On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 2:11 AM, StoneyBoh <js...@mindless.com> wrote: > I don't know who wrote that rationale based on internationalization or > where it came from. Rather I believe that the abbreviation style came > from the pre-NGS philosophy of normalizing the track and title data to > produce a consistent looking set of data. That includes capitalization > standards, series numbering standards and abbreviation style. I'm one > of those people that got involved here to a great extent because I liked > that philosophy. > > So, without that standard, I might have "volume" related titles in my > collection that have the format: > > abc, Volume 1 > abc Vol 1 > abc, Vol 1 > abc Vol. 1 > abc Vol.1 > abc, Vol 1 > abc: Volume 1 > abc - Vol 1 > abc, V.1 > etc. etc. > > Some people don't mind that problem, but others would really prefer that > the database reflect a more consistent, normalized set of data. I think > one of the beliefs behind this is that some feel the volume information > is (in most circumstances) not exactly a main part of the title, but > something more akin to extra title information ... which we also agreed > to normalize (things like spelling out remix or instrumental and the like). > > The multi-language part of it, I seem to recall, came later, when some > folks objected to having the English word for Volume on Spanish or > German, or whatever language releases. That was an implementation issue > I think, not the rationale for the guideline. > > I personally like this normalization very much ... although I don't have > many titles with "volume" info in my collection. However, I would be > very disappointed if we were to depart from this philosophy for the Part > Number style ... and it would be confusing to have it apply to some > series types and not others, I think.
+1 to everything Jeff said here. - Aurelien _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
