[mb-users] Re: what's with the crusade against adding legit NATs?

[Brian G]

theres tons of data in MB that requires future editing/moving/removing.
it's a fact of the databases life.
it's a growing and changing thing, it isn't a stagnant non-breathing
non-changing apartment.
if everything were to be entered just exactly perfect than we'd have no
reason to vote on edits.

-b




joan WHITTAKER wrote:
> 
> Maybe an oversimplistic question - but why would anyone want to add  a NAT 
> for a track that will be coming out in four weeks anyway.
> 
> Could it be because somebody wants to tag their downloaded copy just in
> case 
> the version on the released album does vary?
> 
> I can understand the reasoning behind this, but what concerns me is that 
> whilst I am sure Brian would go back and delete the NAT if the track
> turned 
> out to be identical, I am very sure that very many others would not and it 
> would take someone who was on a mission to clean up a particular artist to 
> finally remove it.
> 
> Joan
> 
> 
> iginal Message ----- 
> From: "Don Redman" <donredman at gmx.de>
> To: "MusicBrainz Users" <musicbrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org>
> Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 11:32 AM
> Subject: [mb-users] Re: what's with the crusade against adding legit NATs?
> 
> 
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:30:58 +0200, Brian Gurtler wrote:
> 
>> I've run into what seems to me as an increase of a select few people
>> voting NO against NATs and editing the NonAlbumTrack wiki to mold to
>> their opinions
>> These track have been released on an artists website and are going to
>> appear on a release that hasn't been released yet.
>> They are not giving a clear reason as to why they are voting NO other
>> than people have to wait for the tracks to appear on the release.
>>
>> on the other hand the NonAlbumTrack documentation reads (and has for
>> over a year) as follows:
>>
>> When to Use Non-Album Tracks
>> Internet-only release:
>> Often, before an album is released, songs from the album may be
>> available on an Internet site for download, and may be entered as
>> non-album tracks; however, once the album (or single) with such a track
>> is entered into the database, the non-album track should be removed with
>> ?RemoveTrackEdit. Less frequently, some such tracks are available for
>> download, but are never included in any album or compilation.
>>
>>
>> so here we have Don't Download This Song by Weird Al
>> the song is available on his website to be downloaded at
>> http://www.dontdownloadthissong.com/tracks/DDTS.mp3 (an edit to apply
>> this URL to this track [1])
>> it mentions that it will appear on his upcoming album that's due to be
>> released on September 26th 2006.
>>
>> so why is the addition of this track as a NAT being voted down?
>> http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=5467441
>>
>> For whatever reason 3 auto-editors seem to think that it is not a valid
>> NAT even though the track is out now, but the album is not.
>> http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=5467441
>>
>> Further more, why is the wiki page NonAlbumTrack being drastically 
>> changed??
>> Mo is going as far as editing NonAlbumTrack to mold to his opinion.
>> Stating "consensus" but.. i haven't found any discussion, let alone a
>> consensus. (look at the votes on my edit.. 4-3 in my favor.. how is THAT
>> a consensus?) In fact I've even asked for any links to any explanation
>> of the problem with adding a NAT now for a track that has been released,
>> and removing the same NAT when the album it appears on is released. I
>> don't get an answer..
>> The "When to Use Non-Album Tracks Internet-only release" section of
>> NonAlbumTrack has gone unchanged for well *over a year*
>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/NonAlbumTrack?action=info
>>
>> This needs intervention.
> 
> Although perhaps not a drastical one. First, I suggest you stop doing a
> revert war on the wiki page.
> 
> Then there is an accepted method of making changes to style guidelines
> (even if the page is not called ..Style): Go to mb-style and request a
> comment. I suggest you do that.
> 
> Furthermore we have had some displeasant experiences in the past and made
> up some (yet relatively vague) principles of how to deal with confilcts in
> MB. Therefore you should:
>   a) Keep in mind the past conflicts and actively avoid what has caused
> escalations in the past. Fuchs called this introspection (somethinglike
> that).
>   b) Seek out a mediator who can help you to communicate better.
> 
> We have not set up our "Rent-A-Moose" (or whatever it wil be called) yet.
> I am traveling this week, so I cannot help. I remember that Lauri has
> offered to be a moderator (when Alex got appointed to do that on IRC).
> 
> So, I suggest that you start a public debate on mb-style and ask Lauri or
> someone else to play a moderating role in that debate. This will help to
> avoid escalations and (from ALex' and my experience) it also helps a lot
> to get some results out of the debates on mb-style.
> 
> I will be away for a week. I wish you all the best in this issue and hope
> that this is settled when I come back.
> 
> Cheers, :-)
> 
>    DonRedman
> 
> PS: Don't forget the Haiku
> 
>    I am right of course,
>    stop arguing already will you,
>    it's you who is wrong.
> 
> -- 
> Words that are written in CamelCase refer to WikiDocs,
> the MusicBrainz documentation system.
> Go to http://musicbrainz.org/doc/<SomeTerm>
> (you might need to transform the term to singular)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list
> MusicBrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list
> MusicBrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/what%27s-with-the-crusade-against-adding-legit-NATs--tf2170999s2885.html#a6027380
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Users forum at Nabble.com.