RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 | Next > |
 |
RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Brian Schweitzer
::
Rate this Message:
If you recall, I'd agreed to drop PartNumberStyle back to RFC status due to debate on the RFV, but had delayed any further action while a few of us involved in the discussion were dealing with vacations and other offline issues. Now that enough time has passed, I think, for us all to be back, I'd like to bring this RFV back to the table. As the original RFC was kept open, I don't think I need to re-RFC. To be fair, however, I will give a 7 day expiration on the RFV, rather than simply the normal 48 hours. So, if it should happen that there are no continued objections, this one would pass on Friday, early AM (EST), July 24.
The last suggestion made had been to replace the space-en-dash-space describing 3+ contiguous parts with the word "to", as a compromise for those who objected to the spaces. If you'll recall, I already had agreed, and incorporated into the proposal, to inserting an exception, regarding the spaces, for cases involving only Arabic numbers ("0-9", but "I - III"). Regarding the suggestion to use "to" instead of the en-dash, I've given it a good deal of thought, but have come to a decision that I would prefer to keep the en-dash, rather than substitute the word "to". It is true that some English style guides (as well as Wikipedia, if I recall correctly) suggest the word "to" be used, instead of the en-dash, in these types of non-Arabic number cases, for clarity. However, this guideline applies more broadly. In the language of the guideline itself, "part words", in different languages, are to be kept as they are in those other languages, and not translated to English. A simple substitution of "to" for the en-dash would work only work for English. But even if we extended the guideline there to have the word "to" be translated as well, to the language of the track, it still is problematic. If the editor does not speak the language of the track he or she is working on, or adding, then (unless we provided a list of "to" words for all 150+ languages), that editor may easily not have any idea what the local "to" word is - or if he or she tries a translator, that editor may easily end up with a word that makes no actual sense, using the wrong translation for the word "to". Additionally, "to" can often be (correctly) translated as many different words; even in English it (in this meaning) has many near synonyms that could be substituted in this context and make sense, such as "toward" or "through". So we would replace a single punctuation mark with a literal Babel of possible words. Besides the problems editing, this would also make it difficult for data users to handle such data. Remember, this guideline doesn't just cover "Parts 1-3", but also "Chapters", "Lectures", and many, many other words describing some type of multi-part situation. If the end user wanted to try to parse the text of a title to handle multiple-parts-in-same-track situations in some localized way, matching and handling these is greatly simplified when it's using a standard punctuation mark, especially when compared with potentially hundreds of different words in many different languages. So I'm choosing to keep the proposal as it is at the moment, keeping the en-dash and keeping the inserted exception for the only-Arabic-numbers case. Brian _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Kuno Woudt-2
::
Rate this Message:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:41:45AM -0400, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> If you recall, I'd agreed to drop PartNumberStyle back to RFC status due to > debate on the RFV, but had delayed any further action while a few of us > involved in the discussion were dealing with vacations and other offline > issues. Now that enough time has passed, I think, for us all to be back, > I'd like to bring this RFV back to the table. As the original RFC was kept > open, I don't think I need to re-RFC. To be fair, however, I will give a 7 > day expiration on the RFV, rather than simply the normal 48 hours. So, if > it should happen that there are no continued objections, this one would pass > on Friday, early AM (EST), July 24. Waah, way too much text for an RFV :) Please include a link to a wiki page with the proposed changes, so I can just agree/disagree based on the the actual proposal and only look into the previous discussion if I disagree. -- kuno / warp. _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Brian Schweitzer
::
