Difference between revisions of "History:Consistent Original Data"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (9 revision(s))
m
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) -- 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]]
+
* 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]].
+
*** 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]] differs 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 [[Various Artists|VariousArtists]] compilations.'' ''Sometimes what appear to be typographical errors feature on sleeves, but we cannot be sure they are unintentional. Even if they are, they can be reproduced so much that they become intrinsically linked to that work. A good example of this is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxy_Lady "Foxey" Lady].'' ''As always, if a particular variant can be proven to have a strong [[Artist Intent|ArtistIntent]] behind it, use that.'' --[[User:Gecks|Gecks]]
+
** I would suggest the follow re-write: ''If a [[Track Title|TrackTitle]] or [[Release Title|ReleaseTitle]] differs 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 [[Various Artists|VariousArtists]] compilations.'' ''Sometimes what appear to be typographical errors feature on sleeves, but we cannot be sure they are unintentional. Even if they are, they can be reproduced so much that they become intrinsically linked to that work. A good example of this is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxy_Lady "Foxey" Lady].'' ''As always, if a particular variant can be proven to have a strong [[Artist Intent|ArtistIntent]] behind it, use that.'' --[[User:Gecks|Gecks]]
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">++ for me. Just wanted to add that ASCAP or BMI also provide valuable (eg: as in "standard") information about song titles as registered by the publisher (though they are like any database... they can suck :-) ). The process you describe here pretty much is the one that was used to build [[Jazz/Compositions| the jazz/comp page]] -- [[User:dmppanda|dmppanda]] 11:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC) This wording works for me. Some minor details: Suggest changing "varies" to "differs" ("varies" refers to difference across time, "differs" to differences between instances). Expand "VA" to "[[Various Artists|VariousArtists]]". Yes, do add the note about fixing typos. —[[User:JimDeLaHunt|JimDeLaHunt]] 2008-02-26
+
*** ++ for me. Just wanted to add that ASCAP or BMI also provide valuable (eg: as in "standard") information about song titles as registered by the publisher (though they are like any database... they can suck :-) ). The process you describe here pretty much is the one that was used to build [[Jazz/Compositions| the jazz/comp page]] -- [[User:dmppanda|dmppanda]] 11:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
<ul><li style="list-style-type:none">I've done the above and added the bit about typos. The 'fixing' of typos appears to be covered in the preceding section anyway. --[[User:Gecks|Gecks]]
 
  +
** This wording works for me. Some minor details: Suggest changing "varies" to "differs" ("varies" refers to difference across time, "differs" to differences between instances). Expand "VA" to "[[Various Artists|VariousArtists]]". Yes, do add the note about fixing typos. —[[User:JimDeLaHunt|JimDeLaHunt]] 2008-02-26
</ul>
 
 
*** I've done the above and added the bit about typos. The 'fixing' of typos appears to be covered in the preceding section anyway. --[[User:Gecks|Gecks]]
</ul>
 
  +
</ul>
 
   
 
==Related Pages==
 
==Related Pages==
   
 
[[Open Style Issue|OpenStyleIssue]]
{{FullSearch}}
 
 
----
 
 
[[Open Style Issue|OpenStyleIssue]]
 
   
 
[[Category:To Be Reviewed]]
 
[[Category:To Be Reviewed]]

Revision as of 01:27, 14 May 2009

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 differs 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 VariousArtists compilations. Sometimes what appear to be typographical errors feature on sleeves, but we cannot be sure they are unintentional. Even if they are, they can be reproduced so much that they become intrinsically linked to that work. A good example of this is "Foxey" Lady. As always, if a particular variant can be proven to have a strong ArtistIntent behind it, use that. --Gecks
      • ++ for me. Just wanted to add that ASCAP or BMI also provide valuable (eg: as in "standard") information about song titles as registered by the publisher (though they are like any database... they can suck :-) ). The process you describe here pretty much is the one that was used to build the jazz/comp page -- dmppanda 11:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This wording works for me. Some minor details: Suggest changing "varies" to "differs" ("varies" refers to difference across time, "differs" to differences between instances). Expand "VA" to "VariousArtists". Yes, do add the note about fixing typos. —JimDeLaHunt 2008-02-26
      • I've done the above and added the bit about typos. The 'fixing' of typos appears to be covered in the preceding section anyway. --Gecks


Related Pages

OpenStyleIssue