> On Jan 13, 2015, at 6:25 PM, Jim Duke <james.enoch.d...@gmail.com > <mailto:james.enoch.d...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Please correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm very likely to be wrong). I've > poured over the style guide and couldn't find a style guild pertaining to > Cover Art. I can find how-to's. I can find advice. But not in the official > style guide. That seems to leave the rules for Cover Art somewhat vague.
I don’t think we have a style guide proper, just a few recommendations (e.g. scan at 300 dpi). > Sure, most releases don't have booklet art. Huh? Most of the releases I have have some form of booklet (aside from digital ones) . > But of those that do, there seems to be two camps. One camp has one image > for each page. And another camp captures two pages at once (except for the > front and back). I suppose that I could detect it by examining the height vs > width ratio. > > But in any case, we should have a discussion on which way is preferred, or if > both is allowed, or if we need to enhance the schema to better indicate the > kind of image it is. It seems, however, that the results of this discussion > should be captured in the style guide. That will be tricky. I usually gauge whether I want to scan one or two pages at a time by the thickness of a booklet. Most are thin enough that you can scan two pages at once and the resulting image will be readable, but some are so thick that if you try to scan two pages at once the resulting image will be blurry and distorted. > > Has this been discussed before? I've tried searching the archives; but > "Cover Art" sweeps in far too many items that have nothing to do with Cover > Art. It’s been brought up a few times, mainly in IRC and http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=4308 <http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=4308>. I don’t think we’ve ever had a lengthy discussion about it in mb-style before. > > Also - not that I want to change it just to change it - just making an > observation. It seems that "Cover Art" is somewhat too narrow a description. > "Artwork" would seem to be a better label for the category in general; or > even "Imagery”. Yeah, that might be more feasible, especially for digital releases where the artist bundles image files with the music. > > From the ranks of terribly-confused-but-trying-to-help. > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > <mailto:MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org> > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > <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
