History:Consistent Original Data: Difference between revisions
From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(possible re-write idea (Imported from MoinMoin)) |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 21:34, 25 February 2008
This is for ambiguous tracks titles. Where there are multiple track titles (with different spelling, capitalisation or punctuation) for the same song.
If no definite proof can be found for the correct spelling/punctuation, the most common version of the track title is to be used.
- -- This contradicts the definition of ConsistentOriginalData on StylePrinciple. There it says that if an artist always writes something in a certain way which is not how we would write it according to our StyleGuidelines, then we would follow what the artist wrote. The sentence above though is not about consistent original data but about the general consensus to make data look consistent, that is: change what the original data was. AnswerMe -- Shepard 10:22, 05 May 2007 (UTC) -- I've taken this rule to cover things that extend beyond punctuation and spelling, and to cover things like alternative listings of songs on various releases. For example, should the 'Wo mix' of Madonna's 'Erotica' be titled 'Erotica (William Orbit 12")' on all releases, since the fuller title is "more common"? Can someone confirm that ConsistentOriginalData is supposed to be used in this way, or shall I raise the issue on the mailing lists? -- ArtySmokes
- -- Please raise the issue on the mailinglist, the concept of ConsistentOriginalData definitely could use some clarification in places :) -- kuno.
Related Pages
OpenStyleIssue