[mb-style] RFC[?]: Update Classical Style Guide to account for'recital discs']

[David Gibson]

On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 05:35:50PM -0400, Dave Smey wrote:
> On Mon, October 2, 2006 5:27 pm, Dave Smey said:
> 
> >>
> >> Long time ago I did a test conversion (which btw I did not reverted) and
> > asked for comments/veto. At that time no one agreed. A longest debate
> > and examples are on CSGD.
> >>
> >> Release is here:
> >> http://musicbrainz.org/release/ab41dfc4-faab-4e1c-ac7e-c07752dd3395.html
> >>
> > I can't really see the context very well, but it appears that the concern
> > was that this was before it was possible to have a seperate ReleaseArtist
> > and various TrackArtists?
> >
> No, I am wrong. Sorry.  How do I find the old debate? (What is CSGD?)
> 
> I see a fair amount of releases like this in MB, and just discussed moving
> my own edits to this format a month or two ago on mb-users.  At that time
> no one objected.

Particularly for musicbrainz classical, I'm not sure that "no-one
objected" is particularly strong data.  Because of the relative
paucity of info on classical releases in MB, I know that I for one
will vote "yes" for Add Release edits which aren't entirely in-style,
on the basis that some data which can be cleaned up later is better
than no data.  (Likewise, I will vote "yes" for edits which correct
some, but not all style problems with an entry).

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson