RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

LordSputnik
This is the RFV for the proposal to introduce a guideline for choosing the recording title. It also specifies what to do with ETI.

From the original RFC:
"This proposal aims to introduce some proper guidelines for choosing the recording title. The aim is to reduce variation in recording titles due to errors or because of different representations on releases - track titles already store that information. This should also hopefully have the side effect of making it clearer which recordings should be merged."

Changes since original RFC:
* The "official" title is no longer required. The emphasis now is on finding the "most common" title.
* Guidance on ETI was added. Most ETI should stay with the title, but live information should be moved, as explained by the "live recording" section of the existing guideline.

Proposal:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording_Title

JIRA Ticket:
http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-230

Expected RFV End: 2013-08-28, 22:00 UTC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

lixobix
1) Wouldn't it be better to move the live recordings section from Style/Recording to here, rather than referencing Style/Recording?

2) There's still the issue th1rtyf0ur highlighted in the RFC: what happens when two tracks contain different ETI, or one has none? Do we keep both/it? http://musicbrainz.org/work/2ec3d913-0b4d-4fb2-86c3-97d2c509c39c

Perhaps "Only keep ETI that is included in a significant number of track titles."
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

tommycrock
1) is probably dependent on the outcome of the live RFC
2) is covered by the rule, select the recording title based on the most common track title. If it includes ETI, keep it. (in other words, if it's in one track title and not in two track titles, you wouldn't keep it (assuming the main bit was the same))


On 27 August 2013 11:51, lixobix <[hidden email]> wrote:
1) Wouldn't it be better to move the live recordings section from
Style/Recording to here, rather than referencing Style/Recording?

2) There's still the issue th1rtyf0ur highlighted in the RFC: what happens
when two tracks contain different ETI, or one has none? Do we keep both/it?
http://musicbrainz.org/work/2ec3d913-0b4d-4fb2-86c3-97d2c509c39c

Perhaps "Only keep ETI that is included in a significant number of track
titles."



--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-230-Recording-Title-Guidelines-tp4657222p4657236.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

lixobix
Tom Crocker wrote
1) is probably dependent on the outcome of the live RFC
2) is covered by the rule, select the recording title based on the most
common track title. If it includes ETI, keep it. (in other words, if it's
in one track title and not in two track titles, you wouldn't keep it
(assuming the main bit was the same))
1) The live RFC only refers to Style/Recording generically, so I wouldn't say it's dependent. That said, the title text on both of those pages is identical. Should it be on just one page, with the other two pages referencing it?

2) What about a 50/50 split? Leave it to user discretion? http://musicbrainz.org/recording/a948c4ab-cc2e-4419-bb62-6a59c6899726
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

tommycrock


On Aug 27, 2013 12:11 PM, "lixobix" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Tom Crocker wrote
> > 1) is probably dependent on the outcome of the live RFC
> > 2) is covered by the rule, select the recording title based on the most
> > common track title. If it includes ETI, keep it. (in other words, if it's
> > in one track title and not in two track titles, you wouldn't keep it
> > (assuming the main bit was the same))
>
> 1) The live RFC only refers to Style/Recording generically, so I wouldn't
> say it's dependent. That said, the title text on both of those pages is
> identical. Should it be on just one page, with the other two pages
> referencing it?
>
> 2) What about a 50/50 split? Leave it to user discretion?
> http://musicbrainz.org/recording/a948c4ab-cc2e-4419-bb62-6a59c6899726
>

That recording looks like it only has one track, but my memory was Consistent Original Data said use the most common and if there's a tie, use the earliest.

>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-230-Recording-Title-Guidelines-tp4657222p4657240.html
> Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

LordSputnik

1) This is going to be merged into Style/Recording if the proposal succeeds (see the first sentence in the wiki page). I'm with Tom - we should change the live recordings section as little as possible while the other proposal is going on.
2) If it's a 50/50 split, it doesn't really matter which title gets chosen. Both are equally "officially" as far as the database is concerned, so I'm fine leaving this up to the user.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

lixobix
In reply to this post by tommycrock
Tom Crocker wrote
> 2) What about a 50/50 split? Leave it to user discretion?
> http://musicbrainz.org/recording/a948c4ab-cc2e-4419-bb62-6a59c6899726
>

That recording looks like it only has one track, but my memory was
Consistent Original Data said use the most common and if there's a tie, use
the earliest.
Sorry, this one: http://musicbrainz.org/work/4377ff56-ee15-421f-93f4-de957447a480 (should be one recording, they need merging). Two tracks, two titles.

