2011/6/7, Lukáš Lalinský <lalin...@gmail.com>: > 2011/6/7 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <reosare...@gmail.com>: >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria <davito...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> 2011/6/7, Lukáš Lalinský <lalin...@gmail.com>: >>>> I think that the guidelines regarding release/track titles should be >>>> based on the previous guidelines, white-listing things that don't have >>>> to be applied to recording/track titles. If we want to allow people to >>>> submit releases "as on cover" without reading the release >>>> group/recording guidelines, we will end up with a FreeDB clone. >>> >>> I really don't think so. IMO the problem with FreeDB is redundancy and >>> mistakes, so that it is very difficult to decide which is the correct >>> information when offered more than one answer and when you get only >>> one release, you're not even sure it is error-free. What we are >>> suggesting has nothing to do with these issues. Allowing to enter >>> titles as printed would not create redundancy (in a way, it would be >>> the contrary), and requiring to enter it as printed does not make it >>> harder to check or correct. >> >> "What is actually printed is a piece of information which has it's >> value. I already said this before: if I had to choose between as >> printed and normalized, I wouldn't hesitate and choose normalization. >> But we can have both, and I know some (many?) users want the printed >> data." >> >> My thoughts exactly. > > My only concern is that we are losing some kind of information that I > happened to like. In the old MB, we used to have normalized titles > that were still release-specific. With the approach, we either have > "as on cover" titles, which are useless to me, or we have globally > normalized titles that don't directly correspond to the release that I > have. Maybe this is only a minority of the data, but it makes > MusicBrainz less useful to me. I think that abbreviations fall into > the category of things that we should make consistent.
I understand your concerns and I don't know what would be best. Is there any chance that a future evolution of MB will offer both normalized and "as printed" even for Releases and Tracks? If so, should we start by normalizing and go to full "as printed" when the structure has evolved? Or the reverse? I guess the first solution would be more consistent because the data is currently closer to it than to the "as printed" state. And if we never get both titles, should we normalize or not? I think we should make a list of the relevant rules. From your previous posts, I get: - Capitalization, - expanded abbreviations, - ETI, - translated releases I guess most users agree about Capitalization. I hope ETI will get a clean solution one day. Which leaves abbreviations and Translated releases to decide. Any other? -- 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
