Lotheric | 7 Jul 01:39 2014

RFC STYLE-326: New packaging type: Longbox

RFC expected expiration date: 2014-07-14.

I would like the Longbox packaging type to be added.


Longbox: A large cardboard box used to package for retail sale music CDs
(and their jewel box)
in order to fit in store fixtures designed for vinyl records. It was used in
North America
and was phased out during the mid-90's. Aside from the occasional box-set or
vanity CD packaging,
longbox packaging is largely obsolete.


- Lotheric

View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-326-New-packaging-type-Longbox-tp4666528.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Rachel Dwight | 25 Jun 16:24 2014

Ranged catalog numbers

This is a continuation of a discussion that sprang up in http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Pre-RFC-Japanese-extra-title-information-td4666219.html and caused that thread to veer off course.

Many multi-disc releases have catalog numbers that are printed as XXXX-12345~6 or XXXX-12345/6. These numbers are referred to as “ranges” because they indicate the presence of multiple catalog numbers on the release, one for each disc. We are currently split on how to handle their display. Previously it was only possible to add one label and catalog number per release, so having a range of catalog numbers was useful. Now it is possible to add more than one label and catalog number per release. 
I am in the camp that says we should take advantage of this feature by listing each individual catalog number. This is useful in the case of box sets where each medium comes in its own container and has its own catalog number. For other multi-disc releases (e.g. a CD single bundled with a DVD), however, it can cause some confusion because unwary users might not know where the second number came from. I can understand where this comes from, and am willing to figure out a compromise or a way to explain the phenomenon, such as a user’s guide.

Thoughts/discussion welcome. Let’s just please keep it confined to this thread.
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
Lemire, Sebastien | 22 Jun 04:19 2014

Pre-RFC Japanese extra title information

Hi guys, I'd like to bring some clarification on some specific Japanese style points that are not mentioned in the official Japanese style.

Hi guys

I'm currently cleaning/merging the サザンオールスターズ works/recordings/tracks and find some inconsistencies as to how to extra title information is handled. Basically, I'm pretty sure there's no standard for this in Japan and we get variations depending on the source and it's often not clear even on the cover. As such, I think it would be a good idea to standardize for us so that we have consistent work, recording and track names.

The first has to do with the adding of information after the track title in between ~ characters.

1.) あなただけを ~Summer Heartbreak~ vs あなただけを~Summer Heartbreak~ (no space) vs あなただけを〜Summer Heartbreak〜
2.) 愛の言霊 ~Spiritual Message〜 (Exact same problem)

I think we should standardize on two things:
1.) do we use the ~ or the 〜? (I think there was a discussion somewhere on this but couldn't find it, it might have been in edits) (there's also the english ~ but that one really shouldn't be used)
2.) Do we include a space or not between the two parts?

The second point has to do with additional information (sometimes a kana reading) added within () either somewhere in the middle, or in the end. Do we use the Japanese ()or the english ()? Secondly,should we include a space to separate the main title and the added detail?

1.) JAPANEGGAE (ジャパネゲエ) vs JAPANEGGAE(ジャパネゲエ)
3.) 愛する女性(ひと)とのすれ違い vs 愛する女性 (ひと) とのすれ違い

I'd like in this Pre-RFC phase to discuss what you guys think, come up with a standard so that a proper RFC can be put made to update the offical Japanese style

Personally, for ~ or the 〜. I don't honestly know the difference and either is fine with me. For the ()vs (), I strongly prefer the Japanese (). Finally regarding the spaces, I don't really care much one way or another. Either is fine with me.


MusicBrainz-style mailing list
Alex Mauer | 15 May 18:36 2014

Classical title style: untitled works / update for "Series"

With the new schema release, we have a new option for recording 
information about classical catalogs.

But this along with some other changes brings a new problem for work 
titles: Many of them don’t have a title per se.

