2011/7/21, Lukáš Lalinský <lalin...@gmail.com>: > Hi everybody, > > I'm really not sure what to do, but I thought I'd at least give it a > try. I'm personally unhappy with the NGS style guideline changes that > increase the differences between track titles and recording titles. > This is generally about the trend to have "as-on-cover" data in track > titles. I know that many other editors (usually people from the "top > editors" page that we used to have) disagree with these changes and I > think we should do something about it, otherwise MB ends up with two > groups, one of which will be ignoring the style guidelines and MB will > become a mess. > > A little bit of NGS history. NGS was a fuzzy topic for a very long > time. If there were concrete ideas, they were unrealistic to > implement. What is currently implemented is basically based on my > "simplified NGS" idea. The idea was to strip down the other NGS ideas > and deal just with the most important problems, which were: track > merging and multi-disc releases. > > The point is that this version of NGS was never intended to have such > significant distinctions between recording and track titles. Track > titles were meant to represent recording title variations in the > context of the release. The same style guidelines would apply to both > titles, recording title just being just the most commonly used track > title. The recording/track model was mostly based on > http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/TrackMerging which doesn't even consider > explicitly maintained recording titles. > > The situation is now different and we are using track titles for > "as-on-cover" titles, which I believe it wrong. It is wrong, because > we have no alternative for properly normalized track titles that > consider the context of the release. People think that recording > titles solve that problem, but they don't because they don't include > the release context, so you get problems like these: > > - Missing extra title information (e.g. "album version", "original > mix" or "live") > - Different spelling of the same language (e.g. UK/US releases) > - Different language (e.g. identical official release with different > titles in different countries, I don't count pseudo-releases here) > > There were the original problems why it was necessary to introduce > track titles. We wanted to merge identical recordings, but doing it in > the old database schema would mean we lose this information. Now, if > you force people who liked MB for normalized data to use recording > titles, they have to deal with these problems, but it's worse because > recording merging is now reality. It's just like implementing > recording merging without adding separate track titles. All in all, > for these people (and I expect they are vast majority of MB users), > NGS is worse than MB was before. > > Do you think it's possible to revert these style guidelines at this > point? I expect that most people either never read them or ignored > them, so there isn't much data changes, but I also expect that the > people on mb-style are usually for these changes, so... :)
Could you give actual examples of your issues? I find it difficult to understand what you think is wrong. -- 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
