[mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle

[Chris B]

On 25/03/2008, Leiv Hellebo <leiv.hellebo at gmail.com> wrote:
> A little soul-searching going on here folks, not much interesting for
>  the discussion, so move along unless you're particularly interested :)
>
>  Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 12:57 PM, Leiv Hellebo wrote:
>  >     Further, since classical is in such a mess, editors should stop adding
>  >     ReleaseEvents for older releases of stuff. (Perhaps that last comment
>  >     concerns first and foremost for me...) The 8.5 pages of uncategorized
>  >     Bach will be nigh-impossible to pin down the barcodes for,,,
>  >
>  >     Hm. MB is starting to sound less interesting these days :(
>  >
>  >
>  > Could you explain these last 2 paragraphs. I am not sure of your meaning.
>  >
>
>
> Sorry, I guess that was not pretty clear. And I am perhaps not in the
>  best of moods...
>
>  The last month I've started cleaning up Haydn releases:
>
>  When I have a spare moment and feel like it, I pick a release or two -
>  mostly under Uncategorized, so you'll have to click "Show all releases"
>  on the artist page to find them - then I try to identify performers and
>  barcodes for it. (There's less than a page left of Uncategorized Haydn
>  now, but there were *far* from as many as there are for Bach.)
>
>  Now as the ReleaseAttributes and ReleaseEvents for most of these
>  releases mostly range in quality from "bad" to "very bad". I don't think
>  style issues are as important, but if track titles are really bad, I do
>  fix them as well.
>
>  I tend to be pleased (call me nuts ;) ) if I successfully manage to add
>  good ReleaseEvents for recordings that I know or discover to be very
>  good. If I find more than one release for something, I add that -
>  especially for something I'd like to hear myself.
>
>  Now: AFAIK quite a bit of the stuff that first appeared on CD in the 80s
>  has been remastered later, so a couple of barcodes I've been adding are
>  bound to be wrong by the way of thinking some have.
>
>  I also do add my stuff unboxed if possible (but see
>  http://musicbrainz.org/release/03bb58f0-8905-4760-a7b7-c3e8bca44f4b.html
>  etc.  for an example of a 8CD box-set which was previously released as
>  four Philips Duo twofers) and I add older releaseevents for stuff if
>  possible, e.g. for vinyl if I can. This discussion has brought forth
>  that many do disagree with me whether this is proper or not.

hey, please don't include me with this way of thinking! i personally
don't add separate releases for remasters/formats - i don't think it's
worth it. ok, so the mastering ARs will be different, and release
events and CD-IDs, and maybe even release titles, but for me this is
stuff for when NGS/ReleaseGroups gets here. i don't even use ARs any
more because i feel the system isn't complete yet (see the inheritance
issue).

i'm just saying...were a user so inclined to separate 2 releases, AR
(masterer...) it up, put the right release events in both, etc, then i
wouldn't stand in the way of that, but *I* wouldn't be that user :)

now, would i merge boxset releases that are wholly availably
separately? i think it depends on the boxset... the bundles vs
'useful' boxsets definition seems workable, but i think ultimately any
good argument in edit notes can supersede just about any guideline.

off topic...for the record, i tag my releases to the original almost
always. eg, http://www.discogs.com/release/451369 - i tag mine against
the original album and original EP. i find more value in that,
personally. i would still add the compilation to the DB as it contains
a new CD-ID, though.