[mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle

[Chris B]

On 24/03/2008, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >  >  It's not the responsibility of the person entering the box set to
>  >  >  track down and enter the standalone release, or vice versa.  But we
>  >  >  should let people enter the release they actually _have_ too.
>  >
>  >  of course, but they should expect them to be merged into standalone
>  >  ones if those get entered, unless they are separately merged, or have
>  >  extra CDs that require the rest of the boxset for context.
>
>
> Why?  If I can cite a different point within WDAUR, which passed only
>  recently (as Oliver pointed out :) ):
>  http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/WhatDefinesAUniqueRelease?highlight=%28unique%29#head-fd2716c07dbc2211e26db27beeb760801a2f3a5e
>
>  What makes a box set title a "addition/omission of definite articles,
>  slight spelling alterations, addition/omission of a subtitle" that it
>  should then be entirely discounted?  Especially when we're looking at
>  classical box sets, where the original release isn't even identified?

WDAUR defers to BoxSetNameStyle where appropriate.

classical releases are either a compilation of existing releases or
they aren't. just because a release has the same tracklisting as an
existing release, don't make it the same master, or recording, or
whatever, as that (those) release(s). if it is not these things, then
it should be fine to add the boxset separately.

>  >  >  And I'm not talking about the 'put two jewel cases inside the same
>  >  >  cellophane wrapper' here.  There are plenty of box sets that come in a
>  >  >  nice box, with a nice book, some cd's with new material, maybe a live
>  >  >  concert or two, and several cd's that are efffectively remastered
>  >  >  reissues of older albums, and not materially different.  Sometimes it
>  >  >  makes no sense to use any single title style on those, but sometimes
>  >  >  the contents get new cover art, or disc number designations they
>  >  >  didn't originally have, and in those cases,   I don't see what the big
>  >  >  problem is in having duplicating them, so both sides get what they
>  >  >  want.
>  >
>  >  there's no problem duplicating these. new CDs, or remastered...the
>  >  guidelines currently explicitly tell you to duplicate these, if you
>  >  are so inclined. it's the ones that don't change anything, just
>  >  (effectively) put a box round available releases...these aren't
>  >  indexed separately. that's not worth having 2 seperate *tracklists*
>  >  showing the same thing, but with "Mega Box (disc 1: X)" in the title,
>  >  as that's the only thing that would seperate them.
>
>
> ...except that these are the very types of box sets we're talking about...

but your RFC is effectively talking about EVERY boxset :)

i mean, if one CD is mastered by X and one by Y then you can't merge
them. the ARs are different, the PUIDs are different, the CD-IDs* will
be different, etc. vote No to such merges with confidence!

* CD-IDs are different between presses so not usually reason to split
alone, but yeah, in this case it actually means something :)