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

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

Wouldn't it be possible to make a global transaction? I mean, if a
transl AR is entered, the transliterated release's ReleaseType must
set to that_yet_unchosen_term_we_are_discussing_about. So why not make
it automatic? Thus the two mods could be included in an edit group.

2006/10/12, Kerensky97 <kerensky97 at xterra101.com>:
>
> You're right that somebody is bound to misinterpret the definition no matter
> what we put in there, but next to "release status" when making a change is
> the "help" button that takes you to the page that defines releases status
> with a detailed definition of what should be put in there.
> http://musicbrainz.org/doc/ReleaseAttribute
> Because even if we do use Transl(iter)ation as the status, somebody is going
> to enter their own transliteration before the official release gets into the
> database and call it official.  Then somebody will follow up with the
> official version and label it Transl(iter)ation.  But as long as we have the
> voting system in place and the definition spelled out in the wiki documents
> we should be ok no matter what the name it.  If somebody uses it wrong we
> can vote no, point and laugh, then show them the correct answer.
>
> I'm more concerned with people setting up the AR then neglecting to change
> Release status to "official" or "alt/virt/trans".  I'm not sure it it's
> feasable to put a Release Status edit on the same page as the AR edit and
> make people do both at the same time (there may be problems if the release
> status is already defined).  Perhaps under the AR edit we could just put a
> line telling the editor to change the release status  based off where they
> got the transl(iter)ation and have a link to the definitions so they know
> what to do.
>
> -Dustin (Kerensky97)
>
>
> Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> >
> > I think we all agree on what you saw. And as long as we stay in that
> > vision, it seems work. But remember most of the users who will add
> > releases will not have read this thread or the wiki page explaining
> > what the different ReleaseTypes mean, they will enter their new cd,
> > and when asked to fill the ReleaseType, they will drop down the combo.
> > What they will do then will depend on how explicit and clear will be
> > the terms we present them. What would the average do with a "Virtual"
> > release? What if he thinks "Virtual, cool, so what I am entering now
> > is virtual, it doesn't really exist, I can enter anything I want"?
> > What if he enters a Virtual release without a Transl(iter)ation AR
> > (this is bound to happen)? If you think that these are ok, fine, let
> > us go with "Virtual"? Or Alternate. But so far nobody has told me what
> > would happen if the new type was used for something else than
> > Transl(iter)ation. And if we don't choose a more restricting term, we
> > won't be able to object to users doing so.
> >
> > Once again, I am not SAYING this is wrong. I am ASKING: is this wrong?
> > If not, wnat would be the consequences. If so, what can we do against
> > it?
> >
> > 2006/10/12, Kerensky97 <kerensky97 at xterra101.com>:
> >>
> >> Let me try to lay it out the way I've always seen it working.  The main
> >> edit
> >> here is the AR linking the transl(iter)ation, so we do the advanced
> >> relationship as you usualy would, MB would ask you this:
> >>
> >> >Pink(US) is a
> >> >Dropdown box: (is a transl(iter)ation of)
> >> >Pink(JP)
> >> Then you choose between:
> >> >Translation or Transliteration
> >> And enter comments.
> >>
> >> The output that now shows in the Relationship window for Pink(US) is:
> >> >"Pink(US) has a translation: Pink(JP)"
> >> Pink(JP) has the same thing on it's relationship field pointing back to
> >> the
> >> US version.
> >>
> >> Now the next edit to be made would be the Release Status to define if the
> >> translation is official or not.
> >> The edit would be as simple as choosing "official" for something that was
> >> released on disc or is listed in the artists official site, or
> >> "Alternate/Virtual/Transl(iter)ation" for a fan made or MB translator
> >> made
> >> version that converts is to another language or eliminates unicode, etc.
> >>
> >> I still want to lean away from Transl(iter)ation since they all
> >> technically
> >> are transl(iter)ations of each other and we want to keep the offical
> >> releases as offical.  Virtual or Virtual Release are good because that's
> >> what we always called them on MB so less Wiki changes.
> >>
> >> -Dustin (Kerensky97)
> >>
> >>
> >> Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 2006/10/12, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>:
> >> >> 2006/10/12, Chris Bransden <chris at whenironsattack.com>:
> >> >> > 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?
> >> >>
> >> >> It does make sense indeed, at last :-D
> >> >>
> >> >> Now I like "alternate" even less because I fear someone might try to
> >> >> use it somewhere else than for Transl(iter)ations ARs, but I do feel
> >> >> the need for another word: using the same for two different things
> >> >> obviously leads to confusions ;-)
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Frederic Da Vitoria
> >> >
> >> > Maybe we need to look at this from another angle.
> >> >
> >> > When would someone need this new ReleaseType? I see two slightly
> >> > different circumstances:
> >> > 1- with a Transl(iter)ation AR, then I guess most terms would work.
> >> > 2- without an AR. I mean this: Imagine I go to Japan, (I never went
> >> > there, but almost), buy a record there as a souvenir. I choose it with
> >> > notes in japanese as well as in english. I get back home. I want to
> >> > enter in MB my new cd, which has not been entered yet. I will never be
> >> > able to enter the japanese version in MB. Even if I knew how to get
> >> > japanese characters, I wouldn't try, I would be too afraid to make
> >> > mistakes. So I would enter the english version, but I wouldn't have
> >> > anything to AR it to. So I'd need the ReleaseType without an AR.
> >> >
> >> > This means the new ReleaseType must have a name which is meaningful
> >> > even if no AR is used. But this word must be different from
> >> > Transl(iter)ation.
> >> >
> >> > What about Transl(iter)ated?


-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria