[mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle

[Andrew Conkling]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Brian Schweitzer <
brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:

> Your logic would hold more true in the non-classical box sets, but
> really, if followed, it would suggest that releases like "Shine On"
> have no place within MusicBrainz.  But why are you asking that editors
> with a perfectly valid release, albeit a box set release, should
> convert their release into the non-box version, just so you avoid
> "clutter"?  Would you also say the same of remasters, or reissues with
> a different band name, or pseudo-releases?  We can disagree on these,
> and we do, but all lead to very nearly identical, but not 100%
> identical, releases.  But any guideline that expressly states "this
> entire class of releases has to place in MB simply because they make
> our lives a little harder under the current system" - to me, that
> logic is plain and simple bork.
>

Not only that, but if clutter is the enemy, the same argument would apply to
releases that just add a few tracks when remastered. An example:
http://musicbrainz.org/release/6f743b9c-add0-4cd0-aeb9-32244c3db0c1.html (22
tracks)
http://musicbrainz.org/release/cd2dc34c-9a06-408b-81ca-4b9361fbc5c6.html(same
22 tracks, with 4 extra from a different existing release:
http://musicbrainz.org/album/c316166c-63f7-4d99-b8fa-39c4e8e60488.html)

Sony Classical does this a *lot* and it's, in spirit, the same thing. So to
second Brian's argument, why would we let Glenn Gould's discography get
cluttered up with re-releases but be nitpicky about others?

I like Lauri's recent point about not forcing editors to do this (just like
trans*ation pseudo-releases), but editors *can*. That sounds like a winner
to me.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/attachments/20080324/e6a6adfd/attachment.htm