2009/6/24 Kuno Woudt <k...@frob.nl> > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:36:30AM -0700, jacobbrett wrote: > > > > > Potentially confusing, yes (if the discs didn't have their own titles), > but > > more correct as they *are* bonus discs and not part of the actual album > per > > say. > > But they ARE part of the actual album. This edition of it anyway. > (actually two editions from the looks of it, a 3CD one and a 3CD+1DVD > edition). > > The packaging uses disc 1, disc 2 and disc 3. If I have this edition of > the > album, I definitely want the metadata in my files to match with it. > > Similarly, if the packaging doesn't use the word 'bonus' anywhere, I see no > reason to include it in the title in musicbrainz. > > Keep in mind that DiscNumberStyle is not a StrongGuideline. So, according > to the StylePrinciple we should stick with the 'disc 2' / 'disc 3' > designation > without 'bonus'. As that is what is how they are labeled "on official > sources". >
Kuno, I don't understand: Simon wrote: It has, on the back/in the insert: > > Disc One > Black Clouds & Silver Linings > <tracklist> > > Disc Two (Bonus Disc) > Uncovered 2008/2009 > <tracklist> > > Disc Three (Bonus Disc) > Black Clouds & Silver Linings > (Instrumental Mixes) IIUC, this means "Bonus Disc" is actually printed somewhere on the release. What "official source" could be stronger than that? -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
