User talk:Symphonick/CSG Work Titles

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Revision as of 17:36, 25 March 2013 by Symphonick (talk | contribs) (All questions included now)
Jump to navigationJump to search


  • How far should this go? "L'estro armonico, concerti consacrati all'Altezza Reale di Ferdinando III Gran Prencipe di Toscana"? Sounds like overkill to me but I'm not sure where's the limit between title and not-title :) --Reosarevok (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I hope that's not the title of a recent edition :-) Actually it sounds like a sub-title to me? In general I've been thinking about mentioning something about what to do when the composer's title isn't used at all, like Bach's S:t Matthew Passion, originally Passio Domini Nostri J.C. Secundum Evangelistam Matthaeum. --symphonick (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


The "lyrics language" field should be set to title language when there are no lyrics.

  • No way. If it has no lyrics, "No linguistic content" should be used (which might get renamed to "No lyrics" at some point. Hijacking the field for something completely unrelated isn't acceptable. --Reosarevok (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Invented this today, when I noticed a bot that was "fixing" "Op." to "op.", which is fine for English titles, but I'm not sure about other languages yet. Can we set the title language in any other way? --symphonick (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You can enter more aliases as search help (common misspellings etc.), but they cannot have a language set.

  • What's the point of this? We have a "primary" flag for each language, so that can be used for the standard translation while allowing others to have a language set. --Reosarevok (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Nothing really, I had just forgotten about "primary" aliases... --symphonick (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Remember that nicknames are local. They are not by the composer, and should therefore only be used in aliases.

  • I can agree with this, but differentiating nicknames given by an editor or the public from actual (nick)names the composer is not always an easy thing so I'm not sure how simple this will be to enforce. I expect people will re-add "Mondschein" to Beethoven's 14 as many times as we remove it. --Reosarevok (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Probably. Maybe we could tell people to put the English nickname in the disambiguation field, but that has its drawbacks too. --symphonick (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Multi-part works

Part work titles should not inherit the title of the parent work, like the old track titles in MusicBrainz.

  • This makes using the data completely insane. If the problem is that we don't want to have to change data in several places if a title changes (a perfectly reasonable issue) we should ask for a way to enter edits to change those automatically, same as we can enter edits to change artist credits when changing an artist's name. --Reosarevok (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • There are 2 different tickets for this, Benji's has automatic title appending. The important thing is that it should be completely hidden from the editor, so you never deal with the parent work titles when editing a sub-part title. The display should also only show the appropriate part as title (Allegro, not Name of symphony: Allegro). --symphonick (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The final part of multi-part works is often listed with both "Finale" and tempo, e.g. "Finale: Allegro". This formatting should not be used anywhere else; tempo information is separate from titles and does not belong in the title field.

  • Does that mean we should use "Finale: Allegro" but not "Scherzo: Allegro"? That sounds quite confusing. --Reosarevok (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • You're right, it's confusing. I'll change it to only "Finale", that's probably what the score says anyway. "Only use tempo if no other options are available" or something. --symphonick (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Dramatic roles

Roles (e.g. Evangelista, Carmen) should be listed in a specific field.

  • What to do until such a field is added, specially taking into account it hasn't even been proposed at all yet? --Reosarevok (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • The annotation. You noticed that this proposal wasn't quite finished yet, right? :-) --symphonick (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)