I just wanted to jump in on this single issue. If there is a webpage where you can buy this as a single file, that’s not a pseudo-release, that’s a release.
The official one is in parts but many people merge them into one large recording, so it’s not a release per se.
Then that’s not really something we need to worry about. Just like we don’t allow details of personal mix tapes into the database.
If I enter one or two items against the guidelines I am expected to fix it.
There is already a ton of data here at MB that are following the previous guidelines.
I don’t understand this point. Maybe you miss what a Release is.
Please click on the Shada example above. That is one of the Audio Dramas that you have now added a duplicate Release Group for. Please look at how the tracks are broken down. This is standard for Audiobooks and Audio Dramas.
When they were produced on a cassette tape then they were one long 30 minute track per side. When they moved to CD the audio was sliced into smaller parts. Sometimes chapters, but more often sub-five minute sections to make it easier to listen to and skip back.
If someone merges it back into one lump - that is NOT a release for MB as self produced home disks are not supposed to be uploaded.
Releases are actual physical items that exist.
Can I ask a daft question? How many of these releases do you actually own? Can you upload any of these so they have their real recordings?
A Play on the Stage always has an author. When a Play is on the radio, the author is still very important. We have many authors here at MB who has released their plays. The Releases are supposed to mirror the physical media. The Actors are the Performers. And MB has somewhere for Performers already in the style guide as per @Freso points out.
Putting all the actors into the Release Artist because you don’t have recordings seems a strange fix to me that is causing more problems that it fixes. Especially for the older data that was already here at MB
I’ve just seen that you are also removing the author from older entries. This is not good. That just doesn’t make sense.
Please put your actors at Performer level. As per the MB style guide. Leave the Audio Dramas with the author as Artist. Just like normal plays on the stage. You may not like the Author, but they have historically been seen as the main name to associate with a play.
If the API does get changed, then would be the time to remove the old data. But what concerns me now is you are actually deleting data now that would be permanently lost. You are now changing what many people who use MB data will be seeing when they lookup their works.
You are also making merges back to front. I have seen a few where you are merging older more complete Release Groups with your newly setup ones.
I’ve been working on Audio Books and Audio Dramas for a while, a lot of work went into bringing sections like Pratchett and Douglas Adams back to be properly organised. Nagging MB to add an Audio Drama type. Your work is now starting to remove valid releases from authors.
I am also confused as to why I seem to be just about the only one here defending data quality here and sticking to the guidelines.
Can I ask you to have a read of this thread from last year?
It is when Audio Drama was created as a type. And many people piled in and a standard was thrashed out.
There’s a style guide for audiobooks, I couldn’t find one for audio dramas.
Can you explain where the data loss is?
That’s the issue, there isn’t a guideline. https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release_Group/Type#Secondary_types
It absolutely does make sense to make things consistent.
Digital releases are a thing.
The style guide is often behind the forum discussions. We all get caught out by new standard being agreed in the forum and the documentation lags behind.
Believe me - I find this discussion ironic because a couple of weeks ago I was on the wrong side of a discussion based on out of date style guide.
Please read that thread I linked above. That is when Audio Drama was created only a few months ago. Please look at the input from people in there who have large collections of audio dramas.
You have come up with a new style based on a single dataset which goes against the style currently in use. Please see the discussion in that thread. It would not take much to adjust your data to fit the standard proposed in that thread.
And yes - Digital Releases are a thing. And they are released in specific formats. And added as separate Releases of their own. Please stop trying to spin this off topic by picking at my words. I am trying to be constructive but I am not very good at these kind of discussions as I waffle too much.
I now going to leave this debate until we can get a few more people in here with Audio Drama and Audiobook collections.
So there is none. Claiming I’ve violated one is baseless and disheartening.
That is how I’ve tagged my collection, how many already had been on BF (the label on MB), how other releases except audiobooks work and how movies - closest equivalent to audio dramas are credited. I’m not inventing something new, there’s just some informal guidelines that I’ve gone against. Also, I’m not entering tracklists for releases that I have to redo - every recording edit has to be reviewed and I don’t want to make people review that.
@Avamander if you look on https://www.audible.com. they are crediting the writer first than the person / persons that read it by doing it that way they are saying that the writer deserves the main credit not the people reading it. if you listen to the albums from audible or iTunes before they start they credit the writer first. and as @IvanDobsky was saying you need to use the audiobook Guidelines till new Guidelines are made.
check this one out
this topic seams to be going in circles now
Audiobook is not an audio drama. Audible does audiobooks primarily.
The audio drama you linked also has “Narrated by” just under the author of the story, so it still doesn’t match the audiobook crediting scheme.
And I’m now objecting to it because I wasn’t told a week ago that Audio dramas have to follow the same guidelines as audiobooks (I literally asked in this thread and on IRC “Is this fine?”) and because it also really doesn’t make sense to credit audio dramas the same way as audiobooks.
take it or leave it it is up to you no one will force you to do it a set way they will just change it if it is wrong. you asked for options and we are giving it to you. it seams to me you are going to do it your way no matter what others say so i wish you the best of luck with your furter edits. i have limited nolage on this subject so i gave you my thorts based on what i know and saw
I did it the default, classical way
Heh, that is part of why this discussion is going on, I have already made my edits because classical seemed to suit everyone, I absolutely could edit a few thousand releases to follow the audiobook scheme but due to previously mentioned reasons I’d really rather not and fix any future misunderstandings - make a style guide that picks either classical or audiobook scheme for audio dramas.
As a cataloger I agree with this and think users of the encyclopedia would, more likely, arrive with that expectation.
But what do the users expect? To see famous voice actors or famous writers? I think they’d even want to see both. I also think movies are just as close or closer to an audio drama than plays.