[mb-style] Disc Numbers for singles
therefromhere at gmail.com
Tue May 31 20:09:38 UTC 2005
I've written this up here:
But it could probably be reworded, my brain isn't functioning too well
On 5/31/05, John Carter <therefromhere at gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> >Alexander Dupuy wrote:
> >>At this point, I'd say that there are two possibilities for consensus:
> >>1. mark disc numbers of singles with (edition #)
> >> pro: distinguishes separate releases from multi-disc singles
> >> con: requires more manual editing, complicates Guess Case script
> >>2. mark disc numbers of singles with (disc #)
> >> pro: what most people expect to see
> >> con: can be confused with multi-disc releases
> >>Nobody has been arguing strongly for the third position of keeping the
> >>existing rule as-is (well, maybe Chris B.?). If it does come to a vote,
> >>it would be to choose #1 or #2.
> >>As far as last-chance consensus: based on Tarragon's last post, I would
> >>not oppose #2; if the other people who argued for #1 [Jan (zout),
> >>Michelle, Chris B. (Gecks), and Jamie] can accept #2, I think we would
> >>reach consensus.
> >Sorry - I'm a few days behind on MB mails right at the moment. While I
> >proposed (edition #), and I think it is desirable, in this case I think
> >it would be too hard to get moderators to follow it, and it adds very
> >little to separate things that are a set that you collect and a set that
> >comes in one box (sometimes the same exact thing is even available both
> >ways). I therefore agree with (disc #).
> >Robert (Jamie) Munro
> >Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> >Musicbrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
> Thanks for that.
> OK, I think that means we've reached a concensus - that (disc #) should
> be used for singles. I'll write up a style guideline for the wiki &
> link back to it on this thread later this evening.
More information about the Musicbrainz-style