On 14/11/2007, Chad Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kuno Woudt wrote: > > I'm not entirely certain about the order of (feat.) and (disc #), but > > can't think of any examples right now to which the style would apply. > > (so i wouldn't veto an RFV to make this ReleaseTitle as it currently > > exists official). I guess I would prefer the guideline to be little > > less strict, and leave the order as on the cover in such cases. > > > I also would like to see the feat. order changed to be after subtitles. > One can imagine a 2-disc single where the currently proposal would look > a bit silly, e.g. > > Release: Track A (disc 1) (feat. Artist A) > Track 1: Track A (feat. Artist A) (original mix) > Track 2: Track B > Track 3: Track A (feat. Artist A) (Artist B remix) > > Release Track A (disc 2) (feat. Artist A) > Track 1: Track A (feat. Artist A) (radio edit) > etc
there are no SubTitles here, and it all reads fine to me - not sure what you mean? :) > Additionally, the lack of mention of ExtraTitleInformation or the > fuzziness around it concerns me (as raised at bottom of discussion) - it > is the muddiest area currently, and its current implementation tends to > be ("only if it's mentioned on the disc"), which although I agree with, > creates some clarity issues about ExtraTitle vs SubTitle. The ordering > most certainly needs to include a [ExtraTitleInformation] block, > otherwise we have yet another conflicting style guideline; one which > says it has no place in release titles, and one which says to insert it. > This would be a step backwards imo. SubTitles are just extra bits of the title, rather than version info. most version info is dropped, excpect specific things that are promoted to SubTitles _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style