Talk:Release Title

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Revision as of 12:37, 15 March 2009 by LukasLalinsky (talk | contribs) (New page: I've tried to make the current situation clear on this page. I've made the ordering of the parts a bit more strict. Rationale: the parts that contain artist information ([[Featuring Artist...)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

I've tried to make the current situation clear on this page. I've made the ordering of the parts a bit more strict. Rationale: the parts that contain artist information (FeaturingArtists) seem less connected to the MainTitle and SubTitle(s) than the parts that contain release information (VolumeNumbers, DiscNumbers). Also, FeaturingArtists should go at the end, because it's just a workaround for current database limitation (also after SG5DisasterRelief). --Zout

  • It's a workaround? So then feat. in track titles is a workaround, too? I think it's just part of the title. See this cover for an example. But well, that can be discussed otherwhere. The important thing: I don't think it should go after the disc number. Why should it, being part of the title? We had an informal rule when we added "Mixed by" to the release titles of multidisc releases: if the DJ mixed both CDs, add it after the disc number. If one DJ mixed CD 1 and another one mixed CD 2, then add them before the disc number. So the only reason I could see here for putting it at the end is if someone featured on both discs. But still this does not feel correct... --Shepard
    • I know we had this informal rule. But since we deal with Releases and not releases as we might in the future, all info in the ReleaseTitle deals with that release only. So why have one release where the info is before the DiscNumber, and another release where it is after the DiscNumber? Seems counterintuitive, and it does not sort correctly on disc numbers. If we decide FeaturingArtists are actually part of the ReleaseTitle, then we have another discussion. --Zout
      • I agree with Shepard about the ordering. Maybe it's just personal choice, but I'd include FeaturingArtist directly after MainTitle, like it is for TrackTitles. I think it's also time it was made official that "(feat. xxx)" should appear before ExtraTitleInformation for TrackTitles such as remixes. e.g. "The Chemical Brothers - The Pills Won't Help You Now (feat. Midlake) (The Remixes) (disc 1)". --ArtySmokes

To reiterate what I said on the StyleMailingList - I don't think we should be deleting the mix artist from release titles until we have some way of getting that onto the tag. --Gecks

  • I think this is already possible with the current PicardQt --Zout

Is it time we added a list of common additional information and determined if it is ExtraTitleInformation or Subtitles? I'm thinking of "deluxe edition", "remastered", "clean/dirty version" etc. Should these:

  1. be allowed or not?
  2. parenthesised or follow a colon?
  3. upper/lower-cased? --ArtySmokes
  • Well, to start off, here's the ones for soundtracks I would suggest:
    • Movie Title <-- For the standard score or soundtrack, as per soundtrack style.
      Movie Title (Complete Score) <-- Typically a bootleg release, but some official.
      Movie Title (Expanded Score) <-- Typically a bootleg release, but some official.
    and for Musical Theater:
    • Musical Name (<yyyy> <original/revival> <location> Cast)
      • example: My Musical (2007 Original Broadway Cast)
        example: My Musical (1963 San Francisco Cast)
    -- BrianSchweitzer 03:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Since this is only a Proposed style guideline, I was bold and added references to BoxSetNameStyle (an OfficialStyleGuideline), MultiDiscRelease, ClassicalReleaseTitleStyle. This is a great summary, and with even more crosslinking promotes coherence and easier navigation among the style guidelines. --JimDeLaHunt 2007-12-29