Re: [mb-style] RFC-317: Untitled Track Style update
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: Really good point, and terrible wording there. Would this work? The titles on a white label vinyl release should never be assumed to be untitled without more information, and should be entered as [unknown]. As indicated, if any of the tracks is released in an official way, the name (or lack of it) in the official release should extend to the white label release. Well, I wouldn't say terrible wording over such a minor bit of ambiguity. But, yeah, the new wording is better. It also clears up something that I didn't even notice in the old version. It's possible to interpret ... is released... and gets a name to mean that only _later_ official releases can give names to whitelabels, which is clearly not the intention. But you'd have to be really perverse to interpret the new version that way. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/RFC-317-Untitled-Track-Style-update-tp5960090p5965322.html Sent from the Style discussions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] RFC-317: Untitled Track Style update
This RFC will expire on Feb 1st, 20:30 CET. Our current Untitled Track Style (including both [untitled] and [unknown]) is confusing and not very practical. ( http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Untitled_Track_Style ) It clashes with the Guess Case configuration on the matter of hidden tracks ([untitled] according to the guideline, [unknown] with Guess Case), fails to clearly set a difference between an untitled track and an unknown track, and causes situations as in this recent forum thread, where 3 people (myself being one) made 3 different readings of the guideline: http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=2549 I think this proposal makes the [unknown] / [untitled] difference quite clear, and that by merging all the cases of untitled tracks into one, it becomes simpler too, while being equally comprehensive. [untitled] is always to be kept in the NGS tracklists where it appears: if a name is given later, it can be changed at the *recording* and *work* level. This is present on the proposal, although it shouldn't be transferred to the guideline (if it passes) until NGS ships, for obvious reasons. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Untitled_Track_Style_update -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC-317: Untitled Track Style update
+1 On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 20:12 +0100, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: This RFC will expire on Feb 1st, 20:30 CET. Our current Untitled Track Style (including both [untitled] and [unknown]) is confusing and not very practical. ( http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Untitled_Track_Style ) It clashes with the Guess Case configuration on the matter of hidden tracks ([untitled] according to the guideline, [unknown] with Guess Case), fails to clearly set a difference between an untitled track and an unknown track, and causes situations as in this recent forum thread, where 3 people (myself being one) made 3 different readings of the guideline: http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=2549 I think this proposal makes the [unknown] / [untitled] difference quite clear, and that by merging all the cases of untitled tracks into one, it becomes simpler too, while being equally comprehensive. [untitled] is always to be kept in the NGS tracklists where it appears: if a name is given later, it can be changed at the *recording* and *work* level. This is present on the proposal, although it shouldn't be transferred to the guideline (if it passes) until NGS ships, for obvious reasons. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Untitled_Track_Style_update ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC-317: Untitled Track Style update
Hi Nicolás, I have a few comments about the guideline. For [untitled] tracks it states: These tracks are clearly not given a name on the release (album sleeve and liner notes) they appear on. I think this sentence is vague enough to apply to [unknown] tracks, because they aren't given a name on the sleeve or liner notes either. Maybe it can be said that [untitled] tracks are often represented by a blank space in the track listing: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1125103 (track 1) http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=12261 (track 6) http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=368236 (track 1) The argument is that if those tracks were titled, their titles would have been printed. Yet someone might make the same argument for hidden tracks. A difference I see is that [untitled] tracks are referenced in some way on the sleeve. Is that fair to say, or can anyone think of counter-examples? I'm wondering how the following case is considered under the guideline: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=367358 (track 1) http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=182893 (track 12) The literal word Untitled is printed in the track listing. Were these tracks clearly not given a name? Is it even possible to know if an artist really wanted to name their song Untitled? ;) There was a related mailing list discussion in 2005 that didn't have many replies.