On 14/11/2007, Chad Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kuno Woudt wrote:
> > I'm not entirely certain about the order of (feat.) and (disc #), but
> > can't think of any examples right now to which the style would apply.
> > (so i wouldn't veto an RFV to make this ReleaseTitle as it currently
> > exists official). I guess I would prefer the guideline to be little
> > less strict, and leave the order as on the cover in such cases.
> >
> I also would like to see the feat. order changed to be after subtitles.
> One can imagine a 2-disc single where the currently proposal would look
> a bit silly, e.g.
>
> Release: Track A (disc 1) (feat. Artist A)
> Track 1: Track A (feat. Artist A) (original mix)
> Track 2: Track B
> Track 3: Track A (feat. Artist A) (Artist B remix)
>
> Release Track A (disc 2) (feat. Artist A)
> Track 1: Track A (feat. Artist A) (radio edit)
> etc
there are no SubTitles here, and it all reads fine to me - not sure
what you mean? :)
> Additionally, the lack of mention of ExtraTitleInformation or the
> fuzziness around it concerns me (as raised at bottom of discussion) - it
> is the muddiest area currently, and its current implementation tends to
> be ("only if it's mentioned on the disc"), which although I agree with,
> creates some clarity issues about ExtraTitle vs SubTitle. The ordering
> most certainly needs to include a [ExtraTitleInformation] block,
> otherwise we have yet another conflicting style guideline; one which
> says it has no place in release titles, and one which says to insert it.
> This would be a step backwards imo.
SubTitles are just extra bits of the title, rather than version info.
most version info is dropped, excpect specific things that are
promoted to SubTitles
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
