[mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle

[Chris B]

On 24/03/2008, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Chris B <chris at whenironsattack.com> wrote:
>  > On 24/03/2008, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Olivier <viapanda at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  >  > Just catching this up right now.
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  2008/3/24, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com>:
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  > >
>  >  >  >  > The absence of that section of the guideline wouldn't provide any
>  >  >  >  >  justification for such a *theoretical* merging of the smaller into the
>  >  >  >  >  bigger.  It would, however, also not provide the type of justification
>  >  >  >  >  it currently is *in actuality* being mis-used for, ie,
>  >  >  >  >  merging/retitiling box set releases into non-box set releases.
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  Actually, if I can amend this RFC, I just noticed while double
>  >  >  >  >  checking for any guideline that could be mis-used for either purpose
>  >  >  >  >  that there's an additional guideline which also provides justification
>  >  >  >  >  for "unboxing", and also ought to be removed:
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/WhatDefinesAUniqueRelease under section 11:
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  "A BoxSet consisting exactly of a set of discs previously released in
>  >  >  >  >  a standalone form should not be added (see BoxSetNameStyle), but the
>  >  >  >  >  standalone discs instead. That obviously means that such a BoxSet
>  >  >  >  >  discs may be merged into the standalone versions."
>  >  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  >  I'm not quite sure how obvious this is, considering it's counter to
>  >  >  >  >  current practice
>  >  >  >
>  >  >  >  Well, *your* current practice? :-)
>  >  >  >  </teasing>
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  > Current enough practice that the inverse of BSNS #1 is written in or
>  >  >  implied in other guidelines, such as BonusDiscStyle.  ;)
>  >
>  >  http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/DiscNumberStyle
>  >  http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BonusDisc
>  >  how so?
>
>
> Just maybe 3 days ago I was part of a discussion in IRC where someone
>  was debating whether something some release was a bonus disc, or a
>  disc #2; it basically came down to "if it's not a bonus disc, and is a
>  disc #1, BDS would prevent the need, so if BDS doesn't apply, then we
>  need a new disc #1 entry to match with it, rather than having the (no
>  disc #) and (disc 2) without also a (disc 1)".

you've totally lost me, and i wrote (well, re-wrote and amended) that
guideline a few weeks ago :)