But yes, discretion should work. This probably won't happen often.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines, ETI exception

CallerNo6
In reply to this post by LordSputnik
On 08/26/2013 03:02 PM, LordSputnik wrote:
> This is the RFV for the proposal to introduce a guideline for choosing the
> recording title. It also specifies what to do with ETI.
>
> Proposal:
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording_Title

"... extra title information should be kept in the recording title. The
exception is live recordings..."

By my reading, this means that "Some Song (bonus track)" will have
"(bonus track)" in the title unless/until the same recording appears on
at least one, maybe more, other releases.

In other words, how do you all feel about "*An* exception is live
recordings..." instead? Or was that already tried and rejected ( for
being too vague)?

Alex / caller#6

p.s. Sorry to bring this up in RFV, but jeez, the RFC thread is 146
messages. I wonder how many people (like me) didn't noticed your last
revision.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines, ETI exception

tommycrock
Although I wouldn't be opposed to that change I expect someone would!

I think it will be very rare that "bonus track" distinguishes a track from another with the same title, so it probably shouldn't be entered as track ETI either. Same goes for "explicit" (if it's there as a warning rather than to distinguish it from a clean version) or all the other asterisks and symbols you see on tracklists. Hopefully the forthcoming track title guidelines will clear that up though.



On 27 August 2013 18:36, caller#6 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 08/26/2013 03:02 PM, LordSputnik wrote:
> This is the RFV for the proposal to introduce a guideline for choosing the
> recording title. It also specifies what to do with ETI.
>
> Proposal:
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording_Title

"... extra title information should be kept in the recording title. The
exception is live recordings..."

By my reading, this means that "Some Song (bonus track)" will have
"(bonus track)" in the title unless/until the same recording appears on
at least one, maybe more, other releases.

In other words, how do you all feel about "*An* exception is live
recordings..." instead? Or was that already tried and rejected ( for
being too vague)?

Alex / caller#6

p.s. Sorry to bring this up in RFV, but jeez, the RFC thread is 146
messages. I wonder how many people (like me) didn't noticed your last
revision.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines, ETI exception

Jazzy Jarilith
I don't think that "bonus track" is a relevant information enough. It's just a marketing trick to make you buy the record on first release. More often than not, those "bonus tracks" stick to the subsequent re-issues, removing the "it's rare!" effect usually associated with them. :-)


2013/8/27 Tom Crocker <[hidden email]>
Although I wouldn't be opposed to that change I expect someone would!

I think it will be very rare that "bonus track" distinguishes a track from another with the same title, so it probably shouldn't be entered as track ETI either. Same goes for "explicit" (if it's there as a warning rather than to distinguish it from a clean version) or all the other asterisks and symbols you see on tracklists. Hopefully the forthcoming track title guidelines will clear that up though.



On 27 August 2013 18:36, caller#6 <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 08/26/2013 03:02 PM, LordSputnik wrote:
> This is the RFV for the proposal to introduce a guideline for choosing the
> recording title. It also specifies what to do with ETI.
>
> Proposal:
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording_Title

"... extra title information should be kept in the recording title. The
exception is live recordings..."

By my reading, this means that "Some Song (bonus track)" will have
"(bonus track)" in the title unless/until the same recording appears on
at least one, maybe more, other releases.

In other words, how do you all feel about "*An* exception is live
recordings..." instead? Or was that already tried and rejected ( for
being too vague)?

Alex / caller#6

p.s. Sorry to bring this up in RFV, but jeez, the RFC thread is 146
messages. I wonder how many people (like me) didn't noticed your last
revision.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines, ETI exception

LordSputnik
I wouldn't count (bonus track) as ETI, based on http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Titles/Extra_title_information.

However, it could be part of the track title, you're right. Same for "explicit" (although that sort of marks a version of the song, if there's a clean version, and could be more useful). And then the guidelines would suggest copying that information. Perhaps we could say "Exclude redundant information such as "bonus track"".

I'm really tempted to drop the whole ETI section from the proposal, since people seem to be very happy to pick out problems but not very willing to help solve them (not you personally, Caller#6). I guess it'll go back to RFC now, but I'd really like to wrap this up, since it's quite a simple change and it already has a third of the number of posts that the whole recording guideline had.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

LordSputnik
In reply to this post by LordSputnik
The RFV is now open again. Nothing has changed since the previous cancelled RFV.

