These should likely be hyperlinked down to the subsections below for ease of navigation. BrianFreud
- That would seem redundant to me as there is a TOC which already contains all (and more) of those links. The TOC can be hidden with "__NOTOC__" written into the article, but I think it adds value on a long page such as this. --navap 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- The bit I find confusing, or perhaps the better word is "redundant", is having the entire text, from "When entering a release..." to "==Detailed guidelines==", visible both in the TOC, then immediately it appears again, but now not hyper-linked. There's no additional text there to add value. Getting rid of the TOC seems detrimental, but what would make sense, and having tested it, it looks improved, would be this... (kind of hard to visualize unless you just edit it in, then preview it). Change the text there from the current, to this comment-inserted version instead:
When entering a release or track title into MusicBrainz, please adhere to the following guidelines: <!-- * Follow the appropriate [[Capitalization Standard]] * Expand abbreviations * Use parentheses for extra information * Use a colon (:) to separate multi-line parts * Use a slash (/) to separate multiple titles * Use a comma (,) to separate words such as Volume or Part from the title itself ==Detailed guidelines== -->
Now the text appears in the TOC, but isn't repeated again until the actual subsection (which the TOC is hyperlinked to). BrianFreud
I have moved this example here, because Murdos thought it wasn't in line with the current guidelines (Murdos' comment was moved along with it).
|Title on release||Title in MusicBrainz|
|Weer geen clubhit (met Laberinto)||Weer geen clubhit (met Laberinto)|
NOTE: "Featuring" is always written in abbreviated form, but not translated when a track uses an equivalent non-english word.
- I don't think there's any consensus on that point. Murdos 23:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am just trying to rewrite the current guidelines to be clearer, I don't see anything in there which would require users to translate e.g. 'met' to 'feat.' on an otherwise dutch track title. But if you think that changes the guideline I'll remove it for now, and have it go through RFC/RFV at some point. --warp.
- For reference, the only previous discussion I could find on this: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-style/2009-March/007656.html
- How about the entirety of the SG5 debates? Personally, I think "feat." falls into the same category as "disc" - a textual workaround to handle something that the database currently can't handle (if only because we haven't created a "feat" AR).
Having all the examples separated like this makes the relevant subguidelines difficult to follow. Moving them up to the relevant subguideline would make the examples and subguidelines easier to follow, as well as eliminating a huge kind of "blobby" section of the page. BrianFreud
- I disagree with this, I personally like having all the examples visible together in such a prominent manner. Once I've read the guideline text once, it makes it really easy to refer to this table in the future when making edits, instead of having to wade through the various sections and read the text again. If the examples were added inline with their guidelines then I hope that they remain prominent - although that may not help reduce the "blobby"ness, whatever that is ;) --navap 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Esp. given the chaos that led to the creation / current state of that guideline (SG5_Disaster_Relief), I'm confused - there's essentially none of the guideline here, save the quick mention in "Expand abbreviations" and one example under "Extra information in the title"? BrianFreud
The terminology definition aspect of that guideline seems to be missing from the page that's all about that particular terminology. BrianFreud
- Any information regarding multiple parts in a title has been lost, as has the en-dash, and any discussion of spacing. If this page were current, there'd be nothing in the guideline to specify how anything except a "Foo, Part 1" case should be titled. BrianFreud
- Any allowance for alternate numbering systems, or part-words other than "Part" has been lost. ("These things are usually not changed by SeriesNumberStyle: * Number schemes other than "1, 2, 3, ..."; e.g. "I, II, III, ...", "One, Two, Three, ...", "1st, 2nd, 3rd" or the use of foreign language numbers.") BrianFreud
- An example of proper capitalization for non-English part-words is needed. Something like "Je pars, partie 1". --fedyakov 18:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Alternative names for volumes may be used, such as Tome, Book, Part, or their non-English equivalents." / "Volume labeling schemes other than "Volume"; e.g. "Series", "Edition", etc." has been lost. BrianFreud
- If we're looking to consolidate pages, would not Volume_Number and Volume_Title also be rather easy to merge in as part of merging in VolumeNumberStyle? BrianFreud
- An example of proper capitalization for non-English volume-words is needed. Something like "Былое и диски, том 2". --fedyakov 18:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
PartNumberStyle and VolumeNumberStyle
"Note that if the MainTitle of a Release is just "Volume 1" or similar then this guideline should not apply!" and the equivalent has been lost. BrianFreud
This entire guideline has been lost; "Use a slash (/) to separate multiple titles" includes nothing of this guideline. BrianFreud
If we're unifying Series, Volume, and Part, and eventually getting rid of Disc #, it seems odd to not also include BoxSetNameStyle here.