Re: RFC-333: Unify track/recording guidelines

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria
<davitofrg <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/8/2, Lukáš Lalinský <lalinsky <at> gmail.com>:
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:03 AM, jesus2099 <hta3s836gzacohe <at> jetable.org>
>> wrote:
>>> X>>> « 3) Some other editor fixes the recordings, which adds even more
>>> work
>>> for voters. »
>>> J2>> That’s also true when you enter altered titles and then someone with
>>> the release has to fix track titles back.
>>> PCB> I'm not sure I understand the point.
>>>
>>> Having unfaithful tracklist to fix is same work load as the opposite that
>>> is
>>> described in 3) point.
>>
>> But that is precisely my point, having separate guidelines for titles
>> and recordings means it's more difficult to maintain MusicBrainz.
>
> I disagree: As-printed wouldn't require a difficult guideline, while I
> am still unsure of the differences between tracks and recordings
> following your proposal. Because you although your proposal is titled
> "unify track/recordings", they will end up different at some point.

I don't believe they will end up fundamentally different (i.e. not
knowing the difference wouldn't make the data you edit wrong). You
always edit tracks in the first place, so you follow the cover and
normalize the data using the usual guidelines that we had for years.
In most cases the recording title will be identical. If there will be
a difference between guidelines for track and recording titles, it
will describe how to deal with recording titles if you have multiple
different track titles.

Lukas

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style <at> lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style