[1] Just a few other comments regarding point #1 under Untitled tracks: The recording and work used for the track will normally be also [untitled], but if the track is given an official name in another release, the recording and work can be updated. This is also vague to me. - It says the recording and work can be updated, but doesn't mention that the track (tracklist) should be. Is this intentional? - Doesn't this also apply to [unknown] tracks? I think this should be moved to its own small section which also mentions [unknown]. - When would the recording/work not also be [untitled]/[unknown]? It later states the recording and work can be updated. When shouldn't it be updated? Work–Recording–Track title differences and inheritance seems like a more general issue that should have a separate, more general guideline (probably combining/superseding Consistent Original Data). So I wouldn't object if this point was removed altogether. I may notice other things to nitpick on, but most of it reads well. :) Michael(bitmap) [1] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-January/007586.html On Jan 25, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: This RFC will expire on Feb 1st, 20:30 CET. Our current Untitled Track Style (including both [untitled] and [unknown]) is confusing and not very practical. ( http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Untitled_Track_Style ) It clashes with the Guess Case configuration on the matter of hidden tracks ([untitled] according to the guideline, [unknown] with Guess Case), fails to clearly set a difference between an untitled track and an unknown track, and causes situations as in this recent forum thread, where 3 people (myself being one) made 3 different readings of the guideline: http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=2549 I think this proposal makes the [unknown] / [untitled] difference quite clear, and that by merging all the cases of untitled tracks into one, it becomes simpler too, while being equally comprehensive. [untitled] is always to be kept in the NGS tracklists where it appears: if a name is given later, it can be changed at the *recording* and *work* level. This is present on the proposal, although it shouldn't be transferred to the guideline (if it passes) until NGS ships, for obvious reasons. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Untitled_Track_Style_update -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC-317: Untitled Track Style update
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Michael Wiencek mwt...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Nicolás, I have a few comments about the guideline. For [untitled] tracks it states: These tracks are clearly not given a name on the release (album sleeve and liner notes) they appear on. I think this sentence is vague enough to apply to [unknown] tracks, because they aren't given a name on the sleeve or liner notes either. Maybe it can be said that [untitled] tracks are often represented by a blank space in the track listing: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1125103 (track 1) http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=12261 (track 6) http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=368236 (track 1) The argument is that if those tracks were titled, their titles would have been printed. Yet someone might make the same argument for hidden tracks. A difference I see is that [untitled] tracks are referenced in some way on the sleeve. Is that fair to say, or can anyone think of counter-examples? Would These tracks are clearly shown to lack a title [or 'to have no title'] on the release (album sleeve and liner notes) they appear on solve this? I'm wondering how the following case is considered under the guideline: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=367358 (track 1) http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=182893 (track 12) The literal word Untitled is printed in the track listing. Were these tracks clearly not given a name? Is it even possible to know if an artist really wanted to name their song Untitled? ;) There was a related mailing list discussion in 2005 that didn't have many replies.[1] Hmmm. Currently, it is not considered, or not fully. I'd see how the use of any of the options could be argued for with the current wording, so a specific indication should be added about it. Style list, input is needed about what that indication should be: Untitled or [untitled]? (I like Untitled myself a bit more, but can be convinced to choose either option. We need to choose one though.) Just a few other comments regarding point #1 under Untitled tracks: The recording and work used for the track will normally be also [untitled], but if the track is given an official name in another release, the recording and work can be updated. This is also vague to me. - It says the recording and work can be updated, but doesn't mention that the track (tracklist) should be. Is this intentional? Fully so. AFAIK NGS tracklists are supposed to represent what is on the release: we no longer need to make the track titles standard, as recordings and works already join all those tracks together. - Doesn't this also apply to [unknown] tracks? I think this should be moved to its own small section which also mentions [unknown]. I wouldn't say so. As [unknown] is supposed to be a temporary status, I think it the tracklist should change too to in this case. - When would the recording/work not also be [untitled]/[unknown]? It later states the recording and work can be updated. When shouldn't it be updated? Heh, agreed. Should probably read the recording and work should be updated. Work–Recording–Track title differences and inheritance seems like a more general issue that should have a separate, more general guideline (probably combining/superseding Consistent Original Data). So I wouldn't object if this point was removed altogether. I may notice other things to nitpick on, but most of it reads well. :) Michael(bitmap) [1] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-January/007586.html On Jan 25, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: This RFC will expire on Feb 1st, 20:30 CET. Our current Untitled Track Style (including both [untitled] and [unknown]) is confusing and not very practical. ( http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Untitled_Track_Style ) It clashes with the Guess Case configuration on the matter of hidden tracks ([untitled] according to the guideline, [unknown] with Guess Case), fails to clearly set a difference between an untitled track and an unknown track, and causes situations as in this recent forum thread, where 3 people (myself being one) made 3 different readings of the guideline: http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=2549 I think this proposal makes the [unknown] / [untitled] difference quite clear, and that by merging all the cases of untitled tracks into one, it becomes simpler too, while being equally comprehensive. [untitled] is always to be kept in the NGS tracklists where it appears: if a name is given later, it can be changed at the *recording* and *work* level. This is present on the proposal, although it shouldn't be transferred to the guideline (if it passes) until NGS ships, for obvious reasons. http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Untitled_Track_Style_update -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list
