Talk:Compilation Relationship Type

Could someone explain to me the difference between this and SameTrackRelationshipType? Should both be used for the same track? --MatthewExon

• Totally agree. (Or hmm, maybe not agree since you ask a question, but...) If the tracks are the same then one is just an earlier version of the other, I don't see the point in having a special relationship depending on the context of the newer version. //bnw This is a big misunderstanding, you should read the proposal better ;) --LukasLalinsky
  • Aha! In my defense, there has been an awful lot to read on this subject ;-) --MatthewExon Ah. Next time I'll do that. Now where can I buy one of those handy time-machines...? q-: //bnw

I should also just mention that I've removed the "(s)" from the link phrases. The reason is that while the relationships are indeed displayed that way, when entering them you can only enter one track at a time. I feel that adding the plural would just confuse matters; where multiple entries make sense (which is usually) I'd rather explain that in the "Description" section (which is what I've done on the other RelationshipType pages) --MatthewExon

Hm, do we really need this AdvancedRelationshipType? Any examples of track that is a compilation of other tracks? --LukasLalinsky

• Let's see... What about the (for now hypothetical because I can't think of any right. Quite sure they exist though) release with a 'hidden' song put after the last song in the same track, that was later released with the hidden song as its own track? Would the first double-song-track qualify as a compilation of the two single-song-tracks? //bnw
  • That is a good idea. But if we describe this with an AdvancedRelationship, this is a more specific case. This could be a sub-type to compilation (a special case of compilation?), or a new type: "contains bonus track". Basically this type is there to make the new proposal of Remix Relationship Class complete, that is for edge cases. --DonRedman