Original:

"This is the RFV for the proposal to introduce a guideline for choosing the recording title. It also specifies what to do with ETI.

From the original RFC:
"This proposal aims to introduce some proper guidelines for choosing the recording title. The aim is to reduce variation in recording titles due to errors or because of different representations on releases - track titles already store that information. This should also hopefully have the side effect of making it clearer which recordings should be merged."

Changes since original RFC:
* The "official" title is no longer required. The emphasis now is on finding the "most common" title.
* Guidance on ETI was added. Most ETI should stay with the title, but live information should be moved, as explained by the "live recording" section of the existing guideline.

Proposal:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording_Title

JIRA Ticket:
http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-230"

Expected RFV End: 2013-09-02, 09:00 UTC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

LordSputnik

No opposition, so RFV has now passed. I will be updating the recording page soon.

The RFV is now open again. Nothing has changed since the previous cancelled
RFV.

Original:

"This is the RFV for the proposal to introduce a guideline for choosing the
recording title. It also specifies what to do with ETI.

From the original RFC:
"This proposal aims to introduce some proper guidelines for choosing the
recording title. The aim is to reduce variation in recording titles due to
errors or because of different representations on releases - track titles
already store that information. This should also hopefully have the side
effect of making it clearer which recordings should be merged."

Changes since original RFC:
* The "official" title is no longer required. The emphasis now is on finding
the "most common" title.
* Guidance on ETI was added. Most ETI should stay with the title, but live
information should be moved, as explained by the "live recording" section of
the existing guideline.

Proposal:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording_Title

JIRA Ticket:
http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-230"

Expected RFV End: 2013-09-02, 09:00 UTC



--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-230-Recording-Title-Guidelines-tp4657222p4657323.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

Alex Mauer
On 09/02/2013 04:14 AM, Ben Ockmore wrote:
> No opposition, so RFV has now passed. I will be updating the recording
> page soon.
>
> The RFV is now open again. Nothing has changed since the previous cancelled
> RFV.
>
> Original:

So is it open, or has it passed?



_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

Frederic Da Vitoria
2013/9/3 Alex Mauer <[hidden email]>
On 09/02/2013 04:14 AM, Ben Ockmore wrote:
> No opposition, so RFV has now passed. I will be updating the recording
> page soon.
>
> The RFV is now open again. Nothing has changed since the previous cancelled
> RFV.
>
> Original:

So is it open, or has it passed?

I guess your mail client does not display quote levels correctly :-) Edited quoting:

> No opposition, so RFV has now passed. I will be updating the recording
> page soon.
>
> > The RFV is now open again. Nothing has changed since the previous cancelled
> > RFV.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

Alex Mauer
On 09/03/2013 11:34 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> I guess your mail client does not display quote levels correctly :-) Edited
> quoting:

It (Thunderbird) does, but I was viewing the plain text version, which
had no quote indicators at all. Great job, gmail!~


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

Frederic Da Vitoria
2013/9/3 Alex Mauer <[hidden email]>
On 09/03/2013 11:34 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
> I guess your mail client does not display quote levels correctly :-) Edited
> quoting:

It (Thunderbird) does, but I was viewing the plain text version, which
had no quote indicators at all. Great job, gmail!~

Yes. I like the interface, but I dislike quite a few things about it. They don't handle mail ids, no easy way to do post-answering... But I love tags.

--
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

jacobbrett
In reply to this post by LordSputnik
LordSputnik wrote
This is the RFV for the proposal to introduce a guideline for choosing the recording title. It also specifies what to do with ETI.
Aren't the examples a bit flawed?

I can't see a single track listed as "…Baby One More Time (radio version)" under the linked recording.

Also, in the second example you're advocating that the recording should maintain what looks like a typo made by a bootlegger--what's the use in that (we tend to correct typos, don't we)?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

lixobix
jacobbrett wrote
I can't see a single track listed as "…Baby One More Time (radio version)" under the linked recording.
Third one down? http://musicbrainz.org/recording/9aa77fa3-1a7d-4ff9-a5ce-8c3dc072fa52

jacobbrett wrote
Also, in the second example you're advocating that the recording should maintain what looks like a typo made by a bootlegger--what's the use in that (we tend to correct typos, don't we)?
Perhaps we need a fourth point saying that where there is evidence of a mistake it should be corrected, notwithstanding the previous three rules.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFV: STYLE-230 - Recording Title Guidelines

LordSputnik

If it's a typo on the track, then it should be corrected on the track, and then the recording should be updated to match the most common track name as per the guidelines.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style