[mailing] [mb-style] 'Op. XX No. YY' or 'Op. XX, No. YY'

[mll]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: musicbrainz-style-bounces at lists.musicbrainz.org 
> [mailto:musicbrainz-style-bounces at lists.musicbrainz.org] On 
> Behalf Of Marco Sola
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 9:52 PM
> To: MusicBrainz style discussion
> Subject: Re: [mailing] [mb-style] 'Op. XX No. YY' or 'Op. XX, No. YY'
> 
> mll wrote:
> 
> >>> 1) 'Mazurka in B major, Op. 63 No. 1'
> >>> OR
> >>> 2) 'Mazurka in B major, Op. 63, No. 1'
> >>
> >> Just be aware that there's a lot of  'Mazurka in B major, Op.
> >> 63/1' around:
> >> are they allowed? should they be changed? are they simply 
> not part of 
> >> this rule that is only about commas?
> >
> > 3) 'Mazurka in B major, Op. 63/1' is another choice
> >
> > But still I favour explicitly writing 'No.'. SO I still vote for 1)
> 
> So if we agree they maybe have to be changed: it was 
> something disputed for years.
> 
> >>> And if we come to an agreement, should we take out the 
> heavy gun of 
> >>> a RFV? This is an addition to the rule, not a change per se.
> >>
> >> I can't see the difference: an addition is a change.
> >
> > I don't want to start a polemic, but in the spirit of 
> things (not in 
> > the letter), filling a hole in a rule should raise less 
> argument than 
> > changing an existing subpart of the rule.
> 
> Neither I, and sorry if reverting your change could seem 
> rude. In spirit your're right but there were lots of cases 
> where very simple and little clarifications, since leads to 
> some consequences, were hardly disputed and then nothing was 
> done. I mean, if there's a hole often there's a reason why, 
> mostly because of no agreement reached.
> 
> Anyway I still think that any modification, any, of an 
> offical rule should pass through at least a public 
> presentation and then a hopeful little discussion. In this 
> case this way is perfect or even just by a note on CSGD.

OK, lesson learned.

Just take care of not scaring away good-will newcomers by reverting their
changes, a quick mail to explain the revert would suffice i think.


> 
> Now youv'e done it and we all agree: from my part you can 
> edit it again and really thanks for the care.

Looks like Andrew reverted the revert.

BTW, how to get updates of the wiki ? I susbscribed to the page but go no
word about Andrew's change.

MLL