[mb-style] RFC: Transl(iteration-ation) AR (Resurrection).

[Chris Bransden]

> 2006/10/12, Chris Bransden <chris at whenironsattack.com>:
> > i think if we have a release type called 'transl(iter)ations', users
> > are going to start applying this to official releases. in fact, they
> > may also do this with 'alternate' so i think the wiki should be clear
> > on what is desirable.
>
> Not if it is an AR: the Ar will be used between an original (or why
> not a bootleg, live...) and it's transl(iter)ation. If the AR says
> "release A is the transl(iter)ation of release B" or "release B has
> transl(iter)ation release A", I would understand that B is the
> original reference and A is the version that is transliterated.

i realise that ARs are going to be used as well, i just think people
will apply the 'transl(iter)ation' release type for all
transl(iter)ations, regardless of whether or not they are officially
released or not. they see a transl(iter)ation, they're going to apply
the transl(iter)ation release type, IMO. of course the same could be
said for "alternate" but hopefully that's ambiguous enough that they'd
check the guidelines first :)

a thought: what about CDs which have transl(iter)ation on the same
sleeve? would these still be 2x official releases, or 1 official, 1
transl(iter)ation? or 1 release with both titles, eg: "JAPANESE NAME /
ENGLISH NAME"?

> BTW, shouldn't the AR say what kind of transliteration is used?
> Usually, examining the script/language of both releases will show the
> type of transliteration, but what about your Kate Bush example? Both
> are english/latin.

i think maybe it's unnecessary as annotations could work for the few
examples of unicode problems in the DB, but then i don't know how many
their are, as my OS/software can handle unicode :)