Rate this Message:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Part_Number_Style
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Kuno Woudt <kuno@...> wrote:
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Aaron Cooper-3
::
Rate this Message:
A couple quick questions:
1. Why "TrackTitle, Parts 1, 3 & 5" and "TrackTitle, Parts 1–3, & 5"? To be consistent, shouldn't we do "TrackTitle, Parts 1, 3, & 5" and "TrackTitle, Parts 1–3, & 5"? 2. Why "TrackTitle, Parts One, Three – Five" instead of "TrackTitle, Parts One & Three – Five"? -cooperaa On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Brian Schweitzer<brian.brianschweitzer@...> wrote: > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Part_Number_Style > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Kuno Woudt <kuno@...> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:41:45AM -0400, Brian Schweitzer wrote: >> > If you recall, I'd agreed to drop PartNumberStyle back to RFC status due >> > to >> > debate on the RFV, but had delayed any further action while a few of us >> > involved in the discussion were dealing with vacations and other offline >> > issues. Now that enough time has passed, I think, for us all to be >> > back, >> > I'd like to bring this RFV back to the table. As the original RFC was >> > kept >> > open, I don't think I need to re-RFC. To be fair, however, I will give >> > a 7 >> > day expiration on the RFV, rather than simply the normal 48 hours. So, >> > if >> > it should happen that there are no continued objections, this one would >> > pass >> > on Friday, early AM (EST), July 24. >> >> Waah, way too much text for an RFV :) Please include a link to a wiki >> page with the proposed changes, so I can just agree/disagree based on the >> the actual proposal and only look into the previous discussion if I >> disagree. >> >> -- kuno / warp. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Musicbrainz-style mailing list >> Musicbrainz-style@... >> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > > > _______________________________________________ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@... > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Pavel Fedyakov
::
Rate this Message:
Is it language-independent? "1, 2, & 5" seems to be impossible in Russian.
Another question I asked in the wiki discussion: is it supposed to capitalize "part"-word in any language? In Russian, for example, common name for part is часть and only a first word of sentence is capitalized. Which alternative will be correct, "Название, часть 1" or "Название, Часть 1"? Brian Schweitzer wrote: > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Part_Number_Style > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Kuno Woudt <kuno@... > <mailto:kuno@...>> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:41:45AM -0400, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > If you recall, I'd agreed to drop PartNumberStyle back to RFC > status due to > > debate on the RFV, but had delayed any further action while a few > of us > > involved in the discussion were dealing with vacations and other > offline > > issues. Now that enough time has passed, I think, for us all to > be back, > > I'd like to bring this RFV back to the table. As the original > RFC was kept > > open, I don't think I need to re-RFC. To be fair, however, I > will give a 7 > > day expiration on the RFV, rather than simply the normal 48 > hours. So, if > > it should happen that there are no continued objections, this one > would pass > > on Friday, early AM (EST), July 24. > > Waah, way too much text for an RFV :) Please include a link to a wiki > page with the proposed changes, so I can just agree/disagree based > on the > the actual proposal and only look into the previous discussion if I > disagree. > > -- kuno / warp. > > > _______________________________________________ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@... > <mailto:Musicbrainz-style@...> > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@... > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Brian Schweitzer
::
Rate this Message:
Re #1, yes, that makes sense. Regarding #2, that doesn't flow as logically for me - you're still dealing with 3+ items, not 2; doing "one & three – five" seems to treat "three – five" as a singular item, not as the 2+ plural items it is describing. Try changing it to arabic for readability a moment - does "Parts 1 & 3 – 5" really parse, to you, in a manner that is consistent? It's using an ampersand between the first two elements of a 3 element list, which, to my knowledge, is never grammatically correct, in any language.
