On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:16 PM, Chad Wilson <chad.wilson <at> gmx.net>
Brian Schweitzer wrote:Shall I remind you that _I_ wrote most of the guideline incorporating
> Secondly, we're not "changing" the meaning of anything. The feature is
> new; we're defining it for the first time. So don't paint it as if
> someone is skewing the original developer intention of the concept -
> that's not the case, and you're weasel wording.
> "Bring together variant versions of an album into a single listing"
> was the original intent. The proposed guideline respected this, even
> to the point of specifically stating that different recordings of the
> same show shouldn't have their RGs be merged. So how am I then
> skewing anything? The wording in the guideline is quite clear, and
> nothing in "variant versions of an album" encompasses "same concert",
> "same book", etc.
pronik, gioele and navap's work? The term "variant" isn't even on that
The term "variations" does, however, and "variant" is a singular form of "variations".
page, so I don't know what you're talking about. The bootleg clause was
inserted by navap, IIRC, based on maybe one or two people's comments on
IRC or a talk page. That clause was never part of some "grand plan for RGs".
And yet, 3 months and several significant revisions to the draft later, it remains part of the draft.
> >From my perspective - you're trying to skew it to fit your own obscure
> view of what an RG is which lessons the utility to everyone else with
> Obscure? My view is exactly what is written in the guideline, now.
I'm talking about your argument about why recordings should be separate;
that somehow they are not what an RG is for. It's foolish to invoke the
current guideline as some sort of backup. The only reason that clause is
still there in the guideline is because of your bitching on the talk
page at the time. I didn't remove it because I wanted to write a
Make up your mind. It was in there from the start, as is shown by the early versions of the guideline. My first comment on the talk page about ANYTHING was 2 WEEKS later, stating agreement with that part of the guideline as ALREADY WRITTEN.
guideline that had a hope in hell of passing initially; to be augmented
and tidied up later. So much for that.
Look brian, others have told you what it means to them about a thousand
> Define it then. "Same somethingness" is not a consistent definition,
> and we've never defined any entity type using a different basis
> depending on the type or status of the entity.
times. You don't listen. It's fundamentally subjective - it's music!?
How is the concept of "it comes from the same recording" a subjective grouping? And I don't actually see any answer in your comment, only rhetoric...
As for "we've never defined any entity type"; absolutely untrue. We
debate often about whether a set of mp3s on an artist's website are NATs
or a Release. We debate endlessly about whether a remaster should be a
separate release to the original, or merged. This is no different an
If you're going to quote me, try to quote me such that you don't only quote half the sentence and create a straw man argument. "...we've never defined any entity type using a different basis depending on the type or status of the entity" was what I actually said. NAT vs release and master vs remaster have nothing to do with this, as they have nothing to do with "using a different basis depending on the type or status of the entity".
From the other side's perspective, it's /you/ who are trying to treat
live bootlegs differently. Trying to introduce now that you have to take
into account the "recording". THAT's obscure to most people.
Ignroing that the RG proposed guideline actually ALREADY makes this distinction, and as mentioned, I myself had nothing to do with writing that text, nor did I have anything to do with getting it added into the draft? How am I, then, introducing that concept, given that it's been a written part of the draft for 3 1/2 months now?
> Well, I honestly feel that the Release Group concept is broken if we
> decide it to be something which is subjective, and where the
> definition differs, depending on the particular type, status (and
> voters voting on that RG merge edit). I feel RGs can be quite useful,
> and I see them as useful already, using the "same audio" defintion,
> for albums. As of yet, I've seen no rationale provided for the
> proposed confusing definition you want to use, except that it makes
> the artist listing "cleaner". IMHO, "cleaner listings" vs "clearly
> defined entity" and "easy and consistent applicability of the entity
> definition, no matter the release type and status"... easy choice.
I'm quite happy for you to think it's broken; since you flatly reject
everyone else's arguments. Saying "no rationale provided" is plainly
offensive to others who've actually bothered trying to debate with your
The only rationale given has been "it makes a cleaner artist listing". That's not a reason, that's trying to turn data into poetry. I've not provided a brick wall. I am arguing an entirely point of view, one clearly supported by at least a few others, given the few no votes on that edit, and the fact that that line of text in the draft was entirely written by others. It also is supported by every single bootleg trading site, all of which strongly encourage the provision of source and lineage info, as well as most of the good large bootleg sites (including many of the ones I see you yourself using frequently in edit notes) which include separate listings per recording, not just per show.
However, Chad, to be honest, you're just coming across as offensive at this point. Between "bitching", "obscure", "weasel wording", and other terms you've used in edit notes and comments to the lists to describe me, it's clear that, while I've been attempting to have a reasonable discussion, you're simply interested in insulting me, my comments, or merely belittling me, without even attempting to work towards some common point.
So consider this my last reply to you, unless you actually are interested in discussing things at a mature level. While I'm interested in working towards a common point through reasoned debate, I'm not interested in continuing to read personal insults, directed at me, aimed by you. Perhaps if you actually read my replies, and attempted to try, as I have been, to find some commonalities, you'd have more luck, and we might actually get somewhere with all this.