"Seto San" is a fictional character who - in the tv show - has a performance name "SUN" under which music was released in the real world. She is played by Halko Momoi.
2011-06-01 15232, 2011
hawke_
kepstin-laptop: Seems reasonable to me.
2011-06-01 15242, 2011
hawke_
kepstin-laptop: Though it does make “legal name” kinda bad.
2011-06-01 15248, 2011
Krystof joined the channel
2011-06-01 15259, 2011
hawke_
I’ve never really been a fan of the legal name phrase anyway
2011-06-01 15232, 2011
kepstin-laptop
hmm. maybe just change it to "performed by" or something.
2011-06-01 15208, 2011
kepstin-laptop
except that would be weird for some of the western artist cases of performance names
2011-06-01 15251, 2011
kepstin-laptop
I.e. would you say Eminem is "performed by" Marshall Mathers?
2011-06-01 15222, 2011
hawke_
True.
2011-06-01 15240, 2011
kepstin-laptop
I think I would prefer to have a different relationship to link roles/characters to artists as opposed to performance names. Something to add to my idea about a new artist type for roles/characters, I guess :)
2011-06-01 15247, 2011
hawke_
Not a bad idea.
2011-06-01 15227, 2011
reosarevok
kepstin-laptop: sounds coherent
2011-06-01 15243, 2011
reosarevok
kepstin-laptop: please do that. Also, what about Cap_Stand_Japanese? :p
2011-06-01 15237, 2011
kepstin-laptop
reosarevok: I need to send an RFV for my proposal to add a website link to releases first, before nikki reminds me about that again :)
2011-06-01 15257, 2011
reosarevok
Then do it! Just needs one little mail anyway :)
2011-06-01 15256, 2011
kepstin-laptop
hmm. I actually wanted to make a few changes to that homepage proposal based on the discussion; is the correct thing to do there to send out an RFV with the updated text, or send out a new version of the RFC?
2011-06-01 15232, 2011
reosarevok has left the channel
2011-06-01 15248, 2011
reosarevok joined the channel
2011-06-01 15255, 2011
reosarevok
Let's ask warp about it
2011-06-01 15209, 2011
warp is innocent!
2011-06-01 15216, 2011
reosarevok
Yeah, we know
2011-06-01 15225, 2011
reosarevok
But what about the RFC / RFV thing
2011-06-01 15226, 2011
reosarevok
?
2011-06-01 15251, 2011
warp
reosarevok: which RFC / RFV thing?
2011-06-01 15258, 2011
reosarevok
What kepstin just said
2011-06-01 15236, 2011
reosarevok
If a few changes are made to an RFC based on the discussion, can it go into RFV or does it need another RFC?
2011-06-01 15237, 2011
warp
you can always go to RFV imo, however if you expect that more discussion will follow, it would be better to do another round of RFC first.
2011-06-01 15240, 2011
kepstin-laptop
hmm. I think the changes are the logical outcome of the existing discussion, so I probably will just put out an RFV. If anyone disagrees I can always start a round 2 :)
2011-06-01 15251, 2011
reosarevok
Makes sense to me
2011-06-01 15238, 2011
ruaok joined the channel
2011-06-01 15215, 2011
cjk32 joined the channel
2011-06-01 15224, 2011
cjk32
ping: caller_6
2011-06-01 15240, 2011
hawke_
Grr…why does “Piano accordion” have to be the first result when searching for piano on an instrument AR?
2011-06-01 15202, 2011
caller_6
cjk32:pong
2011-06-01 15206, 2011
reosarevok
hawke_: to annoy us
2011-06-01 15226, 2011
cjk32
caller_6: Sorry I missed your response earlier re deleting works.
2011-06-01 15203, 2011
cjk32
caller_6: The works in question were created mistakenly by me (after unknowingly switching from the test to the live site).
2011-06-01 15221, 2011
hawke_
reosarevok: Sounds about right. So many times I’ve entered a “piano accordion” AR when I meant piano.
reosarevok had forgotten how awesome Eskimo by Wiley is
2011-06-01 15217, 2011
cjk32
caller_6: Okay, done. I think I may need to resurrect the work for the concert version of the overture too. Thanks for the help.
2011-06-01 15240, 2011
caller_6
cjk32: :cheers
2011-06-01 15257, 2011
hawke_
Is there a way to delete a work? Or can you only merge them?
2011-06-01 15252, 2011
hawke_
Wait, cjk32 just asked that, didn’t he?
2011-06-01 15223, 2011
hawke_
cjk32: Why wouldn’t a recording that would be that entire huge work not simply be related as a performance of every individual work?
2011-06-01 15228, 2011
hawke_
heh, “simply”
2011-06-01 15226, 2011
kepstin-laptop
there we go, RFV for my release-url ar proposal sent.
2011-06-01 15243, 2011
hawke_
kepstin-laptop: why not RGs on that?
2011-06-01 15254, 2011
hawke_
(I may have missed previous discussion on the topic)
2011-06-01 15243, 2011
suriv joined the channel
2011-06-01 15221, 2011
Tecfan_ joined the channel
2011-06-01 15243, 2011
kepstin-laptop
hawke_: I gave some reasoning for it in the original email thread; I added a reply here as well that should explain why I did that.
2011-06-01 15240, 2011
hawke_
Yeah, I saw.
2011-06-01 15211, 2011
hawke_
I suspect it will be misused/confused because of that.
2011-06-01 15258, 2011
hawke_
And I think release web pages are too ephemeral to be worthwhile, but there’s not really any harm in it, so…
2011-06-01 15251, 2011
kepstin-laptop
yeah, that is a point against them, but I think they're still useful to have as they are.
2011-06-01 15230, 2011
kepstin-laptop
be nice if musicbrainz could automatically send you to an archive.org copy of any websites that have gone offline ;)
2011-06-01 15250, 2011
hawke_
I actually think a lot of URL links in MB are pretty useless.
2011-06-01 15203, 2011
nikki
useless in what way?
2011-06-01 15220, 2011
Tecfan__ joined the channel
2011-06-01 15234, 2011
hawke_
nikki: Mostly in that they tend to be ephemeral, or just duplicate stuff that’s in MB.
2011-06-01 15247, 2011
kepstin-laptop
of the two ARs in that mail, the discography entry one is probably the more useful - it links to a source of original information, and artist/record label discography pages tend to be long-lasting.
2011-06-01 15228, 2011
hawke_
Too often I see artist sites rearranged or rebuilt on a whim.
2011-06-01 15233, 2011
hawke_
record labels tend to be better
2011-06-01 15242, 2011
hawke_
but still not that great
2011-06-01 15227, 2011
hawke_
I only really see the utilitarian URL links as worthwhile: free download, CC license, amazon, maybe a few others
2011-06-01 15247, 2011
hawke_
Wikipedia
2011-06-01 15244, 2011
hawke_
Anyone familiar with German and/or Schönberg works, to know whether “Sprich nicht immer” or “Sprich nicht mehr von dem Laub” or “Sprich nicht immer von dem Laub” is correct?
2011-06-01 15245, 2011
reosarevok
hawke_: I have no idea, but have you checked German wikipedia? Maybe they know
