[mb-style] RFC-333: Unify track/recording guidelines

jacobbrett jacobbrett at hotmail.com
Fri Jul 29 07:34:01 UTC 2011


Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
> 
> 2011/7/26 Lukáš Lalinský <lalinsky at gmail.com>:
>> I've seen that many editors are unhappy about the differences between
>> track and recording style guidelines. As far as I understand, the main
>> goal of the relaxed track style guidelines was to simplify editing for
>> new users. This is not what is happening in practice, because all
>> tracks have to be linked to recordings and therefore somebody has to
>> make sure the recordings follow the style guidelines, which means one
>> of these options applies:
>>
>>  1) The original editor has to learn the recording style guidelines
>> anyway.
>>  2) The original editor ignores recordings and MB starts getting less
>> useful data.
>>  3) Some other editor fixes the recordings, which adds even more work
>> for voters.
>>
>> Apart from this issue, I believe that most editors prefer to have
>> normalized track titles. There is a minority of users who would like
>> track titles that more closely follow album covers, but NGS doesn't
>> provide a good technical solution to this.
>>
>> I propose that the current recording and release group style
>> guidelines are applied to tracks and releases as well. The change
>> would involve removing the track/release section from the wiki, and
>> modifying other sections to mention that they apply to both recordings
>> and tracks. This will gives us a starting point from which we can move
>> forward and decide if there are situations where some particular
>> recording style guidelines can be relaxed for tracks.
>>
>> This proposal does not include classical tracks or any other
>> situations that were previously excluded from the normal style
>> guidelines.
>>
>> Lukas
> 
> +1, and I would like to make two notes.
> 
> 1) I believe in the usefulness of keeping cover information.
> Thankfully, after NGS came to be we've entered a collaboration with
> the Internet Archive that should allow us to maintain a cover
> reservoir related to MB which includes not only front covers, but also
> back covers and other scans / pictures. I think that is the best
> possible way to keep the cover information, so I don't think it is
> necessary to use the track level for that.
> 
> 2) The track / recording divide is still useful, and we will certainly
> be seeing guidelines that apply differently to both levels (the new
> classical style guideline might very well do, for example). This
> doesn't freeze recording and track guidelines together, just gives us
> a basis to work from.
> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
>> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
>> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style at lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
> 
+1

Also, I'd like to offer an elementary example of the usefulness of both
levels, even if basic normalisation is applied:
http://musicbrainz.org/recording/1efade63-e0f9-45d9-af9c-c3078a8094fe

--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-333-Unify-track-recording-guidelines-tp3695823p3703283.html
Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.



More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list