[mb-users] Style query: exact format for volume numbers
Tarragon M. Allen
mb-users at moto-coda.org
Thu Aug 5 03:32:56 UTC 2004
On Thursday 05 August 2004 12:04, Cristov Russell wrote:
> > The main problem with setting a style for the use of "Volume"
> > is that there is no _clearly correct_ way to present them :
> > everything we're discussing here (use of colon, comma, space,
> > parenthesis) all comes down to personal preference.
> > Some things I think are important to think about:
> > 1. "Volume" is very commonly used as a distinguisher for
> > parts of a series, and as such is _vital_ information with
> > respect to the titling of these sorts of releases. I think
> > the question of the use of "Volume" needs to be slightly
> > broadened to deal with "Series" of releases.
> Tarragon can you clarify what you mean here? Something like
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/wiki.pl?BoxSets or something else entirely?
From the BoxSets wiki page I would be referring specifically to Series of
compilations, but including other potential Series such as the Analogue
Bubblebath "series" by Aphex Twin. Should this type of style guide be
expanded to cover other series that aren't necessarily distinguished with the
word "Volume"? Example : Analogue Bubblebath, Analogue Bubblebath 2, etc.
> > 2. Does anyone believe that "sub-title" information is not
> > vital to the titling of a release? Why/why not?
> I would say no in most cases however in others it may impact logical
> sorting. For example:
> 20th Century Masters - The Millennium Collection: The Best of .38 Special
> Of course the alternative is to swap the order here but doing so would be
> at the loss of "series" information.
I guess we need to ask ourselves exactly what is a sub-title and what is it
case 1 : Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix
case 2 : 20th Century Masters - The Millennium Collection: The Best of .38
It could be argued that in case 1 the sub-title isn't vital information, but
in case 2 it is. We (and the music industry, obviously) use sub-titles in
both ways, which makes them not as reliable for distinguishing parts of
I'm leaning towards volume information being treated as "special" (as Michelle
said in another post). This would lead into creating a overall "series"
system for MB which would allow group of series such as this. One feature
would be a "volume distinguisher" as a seperate field, which could then
include "Volume 3" or "The Best of .38 Special" or any other text which
distinguishes this release from another in the series. Further discussion and
fleshing out will be required, of course, and this doesn't help us _right
now_ when dealing with "Volume x", so getting back to the original question,
the rough consensus seems to be:
Speficially for the use of "Volume":
1. Do not abbreviate the word "Volume".
2. Use arabic numerals (1,2,3) and not roman numerals.
3. Volume details should not be a sub-title.
4. Volume information should be placed after the main title (and sub-title if
present), seperated by a comma.
(Kudos to Robert Stockton).
More information about the MusicBrainz-users