Brian On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa@...> wrote: A couple quick questions: _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Aaron Cooper-3
::
Rate this Message:
The way I see it is "Parts {1} and {3 to 5}". I see two items being
listed, not three or four. If I were to speak this title, I wouldn't say "Parts 1 3 to 5" I would say "Parts 1 and 3-to-5". -cooperaa On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:33 AM, Brian Schweitzer<brian.brianschweitzer@...> wrote: > Re #1, yes, that makes sense. Regarding #2, that doesn't flow as logically > for me - you're still dealing with 3+ items, not 2; doing "one & three – > five" seems to treat "three – five" as a singular item, not as the 2+ plural > items it is describing. Try changing it to arabic for readability a moment > - does "Parts 1 & 3 – 5" really parse, to you, in a manner that is > consistent? It's using an ampersand between the first two elements of a 3 > element list, which, to my knowledge, is never grammatically correct, in any > language. > > Brian > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa@...> wrote: >> >> A couple quick questions: >> >> 1. Why "TrackTitle, Parts 1, 3 & 5" and "TrackTitle, Parts 1–3, & 5"? >> To be consistent, shouldn't we do "TrackTitle, Parts 1, 3, & 5" and >> "TrackTitle, Parts 1–3, & 5"? >> >> 2. Why "TrackTitle, Parts One, Three – Five" instead of "TrackTitle, >> Parts One & Three – Five"? >> >> -cooperaa >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Brian >> Schweitzer<brian.brianschweitzer@...> wrote: >> > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Part_Number_Style >> > >> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Kuno Woudt <kuno@...> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:41:45AM -0400, Brian Schweitzer wrote: >> >> > If you recall, I'd agreed to drop PartNumberStyle back to RFC status >> >> > due >> >> > to >> >> > debate on the RFV, but had delayed any further action while a few of >> >> > us >> >> > involved in the discussion were dealing with vacations and other >> >> > offline >> >> > issues. Now that enough time has passed, I think, for us all to be >> >> > back, >> >> > I'd like to bring this RFV back to the table. As the original RFC >> >> > was >> >> > kept >> >> > open, I don't think I need to re-RFC. To be fair, however, I will >> >> > give >> >> > a 7 >> >> > day expiration on the RFV, rather than simply the normal 48 hours. >> >> > So, >> >> > if >> >> > it should happen that there are no continued objections, this one >> >> > would >> >> > pass >> >> > on Friday, early AM (EST), July 24. >> >> >> >> Waah, way too much text for an RFV :) Please include a link to a wiki >> >> page with the proposed changes, so I can just agree/disagree based on >> >> the >> >> the actual proposal and only look into the previous discussion if I >> >> disagree. >> >> >> >> -- kuno / warp. >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Musicbrainz-style mailing list >> >> Musicbrainz-style@... >> >> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Musicbrainz-style mailing list >> > Musicbrainz-style@... >> > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Musicbrainz-style mailing list >> Musicbrainz-style@... >> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > > > _______________________________________________ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@... > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Brian Schweitzer
::
Rate this Message:
I don't speak Russian, so I don't know... Why is "1, 2, & 5" impossible in Russian? If you mean impossible due to the lack of an ampersand equivalent in cyrillic (at least, going off of http://www.artlebedev.com/mandership/112/ ), this would also seem a failing of the current official guideline. One option would be for us to localize ampersand characters based on the current script. However, this seems somewhat over-complex, and we really would have to then provide a table of those characters in the guideline (would you really know the proper character to use for Hangul?) It's not quite the same Babel problem as I referenced in the RFV wiith regards to "to", but localizing to whatever ampersand-equivalent exists would seem messy. For those who are familiar with languages which use other scripts, is there some alternative that works better than an amersand, and is the ampersand not recognized universally enough such that, even if we did use it in a cyrillic (or han, hangul, klingon, etc) situation, it still makes sense, contextually and in simply parsing what it is saying?
