PartNumberStyle

Style for PartNumbers

/!\ Attention! This guideline is specific to Part numbering. General rules for appending numbering to a title are found in SeriesNumberStyle.

When a track is one of a series of identically named tracks with a defined order, separate the PartNumber from the TrackTitle by a comma and a space.

"TrackTitle, Part 1"

"TrackTitle, Part 1: PartName"

This guideline is a specification of the more general SeriesNumberStyle. See that page for principles (especially in which cases ArtistIntent overrides this guideline).

Alternative names for parts may be used, such as Section, or their non-English equivalents.

Example

"[Track]Flares, Part 3"

"[Track]09-15-00, Part One"

"[Track]Creepin', Parts 1 & 2" -- Two numbers are noted using an ampersand "&", the part indication in its plural form.

"[Track]Train to Lamy Suite, Parts 1-3" -- More than 2 numbers, which are in sequence are separated by a hyphen "-", the part indication in its plural form.

"This Is a Trackname, Parts 1, 4 & 5" -- More than 2 numbers, which are *not* in sequence are separated by a comma "," and the last one is added with an ampersand "&", the part indication in its plural form.

Details

Please see SeriesNumberStyle for details.

Discussion

I have releases where the first part of the track series has no part number, despite a second part existing. In this case I think we should leave that numberless, as it could be considered the 'original' or 'main' version of the song. --Gecks


Q: What if a track "Some Trackname (Pt. 1)" is featured with the said title on a compilation? Should it stick to the formatting as it were in sequence with the other parts of the series, e.g. "Some Trackname, Part 1"? I'm in favor of applying PartNumberStyle to all track names which have some notation of Pt, Pts and other variants. --Keschte

A: I believe that's the thing to do - I think tracks that intentionally have these abbreviations (for whatever reason) are a rare occurrence. --Gecks


Q: Should stuff not be added to TrackTitles in parentheses, like in TrackAttributesStyle and RemixStyle?

A: As long as it is consistent, use the format the artist uses. Parts are almost always shown with a preceding comma on tracklistings, rather than track attributes (e.g. mix names). Also, we consider PartNumbers to be more a part of the title than ExtraTitleInformation, they are special.


Yet another question :) What about tracks which combine different parts where every part has a name? See for example Angra's [WWW] Rebirth and its entry in [WWW] Discogs (they do this in comments). Often we seem to leave those parts out as they make the title to long and the part names are often not mentioned on the cover but only in the lyrics. But on this [WWW] cover for example there are part names (not with the word "Part"). [WWW] Discogs does this as before, in our [WWW] release entry it is not mentioned at the moment. I really think we need to adopt more style guidelines from the classical guide. --Shepard

Sentence "Applies to songs that have been split across multiple tracks." should go, because it contradicts the rest of the document. Opinions? --Zout

What about when separate parts are labelled not as numbers, but as letters on the sleeve? Do we use "Part X", "X)", or "part x", or some variant? "[Release]Daydream Nation" --ArtySmokes


CategoryStyle CategoryOfficialStyle

last edited 2008-03-08 17:25:28 by BrianSchweitzer

MusicBrainz web site  *  Support / Contact