[mb-style] RFC: Style for compilation recordings

Frederic Da Vitoria davitofrg at gmail.com
Fri Jul 1 08:15:02 UTC 2011

2011/7/1, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>:
> 2011/7/1, Michael Wiencek <mwtuea at gmail.com>:
>> The proposed RFC will modify the multiple titles style page[1] for
>> recordings/release groups and replace it with this one:
>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Bitmap/Multiple_titles
>> The paragraph added to the middle reccomends using the compilation
>> relationship where appropriate (making this very underused AR more
>> visible to editors), and also gives a better solution for tracks with
>> multiple artists.[2] (The previous messy solution to that was putting
>> artists in the track title.)
>> The change is important to me because it also provides a more-reliable
>> way to parse the different artists of each component recording.
>> The RFC will expire on July 8.
>> [1]
>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Style/Recording_and_release_group_titles/Multiple_titles
>> [2] http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Tracks_With_Multiple_Artists
> Instead of "using the Compilation Relationship Type", I'd write "using
> Compilation Relationships" (but of course I'd preserve the link).
> The Compilation AR applies currently to tracks only. For your
> suggestion to work, it would have to be extended to work for
> Recordings too. But then, I wonder if the word "Compilation" is
> appropriate. Maybe a more generic word, for example "join" would be
> better suited, which means that instead of extending the Compilation
> AR, we should create a new recording-recording AR.

...or am I completely wrong: should your suggestion use the word
"track" instead of "recording"?

Frederic Da Vitoria

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -

More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list