Regarding the "part" word, I didn't intend to infer any particular capitalization or not (nor does the current official version of this guideline, as far as I know). The same question I guess holds for VolumeNumberStyle and DiscNumberStyle - none of the three explictly specify a case. For PartNumberStyle, at least, as it can affect any of many words, I would suggest we keep capitalization localized. If the part word would be capitalized, in the particular language per that language's capitalization standard, then capitalize it, otherwise, don't. The exception I would suggest would be for English "Part" words (Part, Chapter, etc), using the English word outside of an English track. So if we have that title in French, which is using the English word for whatever reason, let us keep it capitalized, even though French Capitalization Standard would otherwise indicate lowercasing the part word. Does that make sense? Perhaps we also ought to expressly *not* exempt "part words" from CJK uses (ie, expressly state that JapaneseArtistException would *not* apply?) Brian On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Pavel Fedyakov <admin@...> wrote: Is it language-independent? "1, 2, & 5" seems to be impossible in Russian. _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Brian Schweitzer
::
Rate this Message:
I can sort of see that argument. It feels wrong, but I can't really say that I know of any particular grammatical argument either way. Given that, though, going back to the arabic case you mentioned earlier, wouldn't it actually be this:
Not " To be consistent, shouldn't we do "TrackTitle, Parts 1, 3, & 5" and "TrackTitle, Parts 1–3, & 5"?" But To be consistent, shouldn't we do "TrackTitle, Parts 1, 3, & 5" and "TrackTitle, Parts 1–3 & 5"? ie, a serial comma, but no comma after the range? (and re: consistency between the two, I think they actually are two distinct cases, so there's no need for consistency between them.) Brian On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa@...> wrote: The way I see it is "Parts {1} and {3 to 5}". I see two items being _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Pavel Fedyakov
::
Rate this Message:
Brian Schweitzer wrote: > I don't speak Russian, so I don't know... Why is "1, 2, & 5" impossible > in Russian? If you mean impossible due to the lack of an ampersand > equivalent in cyrillic (at least, going off of > http://www.artlebedev.com/mandership/112/ ), this would also seem a Yes. Ampersand isn't used in traditional Russian typography. But I personally dislike the usage of comma before it. In Russian, comma is never used before the only "and" in enumeration. > failing of the current official guideline. One option would be for us > to localize ampersand characters based on the current script. However, > this seems somewhat over-complex, and we really would have to then > provide a table of those characters in the guideline (would you really > know the proper character to use for Hangul?) It's not quite the same > Babel problem as I referenced in the RFV wiith regards to "to", but > localizing to whatever ampersand-equivalent exists would seem messy. > For those who are familiar with languages which use other scripts, is > there some alternative that works better than an amersand, and is the > ampersand not recognized universally enough such that, even if we did > use it in a cyrillic (or han, hangul, klingon, etc) situation, it still > makes sense, contextually and in simply parsing what it is saying? > > Regarding the "part" word, I didn't intend to infer any particular > capitalization or not (nor does the current official version of this > guideline, as far as I know). The same question I guess holds for > VolumeNumberStyle and DiscNumberStyle - none of the three explictly > specify a case. For PartNumberStyle, at least, as it can affect any of > many words, I would suggest we keep capitalization localized. If the > part word would be capitalized, in the particular language per that > language's capitalization standard, then capitalize it, otherwise, > don't. The exception I would suggest would be for English "Part" words > (Part, Chapter, etc), using the English word outside of an English > track. So if we have that title in French, which is using the English > word for whatever reason, let us keep it capitalized, even though French > Capitalization Standard would otherwise indicate lowercasing the part > word. Does that make sense? Perhaps we also ought to expressly *not* > exempt "part words" from CJK uses (ie, expressly state that > JapaneseArtistException would *not* apply?) > That sounds good. Could this explanation be included in PartNumberStyle? VolumeNumberStyle needs the same clarification, a couple of examples at least. > Brian > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Pavel Fedyakov <admin@... > <mailto:admin@...>> wrote: > > Is it language-independent? "1, 2, & 5" seems to be impossible in > Russian. > > Another question I asked in the wiki discussion: is it supposed to > capitalize "part"-word in any language? In Russian, for example, common > name for part is часть and only a first word of sentence is capitalized. > Which alternative will be correct, "Название, часть 1" or "Название, > Часть 1"? > > Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Part_Number_Style > > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 3:31 AM, Kuno Woudt <kuno@... > <mailto:kuno@...> > > <mailto:kuno@... <mailto:kuno@...