[mb-style] RFC: What defines a unique release, attempted clarification

[Chris B]

On 25/02/2008, Olivier <viapanda at gmail.com> wrote:
> In the same line of thought as the earlier
>  SameArtistWithDifferentNames, I would really like to build-up a
>  document that we agree on, and that provides a decent reference for
>  all these poor lost confused newbies (we all are, right? :])
>
>  Yet again, this is *not* about some super new proposal, or a "new"
>  conception about how things *should* work, but rather an attempt at
>  summarizing what we currently do, and how our current data model works
>  (even when it doesn't work so good :]).
>
>  For a long time, our only relevant reference AFAIK has been:
>  http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/WhatDefinesAUniqueRelease
>  which needless to say is not exactly a guideline, but rather the
>  embryo of a *very early* discussion (before the wiki migration) that
>  never took-off the floor...
>  This document is (IMHO) useless as a guideline to which newcomers are
>  susceptible to actually *adhere*, and the source of many witnessed
>  confusion and edit "wars".
>
>
>  and to some extent:
>  http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/HowToMergeReleases
>  which I would like to revamp/synch as well (though it is more focused
>  on what should *not* be merged).
>
>
>
>
>  This proposal, though, might prove a little more controversial than
>  the previous (almost harmless) SameArtistWithDifferentNames,
>  specifically because we had so little written guidance about the
>  "duplicate or not" question so long.
>
>  Hence, for now, as this may be more heavily discussed, here is a *raw*
>  draft of it (without the wiki bells, doc sugar and polish it will
>  require later on):
>  http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/dmppanda/wdaurdraft
>
>  Please bring up any major issue you have with it - though, let's keep
>  in mind both the purpose of it (*not* a new proposal, rather stating
>  *what we do*) and that this is a *practical* guideline (a pair of
>  corner cases or rare exceptions should *not* be a reason to throw it
>  entirely)
>
>
>  Regards to you all,
>
>  - Olivier

i like it, but then you've always seem to have been on the same page
as me on duplicate releases :)

one thing that might be worth some thought - what about
transl(iter)ations? that is, official, pressed variants of a CD in
different languages/scripts? personally, i think these are ok to
duplicate, seeing as the other alternative would be to create a
pseudo-release with the other track list (like we would do for
unofficial/printed-on-the-same-release transl(iter)ations, which I
don't like since these *are* real releases.

i'm ok with duplicate releases for (certain) remasters, with the
following additional caveats:
- in my editing experience these have been voted down, even with
support for them in the guidelines (somewhere - i've seen it)
- if someone does try to add them, the editor MUST include the
remaster AR to the other release else it will be merged away in time