For example the work which is completely (?)
“Suite in B-flat major for 13 wind instruments, op. 4, TrV 132”

We can now drop the “op. 4” and “TrV 132” as they belong to their 
respective catalogs. We can drop “in B-flat major” as that is a work 
attribute. “Suite” is the work type. That leaves “…for 13 wind 
instruments” but that doesn’t really stand on its own. So we really need 
the work type in the title.

So, how much is the right amount to keep in the title?

I think at the least we should drop the various catalog numbers (op. 4, 
TrV 132) because when there are several catalogs involved the title gets 
very long and ugly. They do need to be moved to disambiguation for now 
though so that they remain identifiable in search results.

That leaves type, instrumentation, and key.

Instrumentation gets weird when an performance is on a different 
instrument than the work was originally created (is it still “Concerto 
for clarinet” when it’s performed on a flute?) so I would be OK with 
dropping that.

Anyone else have thoughts on the matter?
Rachel Dwight | 11 May 09:04 2014

Japanese catalog numbers

Yes, this issue came up again. The community is split down the middle as to how to handle Japanese catalog numbers. Currently we have no clear-cut guideline as to how to present the data, so I crafted this working draft of a potential style guideline.

I still oppose some of it on principle, but the discovery of an RIAJ whitepaper on this issue adds some teeth to the argument in favor of standardiza tion.
Discussion, comments and suggestions welcome!
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
Rachel Dwight | 3 May 02:56 2014

RFC STYLE-318: Rights society affiliation relationships

Currently we can link a rights society to a release but not to the artists and labels it represents. This proposal is designed to fix the issue via a simple AR.

TIcket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-318

Expected expiration date: 2014-5-9 (I can extend it if this flies under the radar like m y last proposal did)
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
jesus2099 | 23 Apr 23:05 2014

RFV STYLE-306. “vkdb.jp” as Artist “Other DB” relationship

There was apparently *no objection* and one *+1* on the 

so it’s going to *RFV that will be ending in about two days (2014.4.26.

View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-306-vkdb-jp-as-Artist-Other-DB-relationship-tp4664546.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style <at> lists.musicbrainz.org
Daniel Sobey | 20 Apr 04:17 2014

RFC Previously known as artist relationship

Expected expiration date: 5th of May 2014
Ticket: STYLE-314 http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-316

For cases where we have an artist or group change name for legal
reasons or otherwise it would be good to have links between the
previous name and current name.

For example The Chemical Brothers started out as The Dust Brothers (as
a tribute to another group called the dust brothers).
lixobix | 14 Apr 13:27 2014

Non-commercial / limited release status

Following an editing discussion (https://musicbrainz.org/edit/27310045), a
new release status for non-commercial / limited releases might be useful.
This would include demos, studio sessions, or other releases that are
ultimately created by the artist that are distributed to band members, label
people, friends etc. The problem with the existing schema is that these
releases are neither official, as they are not available to the general
public, nor promotional, as they are not available to the media, nor
bootlegs, as they are sanctioned by the artist.

Could such a release status be useful? Could it be defined?

View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Non-commercial-limited-release-status-tp4664240.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Jesse W | 14 Apr 07:18 2014

Pre-RFC: Auto-link Soundcloud URLs to "Streaming music" ARs for Releases & Recordings

The title pretty much says it all. In IRC
http://chatlogs.musicbrainz.org/musicbrainz/2014/2014-04/2014-04-14.html#T04-57-03-32932 ,
it was suggested the Soundcloud URLS, like: 


should automatically get the "Streaming music" AR when applied to
Recordings (and Releases, in the case of singles).

I'm not sure if this requires a formal Proposal, but I thought I'd ask.

David Gasaway | 13 Apr 04:11 2014

No official work documentation?

In a discussion with another editor on an edit, it came to my
attention that there is no official documentation for work entities
that I can see.  We have this page:
But it's not official correct?  ("This page has not been reviewed by
our documentation team").  Given that works are a major MusicBrainz
entity, it would seem prudent to fix this problem.  What needs to


-:-:- David K. Gasaway
-:-:- Email: dave@...