>>> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 01:41:45AM -0400, Brian Schweitzer wrote: > > > If you recall, I'd agreed to drop PartNumberStyle back to RFC > > status due to > > > debate on the RFV, but had delayed any further action > while a few > > of us > > > involved in the discussion were dealing with vacations and > other > > offline > > > issues. Now that enough time has passed, I think, for us > all to > > be back, > > > I'd like to bring this RFV back to the table. As the original > > RFC was kept > > > open, I don't think I need to re-RFC. To be fair, however, I > > will give a 7 > > > day expiration on the RFV, rather than simply the normal 48 > > hours. So, if > > > it should happen that there are no continued objections, > this one > > would pass > > > on Friday, early AM (EST), July 24. > > > > Waah, way too much text for an RFV :) Please include a link > to a wiki > > page with the proposed changes, so I can just agree/disagree > based > > on the > > the actual proposal and only look into the previous > discussion if I > > disagree. > > > > -- kuno / warp. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > > Musicbrainz-style@... > <mailto:Musicbrainz-style@...> > > <mailto:Musicbrainz-style@... > <mailto:Musicbrainz-style@...>> > > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > > Musicbrainz-style@... > <mailto:Musicbrainz-style@...> > > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > > _______________________________________________ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@... > <mailto:Musicbrainz-style@...> > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@... > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Evigheden
::
Rate this Message:
Brian Schweitzer wrote:I don't speak Russian, so I don't know... Why is "1, 2, & 5" impossible in Russian? If you mean impossible due to the lack of an ampersand equivalent in cyrillic (at least, going off of http://www.artlebedev.com/mandership/112/ ), this would also seem aYes. Ampersand isn't used in traditional Russian typography. But I personally dislike the usage of comma before it. In Russian, comma is never used before the only "and" in enumeration. And in Polish. Ampersand doesn't exist in Polish (similar to for example letter "v"), but I think technically it can be used. However comma before "and" is completely unthinkable. I didn't follow whole discussion, but even in English I don't really understand why you want comma before "&"?
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Gecks
::
Rate this Message:
i still think that dropping the various spacing rules and just having
either "X-Y" or "X to Y" is better. it's consistent, looks more natural, and these language issues with "to" IMO aren't a deal breaker because of all the other various localisations issues we have with this style, and indeed all across musicbrainz. simple guidelines like this are just going back and forth and getting even more complicated. the guideline has doubled in size from the old http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Part_Number_Style, which was if anything too long to start with. blah. 2009/7/17 Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer@...>: > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Part_Number_Style > _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Edward J. Shornock-3
::
Rate this Message:
* Evigheden <god_emperor@...> [20-07-2009 13:58 EEST]:
> > Pavel Fedyakov pisze: > > > > Yes. Ampersand isn't used in traditional Russian typography. But > > I personally dislike the usage of comma before it. In Russian, > > comma is never used before the only "and" in enumeration. > > And in Polish. Ampersand doesn't exist in Polish (similar to for > example letter "v"), but I think technically it can be used. > However comma before "and" is completely unthinkable. I didn't > follow whole discussion, but even in English I don't really > understand why you want comma before "&"? I don't recall seeing commas before '&'s in English texts. Searching the 'net, I see lots of references that state "do not use a comma before an ampersand", but there are just as many that say to use them. It looks very strange to have "Parts 1, 2, & 3", whereas to my eyes "Parts 1, 2, and 3" or even "Parts 1, 2 and 3" look normal. Personally, I'd prefer that there was not a comma before ampersands. _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Evigheden
::
Rate this Message:
I don't know how is it in English, but in Poland there is a law about Polish language and the special council (members are mainly best linguists and professors from physics, medicine, law, logic, etc.), which regulate the all rules about spelling, punctuation, etc. in every aspect of language (also how to use dash in chemical formulas). General rules are included in nearly every orthographic dictionary and it's like any other law - all official documents ought to follow them and in most cases if someone break them it is simply treated as a mistake. Probably in English (British? American?) there is also some set of official rules, so before making the attempt to develop position about punctuation in MusicBrainz it would be wise to find some documents similar to Polish dictionary and check, because - I can say it as a student of linguistics - common point of view can be really misleading.* Evigheden god_emperor@... [20-07-2009 13:58 EEST]:
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Jan van Thiel-4
::
Rate this Message:
I want to see real-life MB examples of all cases presented in the draft.
