I would like to remove “MV” ETI from the title of this video recording.
I don’t believe “MV” is necessary as an ETI. The video type of the recording already indicates that it is a music video, and this track currently has only one video recording. Therefore, I believe only the original track title should be retained.
Unless the track has multiple video recordings with the same name, or the term “MV” is a significant part of the title, there should be no need to add ETI or disambiguation.
The above is my perspective based on ETI document and previous community post:
But it seems that an auto-editor has taken a different approach. I have reviewed the official documentation and several community posts, and I’ve noticed some inconsistencies in other edits:
I want to know if it’s necessary to include ETI “MV” or add disambiguation for an artist’s music video on YouTube, and what standards should be used to determine this. Should the disambiguation be “MV”, “Music Video”, “music video” or something else?
I would like to know what the current community consensus is on this matter. Thank you!
MV or Music Video in the disambiguation could be useful, even if the Video type is checked, as there could be multiple types of videos for a particular song (such as visualizers and lyric videos) or multiple music videos for one song (which is why I usually use at least “official music video”)
in general, I personally would move MV to the disambiguation. I think it never hurts to have a disambiguation, especially in cases like this
how MusicBrainz handles music videos is currently in discussion here, if you have any input:
Yes, some music videos have different versions, such as “director’s cut”、“lyric video”、“audio video” …etc., so I usually put it in disambiguation.
Many editors are very vague about ETI and disambiguation when editing; sometimes I see ETI like “album version” is in disambiguation, or “deluxe” in ETI. I feel that the style guidelines about this topic are not very strict.
the general rule I’ve used personally is, if it appears on the release (for releases or recordings), it’s ETI. otherwise, it goes in the disambiguation
I agree that using the disambiguation “music video” is more reasonable.
However, I think there is currently no official guideline regarding ETI and disambiguation for YouTube music video, and I am unable to reach a consensus with @chaban. I anticipate that these edits are unlikely to be approved. Until the official guidelines are available, avoiding these edits seems best option for me.
I could see the ETI guidelines being read either way in the case of “music video” or “MV”, since I don’t really see it as quite the same as version information (such as “Japanese ver.”, “acoustic”, “Taylor’s Version”, or “Spott’s 100% Less Gabba VIP”). it is somewhat similar tho
I’ve personally always read it as not including stuff like “Lyric Video”, “MV”, etc, but I could be convinced otherwise. whatever is decided on “Music Video” as ETI, it should probably be clarified in the guidelines tho, since there’s no mention there one way or the other
(I will also note, I do agree with you on the ETI-ness in the edits you linked, as they are more clearly shown in the guidelines than MV currently is)
I truly believe that my case should be discussed separately from the case you provided.
On YouTube, almost all official MV titles include the artist’s name, song title, and “MV” (official MV or Music Video, etc.). Do we really need to include ETI “MV” in the titles for all of these video recordings?
I know the guideline saying to generally keep the title as the tracks. Then should we retain the full title (include artist, group, etc. if these are in the title) for YouTube videos?
I don’t know how the guidelines are decided or who makes the decisions. However, having specific guidelines for this aspect would be better, as I think this is a specific and common case.
