History talk:Volume Number Style

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Revision as of 19:39, 19 April 2009 by PavanChander (talk | contribs) (Moved from article page.)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search


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 (part of) the MainTitle of the Release.

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 release 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 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. --LukasLalinsky

Current discussions that need to be DeleteWhenCooked or ammended to more general queries:

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


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

A: As written above, the word "Volume" should never be added to a title if it was not there in the first place. Therefore, these would be titled: "Destination Goa, 1: The First Chapter" --Gecks (DeleteWhenCooked - seems to be covered in previous Qs)

Q: What about the releases that are "CMJ New Music Monthly"? cddb/freedb information on these releases is very inconsistent. What if the release 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 event should then be the same as the date listed in the title. --anonymous [2004-12-10] (DeleteWhenCooked - doesn't seem to be a general query on this style)

A: Ideally it should be consistant with the majority of covers, but does anyone know what that is? Incidently, the release event may not be the same as the date listed in the title, as magazines often hit the shops earlier/later than the month of that issue. --Gecks

Q: What about releases that have a main title that is different for each album and a subtitle that includes a series title and a volume number? Especially in the case were the album is most commonly known only by its maintitle and only listed by that title in shops, etc. I'm referring to the albums of ASP (http://musicbrainz.org/artist/8de149a4-bbdc-4d15-aeea-0d66773c9f80.html). I think the interpretation of the SeriesNumberStyle in this way makes MusicBrainz inconsistent with almost every other tagging scheme, used in the wild. --hefe_bia

A: Wouldn't the MainTitle in this case in fact be a SubTitle of this series? If so, it should be "Teil I, Hast Du mich vermisst? Der schwarze Schmetterling". The series has no title so nothing precedes the Volume number. --Gecks (Once this query has been read it should be changed to a more general Q - "The Series does not have a title, what to do?" or something like that...)