[mb-style] Disc Numbers for singles
therefromhere at gmail.com
Tue May 24 13:11:12 UTC 2005
Cristov Russell wrote:
>>I think single numbers should be kept, but differentiated from "disc"
>>indicators in multi-disc sets.
>>At the moment, I've been sticking them into the annotations,
>>in the hope that another field will be formed.
>>Instead of "(disc #)", could we have an alternate indicator?
>>Just the number in parentheses, "(#)", maybe. This is so a)
>>reorganising will be easier, and
>>b) so it is clearly a different sort of data to multi-disc.
>>Sorry, this is all the "opposing argument" I could come up in
>Curious, is it explicitly stated somewhere not to or is it that because it's
>not explicitly stated that you can the assumption should be "don't do it"?
>I'm of the opinion that there is no real reason not keep the disc number,
>whether we change the format or not as Michelle suggests. I don't agree with
>just (#) because it would just seem very odd to me in a listing but a word
>other than "disc" could work, I just can't think of anything appropriate
The possibility I can think of is (single 1), but I don't see too much
of a problem with just using (disc 1).
There's a corner case (that I think Tarragon pointed out) of multi-disc
singles, but that's a really odd one I think. A straw poll - are people
aware of many (any?) multi-disc audio singles that have *never* been
released as individual discs (ie I'm not talking about single box sets
here, or singles packaged with DVD videos).
Like I say, I'd lean towards using (disc 1) for singles & using the
ReleaseType (ie album, single etc) to flag if it's a multi-disc album or
multi-release single. Corner cases can be noted in annotations.
More information about the Musicbrainz-style