Re: [mb-style] RFC-317: Untitled Track Style update
(First, sorry that Mail.app was broken and didn't wrap my original message. I've switched to Thunderbird for now.) On 1/25/11 9:38 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:52 AM, Michael Wiencekmwt...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Nicolás, I have a few comments about the guideline. For [untitled] tracks it states: These tracks are clearly not given a name on the release (album sleeve and liner notes) they appear on. I think this sentence is vague enough to apply to [unknown] tracks, because they aren't given a name on the sleeve or liner notes either. Maybe it can be said that [untitled] tracks are often represented by a blank space in the track listing: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1125103 (track 1) http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=12261 (track 6) http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=368236 (track 1) The argument is that if those tracks were titled, their titles would have been printed. Yet someone might make the same argument for hidden tracks. A difference I see is that [untitled] tracks are referenced in some way on the sleeve. Is that fair to say, or can anyone think of counter-examples? Would These tracks are clearly shown to lack a title [or 'to have no title'] on the release (album sleeve and liner notes) they appear on solve this? Yeah, I think that's a decent improvement without making the sentence more verbose; hidden tracks are not shown period, so it reads better to me. I'm wondering how the following case is considered under the guideline: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=367358 (track 1) http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=182893 (track 12) The literal word Untitled is printed in the track listing. Were these tracks clearly not given a name? Is it even possible to know if an artist really wanted to name their song Untitled? ;) There was a related mailing list discussion in 2005 that didn't have many replies.[1] Hmmm. Currently, it is not considered, or not fully. I'd see how the use of any of the options could be argued for with the current wording, so a specific indication should be added about it. Style list, input is needed about what that indication should be: Untitled or [untitled]? (I like Untitled myself a bit more, but can be convinced to choose either option. We need to choose one though.) The 2005 thread I linked to hinted that sticking with Untitled might be safer (even if not always correct). I'm sympathetic to that reasoning. I'm wondering if these should be decided case-by-case through edit notes, but any case of this would seem equally ambiguous to me, so I don't know if that would work out... Just a few other comments regarding point #1 under Untitled tracks: The recording and work used for the track will normally be also [untitled], but if the track is given an official name in another release, the recording and work can be updated. This is also vague to me. - It says the recording and work can be updated, but doesn't mention that the track (tracklist) should be. Is this intentional? Fully so. AFAIK NGS tracklists are supposed to represent what is on the release: we no longer need to make the track titles standard, as recordings and works already join all those tracks together. That's how I interpreted it, but I wasn't sure of the extent to which we'll be respecting what's printed on a release. I'd agree we should respect title variations at least, but I didn't really consider the lack of a title as being a variation. - Doesn't this also apply to [unknown] tracks? I think this should be moved to its own small section which also mentions [unknown]. I wouldn't say so. As [unknown] is supposed to be a temporary status, I think it the tracklist should change too to in this case. I read it as applying with a larger scope. e.g. If an [untitled] track is later released with a title, we should update the recording/work, but not the tracklist where it was untitled. If we find the title of an [unknown] track, we should update all three. That's how I read the sentence as applying to [unknown]. - When would the recording/work not also be [untitled]/[unknown]? It later states the recording and work can be updated. When shouldn't it be updated? Heh, agreed. Should probably read the recording and work should be updated. Agreed, that clears up the confusion for me there. :) Work–Recording–Track title differences and inheritance seems like a more general issue that should have a separate, more general guideline (probably combining/superseding Consistent Original Data). So I wouldn't object if this point was removed altogether. I may notice other things to nitpick on, but most of it reads well. :) Michael(bitmap) [1] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/2005-January/007586.html On Jan 25, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote: This RFC will expire on Feb 1st, 20:30 CET. Our current Untitled Track
Re: [mb-style] RFC-317: Untitled Track Style update
One minor question: 2. The titles on a white label vinyl release are always [unknown], not [untitled]. As indicated, if any of the tracks is released in an official way and gets a name, it should also be named in the white label release. What if the tracks on the whitelabel are known to be untitled tracks? For example, imagine there were a whitelabel version of the first two tracks of Proved Negligence (example 2 for [untitled]). Does that mean the tracks get a name, which happens to be [untitled], which should therefore also be used on the whitelabel? That seems like the obvious answer, except that the first sentence implies that whitelabels should never have tracks with that name. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz-mailing-lists.2986109.n2.nabble.com/RFC-317-Untitled-Track-Style-update-tp5960090p5961609.html Sent from the Style discussions mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
