[mb-style] RFC: Splitting up ConsistentOriginalData

[Chris B]

On 25/02/2008, Kuno Woudt <kuno at frob.nl> wrote:
>
>  Hello!
>
>  As some of you will know, I am getting a bit annoyed with
>  ConsistentOriginalData having two different meanings, which in
>  certain situations even contradict eachother.
>
>  So, I propose to split it up into two new pages, and throw away
>  the current name to avoid any further confusion.
>
>  The two new pages would be:
>
>
>  ConsistentOfficialData
>
>  "If, something is consistently labelled in a different style on
>  official sources, then this classifies as ConsistentOfficialData
>  and overrules the StyleGuidelines. Note that you need to provide
>  some evidence for ConsistentOriginalData (ideally in the
>  EditNote), or your edits will most likely be voted down."

i disagree with the use of 'style' here. you have to define what this
covers. eg if an artist always uses "[live]" for their live tracks, we
would almost always use "(live)" as usual. or if they always print
tracklists in lowercase or uppercase...that's not necessarily
something we would adopt.

if you could prove ArtistIntent (eg
http://musicbrainz.org/release/6204945d-6527-4078-8856-77dec016f820.html
- but even this is questionable now as they seem to have dropped their
initial capitalization style) then there might be exceptions, but that
goes for every style rule.

>
>  ConsistentData
>
>  "This is for ambiguous tracks titles. Where there are multiple
>  track titles (with different spelling, capitalisation or
>  punctuation) for the same song.
>
>  If no definite proof can be found for the correct
>  spelling/punctuation, the most common version of the track title
>  is to be used."
>
>
>  NOTE:  This RFC is merely intended to clear up the confusing
>  surrounding ConsistentOriginalData.  It attempts to clarify
>  current practice.  Any changes to the wording or the meaning
>  of either page will have to be discussed seperetaly, it is not
>  part of this RFC and I will not partake in any such discussion
>  at this time.
>
>  They would both be at point #3 of the StylePrinciple, if you
>  think one of these shouldn't trump regular guidelines, etc..
>  please also discuss that seperately and not as part of this
>  RFC.
>
>  -- kuno / warp.
>
>  ps.  Thanks to brianfreud for discussing this on irc a bit,
>  for those interested the log is here:
>  http://chatlogs.musicbrainz.org/2008/2008-02/2008-02-25.html#T20-00-28-570892
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Musicbrainz-style mailing list
>  Musicbrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
>  http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>