On 05/04/06, derGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > for me, it remains that the majority of DVD 'rips' will have an > > obvious titleing structure. > > a) Can you prove that claim? I could not, nor could I prove the > opposite, because there is no database I know of which has such information.
i mean in terms of what we get added here, not of all dvds released. the majority of DVD entries i've seen @ MBz have been live concerts, which typically are 1 chapter for each song, and are listed with the titles on the back cover. also some DVD singles, DVD compilations, etc. I can't claim that my experiences are true across the board, but it would make sense that no one is, for example, trying to add documentary type dvds. there's no real reason you'd want to tag those, right? > b) Do you suggest creating a rule which only applies to a "majority" of > DVD rips? And if you do, what do you suggest for the remaining DVD rips? like i said, i just don't think people will be adding anything but simple concert DVDs and the like. that said, if someone wants to add another music-related dvd (at discogs, what makes a 'music related' dvd is a little vague, but generally common sense prevails), generally chapters = tracks would work, no? > > but we are not storing dvd rips, we are storing release titles. > > In fact we store release titles along with track titles. But DVDs don't > have tracks, they have titles, chapters and audio layers. (I know there > are also camera angles, but we don't discuss MovieBrainz here.) and CDs can have videos; CDs, tapes, vinyls (yes!), etc can have data content; vinyls can have etchings, etc, etc, etc. we can't represent all data about a release, but i don't think we should be penalising users who just want to use the most basic and obvious information about DVD releases. _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list [email protected] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
