Is "Diana / Little Darlin’ / Oh! Carol / Runaway" a medley work or should it be a recording/work relationship?


#1

In edit #50345555 I am removing a work containing other songs because it all looks like a collection of songs rather than a medley, but another editor, while giving a a defense, isn’t willing to provide any compelling information (either links or edit the work itself to reflect their arguments). So what should be done?


#2

I’m saying that it’s a medley.

Did you have any argument other than “it seems to be a collection of recordings”? :wink:


#3

As the no voter, can you provide any information on this being a transformative work other than a simple assertion? For instance, can you provide more information on the arrangement, lyrics or any other part that indicates transformation in the work?


#4

#5

I’m simply asking you to amend the work with information to support your counterclaim.


#6

And I’m asking you to cancel this edit and undo what you’ve done.


#7

Can’t you listen to it? It seems to be a proper medley in the sense that it sounds like one take, and it has an ISRC code to confirm it.

EDIT: Found three ISRCs with some light googling: BRMCA7500121, BRMZA0100014, QMFME1428853


#8

This topic has already been discussed at Question: Approach for medleys. Please look at that thread for guidance. There’s currently no documentation on this point and the general idea from the thread linked is whether you need a work for a relationship and whether that work will be/has been performed multiple times.

As a sidenote, the attitudes displayed in the edit note and in this thread so far are not conducive to reaching a consensus and should be avoided. The burden of proof is on both sides, because both sides are capable of doing research and describing what they want to argue (eg. the definitions of work and recording; need vs style consistency).


#9

Edit withdrawn after doing a deeper dig in several other websites. Based on info from the Lyrics wiki I can say it is a medley and I have taken steps to make sure it looks like a proper medley instead of just a list of recordings.


#10

Well, I quite disagree that I haven’t provide enough info, since I’ve provided relationships found to this, as a song (on a fast research), and could listen to it, knowing that it’s a medley.

As he proposed a destructive edit, I’ve said No, but we have 6 days to discuss, and new evidences could change it, evidences that must be found specially by the proponent.

It’s quite too hard having to explain why I’m against a destructive edit, when sometimes I just want more time/a better discussion, since when a destructive edit is applied there is no coming back.


#11

I never said you have not provided sufficient information. I was just saying that both editors have the burden of proof. It doesn’t make sense that only the proposing editor has the burden of proof, because in this case, you were the proponent of having a work-recording relationship and Cyberskull was the proponent of reverting your earlier proposal. Checking the edit history for the “Diana / Little Darlin’ / Oh! Carol / Runaway” work (esp edit #50345553), I see no proof suggesting that the recording is indeed a medley. So you cannot just say “no” because you are protecting the status quo, since you created the status quo in the first place by committing edit #50345553 without providing an edit note.

The discussion in the edit note for the edit in dispute went off fairly well, with both of you having a discussion. But it turned dismissive later. Although MusicBrainz works generally by trusting other editors, it isn’t helpful to editing or the community that we throw around burden of proof arguments when an editor requests for evidence. If you can’t find one, then it’s fine: we can try finding it together. If all else fails then we should discuss what the most probable data is.


#12

Well, I do not want to extend this discussion, but I only notice that I have created this work, after I’ve said No and start the hole discussion.

The first impression on it, is that it seems to have a correct related works already linked and he doesn’t provide info why removing it.

As a contributor here I’ll always make sure that my edits are useful and improve it, checking facts.

He was quite negligent doing it, so my first intention was not to secure my edit, but what we have right on database.

I also believe that it’s not wrong saying No to some edit that I, and only me, see it as wrong, even if it is not.

From Code of Conduct: “Vote only based on the facts and what you think is right or wrong”.

All of it is too much counterproductive and has no reasons to extend the debate.

Finally, it was not my fault for taking time from you all. I’ve said that it’s a medley and with a simple research anyone could reach this conclusion.

It’s frustrating as not a beginner, I have no trust, and have to explain myself so much.

Cheers.


#13

For medleys, I always link the three works with medley attribute checked and, now that it exists, the sequence order.
It looks more useful to me than a new work.


#14

Was going to say the same. Unless there’s significant additional content (like new music bridging songs), I don’t see why it would get a separate work.