving hundreds of "proof please" notes on the add edits every week. I'm saying that the phraseology we're using seems to discourage adding low-distribution releases. We find proof/verification for releases with printed copies in the low hundreds in some shape or form every day. It's not a big issue. The wording, "may not be accepted for its very slim range of user need," is what concerns me. It implies that we are making a value judgement on the "worthyness" of a release to be in the database, when what we're really trying to say would, I think, be better said something like, "Thus, though it may be difficult to find a link which may be used to verify your release, especially for small-run releases, we appreciate your doing all you can to find some way for others to verify your release. If nothing else, a link to a scan of the liner is always happily accepted." We already cover "homebrew = bad" earlier in the page; here we more ought to be addressing the value of verification for releases in a way that doesn't discourage the diversification of the database. -- BrianSchweitzer 04:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Tracklisting issued twice
The term Release covers full-length albums, singles, vinyls, cassettes, etc (see ReleaseFormat). A release is made of one or more Tracks. If a CD with the same tracklisting is issued twice, once as a stand-alone release, once in a set, it may have to be entered into the database twice (see Release, BoxSet and BoxSetNameStyle).
- hmm that conflicts with BoxSetNameStyle! Shouldn't always be entered twice... --Gecks
- Seems clear this way?--davitof
- please edit BoxSetNameStyle or this page accordingly to what it needs to be, then delete these comments. Nyght
- Seems clear this way?--davitof