Jan 2009/7/20 Chris B <chris@...>: > i still think that dropping the various spacing rules and just having > either "X-Y" or "X to Y" is better. > > it's consistent, looks more natural, and these language issues with > "to" IMO aren't a deal breaker because of all the other various > localisations issues we have with this style, and indeed all across > musicbrainz. simple guidelines like this are just going back and forth > and getting even more complicated. > > the guideline has doubled in size from the old > http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Part_Number_Style, which was if anything > too long to start with. blah. > > 2009/7/17 Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer@...>: >> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Part_Number_Style >> > > _______________________________________________ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@... > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Simon Austin-2
::
Rate this Message:
Evigheden wrote:
> I don't know how is it in English, but in Poland there is a law about > Polish language and the special council (members are mainly best > linguists and professors from physics, medicine, law, logic, etc.), > which regulate the all rules about spelling, punctuation, etc. in > every aspect of language (also how to use dash in chemical formulas). > General rules are included in nearly every orthographic dictionary and > it's like any other law - all official documents ought to follow them > and in most cases if someone break them it is simply treated as a > mistake. Probably in English (British? American?) there is also some > set of official rules, so before making the attempt to develop > position about punctuation in MusicBrainz it would be wise to find > some documents similar to Polish dictionary and check, because - I can > say it as a student of linguistics - common point of view can be > really misleading. convention, opportunity and force of will. Most places that work with the written word will maintain their own style guide (eg the gruaniad: http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/a and The Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/tools_and_services/specials/style_guide/ ). As for our Style, the serial comma in a list is really only needed to prevent ambiguity; and I don't think that's much of a worry here. I'd get rid of the comma in the first two examples below and replace it with an ampersand in the third. - Si: chiark *"TrackTitle, Parts 1–3, & 5"* - Four or more parts, containing a range spanning more than two parts as well as a non-consequtive part *"TrackTitle, Parts One – Three, & Five"* - Four or more parts, containing a range spanning more than two parts as well as a non-consequtive part *"TrackTitle, Parts One, Three – Five"* - Four or more parts, containing a range spanning more than two parts as well as a non-consequtive part _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Brian Schweitzer
::
Rate this Message:
Just with respect to "Part" as a part word, there are around 100,000 cases in the database of multiple part numbers being indicated within a track title. I don't have the dump handy anymore (I was using it while working on ironing out newGuessCase bugs), but I can say that there is basically no consistancy at all; everything from "Parts 1, 2, 3" to "Part 1 and Part 2 + Part 3" to "Pts.1,2,3", and worse, is in there. Honestly, given the current mess, I could provide any examples, but anyone else could likely also provide counter-examples using just about any formulation desired.
(Keep in mind that the current GuessCase script only fixes singular "Part", so every time anyone's entered a track with more than one part in the title, it's just been kept as is, no fixing.) Brian On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Jan van Thiel <zout@...> wrote: I want to see real-life MB examples of all cases presented in the draft. _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Brian Schweitzer
::
Rate this Message:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Simon Austin <simon@...> wrote:
I'm willing to be flexible; the lack of a serial comma looks seriously wrong to me, but given that it's debatable in English, and many have pointed out it simply being incorrect in language xyz, I'd be willing to drop it from the guideline. Brian _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Brian Schweitzer
::
Rate this Message:
How is " - " (space en-dash space) more complex than forcing editors to try and figure out the correct "to' word for a given language, esp if they're not a native speaker for that language? It's reasonable that someone might have a CD in a different language in hand, but in my opinion, it'd be unreasonable for us to then force them to try and figure out the correct word to use - they can copy words they can't understand off of a liner, but that's totally different from asking the editor to try and figure out a word *not* on the liner... Brian On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Chris B <chris@...> wrote: i still think that dropping the various spacing rules and just having _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
|
|
|
Re: RFV: PartNumberStyle (second attempt)
by Brian Schweitzer
::
Rate this Message:
Would anyone object to the above concept, re capitalization, in some abbreviated form? Brian _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style |
| < Prev | 1 - 2 | Next > |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
