Highly inconsistent series naming

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f7d01879788> #<Tag:0x00007f7d01879620>

I am currently looking at this series and have the following questions:

  • Should CD XY be treated like Vol. XY, i.e should it be separated with a comma from the title? Currently, some releases in that series do use a comma, some don’t.

  • Would you use “stereoplay” or “Stereoplay”? The name refers to a German hi-fi journal that is usually written in small caps (might be the choice of the graphic designer, though). Again, the spelling differs across releases.

  • Unfortunately, the publisher was very inconsistent in choosing release titles. Would you try to unify the naming scheme? Look e.g. at the following three examples:

    My preferred naming scheme would be something like

    • Stereoplay, CD 5: Highlights: Klassische Klaviermusik
    • Stereoplay, CD 40: Edition E: Klingendes Barock
    • Stereoplay, CD 61: Special: Ballads of Gold

    but I am being quite liberal with the naming here.

What are your thoughts on this?

My thought is that the series entity allows us to link all volumes nicely without having to alter each of their title.

Consistent naming could be justified before we head the series entity, but now I don’t see a reason to alter titles.

Likewise, we don’t need to add volume 1 in the title which did not know, then, that there were going to have volumes at all (may not be the case of this series, just saying).

2 Likes