Difference between revisions of "History:Consistent Original Data"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(please review (Imported from MoinMoin))
(possible re-write idea (Imported from MoinMoin))
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
   
 
If no definite proof can be found for the correct spelling/punctuation, the most common version of the track title is to be used.
 
If no definite proof can be found for the correct spelling/punctuation, the most common version of the track title is to be used.
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">-- This contradicts the definition of ConsistentOriginalData on [[Style Principle|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 [[Style Guidelines|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. [[Answer Me|AnswerMe]] -- [[User:Shepard|Shepard]] 10:22, 05 May 2007 (UTC)
+
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">-- This contradicts the definition of ConsistentOriginalData on [[Style Principle|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 [[Style Guidelines|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. [[Answer Me|AnswerMe]] -- [[User:Shepard|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? -- [[Arty Smokes|ArtySmokes]]
  +
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">-- Please raise the issue on the mailinglist, the concept of ConsistentOriginalData definitely could use some clarification in places :) -- [[User:kuno|kuno]].
  +
</ul>I would suggest the follow re-write: ''If a [[Track Title|TrackTitle]] or [[Release Title|ReleaseTitle]] varies across different Releases (excluding additional contextually relevant information such as [[Extra Title Information|ExtraTitleInformation]]), try to unify them to the most consistently used one. Give more credence to the variants found on releases close to the artist (eg, the first release of an official studio album), over licensed reissues, or VA compilations.'' ''As always, if a particular variant can be proven to have a strong [[Artist Intent|ArtistIntent]] behind it, use that.'' ''(i'd probably elaborate on when to correct typos - eg, if an artist-endorsed reissue has a typo corrected then use the corrected version) '' --[[User:Gecks|Gecks]]
 
</ul>
 
</ul>
   

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.
    I would suggest the follow re-write: If a TrackTitle or ReleaseTitle varies across different Releases (excluding additional contextually relevant information such as ExtraTitleInformation), try to unify them to the most consistently used one. Give more credence to the variants found on releases close to the artist (eg, the first release of an official studio album), over licensed reissues, or VA compilations. As always, if a particular variant can be proven to have a strong ArtistIntent behind it, use that. (i'd probably elaborate on when to correct typos - eg, if an artist-endorsed reissue has a typo corrected then use the corrected version) --Gecks

Related Pages

Template:FullSearch


OpenStyleIssue