On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 19:19, Alex Mauer <ha...@hawkesnest.net> wrote: > On 2011-07-07 1:27, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >> Would anyone editing along these lines we willing to try writing it up >> in a guideline? IMO, this list is big enough that people, by looking >> at the data, will conclude that effectively anything in brackets >> should be moved to the comment. > > I'll give it a shot: > "No artist's Recordings tab should list the same title twice with no > disambiguation comment. If an artist has multiple recordings with the > same title, and any release on which one of them appears lists the title > with no Extra Title Information, the disambiguation comment should use > the most prevalent Extra Title Information. If no ETI is prevalent, pick > one. If no ETI is available, use the best information you have to > disambiguate."
This doesn't sound all too crazy. By this standard, I think that http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14779672 is correct but I'm not sure about http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14779686 and http://musicbrainz.org/edit/14779684 Is it your intention that if a recording has been released on a crappy compilation with ETI omitted which are on all releases closer to the artist, that ETI still be left out of the recording title? How about a compilation released by the artists own label? Making this kind of distinction kind of tricky. -- Philip Jägenstedt _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
