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

[Chris Bransden]

On 12/10/06, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2006/10/12, Chris Bransden <chris at whenironsattack.com>:
> > > So seperating releases by language is not a MB recommendation,
> > > separating Latin / Japanese / Cyrillic / Arabic / whatever releases is
> > > just the only way we can currently solve our problems. So I am not
> > > sure saying that using an A/T AR for Pink (US) would be a bad thing.
> >
> > i'm not saying that either?? i'm lost again :)
>
> That's what I undertand from here:
> > > My concern is that Pink (US) is a "Transl(iter)ation" in both
> > > scenarios, so maybe using "Transl(iter)ation" as the ReleaseType would
> > > mean people would use it even if it was an official release.
> I mean, if someone wants to say Pink (US) is a transliteration of Pink
> (JP), I don't see any problem. As you said, it is true. So let us let
> them say it.
>
> But I thought this was all about an AR, so why
> > > "Transl(iter)ation" as the ReleaseType
> ?

because i'm talking about the ReleaseType :)

there are 2 levels of this. 1 is the AR between Transl(iter)ations
(which we all seem to agree on), and the other is the fact that not
all Transl(iter)ations are official releases, so the ones that aren't,
need a ReleaseType to reflect this.

If you gave an unreleased Transl(iter)ation the ReleaseType
"Official", you imply that there is another release out there with
this tracklist. "Bootleg" doesn't really work either, so we need a new
one. The discussion is over what is a better name for the release
type: Alternate/Virtual/Transl(iter)ation/...

I was arguing that "Transl(iter)ation" isn't so intuitive because of
the existance of Transl(iter)ations that are official. ie, they would
have ReleaseType 'official' regardless of the fact that they are,
incidently, Transl(iter)ations. of course they get the
Transl(iter)ation AR regardless of this. does that make sense?