History:Consistent Original Data
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.
- ++ 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 words 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