[mb-style] RFC: ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle

[Marco Sola]

2006/10/3, Don Redman donredman at gmx.de:

>> I have entered your wording to
>> <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ClassicalReleaseArtistStyle> (as rev 1) and
>> then reformulated it a bit (rev 2).

Let me just say this is a great and clean work.

>Point 3 is already what MB users are doing, and I believe (I may be wrong) 
>what the current rules recommend. So this is not a change,
>this is only repeating here something which was already set elsewhere (I 
>really should find where ;-) )

There are lot of famous edit wars as Trongersoll and Mannheim Steamroller 
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=2490348 that came up to CSGD along 
with a "coverness" discussion started by me which is partially on topic.

> Point 1 would only divert VA releases, which
>a - would be a good thing from the VA point of view (the less things go to 
>VA, the better)
>b - would not change much the MB semantics (VA isn't very meaningful from a 
>semantic point of view)
>I'd rather disagree with point 2 for two reasons:
>a - the limits will always be difficult to define and we risk edit wars
>b - precisely, it changes the database semantics, worse it makes the 
>semantics vary depending on something that is, to say the least, not
>obvious (from a dumb computer's point of view): the release title. =

BTW, I fully agree with Frederic POV: 1 and 2 would just fit and not harm, 2 
is really more questionabale.

Ciao

MArco (ClutchEr2)