Difference between revisions of "History:Volume Number Style"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
((Imported from MoinMoin))
((Imported from MoinMoin))
Line 3: Line 3:
Applies to releases that are part of a series.
Applies to releases that are part of a series.
'''When a release is one of a series and are labeled as volumes, separate the [[Volume Number|VolumeNumber]] from the [[Album Title|AlbumTitle]] by a comma.'''
'''When a release is one of a series and are labeled as volumes, separate the [[Volume Number|VolumeNumber]] from the [[Release Title|ReleaseTitle]] by a comma.'''
'''"''Album<code><nowiki></nowiki></code>Title'', Volume 2"'''
'''"''Album<code><nowiki></nowiki></code>Title'', Volume 2"'''

Revision as of 10:17, 30 November 2005

Style for Volume Number's

Applies to releases that are part of a series.

When a release is one of a series and are labeled as volumes, separate the VolumeNumber from the ReleaseTitle by a comma.

"AlbumTitle, Volume 2"


"UK Space Techno, Volume 5"

"Café del Mar, Volumen Cinco"


This guideline is a specification of the more general SeriesNumberStyle. See that page for principles and details.

SeriesNumberStyle can be combined with DiscNumberStyle and DiscNumberWithNameStyle like so:

"AlbumTitle, Volume 3 (disc 2: DiscName)"

"AlbumTitle, Volume 1: VolumeName (disc 1: DiscName)"

Alternative names for volumes may be used, such as Tome, Book, Part, or their non-English equivalents.

  • Note that if the title of a release is just "Volume 1" or similar then this guideline should not apply, because then "Volume 1" is considered to be the AlbumTitle!
  • Also note that the AbbreviationStyle says that you should not use abbreviations in titles. So "Vol." should always be expanded to "Volume" (assuming the AlbumLanguage is English). (but see below for discussion)
  • Also note that the SubTitle of a release of a series must be formatted according to SubTitleStyle.


The following questions and answers stem from before the details were rewritten. They illustrate quite nicely what details are considered wothwile of being kept the way they are. Please add new issues above the ruler.

Q: I think we need to make an exception when "Volume" is used as an integral part of the AlbumTitle. For example, Soul II Soul names most of their releases with Vol. II, Vol. III etc. but there is no series title (unless perhaps it is the artist's name itself). A strict reading of this rule would require renaming Vol. IV: The Classic Singles 1988-1993 as [The Classic Singles: 1988-1993, Volume 4], which is absurd, since there is only one Classic Singles release, not four, as that title implies. See this moderation for a concrete example. @alex

A: Yes, this style should be left alone.

Q: How should we handle releases like "Now That's What I Call Music," which uses a standard numbering scheme which is obviously indicative of volume numbers? Should we convert them to "Volume 15" and so on as per standards (to say nothing of their commercials), or leave them as they appear on the album as "15" and such? --vincentrichter

A: The word "Volume" should never be added to a title if it was not there in the first place.

Q: But what happens to the releases consisting of multiple volumes which only partially have the "Vol." or "Volume" in the release titles? E.g. The Punk-O-Rama volumes: some release titles contain "Vol.", some only have a volume number or "#" in front of the volume number. Should ", Volume x" be added to each release or only those who actually contain "Vol." in the title? IMO it should form a consistency point of view --Prodoc

A: I don't know, ask on the user's MailingList --DonRedman

A: I think it might be a point to say that the Punk-O-Rama volumes are consistently inconsistent. and that that is intended. especially as they are nearly all different ~mo

Another example of similar series is Trancemaster. Volume 1 was released under name Trancemaster Vol. 1, volumes 2-23 as Trancemaster 2-23, and 24-47 as Trancemaster 2004-4007. --LukZ

Q: What about long-running series that change their numbering during their life-time? E.g. The FM4 Soundselection: The First volumes just had numbers, volume 4 was was called "FM4 Soundselection four", 5 was called "FM4 Soundselection 00:05", 6 was called "FM4 Soundselection 06" and all later volumes (up to 11) followed the style "FM4 Soundselection: #" ("FM4 Soundselection: 7", "FM4 Soundselection: 8", ...). If only Volumes 7+ were released, I'd use the new style consistently ...

A: This looks like a case where there is some kind of at least artistical intent here. At least "00:05" seems to be intentionally stylized. So you probably better leave the formatting as it is on the sleeves. --DonRedman

Here are some more questions that did not get answered. As far as I cant tell the answer is always: leave it (mostly) the way it is. --DonRedman

Q: Another example is the Destination Goa series. The disc covers use both arabic numerals and ordinal number words. Should they be renamed as "Destination Goa 1: The First Chapter" or "Destination Goa, Volume 1: The First Chapter" or even "Destination Goa, 1: The First Chapter?" --hirvox

Q: What about the albums that are "CMJ New Music Monthly"? cddb/freedb information on these albums is very inconsistent. What if the album name would be formatted as follows (which follows current entries) "CMJ New Music Monthly, Volume xxx: Month Year". For example, "CMJ New Music Monthly, Volume 101: May 2002". The release date should then be the same as the date listed in the title. --anonymous [2004-12-10] (copied here by DonRedman)