Difference between revisions of "Talk:BrianFreud/Special Purpose Artist"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
(warp's comments: response)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
 
==warp's comments==
 
==warp's comments==
  
Line 8: Line 7:
  
 
I am not sure the "Adding new SPAs" stuff is needed. I'm trying to get the guidelines as clear and concise as possible, and this seems like clutter.  This will be an official guideline, I think it is sufficient to have a statement somewhere else that any changes to the official guidelines need to go through the StyleCouncil -- this doesn't have to be included in a guideline page.
 
I am not sure the "Adding new SPAs" stuff is needed. I'm trying to get the guidelines as clear and concise as possible, and this seems like clutter.  This will be an official guideline, I think it is sufficient to have a statement somewhere else that any changes to the official guidelines need to go through the StyleCouncil -- this doesn't have to be included in a guideline page.
 +
 +
** I've changed the headings; in each case "Special Purpose Artist" was used in one, I can't see a good way (that's not clunky language) to completely eliminate it, but shortening it to SPA does make them and the TOC much more readable to my eye.  Would you agree?
 +
 +
Re the "adding new" stuff, there already is a similar line in the existing page, "Please note that you shouldn't create any new SpecialPurposeArtist all by yourself without prior discussion about it, usually on the style MailingList.".  Note that every single SPA (to the best of my knowledge, at least) that has been created in the last 3 or 4 years has been created without *any* consultation of the lists.  In other words, there was language such as you suggest, yet experience has shown that it has been consistently ignored.  The line remains here almost unchange (a change from "shouldn't" to "should not"), only with emphasis being drawn to that line via the separated section and the bold text, whereas the line was previously buried inside an over-long page header with no special emphasis drawn to it.  The only addition here is to codify into true guideline form the unofficial SPA standard that has evolved over the past two years or so as we've had a few editors try to pay the SPAs more careful attention (towards cleaning them up and making them consistent - the final result of that being the two RFCs currently being discussed).
 +
 +
So, the headers, and thus the TOC, are changed, but I think the "Adding New" section should remain as it is.  Was there anything else that you felt was causing clutter?  [[User:brianfreud]]

Revision as of 09:56, 6 December 2009

warp's comments

This page looks rather messy to me, my comments here are not about the guideline itself, but should be viewed in the context of trying to clean things up for a Post NGS (see User:kuno/Post_NGS_Style)).

The table of contents is completely unreadable, can you remove "Special Purpose Artists" from all of the headings? We're already on the SPA page, it doesn't have to be repeated in every heading.

I am not sure the "Adding new SPAs" stuff is needed. I'm trying to get the guidelines as clear and concise as possible, and this seems like clutter. This will be an official guideline, I think it is sufficient to have a statement somewhere else that any changes to the official guidelines need to go through the StyleCouncil -- this doesn't have to be included in a guideline page.

    • I've changed the headings; in each case "Special Purpose Artist" was used in one, I can't see a good way (that's not clunky language) to completely eliminate it, but shortening it to SPA does make them and the TOC much more readable to my eye. Would you agree?

Re the "adding new" stuff, there already is a similar line in the existing page, "Please note that you shouldn't create any new SpecialPurposeArtist all by yourself without prior discussion about it, usually on the style MailingList.". Note that every single SPA (to the best of my knowledge, at least) that has been created in the last 3 or 4 years has been created without *any* consultation of the lists. In other words, there was language such as you suggest, yet experience has shown that it has been consistently ignored. The line remains here almost unchange (a change from "shouldn't" to "should not"), only with emphasis being drawn to that line via the separated section and the bold text, whereas the line was previously buried inside an over-long page header with no special emphasis drawn to it. The only addition here is to codify into true guideline form the unofficial SPA standard that has evolved over the past two years or so as we've had a few editors try to pay the SPAs more careful attention (towards cleaning them up and making them consistent - the final result of that being the two RFCs currently being discussed).

So, the headers, and thus the TOC, are changed, but I think the "Adding New" section should remain as it is. Was there anything else that you felt was causing clutter? User:brianfreud